ccs projects integration workshop - london 3nov11 - schlumberger - the timing of storage site...
DESCRIPTION
This presentation was given at the Global CCS Institute/CSLF meeting on CCS Project Integration that was held in London on 3 November 2011. The aim of the meeting was to share experiences on CCS project integration; and to identify priority integration topics that need further attention to facilitate CCS project development and deployment.You can view more presentations from the event at http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/community/blogs/authors/klaasvanalphen/2011/11/25/presentations-global-ccs-institutecslf-meeting-ccsTRANSCRIPT
www.slb.com/carbonservices
The Timing of Storage Site Characterisation
AK (Tony) Booer
Nov 3, 2011 Global CCS Institute / CSLF Meeting on Project Integration
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
licThe Global Status of CCS: 2011From the Executive Summary...
“Information from project proponents indicates that storage assessment and characterisation requires considerable investment and can have long lead times of five to 10 years or more for a greenfield storage site, depending on
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
the existing available geologic information about the site.”
“Policymakers need to factor these lead times into their assessment of a project’s progress. Projects that have not yet commenced active storage assessment may have a challenge to achieve operation before 2020.”
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
licThe Timing of Storage Site Characterisation
A Key Question:
● What is the storage for ?
― “Demo” project ?
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
― Large-scale storage site characterisation ??
― Enhanced Oil Recovery ???
Another one:
● Where is the CO2 coming from ?
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
licTiming of Storage Site CharacterizationInternational / National / Regional / Project level
US DOE Carbon Sequestration Program Goals:
Deliver technologies & best practices [by 2020] that provide Carbon Capture and Safe Storage (CCSS)
European NER-300 funding:
[by 2015]
8 CCS projects, of which:
● Min 1, Max 3 in the following categories: pre-combustion, post-
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
Capture and Safe Storage (CCSS) with:
● 90% CO2 capture at source
● 99% storage permanence
● < 10% (pre), < 35% (oxy, post) increase in COE
categories: pre-combustion, post-combustion, oxy-fuel and industrial applications
● Min 3 with saline aquifers & Min 3 with depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs
● Min size threshold: 250 MW. Min capture efficiency: 85%.
5
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
licIllinois Basin – Decatur Project
A collaboration of
● the MGSC,
● the Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)
― CO2 source + site location
● Schlumberger Carbon Services― Storage and monitoring
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
― Storage and monitoring
● Trimeric,― Compression & dehydration
● and other subcontractors
to inject 1 million metric tonsof anthropogenic CO2at a depth of ~7,000 ft (~2,000 m) to test geological carbon sequestration in a saline formation at a site in Decatur, Illinois
6
CO2 Storage in the North Sea – Industry Potential
7
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
licIndustry Best Practices
“While the analysis in Site Screening and Site Selection relies primarily on existing data, Initial Characterization involves the acquisition of new, site-specific data by employing investigative tools and techniques. Initial Characterization tools include both data collection (e.g., seismic and well logging, core analysis, injectivity tests) and development of three-dimensional (3D) mathematical models of the selected injection and confining zone(s). The successful characterization of a site is the most important step in ensuring the safe and economic operation of a CO2 GS site. “
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
Source: US DOE NETL – Best Practices for: Site Screening, Site Selection, and Initial Characterization for Storage of CO2 in Deep Geologic Formations
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
licCarbonWorkFlowprocess for long-term CO2 storage
Appraisal / Appraisal /
DevelopmentDevelopment
CO2 InjectionCO2 Injection
ClosureClosure
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
9
Pre SelectionPre Selection
Appraisal / Characterization
Appraisal / Characterization
Post closurePost closure
Post liability transferPost liability transfer
Performance Management & Risk Control
Performance Management & Risk Control
Pre-injection Injection Post-injection
CarbonWorkFlow* mark
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
licCarbonWorkFlow
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
*Mark of Schlumberger
CarbonWorkFlow* process for long-term CO2 storage enabling assessment and management of risk in every phase of a project.
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
licOil & Gas business approach to front-end risk...
Explore
Explore
Explore
Explore
Studies, models, risk assessment & campaign drilling
The exploration & Production Business Learned to Diversify Front End Risks- Find & Develop a combination
of specific sub-surface conditions
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
licProduce
Explore
Explore
Explore
Appraise
Diversify Risks Across
• Plays & Prospects• Joint Ventures• Technology / Costs• Scale
DevelopExplore
Volume
• Seismic• Logs• PressuresRate
• Logs• Samples• Tests• Extended Well Tests
Thanks to A J Garnett
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic...but what’s happening in the CO2 world ?
Inject
Explore
Explore
Explore
Explore
Studies, models, site selection & one “best shot”
DevelopExplore & Appraise
- less drilling, - more & more complex modelling, - no Extended Well Testing equiv.- more reliance on lab-tests - no long term field calibration (yet)
(but natural analogues)
too early narrowing
down to single options
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
Inject
Explore
Diversify
Risks ?
DevelopExplore & Appraise
Containment ?• “Sealing” Models• Lab studiesRate
• Logs• Models• Samples & labCapacity
• Seismic• Logs
Complexmodelling
Reactive flowCoupled processes• flow, • mechanical, • chemical
Extensivemodelling
Full-earthEmissions (source terms)
No. of “prospect tests” required for 90% confidence in at least one getting to FID ?
• E&P Prospects 6 – 8
• CO2 sites 2 – 4 ??
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
Construction Injection Equalization ClosurePossible site Probable site Approved site
Commercialization timeline, costs and uncertainty
Cumulative Cost
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
Risk Control & Performance Assessment
5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs
* Per ton estimates and total costs (in current day $USD) are based on 100Mton lifetime storage volume)
Uncertainty
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
(pen
nies
per
ton)
1-Study existing data and start risk methodology
Cumulative Cost
Construction Injection Equalization ClosurePossible site Probable site Approved site
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs
Des
ktop
Stu
dies
(p
enni
es p
er to
n)
* Per ton estimates and total costs (in current day $USD) are based on 100Mton lifetime storage volume)
Risk Control & Performance Assessment
Uncertainty
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
(pen
nies
per
ton)
models
2-Collect and analyze new data
Cumulative Cost
Construction Injection Equalization ClosurePossible site Probable site Approved site
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
Collect DataBuild Models
( ~50 cents / ton )
5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs
Des
ktop
Stu
dies
(p
enni
es p
er to
n)
wells and seismic
* Per ton estimates and total costs (in current day $USD) are based on 100Mton lifetime storage volume)
Risk Control & Performance Assessment
Uncertainty
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
(pen
nies
per
ton)
models
3-Design, permit and build
Cumulative Cost
Construction Injection Equalization ClosurePossible site Probable site Approved site
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
Collect DataBuild Models
(~50 cents / ton)
5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs
Des
ktop
Stu
dies
(p
enni
es p
er to
n)
Design andPermit
(<10 cents / ton)
Build(~$1 / ton)
wells and seismic
* Per ton estimates and total costs (in current day $USD) are based on 100Mton lifetime storage volume)
Risk Control & Performance Assessment
Uncertainty
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
(pen
nies
per
ton)
monitor
models
4-Operations
Cumulative Cost
gatherupdate
Construction Injection Equalization ClosurePossible site Probable site Approved site
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
Collect DataBuild Models
(~50 cents / ton)
Design andPermit
(<10 cents / ton)
5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs
Des
ktop
Stu
dies
(p
enni
es p
er to
n)
Operate Site3 Mton/yr( dollars / ton )
wells and seismic
* Per ton estimates and total costs (in current day $USD) are based on 100Mton lifetime storage volume)
Build(~$1 / ton)
Risk Control & Performance Assessment
Uncertainty
gather
data
update
models
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
(pen
nies
per
ton)
monitor
wells and seismic
models
5-Closure and post closure
Cumulative Cost
gatherupdate
Construction Injection Equalization ClosurePossible site Probable site Approved site
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
Operate Site3 Mton/yr( dollars / ton )
Collect DataBuild Models
(~50 cents / ton)
Design andPermit
(<10 cents / ton)
5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs
Des
ktop
Stu
dies
(p
enni
es p
er to
n)
EnvironmentalMonitoring
( pennies / ton )
wells and seismic
* Per ton estimates and total costs (in current day $USD) are based on 100Mton lifetime storage volume)
Build(~$1 / ton)
Risk Control & Performance Assessment
Uncertainty
gather
data
update
models
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
gather
Scale? Learning Curve?
$500M – $1B
(~pe
nnie
s pe
r ton
)
Exp
lora
tion
Cos
t ? (
suc
cess
rate
?)
monitor
models
Regulatory Req’sQuality Std,Liability ?
Property Rights?
$150M
Variables – which control Timing
Market Forces?
�-Capex? / Opex? �
FID Confidence ?
Public Acceptance?Cumulative Cost
update
Construction Injection Equalization ClosurePossible site Probable site Approved site
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
gather
data
Collect DataBuild Models
(~50 cents / ton)
Design andPermit
(<10 cents / ton)
5 yrs 100+0 30 yrs 35 yrs
Uncertainty
Des
ktop
Stu
dies
(~
penn
ies
per t
on)
Exp
lora
tion
Cos
t ?
EnvironmentalMonitoring
( ~pennies / ton )
wells and seismicLiability ?
$1M
$50M
* Per ton estimates and total costs (in current day $USD) are based on 100Mton lifetime storage volume)
Operate Site3 Mton/yr( dollars / ton )
Build(~$1 / ton)
Discount Rate? �
Risk Control & Performance Assessment
update
models
CO2 Storage in the North Sea – Industry Potential
20
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
licIllinois Basin – Decatur Project Phase III Awarded December 2007
Major Project Elements:
● Underground Injection Control (UIC) permitting: January 2008-October 2011― application, hearing, minor modification, major modification, completion reports…
● Injection well drilled: February 14 - May 4, 2009
● Geophone well drilled: November 2009
● Baseline 3D seismic survey completed: January 2010
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
● Baseline 3D seismic survey completed: January 2010
● Compression / dehydration / pipeline facility ― design, procurement, construction, testing, February 2009-October 2011
● Monitoring well drilled, cased: Sept-Nov 2010
● Monitoring well completion: May-June 2011
● Completion Report to Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): August 2011
● Permission to Inject: early November 2011
● Initiate injection: Next Week ?… (ramp quickly up to 1000 tonnes per day)
21
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
licTiming of Storage Site Characterization
● At a National, and individual project level, storage is generally on the critical path now.
● To move to the next level of certainty, special efforts to collect, evaluate, and integrate new data in order to qualifylarge-scale storage sites are needed.
Sch
lum
berg
er P
ub
lic
large-scale storage sites are needed.
● Each site is different (as usual!)
● What is the storage for ?
● Where is the CO2 coming from ?