Presentation to Joint Workshop on

Industry Alliance for IGCC & Co-

Production & CCS 24th May, 2007

Overall Review of Research Efforts on Carbon dioxide

Storage Internationally

Dr John BradshawGeoscience Australia

Australian Government

Geoscience Australia

,

Storage options

Depleted Oil & Gas Fields; ? Availability ?

Enhanced coal bed methane

? Net GHG mitigation ?

“Unmineable” coal seams ? Injectivity ?

Deep Saline Reservoirs e.g. Sleipner, In Salah, Snohvit

?data set?Enhanced Oil Recovery e.g. Weyburn; ? limited total capacity ? Source IPCC

Geological Storage Options (+ some Issues)

Basalts, organic rich shales

?injectivity / capacity?

Conceptual CO2 Storage Scenariodepleted field / structural trap

Conventional Trap /Depleted Field

•Proven seal potential

•Little opportunity in Australia - extensive some regions US/Can

•Relatively small total capacity (4% - pore volume)

•Known data set

Trap Structure

(Slide courtesy of Robert Root)

Trapping Issues

Identifying spill points

Existing well penetrations

Field production effects (pressure depleted, geomechanics, etc)

Compromising resources

Major petroleum provinces or significant petroleum / storage potential

World Map of Major Petroleum Provinces

Conceptual CO2 Storage Scenariohydrodynamic / solution trap

Trap StructureOpen, Large-scale Structure

•Enormous total capacity (94% )

•Extensive opportunity in Australia + “PCM”

•Relies on dissolution and long time frame of migration

(Slide courtesy of Robert Root)

Trapping Issues

More research – especially pilots required

Continuity of reservoir / seal pairs

Compromising resources –especially groundwater

World Map of Sedimentary Basins

Sedimentary basins Igneous and metamorphic provinces

Concept of ECBM Storage• CO2 adsorbs into coal matrix and releases methane thus increasing CBM production.• ? Net GHG mitigation strategy ?•Mine safety

Major World Coal Deposits

• USA, Canada, Australia, China, South Africa, Europe, RussiaCoal Storage Issues:InjectivitySwellingSterilisation (unmineable coal)Narrow depth range > 600-1000 m & < 1200 m Limited sites with suitable permeabilityRepresents <<<1% of Australia total storage capacity

Critical Factors for Storage Research

• Long term fate of injected CO2 and containment• How effective different trapping mechanisms

are• Comparison on injectivity and

predictability between different geological depositional environments (marine and non-marine)

• Ensuring sustainability of storage sites for long term injection

Permeability•1621 to 3252 mD (locally)

•1100 to 8140md regionally

Porosity•36 to 40%

Sleipner• Hydrodynamic / solution style trap• Huge reservoir

• Area – 26,000 km 2• Thickness – up to 300m• Marine Depositional system

• Enormous storage capacity• 0.135 km 3 (0.3% theoretical storage efficiency)• 100s years of regional emissions

• Fantastic reservoir qualities• Permeability : 1621 to 3252 mD (locally) & 1100 to

8140md regionally• Porosity : 36 to 40 %

• Only 1 Injection well - @ 1 Mt CO2 / yr• In many ways “unique”

Magnitude of Problem• Not simple Re-Injection

• Petroleum Fields are 20 - 30 year operations• Power Plant & Coal Resources 100’s yr• To match required injection rates

• many wells may be required• bore stability & injection interference issues

x 106 cu ft / day

t CO2 /day

Mt CO2 / year

INJECTIONREQUIREMENT

0.11 to 0.376 to 200.002 to 0.007"Best" Coal Storage Pilots

512,7401Sleipner25513,6995Average Power Plant66435,61613Monash Project

Up to 200North Rankin Gas Field (Methane Production flow rate)

Note: map excludes industrial point sources

Qld: 896 Mt;16.7 Tcf;2290 MMcf/d.

NSW: 1167 Mt;21.8 Tcf;2986 MMcf/d.

Vic: 1185 Mt;22 Tcf;3014 MMcf/d.

SA: 180 Mt;3.4 Tcf;466 MMcf/d.

WA: 411 Mt;7.7 Tcf;1055 MMcf/d.

NWS: 386 Mt;7.2 Tcf;986 MMcf/d.

NT:9.2 Mt;0.2 Tcf;27 MMcf/d.

Stationary energy point sources

Unproduced large gas fields with high CO2 %

KEY

1 TCF CO2 = 53.65 Mt = 28.3 BCM

Summary of Emissions, Economics & Geological Risk

Viable –but not optimal

reservoirs?

Very good reservoirs? Distant from

major sources

Superb reservoirs. But, require

offshore development?

Large emissions –

very “challenging”

geology?

These types of scenarios will be repeated around the world

20 year emission map

“Physically”impossible

Where in the world should we be exploring ?

Answer : Where we have the storage potential,

combined with

Where we have large emissions

Need to be “storage ready” long before we are “capture ready”

World Regional Storage Opportunities

• Emission sourcesEmission regions (300km buffer)Prospective basins

Non- Prospective provinces

These are the regions we need to focus upon to be “Storage Ready”

CHINA Stationary CO2 emissions and

basins

Tentative ranking of prospectivity for CO2

Storage

Higher Prospectivity

Intermediate / unresolved ProspectivityLower Prospectivity

Saline Reservoirs Characterisation:Team Work & Integration Of Disciplines

Geological interpretationGeophysical MappingSedimentologyPetrophysicsHydrodynamicsEconomicsSeal CharacterisationReservoir ModellingGeomechanicsDynamic Modelling

0

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

0

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

TD 1529.49 m

MINDER REEF 1

Gr

GR (gAPI)0.0 200.0

Depth Marker_Track

Gage Sst

TD 2446.17 m

CHARLOTTE 1

Gr

GR (gAPI)0.0 200.0

Depth

1500

Marker_Track

Gage Sst

TD 2030.00 m

MULLALOO 1

Gr

GR (gAPI)0.0 200.0

Depth

1700

1800

Marker_Track

Gage Sst

Neocomian Unconformity - 1795.00 m

TD 2972.71 m

GAGE ROADS 2

Gr

GR (gAPI)0.0 200.0

Depth Marker_Track

Gage Sst

Parmelia GP Neocomian Unconformity - 1344.01 m

TD 3663.09 m

GAGE ROADS 1

Gr

GR (gAPI)0.0 200.0

Depth

1600

1700

Marker_Track

Gage Sst

TD 3660.80 m

WARNBRO 1

Gr

GR (gAPI)0.0 200.0

Depth

2000

2100

2200

Marker_Track

Gage Sst

Base Seq II

MFS Seq I

Parmelia GPJervoise Sst

Neocomian Unconformity

0 25000 50000m m

m m

Gage_Sst(2)

Gage_Roads_1Scale : 1 : 2500DEPTH (1000.M - 2000.M)

DEPTHM

GR (GAPI)0. 200.

SP (MV)-100. 0.

CALI (IN)6. 16.

SP (MV)-100. 0.

LLD (OHMM)0.2 2000.

RHOB (G/C3)1.25 2.75

RHOB (G/C3)1.25 2.75

DT (US/F)200. 40.

perm ()0.1 1000.

PHIE (Dec)0.5 0.

SW (Dec1.

4

1010102010301040105010601070108010901100111011201130114011501160117011801190120012101220123012401250126012701280129013001310132013301340135013601370138013901400

N

0 5 10 20 kms

50

50

49±1

38±12

928±15

5±516±12

22

Mullaloo 1

Perth

Bouvard 1

Challenger 1

Charlotte 1

Marri 1

Gage Roads 1

Peel 1

Gage Roads 2

Quinns Rock 1

50 Isometric line (kppm)50 Salinity (kppm)

50

10

50

203040

CO2 Capture/Storage Assumptions

Based on the "Perth_basin_revision" presentationBased on the "Perth_basin_revision" presentation: Gage Sst southern portion

SouthernA

Input parametersLength of onshore pipeline km 30Length of offshore pipeline km 35Water depth m 50/30Reservoir depth (to top of formation) mSS 2000/1000Reservoir net pay m 100Reservoir average temperature C 46Reservoir pressure psia 1600Fracture pressure psiaEffective permeability mDReservoir radius (effective) km 10Average onshore temperature C 20Average water temperature C 15

Volume Pumped, Time

E

C B

Leak-Off TestA

Pres

sure

Trapping Mechanisms

Table A1: Characteristics of Trapping Methods. Note the different time frames & range of issues. Most methods will operate alongside each other in each trap type.

Characteristics of Trapping Methods.

Requires gas sorption data and knowledge of permeability trends and coal "reactivity" to CO2

LowInjectivty poor due to low permeability. Effective at shallower depths than porous sedimentary rocks, but not at deeper depths due to permeability issues. Many injection wells required. If methane liberated might not be net GHG mitigation.

Coals can swell reducing injectivity. Difficult to predict permeability trends. CO2 adsorption not 100% effective which raises issue of leakage if no physical seal is present.

Limited to extent of thick coal seams in basins that are relatively shallow

~ 10km2

to 100km2ImmediateCO2 preferentially

adsorbs onto coal particles

COAL ADSORPTION

Requires rock mineralogySignificantRate of reaction slow. Precipitation could "clog" up pore throats reducing injectivity. Approaches "permanent" trapping.

Dependant on presence of reactive minerals and formation water chemistry. Could precipitate or dissolve.

Along migration pathway of CO2

basin scale - e.g. 10000s km3

10s to 1000s of years

CO2 reacts with existing rock to form new stable minerals

MINERAL

Requires rock property data and reservoir simulation

Very largeCan equal 15-20% of reservoir volume. Eventually dissolves into formation water.

Will have to displace water in pores. Dependant on CO2sweeping through reservoir to trap large volumes. Depends on rock mineralogy and texture.

Along migration pathway of CO2

basin scale - e.g. 10000s km2

Immediate to 1000s years

CO2 fills interstices between pores of the grains in rockRESIDUAL

Requires reservoir simulation and need to know CO2supply rate and injection rate

Very largeOnce dissolved CO2saturated water migrates towards the basin centre thus giving very large capacity The limitation is contact between CO2 and water, and having highly permeable (vertical) and thick reservoirs.

Dependant on rate of migration (faster better) and pre-existing water chemistry (less saline water better). Rate of migration depends on dip, pressure, injection rate, permeability, fractures, etc.

Along migration pathway of CO2, both up dip and down dip

basin scale - e.g. 10000s km2

100s to 1000s of years if migrating - >10000s years if gas cap in structural trap -and longer if reservoir is thin and has low permeability

CO2 migrates through reservoir beneath seal and eventually dissolves into formation waterDISSOLUTION

Simple volume calculation of available pore space in trap, allowing for factors that inhibit access to all the trap –eg sweep efficiency, residual water saturation

SignificantIf closed hydraulic system then limited by compression of water (few percent) in reservoir. If open hydraulic system will have to displace formation water.

Faults may be sealed or open, dependant on stress regime and fault orientation and faults could be leak/spill points or compartmentalise trap

Dependant on basins tectonic evolution. 100s of small traps to single large traps per basin

~ 10s km2

to 100s km2

ImmediateBuoyancy trapping within anticline, fold, fault block, pinch-out. CO2 remains as a fluid below physical trap (seal)

STRUCTURAL& STRATIGRAPHIC (PHYSICAL OR

BOUYANCY)

CAPACITY ESTIMATION

METHOD / REQUIREMENTS

POTENT-IAL SIZE

CAPACITY LIMITATION /

BENEFITSISSUESOCCURRENCE

IN BASINAREAL

SIZEEFFECTIVE TIMEFRAME

NATURE OF TRAPPING

CHARACTERISTICS _________________TRAPPING METHOD

From Bradshaw et al 2006 – GHGT8

Summary of Parameters for Trapping Processes & Mechanisms

• Variety of parameters impact on storage effectiveness

• Some parameters act independently & others in opposite directions

• Widely different timing for trapping effectiveness – immediate to 10,000s to 100,000s years

• Single traps can involve multiple trapping processes

• Assessment thus multifaceted task

Trapping processes• Displacement of pore water

• Fills pore space by pushing water out of open systems

• Could invade up dip areas with displaced water and pressure

• Timing : immediate

• Compression • Closed system - ~ few % of total pore volume

• Might quickly exceed fracture gradient if small closed system

• Timing : immediate

• Dissolution into pore water• Dependant on water chemistry & migration and rate of contact with

formation water

• Generally mutually exclusive of displacement

• Large % increasing over time

• Timing : 100 s to 10,000 s years

Trapping processes• Residual gas saturation

• ~ 15 – 25%, dependant on contact with available pore space and rock texture along migration path

• Timing : Immediate to 1,000 s years

• Mineralisation• Depends on mineralogy & water chemistry & P & T

• Zero to significant %

• Timing : 10 s to 10 000 s years

Trap Types to be exploited• Depleted Fields

• Early Stages (North Sea)• Potential well leakage / remediation /

decommissioning issues• Physical trapping – immediately effective• Storage capacity limited

• Saline reservoirs• Structural Traps & Hydrodynamic Traps• Less data control• Physical, dissolution, residual gas trapping – range of

effectiveness and timing• Storage capacity extensive

Storage Capacity Estimates

43514351480740Saline Reservoirs412?Coal Beds

2 / 97.8 / 30.52814Oil & Gas Fields310.221EOR

?84ECBM

Storage Years

Total Capacity (GT CO2)

Storage Years

Total Capacity (Gt CO2)

3.30.5Total Emissions

(Gt CO2)

ChinaAustralia

Storage Capacity versus years of storage:Australia and China

China estimates from : ZHANG HONGTAO et al: 2005 GCEP Conference Note : based on surface area calculation

Not available for 40 years

? Net Greenhouse mitigation effect ?

? Significant injectivity concerns + sterilisation

issues?

How reliable are the capacity estimates?

Or …Will CCS be sustainable into the

future given we have hundreds of years of coal available ?

CSLF Taskforce dealing with the issue and documenting process to help validate

capacity estimates …..Terminology & Effectiveness of Trapping

Increasing cost of storage

Better qualityinjection site& Source -Sink match

after McCabe, 1998

CO2 Storage Potential Pyramid

Theoretical capacity:includes large volumes of “uneconomic” opportunities.Approaches physical limitof storage volume ; unrealistic number

Effective (Realistic) capacity:Applies technical cut off limits, technically viable estimate, more pragmatic, actual site / basin data

Practical (Viable) capacity:Applies economic and regulatory barriers to realistic capacity,

Matched capacity:Detailed matching of sources and sinks including supply and reservoir performance assessment

Why are reliable CO2 storage estimates required ?

• Technical validity• Technical assurance, verifiable and credible – Scientists

and engineers• Regional, basin and prospect (field) scale

• Policy and legal validity• Policy & Regulation planning - Government

• Commercial validity• Investment decisions – Business

• Environmental validity• Identify & establish “sustainability” of CCS - Community

• A comprehensive Technology Gap Assessment was initiated to help identify where CSLF projects should be encouraged in relation to the CSLF Charter

• Three focus areas considered;– Capture (EC)– Storage (Australia)– Monitoring, Measurement & Verification (Canada)

• Each focus area identified – high level technology gaps sub-headings and then – a second tier of specific topics– Capture ( 4 sub headings - 20 specific topics)– Storage (11 sub headings - 34 specific topics)– MMV ( 5 sub headings - 17 specific topics)

Technology Gap Assessment

See Poster for details of technology gaps being addressed in each CSLF recognised Project

More detailed Technology Gaps Analysis spreadsheet now on CSLF website

Following the Technical group meeting in Melbourne, Australia, in September 2004, a recommendation was put forward for a working group which would assess projects proposed for recognition by the CSLF and review the CSLF project portfolio to identify synergies and gaps that would then act as input for any future revision of the CSLF Technology Road map. This working group was endorsed by the Policy Group at the CSFL meeting in New Delhi in April 2006 and is now known as the Projects Interaction and Review Team (PIRT).

The PIRT has the following tasks:

CSLF Projects Interaction and Review Team (PIRT)

CCS Technology Gaps Analysis

In order to complete the task of identifying technology gaps where further research and development would be required, a comprehensive gap assessment began in 2006. The purpose of this was to identify where projects should be encouraged in the CSLF charter, to promote synergies and inform on new developments.

xCapture from non-power industrial processes

C20

Industrial applications

xxFully integrated demonstration plant

C19

x?CO2 capture pilot plantC18

xxPower plant concepts to integrate CO2 capture

C17

xxCombustion scienceC16

xxOxy-fuel gas turbinesC15

x?Improved air separation processes

C14

xx?Boiler designC13

OxyfuelCombustion

Fully integrated demonstration plant

C12

xPolygenerationoptimization

C11

xxxPower plant concepts to integrate CO2 capture

C10

xImproved H2/CO2 separation

C9

xImproved water-gas shiftC8

x?Improved air separation processes

C7

x?Hydrogen-rich turbinesC6

Pre-Combustion

xFully integrated demonstration plant

C5

xxCO2 capture pilot plantC4

xxxPower plant concepts to integrate CO2 capture

C3

xxAdvanced capture systemsC2

xxImproved solvent systemsC1

Post-Combustion

CAPTURE

17) IEA G

HG W

eyburn-Midale

CO2

Monitoring & Storage Project

16) Regional O

pportunities for CO

2 C

apture and Storage in China

15) Regional C

arbon Sequestration Partnerships

14) ITC CO2 Capture w

ith Chemical

Solvents

13) Geologic CO

2 Storage Assurance at In Salah, Algeria

12) FrioP

roject

11) ENCAP

10) China CoalbedM

ethane Technology/C

O2 Sequestration Project

9) Feasibility Study of Geological

Sequestration of CO

2 in Basalt Form

ations (DeccanTrap) in India

8) CO2 STO

RE

7) CO2 SINK

6) CO2 Separation from

Pressurized G

as Stream

5) CO

2 GeoNet

4) CO2 Capture Project

3) CASTOR

2) CANM

ET Energy Technology Centre (CETC) R&D O

xyfuelCombustion for

CO

2

1) Alberta Enhanced Coal-bed Methane

Recovery Project

xCapture from non-power industrial processes

C20

Industrial applications

xxFully integrated demonstration plant

C19

x?CO2 capture pilot plantC18

xxPower plant concepts to integrate CO2 capture

C17

xxCombustion scienceC16

xxOxy-fuel gas turbinesC15

x?Improved air separation processes

C14

xx?Boiler designC13

OxyfuelCombustion

Fully integrated demonstration plant

C12

xPolygenerationoptimization

C11

xxxPower plant concepts to integrate CO2 capture

C10

xImproved H2/CO2 separation

C9

xImproved water-gas shiftC8

x?Improved air separation processes

C7

x?Hydrogen-rich turbinesC6

Pre-Combustion

xFully integrated demonstration plant

C5

xxCO2 capture pilot plantC4

xxxPower plant concepts to integrate CO2 capture

C3

xxAdvanced capture systemsC2

xxImproved solvent systemsC1

Post-Combustion

CAPTURE

17) IEA G

HG W

eyburn-Midale

CO2

Monitoring & Storage Project

16) Regional O

pportunities for CO

2 C

apture and Storage in China

15) Regional C

arbon Sequestration Partnerships

14) ITC CO2 Capture w

ith Chemical

Solvents

13) Geologic CO

2 Storage Assurance at In Salah, Algeria

12) FrioP

roject

11) ENCAP

10) China CoalbedM

ethane Technology/C

O2 Sequestration Project

9) Feasibility Study of Geological

Sequestration of CO

2 in Basalt Form

ations (DeccanTrap) in India

8) CO2 STO

RE

7) CO2 SINK

6) CO2 Separation from

Pressurized G

as Stream

5) CO

2 GeoNet

4) CO2 Capture Project

3) CASTOR

2) CANM

ET Energy Technology Centre (CETC) R&D O

xyfuelCombustion for

CO

2

1) Alberta Enhanced Coal-bed Methane

Recovery Project

xx?xxBehaviour of CO2 under different regimes of pressure, temperature and fluid mixtures

S16

CO2 properties

xPetroleum field development impact on hydrodynamic regime

S15

Hydrodynamics

xxxxMigration rateS14

xxxx?xx?Understanding physical or chemical trapping mechanisms

S13

Trapping

xUltra-low permeability rocks (eg organic rich shales, non-conventional reservoirs) – proof of concept

S12

xBasalts - proof of conceptS11

xxDepleted oil and gas fields – viability

S10

xxEOR – lessons to be applied to other storage reservoirs

S9

xxxxCoal – rock propertiesS8

xx?xxxSaline Aquifers –fluids/rock relationships and interactions

S7

xStorage Options

xxx?xReservoir engineering aspects

S6

xxxFormation water compression / displacement in closed or open system

S5

xxxxxSustainability of high injection rates

S4

xxxxxDefinition of variable rock facies or rock property types for injectivity.

S3

xxxxxxOptimum injection parameters

S2

xxxxxOptimum well spacings and patterns

S1

Injection

STORAGE

xx?xxBehaviour of CO2 under different regimes of pressure, temperature and fluid mixtures

S16

CO2 properties

xPetroleum field development impact on hydrodynamic regime

S15

Hydrodynamics

xxxxMigration rateS14

xxxx?xx?Understanding physical or chemical trapping mechanisms

S13

Trapping

xUltra-low permeability rocks (eg organic rich shales, non-conventional reservoirs) – proof of concept

S12

xBasalts - proof of conceptS11

xxDepleted oil and gas fields – viability

S10

xxEOR – lessons to be applied to other storage reservoirs

S9

xxxxCoal – rock propertiesS8

xx?xxxSaline Aquifers –fluids/rock relationships and interactions

S7

xStorage Options

xxx?xReservoir engineering aspects

S6

xxxFormation water compression / displacement in closed or open system

S5

xxxxxSustainability of high injection rates

S4

xxxxxDefinition of variable rock facies or rock property types for injectivity.

S3

xxxxxxOptimum injection parameters

S2

xxxxxOptimum well spacings and patterns

S1

Injection

STORAGE

xxxxxxProcedures and approaches for communicating the impacts of geological storage to the general public

S30

Public Outreach

xxx?xx?Risk assessment modelsS29

Risk

xxxIntegration in single software system of geological, reservoir engineering and hydrodynamic aspects

S28

xxImprovements in software for basin wide geological, reservoir engineering and hydrodynamic model

S27

x?xParameters for modelling fluid and rock interactions

S26

Software

xxCosts of storageS25

Economics

xxExisting facilities and materials

S24

xQuantification and modelling of potential subsurface leakage impacts

S23

xFlux rates of modern and ancient systems

S22

Leakage

xProtocols for evaluation of potential sterilisation of existing resources

S21

x?x?Geological site characterisation, methodologies, techniques and standards

S20

xxx?Innovative methods for assessments of geological storage potential

S19

xxxxCountry wide or regional assessments of storage potential

S18

xxxStorage Capacity assessment methodologies or standards

S17

Assessments

xxxxxxProcedures and approaches for communicating the impacts of geological storage to the general public

S30

Public Outreach

xxx?xx?Risk assessment modelsS29

Risk

xxxIntegration in single software system of geological, reservoir engineering and hydrodynamic aspects

S28

xxImprovements in software for basin wide geological, reservoir engineering and hydrodynamic model

S27

x?xParameters for modelling fluid and rock interactions

S26

Software

xxCosts of storageS25

Economics

xxExisting facilities and materials

S24

xQuantification and modelling of potential subsurface leakage impacts

S23

xFlux rates of modern and ancient systems

S22

Leakage

xProtocols for evaluation of potential sterilisation of existing resources

S21

x?x?Geological site characterisation, methodologies, techniques and standards

S20

xxx?Innovative methods for assessments of geological storage potential

S19

xxxxCountry wide or regional assessments of storage potential

S18

xxxStorage Capacity assessment methodologies or standards

S17

Assessments

xIdentify thresholds of leakage that can be measured

M17

xxxImproved integration of monitoring techniques

M16

xdetermination of effective pre-injection surveys

M15

Guideline Development

xxxImproved remote sensing to identify souces of CO2

M14

xxuse of vegetational changes by hyperspectral surveys changes to identify gas levels in the vadose zone

M13

xxxxRemote sensing of CO2 flux M12

xxxxdetecting CO2 seeps into subaqueous settings

M11

Surface and near-surface leaks

xxevaluation of permanent or semi-permanent sampling points in an observation well

M10

xxseismic, cost reductionM 9

xx?xsesimic, resolutionM 8

Leaks in the subsurface

xxxxImproved recognition and interpretation of the nature of faults and fractures

M 7

xxxxnon-seismic geophysical techniques

M 6

xxxxxxuse of seismicM 5

Identification of faults and fractures

x?xxphysical or chemical changes to cement

M 4

xx?xxImproved wellboremonitoring techniques

M 3

xxImproved interpretation of cased hole logs

M 2

xxxxfunctionality and resolution of available logging tools

M 1

Well bore Integrity

MONITORING

xIdentify thresholds of leakage that can be measured

M17

xxxImproved integration of monitoring techniques

M16

xdetermination of effective pre-injection surveys

M15

Guideline Development

xxxImproved remote sensing to identify souces of CO2

M14

xxuse of vegetational changes by hyperspectral surveys changes to identify gas levels in the vadose zone

M13

xxxxRemote sensing of CO2 flux M12

xxxxdetecting CO2 seeps into subaqueous settings

M11

Surface and near-surface leaks

xxevaluation of permanent or semi-permanent sampling points in an observation well

M10

xxseismic, cost reductionM 9

xx?xsesimic, resolutionM 8

Leaks in the subsurface

xxxxImproved recognition and interpretation of the nature of faults and fractures

M 7

xxxxnon-seismic geophysical techniques

M 6

xxxxxxuse of seismicM 5

Identification of faults and fractures

x?xxphysical or chemical changes to cement

M 4

xx?xxImproved wellboremonitoring techniques

M 3

xxImproved interpretation of cased hole logs

M 2

xxxxfunctionality and resolution of available logging tools

M 1

Well bore Integrity

MONITORING

PIRT FORMATION & OBJECTIVES

TECHNICAL GAPS ANALYSIS

•Assess projects proposed for recognition by the CSLF in accordance with the project selection criteria approved by the Policy Group. Based on this assessment, make recommendations to the Technical Group on whether a project should be accepted for recognition by the CSLF.

•Review the CSLF project portfolio and identify synergies, complementarities and gaps, providing feedback to the Technical Group and input for further revisions of the CSLF roadmap.

•Identify technology gaps where further RD&D would be required.

•Foster enhanced international collaboration for CSLF projects, both within individual projects (e.g. expanding partnership to entities from other CSLF members) and between different projects addressing similar issues.

•Promote awareness within the CSLF of new developments in CO2 Capture and Storage by establishing and implementing a framework for periodically reporting to the Technical Group on the progress within CSLF projects and beyond.

•Organize periodic activities to facilitate the fulfilment of the above functions and to give an opportunity to individuals involved in CSLF recognized projects and other relevant individuals invited by the CSLF, to exchange experience and views on issues of common interest and provide feedback to the CSLF.

•Perform other such tasks that may be assigned to it by the CSLF Technical Group.

The aim of this poster session is to highlight aspects of projects that currently or plan to fill these gaps, as well as promote discussion of the areas that are not being addressed by CSLF projects.If any non-CSLF projects wish to consider applying to be recognised as CSLF project, the submission forms are available at http://cslforum.org/documents/ProjectSubmissionForm.doc

Single well injection test- Alberta Enhanced Coal-bed Methane Recovery Project

Poster 1 of 3

The CSLF Technical Group Gap Analysis work was divided into three components: 1) Capture, 2) Storage and 3) Monitoring and Verification. These were initially instigated by completion of three taskforces examining these topics: Task Force to Identify Gaps in C02 Capture and Transport, Task Force to Identify Gaps in Measurement, Monitoring and Verification in Storage and the TaskForce to Review and Identify Standards for C02 Storage CapacityMeasurement. From the results of these taskforces and by scoping out other gaps from within the Core Group and Floating Group within the PIRT, a list of technology barriers to the CCS deployment were identified and are listed in the adjacent table.These technology gaps were assembled at a high level so that more detailed gaps could be addressed underneath key topics.

The 17 projects recognised within the CSLF were then asked to identify if any of their project outcomes would encompass these issues. Many projects were able to respond in time for this poster and the details of their responses are shown in light green. Those in dark green are taken from the projects descriptions on their websites and information sheets An interactive spreadsheet of these responses is available at http://www.cslforum.org/documents/PIRTGapAnalysis.xls

http//www.cslforum.org/documents/PIRTGapAnalysis.xls

Technology Gaps : Summary

01234567No of

Responses per Sub Heading

Post-C

ombu

stion

Pre-Com

busti

on

Oxyfue

l Com

busti

on

Indus

trial a

pplica

tions

Injec

tion

Storage O

ptions

Trapping

Hydrody

namics

CO2 prop

erties

Asses

smen

ts Le

akage

Econom

ics

Software

Risk

Public

Outreac

h

Well bore

Integ

rity

Identi

ficati

on of

fault

s and f

ractures

Leak

s in th

e subs

urface

Surfac

e and

near-s

urfac

e leak

s

Guideli

ne D

evelo

pmen

t

Sub Headings

Responses to Technology Gaps Sub Headings27 / 20 ( 1.3 ) 85 / 34

( 2.5 ) 45 / 17 ( 2.6 )

CaptureStorageMMV

27 / 20 (1.3)

Total Responses / Total Topics(Response per Topic)

Sub Heading No. of Specific Topics– Injection 6 – Storage Options 6 – Trapping 2– Hydrodynamics 1– CO2 properties 5 – Assessments 5 – Leakage 3 – Economics 1 – Software 3 – Risk 1 – Public Outreach 1

Technology Gap AssessmentFocus Area - Storage

_______34

Conclusions• Many options for Storage around the world

• Some options better than others• Not all geological sites nearby to power

plants will be viable or sustainable• Long pipelines or ship transport

• Need to improve assessment methods to estimate storage capacity• To assist planning

• Gaps analysis contains few items that can’t be resolved or better understood• Some however costly options

• Need (many) commercial scale storage “demonstrations”• To help learn by doing