#1CCS Case Studies Olav Kaarstad, StatoilHydro ASA Workshop on development of natural gas resources with high CO2 & Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in CCOP, Bali, Indonesia, 17-20 March 2009 Statoil Hydro#2Topics covered ■ An overview of CCS-projects world-wide ■ The four large projects and history of development Sleipner, Norway ■ In Salah, Algeria Snøhvit, Norway Weyburn, Canada ■ What did they cost? Things can go wrong ■ Some other projects ☐ Exploring for CO2-storage 2 Statoil Hydro#3An overview of CCS-projects world-wide 3 Statoil Hydro#4So far only four large and some smaller CO2-storage projects in operation Sleipner, Norway In Salah, Algeria Snøhvit, Weyburn, Norway Canada 4 Statoil Hydro#5Numerous aspiring CCS projects in the power generation sector → how many will go ahead? and are we seeing too little focus on the below ground aspects? South Pacific Ocean United México Greenland Suomi Enland Iceland Sveri Swede Kin Россия Russia Україна Areine Kazakhstan Ance Mongolia Ita Espiña Italy Spewn North Atlantic Ocean Türkiye Turkey 中国 대한민국 탄수 S Korea Japan Iraq Afghanistan Pakistan China Algeria Libya Egypt Saudi Arabia India Mauritania Mall Niger Chad Sudan Nigeria Ethiopia Venezuela Colombia DR Congo Kenya Tanzania Perú Brasil Brazil Bolivia Angola Namibia Madagascar Botswana Indian Ocean Chile South Atlantic Ocean South Africa Argentina Upend ไทย Thailand 5 Suom Sverige Finland Sweden Norge Norway Oslo Stockholm Helsinki Tallinn Eesti Goteborg Estonia Indonesia Papua New Guinea Pipp GlasgoEd rgh Belfast Kingd Unite Dublin Riga Latvija Manchester eland Birming diff Lond Australa Belgiq Germany New Zealand Le Havre Rennes Belgiu Pans Frankfurt Reinis am Main Munchen Strasbourg Zurich Nantes France Boraux Wathe 18 Hannov Belgie Deutschlandroclaw Česká R Czech Rep Ostrava Slovensko Slovakia Bern Austne Magyarország Hungary Lyon Milan Zagreb Torino benhavn Danmark Denmark Latvie Lietuva Lithuania Gdańsk Vilnius Mir Breinen CHam dland Szczecin Poznań Бел Be Pal Warszawa Kraków Wien Österreich Mo Chisin Romania Beograd Bologna Hrvatska Bucurest Montpellier Genova Toulouse Marseille Croatia ital Srbija Serbia Crna Gora Italy orto Zaragoza Mad Barcelona ortugal España Spain Быария Buigana Tirane Roma Ban Thessaloni Θεσσαλονικ Napoli Valencia Ελλάς Greece Izmi Palermo Map credit: Scottish Centre for Carbon Storage, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh (www.geos.ed.ac.uk/ccsmap) Statoil Hydro#6Pure CO₂-reservoirs & CO2-rich natural gas reservoirs Barents Sea Chukchi Peninsula Miller North Sea Alberta Basin Kevin Sunburst Brae- Kamchatka volcanic region Primoyre Vorderrhöhn- Mátraderecske Wanjinta La Barge Slawter- Brown Sunrise Four Corners Area (25 occurrences) Gordon Creek Farnham Dome St John's' Popocatapetl Volcano Masaya & Cerro Negro Volcanos Galeras Volcano' -Indian Creek Niévre. Vichy Montmiral Mihályi Florina -Huanghua sag Jiyang Sag Paradox Basin -Jackson Dome Dodan Latera Shanshui Basin Huangqiao San Juan Basin Central Sahara Pelagian Shelf SW Sirt Basin Yinggehai- Oujiang sag Huizhou sag Middle East Gulf of Thailand Panyu sag West Thailand Coast- Natuna Irian Jaya Cakerawala Sumatran Basin Java Basin -Timor Sea Gas Composition 2 El Trapial ■ 5-50% CO₂ 2 • 50-100% CO, Area with multiple accumulations Carnarvon Basin Caroline Ladbroke Grove Yolla Taranaki Basin 1000 Km Scale at Equator#7- The Sleipner CO2-injection - started operation in 1996 nearly 1 mill tonnes CO2 per year STATOIL Licence partners: ExxonMobil E&P Norway, Norsk Hydro AS, Total E&P Norway#8Increasing amplitude Sleipner CO2 injection Time-lapse seismic data 1994 Utsira Fm. CO₂ well 1 km Injection point 2001 CO₂ plume in map view 2008 no data 1999 2001 2002 2004 2006 2008 2008-1994 Statoil Hydro 8#9Introduction ST FERGUS UK Norne Asgard Heidrun Draugen Åsgard Transport Statfjord Gullfaks Troll Oseberg Frigg Heimdal Haltenpipe TJELDBERGODDEN NORWAY KOLLSNES KARSTO Statpipe Sleipner Øst/Vest Draupner S/E Ekofisk Norpipe Zeepipe Franpipe Europipe II Europipe ZEEBRUGGE DUNKERQUE EMDEN 9 Sleipner Vest Production start 1996 Natural gas with 9 mol% CO2 GIIP: 5.6 TSft³ (160 GSm³) CIIP: 427 mill.bbl (70 MSm³) 15/5 1°40' 15/6 2°00' 28 10 km PL 046 58°30' 15/8 U.K. 58°15' 16/7 Sleipner Øst Production star 1993 Natural gas with <1 mol % CO2 Gas sales specifications: < 2.5 mol% CO₂ StatoilHydro#10Sleipner B CO₂ Gas with 1. Extraction Sleipner T Amine Plant Sleipner A Injection Well 2. Compression Gas with CO₂ Sleipner Vest CO 1 Mtons 1.20 0.80- 0.60 0.40 3. Injection 0.20 Injected and vented CO₂ 1996-2006 hjected Vented 0.00 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Utsira Fm CO 4. Subsurface storage#1111 Main issues focused on prior to injection - INJECTIVITY → Reservoir Simulation (black oil, oil-gas model) Temperature critical, 27 °C - 0.41 0.54 0.81 SGAS (CO2) after 10 years of injection 797 0.27 0.41 0.67 - 577 957 1037 1117 A 12 3 CASE 1 YZ Well 2.2 km plane 18 to 18 SGAS step 4 from Sleipner A. rate 1.7 mill Sm3/d Shale barriers StatoilHydro#12Main issues focused on prior to injection - MIGRATION 08 15/0 A 4 15/0-11 مارت اسلام شالی A Assumed CO migration direction No migration of the CO2 back to the Sleipner wells 15/0-4-15 SLA 10 A 15/0, /A AL 6/0 12 10/0 & 19 New seismic survey in 1994 → changed the location from NW to 2.8 km NNE of the SLA (the current location) Structural trap identified, saddle area northwards Predicted migration direction → northwards Base Utsira Fm shows shale diapirs east of SLA → expected to reduce the horizontal distribution of the CO2 towards the SLA Statoil Hydro#13The In Salah CO2-injection in Algeria Statoil Hydro#14SPAIN Mediterranian Seat Capital Algiers Office MOROCCO ALGERIA LIBYA In Salah MALI NIGER Amine co2 Removal 4 Gas Production Wells 3 CO2 Injection Wells Carboniferous Reservoir 20 metres thick Gas Water The In Salah CO2 injection From left to right: Location map ■ Picture of the gas processing plant ■ Schematic illustration of CO2-injection in 3 wells Injection of nearly 1 million tons of CO2 per year ☐ CO₂ extracted from natural gas Sources: BP, Sonatrach, Statoil Hydro 14 Statoil Hydro#15More on In Salah CO2 injection 50mmscf/d CO2 (1mmtpa) Compression Transportation Injection Storage سوناطراك E conatrach STATOIL bp 15 Statoil Hydro#16- The Snøhvit CO2-injection started operation in April 2008 - about 0,7 mill tonnes CO2 per year#17Empty#18Snøhvit CO2-capture plant at Melkøya First CO2 injected: 22. April 2008 18 CH Statoil Hydro#19NORWAY SNØHVIT Hammerfest West CO2 mMSL 2300- INJECTION GAS PRODUCTION STØ FM. 2400- NORDMELA EM 2500- TUBAEN FM. GWC 2450,5 m 2600- Gas Oil Shale 5 km The Snøhvit LNG + CO2 capture, -transport and -storage project Above, from left to right: ■ Location map ☐ Picture of the Melkøya LNG-plant with CO2-capture plant ■ An illustration of the sub-sea wells and pipelines ■ About 0,7 million tons of CO2 per year injected CO2 extracted from natural gas to be stored below the gas reservoir Statoil Hydro#20Depressurising the sub-sea CO2-pipeline - it gets cold Carbon Dioxide: Temperature - Pressure Diagram Pressure, bar 10000.0 1000.0 Solid Liquid 100.0 10.0+ 1.0 Sublimation Line. Triple Point Vapor Melting Line Saturation Line Critical Point Copyright 1999 ChemicaLogic Corporation Drawn with CO₂Tab V1.0 0.1 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Temperature, "C Statoil Hydro 20 20#21Snøhvit 153 km sub-seapipeline and CO2-injection 2 inch orifice "safe location" ~150 bar, 5ºC 320 m 153 km, 8 inch 5ºC 30 kg/s CO2 >150 bar, 15°C 21 24 2700 m ☑DHSV ~300 bar Need for depressurising • When testing the DHSV - Required to be tested at dp=30 bar • In case of operating problems and pipeline breakage (anchors etc.) Factors that needs verification: • How long time to depressurise? •Minimum design temperature: -23°C •Heat transfer from sea-water and sediments Statoil Hydro#22The Weyburn-Midale CO2-EOR and -storage project Statoil Hydro#23The Weyburn-Midale CO2-EOR Projects in Canada (2) 23 The CO₂- compressor facility This is where CO2 arrives after a 320 km pipeline transport from the coal gasification at Beulah in North Dakota, USA StatoilHydro#24The Weyburn-Midale CO2-EOR Projects in Canada (1) Regina Weyburn Saskatchewan Montana Thousands bbl/d 50 40 30 20 10 Manitoba Estevan CANADA USA North Dakota Bismarck Beulah Enhanced oil production at Weyburn Base Waterflood Production Incromontal Vertical Production Incremental Horizontal Production Incremental Miscible Flood Production CO₂ 0- 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 CO₂ and water recycled CO₂ to Uli Bank Drive Water Water Miscible Zone Additional Oil Recory 14 24 Oil to Market Statoil Hydro#25What does it cost? 25 25 Statoil Hydro#26Investment costs for CO2-storage projects (ex. capture) 26 26 Project Country Start Sleipner Norway 1996 Snovit Gorgon Norway Australia 2007 2008-2010 Aquifer Aquifer Annual Injection rate Million T/year 1 0,7 Depleted Oil 5,2 CO2 Avoided Onshore/Offshore Number of Wells Pipeline length * * 4,8 Offshore Offshore Onshore 1 1 km 153 Investment Costs Compression and Dehydration $ million * 70 Pipeline $ million None 73 Drilling and Well Completion $ million 10 25 Facilities $ million * 12 Other $ million * 11 Total Investment Costs $ million 80 191 A$ 300-400 Operating Costs Annual Costs $ million USD 0.75 million N/A N/A Statoil Hydro#27Sleipner CO2 operating costs Type of cost Mill US$/yr System cost (average for all systems) 5,6 Logistics, catering etc. 0,7 Monitoring of storage reservoir 1,8 CO2- and NOx-taxes Average yearly cost 4.5 12,5 27 27 Statoil Hydro#28In Salah costs • US $100mm Incremental Cost for Storage • No commercial benefit, no CO2-tax Test-bed for CO2 Monitoring Technologies $30mm Research Project 28 Statoil Hydro#29Things can go wrong a lesson from a water/sand injection project 29 Statoil Hydro#30The Tordis water/sand injection incident A 34/7-L-1 H 0.00 m A' NO 714 3314 Top Nordland Gp. 200.00 m L 400.00 m 600.00 m Torded NO7030884 As-Instaled Heading 2704 G N679687 N873 877 452944 566 74/7--11 7428 30 30 800.00 m Top Utsira Fm. " 1000.00 m Top Hordaland Gr. Triggering factors Injection operated at pressures and flow higher than the formation could take Underlying causes 1. Misjudgement of potential hazard 2. Requirements/guidelines incomplete or missing 3. Inadequate follow-up / control of work 4. Important information not communicated/understood 5. Consequences of the modification was inadequately assessed Statoil Hydro#31A couple of other, smaller scale CCS-projects 31 Ketzin, Germany CO2 injection facilities at Nagaoka, Japan Statoil Hydro#3232 Castor pilot, DK Aker Clean Carbon, N Vattenfall oxy-fuel, D RWE full scale, D Test Center Mongstad, N Capture from power plants and industrial sources; ■ Capture from flue gases can be a magnitude more difficult than CO₂-capture from natural gas Volume, pressure, concentration, energy consumption, emissions to air and so forth Large activity in EU and globally wrt. finding better technologies ■ Lots of pilot and a few demo units, numerous industrial scale engineering projects Many more than shown in the above pictures Statoil Hydro#33The next step at Statoil Hydros Mongstad refinery Statoil Hydro 33 33#34FAROE ISLANDS UNITED KINGDOM Mongstad Bergen NORWAY Stavanger Oslo DENMARK SWEDEN Combined heat and power plant being built Her bygger Statoil Hydro og DONG energy Energiverk Mongstad EVM StatoilHydro and DONG energy are building Mongstad CHP plant Statoil Hydro DONG The next big step for CO2-capture from flue gas sources; The European CO2 Test Centre (TCM) plus full scale CO2-capture at Statoil Hydros Mongstad refinery ■ From the left: ■ Location map, picture of the Mongstad refinery, an illustration of the power plant ■ Rule of the thumb: the capture part may be ¾ of the total CCS-cost ■ The primary objective of TCM is to test and qualify technology for the capture of CO2 in order to reduce the costs and risks associated with large-scale plants Statoil Hydro#35Exploring for CO2-storage Statoil Hydro's COSMAP programme % Trapping contribution Depth (km) 15 05 10 100 Casa ga 1.1 Ground level 0.32 Critical depth pprox CO supercntical fluid 4.28 27 25 200 400 000 000 Density of CO, (kg/m³) 100 Structural & stratigraphic trapping Residual CO, trapping Increasing Storage Security 1000 Solubility trapping Mineral trapping 100 1,000 10 Time since injection stops (years) 10,000 о 0,5 mm StatoilHydro#36Methodology - HOW Mapping activities Capacity "Final" numbers Capacity Large uncertainty Old ES Log Input Data 8500 Model Output Data Capacity Monte Carlo simulation Drilling Feasibility Appraisal drilling Static and dynamic 3D modelling Basin evaluation & "YTF-figures" SPLAY C Pinging Data collection /gathering Prospect evaluation Uncertainty analysis Capacity Moderate uncertainty WHY HOW WHERE WHO WHEN WHAT CI O O 2 4/6 4 1 1 1 A =Vingr Top Reservo Top Brent G Top Sognefjord Fm Top Dunn Eq Top Fonsford Fm Top Stafford Fm Top Krossford Fm Top Basement 3920 > P2 Saud Ala 36 36 Combined Cretaceous Play Map in Taurus - Zagros Fold Belt Cretaceous (Mean) Cretaceous P(10) 9.9 15.5 Cretaceous P(90) 5.3 tran 207-1 A' *3008 Oman 2400 -2000 2000 3000 P месе STATOIL Statoil Hydro#37Methodology - HOW Storage options 1km .2km За 2 3b 4 37 37 Depleted oil and gas reservoirs Dry structures ("static" storage) Always CO2 for EOR as an option! Aquifers ("dynamic" storage) HOW WHERE WHO WHEN WHAT WHY O 2 5/6 CI 4 1 1 1 Statoil Hydro#38Methodology - HOW Evaluate leakage risks Through the cap rock Along faults Along CO2 injection well Along poorly plugged old wells Up-dip the reservoir itself E Siltstone Aquifer B A D C Storage formation Cross flow between reservoirs WHY O Fault Avoid pressure build up! Site specific - Each storage needs individual attention HOW WHERE WHO WHEN WHAT CI 2 6/6 4 1 1 1 38 Statoil Hydro#39Screening - Where Geographical area selection 30°0'0"W 20°0'0"W 10°0'0"W 0°0'0" 10°0'0"E 20°0'0"E 30°0'0"E 40°0'0"E Concentrate on the North Sea Basin in the initial phase, due to: 60°0'0"N- 55°00'N- 50°0'0"N- 300 km radius from large point sources 500 Kilometer 45°0'0"N- N 39 -60°0'0"N • EU launch CO2 storage first Norwegian government support • Somewhat known geology . Increasing public support Industry ready to begin CO2 point sources in northern Europe WHY HOW WHERE WHO WHEN WHAT CI 20°0'0"W О O 10°0'0"E 20°0'0"E 2 6 2/2 4 1 1 1 55°0'0"N -50°0'0"N -45°0'0"N#40In sum → CCS is doable for oil and gas companies with their experience → The CO₂-rich gas operators are most likely to continue pioneering CCS The challenge is primarily to find ways to finance such projects There is still some way to go wrt. technology and (not least) cost → Let us not underestimate the challenges of geological storage Let us keep a focus on the opportunity of using CO2 for EOR