Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Canadian-US standards workshop, Calgary, 6 June 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Canadian-US standards workshop, Calgary, 6 June 2013

495
views

Published on

The Global CCS Institute hosted a workshop on 6 June 2013 in Calgary, Alberta, on the role of new bi-national storage standards in the deployment of CCS in Canada and the United States.

The Global CCS Institute hosted a workshop on 6 June 2013 in Calgary, Alberta, on the role of new bi-national storage standards in the deployment of CCS in Canada and the United States.

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
495
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Standards WorkshopCalgary, AlbertaJune 6, 2013GLOBAL CCS INSTITUTE
  • 2. Agenda Opening Remarks: Victor Der - Global CCS Institute Session 1: CSA Z741 Geological Storage of CO2Jeff Walker - CSA Group Session 2: Impact of Z741 on Public Engagement and SafetyJacqueline Sharp - Navius Research Session 3: Impact of Z741 0n Project CostsAllan Greeves - Cenovus Session 4: Impact of Z741 on Mitigating Projects RisksRob Bioletti - Alberta Energy Session 5: Facilitated DiscussionBob Page – University of Calgary, J-P Jepp – Shell OilCompany, Rob Craig – ICO2N and participants Closing Remarks: Victor Der - Global CCS Institute
  • 3. Process Speakers will give a 20 minute presentation. The balance ofthe time is for Q&A and discussion There will be an extended open discussion at the end of theday Vic Der will be the principal facilitator Ian Hayhow will be the rapporteur Chatham House rules apply We likely can be a bit flexible with the timelines
  • 4. Workshop ObjectivesThe expected outcome for today is:Identify the advantages and challenges to using standards forCO2 storage projectsStorage Issues:• How rigorous is the pre-screening process?• Should there be a mechanism to recover pre-screeningcosts?• Who can/will do expert reviews?
  • 5. Next Steps• Draft summary report to be prepared by the Global CCSInstitute• Circulate to participants for comment• Publish on the Institute website• Comments of the workshop please• Thoughts for other workshop sessions
  • 6. CSA Z741 Geological Storage ofCarbon DioxideJeff WalkerGCCSI - The Role of Storage Standards in theDeployment of CCS WorkshopJune 6, 2013
  • 7. Agenda• About CSA Group• About consensus standards• Role of standards in CCS• CSA Z741 Geological Storage of CO2• Update on ISO standards7
  • 8. CSA Group• Independent not-for profit StandardsDevelopment, Product Certification andConsumer Product Evaluation Organization• Largest and most diversified StandardsDevelopment Organization in Canada• Neutral 3rd party• One billion products worldwide bear a CSAproduct safety mark8
  • 9. Standards Development93,000Standards and Codes8,500expert Committee Members54Program areas40%of standards are referenced ingovernment regulation95%of customers recommendthe use of CSA standards
  • 10. StandardsWhat is a consensus standard?A document designed to be used as a rule, guidelineor definition. It is a consensus-built, repeatable way ofdoing somethingStandards must fit the need• Prescriptive based• Objectives based• Performance based• Principles based• Hybrids10
  • 11. ConsensusConsensusGeneral agreement, characterized by the absence ofsustained opposition to substantial issues by anyimportant part of the concerned interests and by aprocess that involves seeking to take into account theviews of all parties concerned and to address anyconflicting arguments.Consensus is not necessarily unanimityCSA uses an accredited standards developmentprocess to develop standards throughconsensus11
  • 12. CSA’s Consensus ProcessCSA does not write standardsTechnical Committees write standardsCSA does not influence the technical content12
  • 13. • Organized to drive diverse stakeholders to consensus ontough issues• Accredited by the Standards Council of Canada• Technical Committee - Balanced Matrix– All interest groups have equal access– Minority interest groups have a voice13CSA’s Consensus ProcessChairAssociateMembers5 YearReviewsPublicReview• Owners / Architects/Regulators• Suppliers/ Fabricators/Contractors• ConsultantsCommittee• Owners• Researchers• Regulators• Suppliers• Fabricators• Contractors• Consultants
  • 14. Role of StandardsStandards and Public Perception of CCS• People are worried about geological storage• Public opposition has caused cancelation of severalCCS projects• Standards can provide assurances that CCS is safe14
  • 15. Role of StandardsStandards and Regulations• Standards and regulations can work together• Standards are voluntary• Typically standards initiated by industry• Demonstrate regulatory compliance15
  • 16. Role of StandardsStandards and Regulations• Streamline the regulatory process• Harmonize across jurisdictions• Standards have a revision process16
  • 17. Role of StandardsOther Benefits• Transfer of knowledge and experience• Mainstream leading practices• Financing CCS projects• Acceptance by different interests17
  • 18. CSA Z741CSA Z741 Geological Storage of CO2• Bi-national USA – Canada• IPAC CO2 provided support• Publication in 2012• CSA Z741 is not a “cookbook”Promote environmentally safe and long-termcontainment of carbon dioxide18
  • 19. CSA Z741Scope• Establishes requirements for the storage of CO2• Recognizes projects are site specific• Primarily applicable to saline aquifers and depletedhydrocarbon reservoirs• Does not preclude its application to EOR storage19
  • 20. CSA Z741Scope• CO2 storage during EOR is different• Aspects can be used for EOR projects• When storage is an incident of routine EOR20
  • 21. CSA Committee21User Interest Category Min Max ActualGeneral Interest 8 11 10Government and/or Regulatory Authority 5 7 6Owner/Operator/Producer 7 9 7Supplier/Contractor/Consultant Interest 6 9 6Balanced Matrix Approach to Consensus
  • 22. Committee Organizations22Government/Regulators– Energy Resources ConservationBoard of Alberta (ERCB)– BC Oil and Gas Commission– Ground Water Protection Council– Alabama Dept. of Env Mgmt– Mississippi Dept of Env Quality– Alberta EnergyOwner/Operator/Producer– SaskPower– Southern Company– Cenovus– Denbury Resources– Chevron– Husky EnergySupplier/Contractor/Consultant Interest– DNV– Schlumberger Carbon Services– Advanced Resources International Inc– Halliburton– Golder Associates– Baker HughesGeneral Interest/Expertise– University of Alberta– Alberta Innovates-Technology Futures– World Resources Institute (WRI)– Global CCS Institute– International Energy Agency– PEW Center on Global Climate Change– Princeton University
  • 23. CSA Z741Table of Contents1 Scope2 Reference publications3 Definitions4 Management systems5 Site screening, selection, and characterization6 Risk management7 Well infrastructure development8 Monitoring and verification9 Closure23
  • 24. CSA Z741Clause 4 Management systems• Ensure that existing best practices are followed• Promote improvement• Clarify project operator roles and responsibilities• Detail principles; internal, external; HSE• Lay out communication requirements24
  • 25. CSA Z741Clause 5 Site screening, selection, and characterization• Site screening advice• Criteria for site selection• Requirements and recommendations forcharacterizations• Modeling parameters and outcomes25
  • 26. CSA Z741Clause 6 Risk management• Consistent with ISO 31000 Risk management26
  • 27. CSA Z741Clause 7 Well infrastructure development• CO2 specific requirements and references– Materials– Design– Construction– Corrosion control– O&M27
  • 28. CSA Z741Clause 8 Monitoring and verification• Flexible and adapt to changes in conditions and phases• Not technology based• M&V objectives• Designing an M&V program28
  • 29. CSA Z741Clause 9 Closure• Closure plan• Qualification process requirements• Preparing for decommissioning29
  • 30. International StandardsCCS crosses international borders• Expertise is international• Project operators are transnational• Harmonization has benefitsNational differences must beacknowledged30
  • 31. ISO and CCSNew CCS ISO TC 265• Chaired by Canada (Sandra Locke)• Secretary Canada, twinned with ChinaStandardization of design, construction,operation, and environmental planning andmanagement, risk management,quantification, monitoring and verification,and related activities in the field of carbondioxide capture, transportation, andgeological storage (CCS).31
  • 32. TC265 ParticipationParticipating CountriesAustralia MalaysiaCanada NetherlandsChina NorwayFrance South AfricaGermany SpainItaly SwitzerlandJapan United KingdomKorea United States10 other observer nations32
  • 33. TC 265 Structure33CCS TCCaptureGroupTransportationGroup StorageGroupCross-CuttingGroupQuant. & Verif.Group
  • 34. Summary34• There are challenges to implementing CCS• CSA Z741 can help• alleviate public concerns about safety• facilitate compliance with the regulatory process• streamline approvals• mainstream leading practices• CSA Z741 on CO2 storage is available for use• ISO is embarking upon international standards
  • 35. 35Email - jeff.walker@csagroup.org
  • 36. The Impact of Z741 on PublicEngagement and SafetyJacqueline SharpManaging Partner, Navius Research Inc.
  • 37. Presentation Overview• Z741 and Public Engagement• Z741 and Safety• Impact of Z741 on Public Engagement and Safety• Group Discussion Questions
  • 38. Z741 and Public Engagement
  • 39. Who is the “Public”?• Stakeholders: individuals, groups, companies ororganisations that believe their interests could beaffected by a project and wish to participate in orhave their interests represented in projectdecisions.• ‘Public’ stakeholders: general public, localcommunity, NGOs•Other key stakeholders: government/ regulators,experts, employees, shareholders, suppliers,customers. Some crossover to ‘public’.Public stakeholders grant or withhold social license to operate.
  • 40. What is ‘engagement’?Engagement goes beyond informing and consulting.PlanningNSW, 2003
  • 41. Why does public engagement matter?• Business case: reduce risk of project delays orcancellations due to opposition• Approvals: satisfy or exceed regulatoryrequirements• Project improvements: benefit from differentviewpoints, challenged to address critical issues• Reputational benefitsEffective public engagement is a key risk mitigation tool.
  • 42. Z741 and public engagementPrinciples:• “Operate in an open and transparent fashion...to build public understanding, trust, andcredibility”• Develop and implement a local stakeholderadvisory strategy• Report on major milestones or unplannedevents“Identify project stakeholders early in the storage project lifecycle and engage them during all phases of the project”
  • 43. Z741 and public engagement cont.Public Communications:• Include a trained designated media liaison and adesignated individual to answer public questions• Involve the community in development of theoutreach and engagement strategy• Communicate about the project early and often• Use public meetings, notices, and updates, sitevisits, potentially a local newsletter, social media• Communications should clearly share scientific,technical, and economic information, and focus onproject issues and local benefits/concerns
  • 44. Z741 and public engagement cont.Communications continued:“The operator should engage the public indecision-making around aspects of the projectwhere possible so that it addresses theirconcerns and meets local needs”
  • 45. Z741 and public engagement cont.• The ‘human culture’ context should be considered• Stakeholder interests should be considered, andtheir needs met to the extent practicable• Stakeholder views should be appropriatelyconsidered when defining the elements of concern,identifying criteria, and evaluating risk• Risk communication program should addressrationale for site selection, risk management plans,response to unexpected events, stakeholderconcerns/questionsThe Risk Management process should include stakeholderconsultation and communication.
  • 46. Z741 and Safety
  • 47. Safety Risks Associated with CCS• Safety risk is a function of likelihood ofoccurrence and severity of consequences• The greatest consequences are associated withexposure of the public or workers to highconcentrations of CO2. due to leakage or anaccident• The likelihood of these events occurring is verylowThe actual safety risks associated with CCS are low.
  • 48. Z741 and Safety• “Ensure the integrity of all facilities whichincludes preventing leakage”• “Develop and put in place an emergencyresponse plan and team”• “Provide the appropriate resources tocontinually improve health, safety, andenvironmental protection”“Ensure that health, safety, and environmental protectionfor workers and local communities are the project’shighest priorities”
  • 49. Z741 and Safety cont.Very detailed standards for:• Site characterization and assessment• Risk assessment and mitigation• Well materials and construction• Operation & Maintenance and Monitoring &Verification plans designed to protect health,safety, and the environmentVirtually every section of Z741 includes requirements andrecommendations to prevent leakage and ensure safety
  • 50. Impact of Z741 on StakeholderEngagement and Safety
  • 51. Impact of Z741: Key Points• Safety sections are quite detailed andprescriptive; public engagement sections aregeneral and focus on principles• Key is how Z741 affects perceived safety risks• Public engagement sections may not providesufficient guidance
  • 52. Impact of Z741 on SafetySafety:• Z741 should ensure implementation of bestpractices and further minimize safety risks• Perceived safety risk is the real issue• Public tends to focus only on severity ofconsequences, on which they can havemisperceptions
  • 53. Impact of Z741 on Perceived Safety• The extent to which Z741 impacts perceivedsafety will depend on trust in CSA process andstandard versus government regulations.• Successfully explaining probability of occurrenceand addressing misperceptions aboutconsequences requires risk communication• Z741 identifies objectives for riskcommunication but not how to conduct effectiverisk communication
  • 54. Risk Communication Best Practices• Use language appropriate for the audience ()• Be open and honest ()• Put risks in context public understands• Where possible, partner with trustedmessengers• Acknowledge knowledge gaps and identifyplans to address them• Make extensive project information available
  • 55. Impact of Z741 on Public Engagement• Engage early and often ()• Use a variety of communication/engagement mechanisms ()• Meaningfully involve stakeholders in project decisions ()Specifics• Conduct social site characterization at the project outset toidentify stakeholders, concerns, misperceptions• Start engagement even before site characterization• Develop and implement processes to obtain and incorporatestakeholder feedbackPublic engagement principles generally reflect bestpractices but do not provide detail on implementation.
  • 56. Standards, Public Engagement, and Safety• Are the standards achievable?• Are the standards sufficient?• Are the standards detailed enough? Shouldthey be more prescriptive about publicengagement and risk communication?• Are the standards applicable worldwide?Group discussion questions:
  • 57. www.NaviusResearch.comQuestions?Navius Research Inc. Vancouver | Toronto
  • 58. CSA Z741-12 – Geological Storageof CO2:Impact on Project CostsAllan GreevesManager, WeyburnCenovus Energy Inc.Global CCS Institute Workshop | Calgary, AB | June 6, 2013
  • 59. DisclaimerThis document contains forward-looking information prepared and provided for thesole purpose of facilitating public consultation in respect of regulatory applicationsand is not intended to be, and should not be, relied upon for the purpose of makinginvestment decisions, including without limitation, to purchase, hold or sell anysecurities of Cenovus Energy Inc. Additional information regarding Cenovus Energy Inc.is available at www.cenovus.com.
  • 60. Impact of standards on project costs• How can we set guidelines toensure effective standards thatare not overly prescriptive,causing unnecessary costs (Capex,Opex, MMV)?• Can standards in fact lower thelife-cycle costs of a project?• To what extent have projects beenused as guideposts or adoptionfrom other projects such as in theoil and gas industry?
  • 61. Impacts of standards on project costs• Impetus for standard development– 1.1 (a) “This Standard establishes requirements andrecommendations for the geological storage of carbondioxide. The purpose of these requirements is topromote environmentally safe and long-termcontainment of carbon dioxide in a way thatminimizes risks to the environment and humanhealth.” 1– Standards provides operators, regulators and thepublic with knowledge sharing, careful considerationsapplicable with the storage of CO2, and providesguidance for project planning1. CSA 741-12 Geological storage of carbon dioxide, October 2012, Pg 1.
  • 62. CSA Z741-12 Geological Storage of CO2Storage project life cyclePost-injection periodEntity Sitescreeningand selectionperiodSitecharacterizationperiodDesign anddevelopmentperiodOperationalperiodClosureperiodPost closureperiod (notincluded inthe Standard)(Private)operatorRegulatoryauthorityDesignatedauthorityLimits of the StandardIterativeprocessInjectionstartsCessation ofinjectionSource: CSA Z741-12 Geological storage of carbon dioxide, October 2012, Pg 2
  • 63. Application of standards• CSA Z741-12 was created by a diverse team of experts– Oil & gas E&P companies– Oil & gas service companies– Environmental NGO’s– University researchers– Research organizations– Regulators– Environmental service companies– The technical committee worked hard to find the balance betweenprescriptiveness and flexibility to incorporate site specific conditions
  • 64. Applying standards• A proponent is considering its options for reducingits carbon footprint– Is geological storage an option?– Where to begin?• Standards provide guidance as to the expectationsand considerations necessary for a successfulproject:– Reduce cycle time to understanding the potential scopeof the project– Provide guidance on the expertize necessary to evaluatethe project
  • 65. Continuous improvementContinuous improvement is a keycomponent of CSA Z741-12• Recognition of ever improvingtechnology• Recognition of ever changingexpectations• Opportunity to reduce costswith increased industryknowledge• Opportunity to reduce costswith increased site specificknowledgePlan ExecuteReviewImprove
  • 66. Project life cycle – stage gate cost profileSiteScreeningSiteSelectionSiteCharacterizationTimeCumulativeCostMonitoring & verification
  • 67. Site screening, selection &characterizationSite screening Cost considerations• Storage capacity• Potential injection capability• Seal (above & below) the storage unit• Seismic or tectonic stability• Faulting / fracturing• Over-pressured systems• Hydrodynamic system• Number of wells already penetratingthe seals / storage unit• Primarily an ‘office’ assessment• Utilizes readily available data &information• May not require the acquisition of newdata• May require additional consultingexpertise to conduct the review• Iterative process – may need toevaluate several potential storage units
  • 68. Site screening, selection &characterizationSite selection Cost considerations• Builds upon site screening information andanalysis• Further refines understanding of capacity,injectivity, storage security (seal integritydue to faulting, existing wells, etc)• Explores other requirements like pore spaceownership, other subsurface activities,surface considerations (lakes, rivers,population centres, land use, etc)• Continue to use existing data & information• Review of core from existing wells,petrophysical well log analysis, simplemodels to assess injectivity, pressure /hydrodynamic studies• Review of mineral land tenure records• Review of surface culture and future landuse including restrictions due toenvironmental or heritage concerns
  • 69. Site screening, selection &characterizationSite characterization & assessment Cost considerationsDetailed assessment of:• Geology & hydrogeology of the storage unit• Characterization of confining strata• Primary seal• Secondary barriers to CO2 leakage• Baseline geochemistry• Baseline geomechanics• Well characterizationAt this stage new data may be requiredincluding:• Seismic data (2D & possibly 3D)• May include the drilling of an exploration orpilot well for:• Core & core analysis of storage unitand seal(s)• petrophysical & cased hole logging• DST & well test data (pressure,injectivity, existing pore fluid analysis)• Lab studies of fluid compatibility (CO2 withrock, pore fluids)• Lab assessment of rock strength properties,thermal properties, rock deposition &mineralization characteristics
  • 70. Site screening, selection &characterizationModeling for site characterization Cost considerationsIntegration of the acquired data will allow theconstruction of:• Geological static model - areal extent,stratigraphy, lithology / facies, structure, porosity /permeability distribution, pore saturations, pressure/ geothermal regime, initial stress regime• Flow modeling – assess storage capacity, injectivity,pressure and plume distribution & movement, fate ofdisplaced water• Geochemical modeling – chemical reactionsbetween injected CO2 and storage unit rock & fluids,mineral trapping• Geomechanical modeling – strength of theprimary seal, fault reactivation, potential for inducedseismicity, impact on well integrity• Integration of existing and captured data intothese various models will require skilledexpertise in various geology, geophysics andengineering• Modeling requires calibration to knownbehavior (history matching)• Modeling will allow for scenario analysis ofareas of uncertainty• Modeling will have an impact on the timeallocated to assess the potential site• Modeling will help inform the proponent aswell as the regulator and public of thesubsurface impact of the storage project• Modeling will be an iterative effort,incorporating new data as it becomes available(piloting, development)
  • 71. Well infrastructure development• Well construction includes the design &execution for the creation of:– Wellbore– Internal well completion,– Surface wellhead– Abandonment of infrastructure at the end of theproject
  • 72. Wellbore design – what makes a well CO2 compliant?• Number of casing strings required– Groundwater protection– Protection of porous zones above storage unit– Potential lost circulation zones• Designing to expected service conditions:– Is the CO2 stream dehydrated?– Does the stream contain excessive impurities (NOx,SOx, H2S, O2)?– Pressure– Temperature• Anticipated injection rates– Hole/casing diameter appropriate for the injectionstring and packer assembly required• Core, DST, logging requirements• Monitoring
  • 73. Wellbore design – drilling to make a well CO2 compliantDrill & Case• Typical oil and gas well design includes3 casing strings: conductor, surfacecasing & production (long-string)• Only the long-string is in contact withthe CO2 storage unit• CSA Z741 requires the casing across thestorage unit be made of corrosionmaterial like chrome or stainless steel• CSA Z741 refers to various APIspecifications for cementing but alsoexpects cement design to offeradditional chemical resistance to CO2degradation to apply latest technologies
  • 74. Wellbore design – what makes a well CO2 compliant?Drill & Case (other considerations)• High standard of care / QA/QC– Drilling mud system– Attention to casing centralizationparticularly over storage unit, primaryseal and secondary seal– Cement blend preparation andplacement (compatible water, additiveconcentrations, over displacement, etc)• What kind of monitoring is required?– Monitoring well vs injection well– Piloting well vs development well– Accessibility required for time lapsedevaluation– Integrity concerns balanced againstaccessibility, monitoring equipment
  • 75. Drilling a CO2 compliant wellboreVertical Well Drilling CostsConsulting & Supervision Logging, Coring, Mud GasSurface Casing & Cement Production Casing & CementDrilling Rig & Support Mud Systems & DisposalOther Services• Approximately 1/3 of the costof drilling a well is for casingand cement left in the hole• Remainder of the costs are fordrilling and evaluation of thewell
  • 76. Wellbore design – what makes a well CO2 compliant?Well completion• Designing to expected serviceconditions:• Is the CO2 stream dehydrated?• Does the stream contain excessiveimpurities (NOx, SOx, H2S, O2)?• Pressure• Temperature• Anticipated injection rates• Annulus inhibited fluid type• Cement & casing integrity loggingrequirements• Monitoring requirements
  • 77. Materials selection• Upgraded materials like thispacker element may berequired to avoid adverseeffects due to CO2
  • 78. Impact of service conditions• This coiled tubing was recoveredfrom an injection well convertedfrom straight CO2 injection to awater-alternating-gas (WAG)injection configuration• Drehydrated CO2• Non-coated tubulars• Coiled tubing string was in placefor ~12 years with little corrosionwith exception of this pointmidway down the well
  • 79. Wellbore design – what makes a wellhead CO2 compliant?Wellhead design• Designing to expected serviceconditions:• Is the CO2 stream dehydrated?• Does the stream contain excessiveimpurities (NOx, SOx, H2S, O2)?• Pressure• Temperature• Anticipated injection rates• Monitoring requirements• Accessibility requirements to thewellbore• Flow / ESD control
  • 80. Designing surface pipingCO2 compatible seals insurface piping:• CO2 does behave differentlythan oil & gas industry fluids• Sometimes it takes a ‘lowtech’ way oftroubleshooting forperformance improvement
  • 81. Monitoring & verificationMonitoring & verification Cost considerations“Measurement and surveillance activities necessary toprovide and assurance of the integrity of CO2 storage”2:• Used at all stages of development – begins with baselinedata right through to the closure of the project• Provide evidence that CO2 placement is secure• Allows for comparisons between predicted andactual conditions• various data points and perspectives from seismic, toinjection wells and observation wells• models updated with actual performance data allowfor performance improvement and confidence inultimate fate of CO2• Support quantification efforts• Is not just one method of monitoring• Is a suite of site specific approaches to compare tobaseline• Will require additional project expenditures for:• Seismic• Observation wells• Specialty hardware in injection wells• Pressure, temperature, flow, compositionmonitoring equipment / tools• Data capture instrumentation and analysis (ie:SCADA)• Repeated capture over time• Updated over time as necessary• Expanded over time as necessary2. CSA 741-12 Geological storage of carbon dioxide, October 2012, Pg 55.
  • 82. ClosureClosure Cost considerations“purpose… is to provide guidance to and establishpredictability for project operators and regulatoryauthorities of..a) Sufficient understanding of storage site’scharacteristicsb) Low residual riskc) Adequate well integrity” 3• Includes incorporation of learning’s throughout theproject life• Development infrastructure in place and itscondition• Monitoring & verification results• Integration of project performance data intodynamic models• Updated risk management plan• Includes the abandonment of storage infrastructurewells and facilities• Will likely be done in a staged approach to monitorfor well integrity and containment effectiveness• Will take some time (year’s) to provide confidence forrisk management plan• Need to continue monitoring efforts• Need to retain experts who will updatedynamic models• End result will ‘qualify’ project for potential hand offto designated authority3. CSA 741-12 Geological storage of carbon dioxide, October 2012, Pg 60
  • 83. Summary• By providing guidance and expectationsstandards can lower the life-cycle costsof a project– Improve project understanding withbaseline work and monitoring– Application of best practices fordevelopment design and quality– Integrate risk assessment withmonitoring & verification to identifyspecific areas of concern• Learning’s from the oil & gas industryare directly applicable– Complementary skills– Complementary resources andequipment• End result is a project with maximumbenefit with effectively managed risks
  • 84. • Special thanks to:– Canadian Standards Association– Cenovus Energy Inc.Questions?
  • 85. Session 4Will Z741 Mitigate Project Risks?The Role of Storage Standards in theDeployment of CCSRob Bioletti, P.Eng.Director, CCS PolicyGovernment of AlbertaJune 6, 2013
  • 86. Reasons forStandardization86
  • 87. Climate Change Mitigation• No one technology can stabilize greenhousegas emissions alone.• A combination of several climate mitigationtechnologies is needed for robust climatechange.• Standards will aid in the widespreaddeployment of CCS.87
  • 88. Knowledge Sharing andInnovation• Standards will aid in the transfer ofknowledge between jurisdictions.• Standards need not be prescriptive.• Organizational structure can aid in separatingwell defined versus emerging activities.88
  • 89. Public Perception of CCS• Public opposition has caused cancelation ofseveral CCS projects throughout the world.• Standards can help provide assurances thatCCS is safe.89
  • 90. CSA Z741How this Standard CanMitigate CCS Project Risks90
  • 91. Site Screening, Selection, andCharacterization - Section 5Site screening and selection will identifyprospective CO2 storage sites that have met thefollowing criteria:• Sufficient Capacity;• Sufficient Injectivity; and• Effective Retention.91
  • 92. Risk Management – Section 6Effective risk management should:• Demonstrate achievement of objectives;• Improve performance relative to elements ofconcern;• Support strategic planning;• Develop robust project and change managementprocesses;• Help decision makers make informed andprioritized choices;• Account for uncertainty; and• Recognize stakeholder intentions.92
  • 93. Well Infrastructure Development- Section 7Outline criteria needing to be met in order tobest mitigate risk (CO2 leaks, infrastructureproblems, etc.) such criteria include:• Materials;• Design;• Construction;• Corrosion Control; and• Operation and Maintenance.93
  • 94. Monitoring and Verification– Section 8The monitoring and verification standard will beflexible and adaptable to changes in storage andinjection conditions, the criteria the standardswill address the following concerns:• Health,• Safety,• Environmental Risks; and• Storage Performance94
  • 95. Risks for CCS Projects95
  • 96. Risk Profile for a CO2 Storage SiteSource: Benson 2007
  • 97. Examples of Other Risk Elements• Environmental– Natural environment– Health and safety– Legal and regulatory environment• Economic– Project financing– Competition with other resources• Social– Public support– Politics97
  • 98. Risk Management Process98Source: CSA-Z741-12
  • 99. 99Group Activity!Question:Which risk element is the most importantto address for CCS projects?Tool: Simplified Decision MatrixAssessing the relative importance of alternatives
  • 100. Steps1. Brainstorm up to 5 risk elements- Environmental (e.g. operational, safety, regulatory)- Economic (e.g. financing, resource competition)- Social (e.g. public support, reputation, politics)2. Assign weights to each element- Stakeholder views:Petroleum engineer, policy analyst, farmer, professor, activist, etc- Scale of 1 to 3 (1 = low importance, 3 = high importance)- Group must agree on the weight!3. Score each risk by stakeholder perspective- Scale of 1 to 5 (1 = low importance, 5 = high importance)4. Multiply stakeholder scores by weight5. Total all scores to find “winner”6. If there is disagreement, re-visit weights or scores100
  • 101. Example Decision Matrix101Stakeholder Score (1-5)Industry Government Public Academic3 (x1) = 3 1 (x1) = 1 2 (x1) = 2Total5+3+1+2= 115 (x1) = 54 (x2) = 84 (x3) = 122 (x1) = 2Weight(1-3)1231RiskElementFinancingPublicSupportSafetyEtc.Etc.Brainstorm Agree Assess
  • 102. Discussion1. What were the results? Did one clearwinner emerge?2. How did stakeholder views help orhinder the decisions?3. Should certain risk elements havemore focus?4. How can CSA Z741 help mitigatethese risks? Are there areas forimprovement?102
  • 103. Thank YouRob Bioletti, P.Eng.+1 780 644 3204Rob.Bioletti@gov.ab.cawww.energy.alberta.ca