The document summarizes a study on the potential for geological storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the southern Baltic Sea. It finds that there is large theoretical storage capacity beneath a thick caprock. However, the maximum injection rate depends on formation thickness and permeability. Dynamic modeling of a region in southern Sweden showed it could store CO2 from a limited number of industrial facilities. More data is needed, especially in areas like offshore Latvia, to identify suitable storage sites at a scale needed for the entire Baltic Sea region's projected emissions. Recommendations include reinterpreting existing seismic data and acquiring new data to better characterize reservoirs, seals, and fault structures.

1. BASTOR2 - Unlocking the potential for CCS in the
Baltic Sea
Webinar – 14 April 2015, 1800 AEST

2. Per Arne Nilsson
Per Arne brings thirty-five years of experience as
industry line manager and management consultant.
His international leadership experience includes
resident roles in Europe, Southeast Asia and the
Middle East. Over the last ten years he has become
ever more involved in the research and development
of Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS. He was the
Project Manager for the Bastor project (Baltic
STORage of CO2). Currently he is heading up the
work on a Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda
for the Swedish process industry in the view of
reduced CO2 emissions. He is also coordinating the
establishment of a Baltic Sea region CCS expertise
network.

3. Auli Niemi
Auli Niemi is Professor at Department of Earth Sciences,
Uppsala University, Sweden, heading the geohydrology
research group. Her earlier affiliations include Research
Professor at Technical Research Centre of Finland,
Visiting Professor at Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden, visiting researcher at ETH, Zurich
and research associate at LBNL, USA. She has thirty
years of experience in characterization of flow and
transport in geological media. Within CCS research, she
has recently completed heading the large-scale
integrating EU FP7 project MUSTANG with focus on
geological storage in saline aquifers and is presently
Work Package leader in EUs ongoing CCS related R&D
projects TRUST, PANACEA and CO2QUEST. In the
Swedish/Baltic Sea CCS projects Bastor and
SwedestoreCO2 she and her research group have
especially worked on geohydrological/dynamic modeling
aspects of the storage.

4. QUESTIONS
 We will collect questions during
the presentation.
 Your MC will pose these
questions to the presenters
after the presentation.
 Please submit your questions
directly into the GoToWebinar
control panel.
The webinar will start shortly.

5. It is about building enough knowledge
Bastor – Baltic Storage of CO2
Per Arne Nilsson, Project Manager Bastor 2
14th April 2015

6. Industry needs to know its options

7. BASTOR –
Baltic Storage of CO2
 Geology
 Environmental Impact
 Communication and Acceptance
 International Law
 Infrastructure for Transport
[2012 – 2014]

8. Nordic point sources of fossil and biogen carbon dioxide
8
source: NORDICCS

9. Is this idea advisable, considering the possible
Environmental Impact?
 There is rich generic knowledge of the environmental state of the
Baltic Sea
 The Nordstream and OPAB EIA’s built a genuine, industrial base for
what must be controlled in the exploration and deployment phases
 The project delivered a checklist and a work plan for an EIA for a test
drilling and injection project
A serious environmental approach is one of a few
avenues to building sufficient general acceptance for
storage of CO2 under the Baltic Sea waters!

10. So, overall, what did we learn?
 There are opportunities for CO2 storage
– At industrial scale from the Swedish sector of the Baltic Sea
– At (larger) regional scale, potentially further East
– Expanded regional collaboration is a prerequisite
 Transboundary transport and storage necessary but international law
is not (yet) coming in support
 Transport is (inter-) national infrastructure, prompting government
initiative
 Building public support relates to the perception of climate threats and
to how environment impact can be kept in check
For industry, 2050 is only one or two investment cycles
away, so early action is of essence!

11. A vision to stretch for?
 A Swedish demonstration project based
on SSAB in Oxelösund and/or Cementa in Slite
 Storage from the Swedish sector in the closed Dalders
structure
 Initially ship transport but growing into a pipeline system
 Allows basically the project to operate under
current legislation

12. BASTOR – three critical questions:
 How do we develop the necessary cooperation between
governments and industry?
 How can we at sufficient speed mobilize enough resources for
research – and results?
 How do we create effective incentives for base industry to reduce
emissions, while strengthening its international
competitiveness?

13. Post BASTOR – the immediate legacy:
 Strategic Swedish Research
and Innovation Agenda
– Some 20+ partners, from
industry, academy and
agencies
– Proposed way forward to be
presented summer 2015
 CCS Expertise Network
– Initiated by the Baltic Sea States
through the
Baltic Sea Region Energy
Cooperation (BASREC)
– In support of long term
development towards regional
CCS deployment

14. BALTIC CARBON FORUM 2015
INVITATION & PROGRAMME
2nd Baltic Sea Region CCS Conference
Welcome to the 2nd regional CCS Conference in Tallinn, 22nd-23rd April, 2015
in the Radisson Blu Hotel Olümpia, Tallinn.
Registration and hotel information on http://basrec.net/ccs-initiative/conference/

15. Contact: Per Arne Nilsson
pan@panaware.se
+46 733 969040

16. PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND MODELING OF THE
GEOLOGICAL STORAGE POTENTIAL OF CO2 IN
THE SOUTHERN BALTIC SEA
Auli Niemi
Uppsala University
Webinar by Global CCS Institute 14.4.2015

17. Co-workers
Zhibing Yang, Uppsala University, Sweden
Byeongju Jong
Tian Liang
Fritjof Fagerlund
Saba Joodaki
Richard Vernon, SLR Consulting, Irland
Nick O’Neill
Ric Pasquali

18. OUTLINE
• Preliminary CO2 storage capacity
estimates
• Static Modelling
• Dynamic modelling for selected regions
• Conclusions and Recommendations

19. THE STUDY AREA
• The study area is defined as previously mapped Palaeozoic
sedimentary basins in the Baltic Sea Area
• Cambrian reservoirs deeper than 800m below seabed are the best
storage sites
• Some potential in depleted oil and gas fields
• Saline aquifers in border monoclines have significant storage
capacity
Source: after Sliaupa S., 2009

20. THE DATA BASE

21. RANKING OF BALTIC SEA SUB BASINS
FOR CO2 STORAGE
• Four main sub basins identified and ranked
in order of suitability for CO2 storage
• The border zones have potential storage
capacity in saline aquifers
• Existing oil and gas fields have some storage
capacity (e.g. Lotos refinery in Gdansk and
B3 Field offshore Poland)
Rank Basin Characteristics Score
1 Slupsk Border Zone Proven reservoir/seal pair, moderate size structures, offshore, large saline aquifer,
limited faulting, good accessibility, <500kms to strategic CO2 sources
0.76
2 Gdansk-Kura Depression Existing oil and gas production infrastructure, moderate sized structures, offshore,
fair accessibility, >500kms to some strategic CO2 sources
0.75
3 Liepaja Saldus Ridge Proven reservoir/seal pair, moderate size structures, offshore, fair accessibility,
<500kms to strategic CO2 sources
0.75
4 Latvian Estonian Lithuanian
Border Zone
Proven reservoir/seal pairs, small structures, potential saline aquifer, only small area
sufficiently deep for CO2 storage, accessible, 250kms to strategic CO2 sources
0.71

22. BASTOR 2 STORAGE CAPACITY
Following the ranking of the Baltic Sea sub-basins, storage
capacity calculations have been completed using the GeoCapacity
(2009) methodology.

23. DISTRIBUTION OF STORAGE CAPACITY IN
DEFINED STRUCTURES BY COUNTRY
Estimated CO2 Storage Capacity
(106
tonnes)
Latvia Lithuania Poland Kaliningrad
Hydrocarbon - Generic Storage Potential 28.87 3.28 54.33
Hydrocarbon - Field Storage Potential 1.86 2.62
Saline Aquifer - Field Storage Potential 633.46 18.99
TOTAL 633.46 30.72 5.90 73.32
Total 743.4

24. DALDERS MONOCLINE

25. CAPROCK INTEGRITY
• Three possible modes
of seal failure
– top seal failure,
– migration up the
bounding fault planes
– leakage across fault
plane
• Top seal failure potential is low.
• Seal failure resulting in leakage across fault planes is more likely, however
the risk of this is still low.
• There is little or no risk of upward leakage of CO2 along fault planes.
• Smaller scale cross cutting fault structures are likely to be open and these
need to be considered as potential pathways for upward migration.

26. Model region for dynamic modeling
Data Resolution 1000m
Porosity 4,30% - 20,60%
permeability 8,5 mD - 300 mD
formation top -225 m - -1756 m
Thickness 0 m# - 82 m
Table 1. Summary of the geo-hydrological properties mapping from the static model

27. DYNAMIC MODELING – Approach
• Three approaches of increasing complexity were used
– Analytical and semi-analytical models for pressure
evolution, for preliminary estimation of the optimal
number of wells in various conditions, testing of effect
of average medium properties
– Simulation of plume and pressure evolution using
two numerical modeling approaches: TOUGH2/MP &
Vertical Equilibrium Approach (Gasda et al., 2009)
– Evaluation of plume tip advancement after
completion of injection phase (TOUGH2 & Analytical
solution)

28. RESERVOIR PRESSURE BEHAVIOUR
• CO2 injection rates per well are
governed by reservoir thickness and
permeability;
• The base case injection capacity is
2.5Mt per annum
• Increasing the number of wells will
increase the injection rate 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
x 10
7
Injection rate per well (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
Thickness 40 m
Thickness 50 m
Thickness 60 m
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
7
Injection rate per well (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
Permeability 20 mD
Permeability 40 mD
Permeability 80 mD
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
x 10
7
Total injection rate (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
3 wells
5 wells
7 wells

29. RESERVOIR PRESSURE BEHAVIOUR
-analytical model
• CO2 injection rates per well are
governed by reservoir thickness and
permeability;
• The base case injection capacity is
2.5Mt per annum
• Increasing the number of wells will
increase the injection rate 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
x 10
7
Injection rate per well (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
Thickness 40 m
Thickness 50 m
Thickness 60 m
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
7
Injection rate per well (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
Permeability 20 mD
Permeability 40 mD
Permeability 80 mD
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
x 10
7
Total injection rate (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
3 wells
5 wells
7 wells

30. RESERVOIR PRESSURE BEHAVIOUR
• CO2 injection rates per well are
governed by reservoir thickness and
permeability;
• The base case injection capacity is
2.5Mt per annum
• Increasing the number of wells will
increase the injection rate 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
x 10
7
Injection rate per well (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
Thickness 40 m
Thickness 50 m
Thickness 60 m
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
7
Injection rate per well (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
Permeability 20 mD
Permeability 40 mD
Permeability 80 mD
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
x 10
7
Total injection rate (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
3 wells
5 wells
7 wells

31. RESERVOIR PRESSURE BEHAVIOUR
• CO2 injection rates per well are
governed by reservoir thickness and
permeability;
• The base case injection capacity is
2.5Mt per annum
• Increasing the number of wells will
increase the injection rate 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
x 10
7
Injection rate per well (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
Thickness 40 m
Thickness 50 m
Thickness 60 m
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
7
Injection rate per well (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
Permeability 20 mD
Permeability 40 mD
Permeability 80 mD
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
x 10
7
Total injection rate (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
3 wells
5 wells
7 wells

32. MULTIWELL INJECTION SCENARIOS
- Numerical modeling

33. MULTIWELL INJECTION SCENARIOS
• Example TOUGH2
simulation showing
overpressure build up
after 50 years of
injection
• 3 injection wells
• 0.5 Mt/yr injection rate
50km
Year 50
Over pressure %

34. CO2 PLUME SPREADING
• Plume thickness at the end of
50 years of injection (right)
• Plume migration at 3,000
years after injection (below)
6km
Simulated CO2 saturation for the case of k-30mD, residual CO2 saturation 0.2 at 3000 years

35. CONCLUSIONS
• There is large theoretical storage capacity in the Baltic Sea basin
beneath a 900 metre thick impermeable caprock.
• The maximum injection rate is sensitive to parameters such as
formation thickness and permeability, and analyzing the effect of their
local variability fully does require more detailed modelling than was
possible in this preliminary study
• The southern Swedish sector, where dynamic modelling was
undertaken, could be suitable as a storage site for CO2 captured
from a limited number of industrial facilities
• The reservoir quality in the presently modelled area is not suitable to
high injection rates and therefore not sufficient for commercial CO2
storage at the scale of projected emissions around the entire Baltic
Sea.
• There are sweet spots in the Cambrian reservoir such as onshore
Latvia, where there is commercial gas storage, and both onshore and
offshore Kaliningrad, where there in ongoing hydrocarbon production.
• Acquisition of further data will require much more regional cooperation

36. RECOMMENDATIONS
• Existing seismic line data should be calibrated to available well data
and reinterpreted to identify fault structures and map reservoir porosity
and permeability variations
• Improved estimates of seal fracture pressures based on well leak off
test data and core sample analyses are needed
• New seismic and well data is required, in particular in the north east of
the Dalders Monocline, including offshore Latvia, where this study has
indicated better reservoir qualities exist than in the current study area
• Reservoir formation data from core samples and wire line logs should
be obtained from any newly drilled wells to better understand porosity,
permeability and formation pressures associated with reservoirs in
different areas of the Baltic Sea
• Additional reservoir data covering both onshore and offshore
Kaliningrad should be obtained
• In order to achieve better understanding of the potential to store
captured CO2 in the region, Baltic Sea State cooperation is imperative.

37. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
For more information, please contact;
Auli.Niemi@geo.uu.se
‘Final report on prospective sites for the geological storage of CO2 in the southern Baltic
Sea’ Published: 01 Feb 2014, Global CCS Institute, Elforsk, SLR Consulting
to be downloaded at http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/final-report-
prospective-sites-geological-storage-co2-southern-baltic-sea

38. QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION
Please submit your questions in
English directly into the
GoToWebinar control panel.
The webinar will start shortly.

39. Please submit any feedback to: webinar@globalccsinstitute.com