Toward a Uniform Standard for Evaluating Sites for Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide

1. Stanford Center for Carbon Storage
Toward a Uniform Standard for
Evaluating Sites for Geological
Storage of Carbon Dioxide
J. STEVE DAVIS, CATHERINE CALLAS, SAM
HASHEMI, SARAH SALTZER, SALLY BENSON,
MARK ZOBACK
STANFORD CENTER FOR CARBON STORAGE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IPCC SR15 (2018)

2. Stanford Center for Carbon Storage
Why Carbon Capture and Sequestration?
No single approach will
achieve required
reduction of CO2
emissions
CCS Annual Storage
2021 ~45 MT/A*
2050 >4 GT/A
* Mostly EOR
Modified from Stanford-EFI, 2020, after IEA, 2019
NZE

3. Stanford Center for Carbon Storage
ROAD Close-Out Report P18-4 and Q16-Maas
Global Portfolio of Potential CCS Sites
100’s – 1000’s of CCS sites
required
● Deep saline aquifers
● Depleted oil and gas fields
How do we select which ones?
Apply standards and metrics to
establish suitability of individual
sites
Compare sites across the portfolio
● Example: ROAD CCS,
Rotterdam, NL
oUsed these criteria
AMESCO, 2007

4. Stanford Center for Carbon Storage
Why Uniform Standards?
Current standards are inconsistent, often subjective, sometimes specific
IEAGHG 2009-10
Subjective
Specific

5. Stanford Center for Carbon Storage
Standards Based on Data and Models
Existing standards
● Significantly based on experience or ‘gut feel’ (aka, ‘Expert Opinion’)
oLittle or no supporting material or justification for metrics
oNon-repeatable, created for the occasion
● Commonly non-comprehensive
Our attempt
● Empirical and modeling bases
oTest the ‘Expert Opinion’
● Supported by our work and published work
● Practical to evaluate
oWork-arounds and proxies when data are sparse

6. Stanford Center for Carbon Storage
Specific Standards To Cover All Aspects Of CCS
Our standards, in development, include:
Geological storage sites
● Injection, Storage, Retention,
Seismicity
Regulatory and Policy environment
● Project approval
Environmental and Social conflicts
● Environmental sensitivity
● Socio/economic equitability
Economic viability
● CAPEX and OPEX recovery IPCC, 2018

7. Stanford Center for Carbon Storage
Staged Approach To CCS Site Identification
Staged – Similar to petroleum industry exploration process
Study & Rank Development Seriatim
NGPP
NGPP + HI
Eugene
Screen a Region & Eliminate

8. Stanford Center for Carbon Storage
Screen A Region – Apply High-level Criteria (Metrics)
Identify all potential CCS storage sites
Eliminate those with ‘Fatal Flaws’
● Too shallow/Too deep
● Too small
● Too far from CO2 source(s)
● Economic resource conflict
● And others….
E.g., What’s ‘Too Shallow’?
● <800 m subsurface/submud
Why?
● Won’t maintain scCO2
Eugene
Screen a Region & Eliminate

9. Stanford Center for Carbon Storage
Study & Rank – Detailed Evaluation and Portfolio Ranking
Detailed evaluation and ranking into ordered list
● Injectivity, Storage Efficiency and Capacity
● Reservoir Geometry and Retention
● Geomechanics and Seismicity
● Reservoir & Drilling Engineering
● Policy, Environmental, Social, Economic
E.g., Reservoir compartmentalization
● Injectivity, seal integrity, cost
Why?
● Pressure build
oInjectivity
oSeal capacity
● More wells
https://www.cnlopb.ca/offshore/
Cranfield, MS, CO2 injection experiment
This
Not This
Hibernia Field,
NF, Canada
UT-BEG GCCC, 2014

10. Stanford Center for Carbon Storage
Evaluate A Few For Final Development
Deep-dive Analysis & Evaluation of all considerations
● Requires significant data
oMay require data acquisition (e.g. seismic, well log, core)
● Requires deep technical, legal, policy, and economic expertise
● Leads to FEED
E.g., Reservoir compartmentalization
● Facies distributions & fairways
● Fault seal and transmissivity
Figures from Hansen et al., 2013
Acoustic impedence top Tubåen Fm., Shnøvit

11. Stanford Center for Carbon Storage
Summary
Comprehensive suite of CCS site selection criteria with specific metrics
● Subsurface Geology & Engineering
● Economic, Environmental, & Social
We are testing the criteria by
● Numerical modeling & Physical experiment
● Mining peer-reviewed literature
● Dropping the marble – successful and unsuccessful CCS projects
Will lead to consistently ranked portfolios of potential CCS sites
● 100’s – 1000’s of sites are needed, and soon
● Need to be able to determine which are most robust from a variety of
view points