Large-Scale Storage of CO 2 on the Norwegian shelf

BERGEN - 09.06.2013 No.: CMR-13-F75003-RA-1 Rev.: 02 REPORT Large-Scale Storage of CO 2 on the Norwegian shelf Joint initiative by FME BIGCCS FME SUCCESS Client Gassnova Author(s) Arvid Nøttvedt, CMR Grethe Tangen, SINTEF Petroleum Research Contributions from: CMR, IFE, IRIS, NGI, NORSAR, SINTEF Petroleum Research, Tel-Tek, Uni Research, UiO

of 47 Document Info Author(s) Arvid Nøttvedt, CMR Grethe Tangen, SINTEF Petroleum Research Classification Confidential (F) Title Large-Scale Storage of CO 2 on the Norwegian shelf Extract Project Info Client Clients ref. Gassnova Climit 106 CMR Project No. CMR Project Name 75003 Sentrallager Prosjekt Climit 106 Revision Rev. Date Author Checked by Approved by Reason for revision 00 19.03.2013 Arvid Nøttvedt Sol HRS First draft 01 03.05.2013 Arvid Nøttvedt CGK HRS Incorporation of new input from partners 02 09.06.2013 Arvid Nøttvedt CGK Sol Last revision before delivery 2

of 47 Table of Contents Disclaimer... 5 Summary... 6 Preface... 8 1 Introduction... 9 2 Background... 10 2.1 Current status on CCS... 10 2.2 Revitalizing CCS... 11 2.3 CO 2 for EOR... 11 2.4 Norwegian research on CO 2 storage... 12 2.5 This project... 12 3 The collaborative process... 14 4 Status of CCS research in Norway... 16 5 Critical technology gaps identified in the project... 23 5.1 Storage sites... 23 5.1.1 Utsira... 23 5.1.2 Frigg... 24 5.1.3 Jurassic sands (e.g. Bryne/Sandnes, Johansen, Gassum, etc.)... 24 5.1.4 Conclusion... 24 5.2 Large-scale storage: Capacity estimation and long-term behavior... 26 5.2.1 Assessment of models and data collection... 26 5.2.2 Prediction of migration and trapping... 26 5.2.3 Conclusions... 27 5.3 Sealing large scale utilization... 27 5.3.1 Processes/understanding... 28 5.3.2 Prioritized research topics... 30 5.4 Monitoring techniques... 31 5.4.1 Introduction... 31 5.4.2 Monitoring phases... 32 5.4.3 Challenges in offshore monitoring... 32 5.5 Drilling and well construction... 33 5.5.1 Introduction... 33 5.5.2 Technological and legal gaps... 34 5.5.3 Cost related gaps... 35 5.5.4 Concluding remarks... 36 5.6 Development solutions and infrastructure... 36 5.6.1 Critical technology gaps... 36 5.6.2 Non-technological gaps... 38 3

of 47 6 Recommendations... 39 6.1 Key elements of a national R&D effort on Large-scale storage of CO 2 on the Norwegian Shelf (LessCO2)... 39 6.1.1 Ongoing research projects... 39 6.1.2 A new cross-institutional project... 40 6.1.3 International collaboration... 40 6.2 Timeline... 41 6.3 Roles... 42 Appendix... 43 Short presentation of contributing research institutions... 43 References... 46 4

of 47 Disclaimer CMR is not liable in any form or manner for the actual use of the documents, software or other results made available for or resulting from a project and does not warrant or assume any liability or responsibility for the completeness or usefulness of any information unless not specifically agreed otherwise in the tender and resulting contract document. 5

of 47 Summary To accelerate the development and operationalization of CCS technology within the timeframes set by IEA, the research community must concentrate on the critical knowledge gaps and define a schedule that is more forceful than before. In June 2012, Gassnova, BIGCCS and SUCCESS formulated a vision that can contribute to directing and coordinating Norwegian research on CO 2 storage: The Norwegian research community will contribute in developing the knowledge and technology necessary to enable large-scale storage of CO 2 (>10 Mt CO 2 /year) on the Norwegian shelf by 2018. Particular attention is put on the use of CO 2 for EOR, harvesting from the Norwegian petroleum expertise and business opportunities related to CO 2 storage. A project was initiated to investigate whether an industry-political vision can take the role as the demanding "customer" and thus, contribute to aligning the Norwegian R&D community and direct its efforts towards effective utilization of Norway s CO 2 storage capacity. The ambition is to adequately address all R&D issues necessary to allow detailed planning of large-scale storage of CO 2 by 2018. The current report summarizes the results of the project. In a joint effort major Norwegian research institutions identified key geoscience and petroleum technology gaps related to large-scale storage of CO 2 on the Norwegian shelf: - Reservoir capacity estimation and long-term behavior - Geological seal integrity of large-scale CO 2 reservoirs - Monitoring technologies - Drilling and well construction - Large-scale development solutions and infrastructure The main conclusion is that there are no technical show stoppers related to large-scale CO 2 storage, but efforts are needed to validate the technology with respect to both accuracy and reliability. Improved confidence in the methodologies and technologies must be achieved to meet the foreseen regulations related to risks and liabilities. In particular, there will be challenges related to CO 2 transport across borders. WG Reservoir capacity estimation and long-term behavior Long term behavior of CO 2 represents a main challenge, Long-term predictions through benchmarking, sensitivity studies and history matching are needed, in order to establish the simulation tools best suited to model dominating processes. Improved history matching techniques will reduce uncertainties in predictions. WG Geological seal integrity of large-scale CO 2 reservoirs The most pertinent knowledge gaps for seal efficiency are identified as; 1) In-situ stress development during injection period, including the (re)activation of faults/fractures 2) Overburden baseline assessment by coring, testing and fluid sampling and analysis, and 3) Workflow for integrated monitoring and simulation. These tasks/activities are not covered at present, and should be included in a national R&D effort. They are possible showstoppers with respect to risk assessment and regulations, but can and must be eliminated by 2018. WG Monitoring Technologies Technology and methods for monitoring of CO 2 are available, but it is important that the responses in the field can be observed as fast as possible. Detection of small changes (leakage detection) or accurate volume estimates and establishing detection limits is necessary; in addition sensitivity of the various methods will vary. Cost efficient methods for long term monitoring will have to be developed. WG Drilling and well construction The key gaps identified during the work sessions are: 1) Need for flexible, smart and robust well design; 2) Evaluation of current well barriers and their adaptation to CCS industry; 3) Development of leakage remediation measures and fast response teams; 4) Creation of best practices and legislations for all phases of well life; 5) Development of standard testing procedures; 6) Cost reduction and efficiency on all aspects of drilling and well; 6) Possibility to use cheap and smart exploration technologies, like, for example, Badger explorer. 6

of 47 WG Large-scale development solutions and infrastructure Development of design specifications for offshore CO2 injection as well as identifying candidate oil fields for primary use of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery are both time critical activities. Planning and construction of large scale infrastructure need to be started as soon as possible in order to meet a 2018 target or would otherwise be a show stopper. It is recommended in this study to establish a collaborative feasibility study to close the gap between current research and CO 2 storage demonstration. Based on an identified potential CO 2 storage site on the Norwegian shelf, the project should aim at developing the knowledge and methodologies needed by industry to undertake a field development study before 2018. The project should also investigate non-technical gaps, such as business models for large-scale CO 2 infrastructure, recommendations for an international regulatory framework, and include a plan for public communication. A main task should be to address perspectives complementing the scope of projects initiated by oil companies, commercial businesses and governmental bodies, and to ensure that on-going and new research is coordinated and relevant for fulfilling the vision. 7

of 47 Preface This report summarizes the findings of the project Large-scale Storage of CO2 on the Norwegian Shelf, initiated by Gassnova. The report presents the results from a series of meetings and workshops organized during fall 2012. It is a working paper, not a technical report, documenting the main conclusions of group discussions among several Norwegian research institutions and recommendations for further work. The report includes contributions from the following institutions: CMR, IFE, IRIS, NGI, NORSAR, SINTEF Petroleum, Tel-Tek, Uni Research and UiO The main contributions to the report have been from the work groups and the leaders of these groups: Large-scale storage: Capacity estimation and long-term behavior: Ivar Aavatsmark, Uni Research (leader) Per Aagaard, UiO Alv-Arne Grimstad, SINTEF Therese Flaathen Loe, UiO Magnus Wangen, IFE Sealing Large scale utilization: Harald Johansen, IFE (leader) Andreas Bauer, SINTEF Jens Jahren, UiO Joachim Rinna, SINTEF Bahman Bohloli, NGI Nina Simon, IFE Monitoring techniques Maike Buddensiek, SINTEF (leader) Marion Børresen, NGI Jan Inge Faleide, UiO Magne Kjetil Husebø, CMR Martha Lien, Uni Research Volker Øye, Norsar Drilling and well construction Roman Berenblyum, IRIS (leader) Svein Eggen, Gassnova Dan Sui, SINTEF Grethe Tangen, SINTEF Development and infrastructure Hans Aksel Haugen, Tel-Tek (leader) Erik Lindeberg, SINTEF Arvid Nøttvedt, CMR Ragnhild Skagestad, Tel-Tek In addition, several people have attended meetings or added valuable contributions to the project process: Niels Peter Christensen (Gassnova), Eva Hallan (NPD), Sveinung Hagen (Statoil), Tove Lie (Lundin), Ying Guo (Total), Kristin Flornes (IRIS), Eyvind Aker (NGI), Charlotte Krafft (CMR). 8

of 47 1 Introduction To solve the challenge of Climate change, large volumes of CO 2 emissions needs to be handled. Norwegian authorities currently investigate storage solutions for CO 2 coupled to CO2 capture plants in onshore gas industry. As of today, land based CO 2 storage solutions seem less likely in Norway as well as in Europe. Large-scale storage of CO 2 below the North Sea represents a potential solution for Norwegian CO 2 storage and large European CO 2 emission point sources. CLIMIT has issued a purchase order to the Norwegian research community, to identify the technological gaps which need to be address in order to engage in large-scale CO 2 storage on the Norwegian shelf. The storage potential needs to be developed in an efficient and safe manner and in a way that enables large scale CO2 EOR. Norwegian research actors,.i.e. partners in the two FME centers (BIGCCS and SUCCESS) and other institutions focusing on CO 2 storage (like Tel -Tek and IRIS) were invited to join. The scope of the study incudes: Mapping of scientific gaps related to storage of CO 2, which are critical to the development of a large-scale storage facility offshore Norway within the timeframe of governmental CCS targets and project planning Suggest how the Norwegian research community may collectively contribute to closing the scientific gaps, and how this work should be organized Propose a model for effective collaboration between Norwegian R&D community, the governmental T&L project and industry CLIMIT has requested that the findings of this study be included in a final report. This report addresses the following items: Description of background, the collaborative process and status of CCS research in Norway (chapters 2-4) Description of geoscience and petroleum technology gaps wrt to large-scale storage of CO 2 (chapter 5) Recommendations on how to close the gaps (chapter 6) o Coordination of ongoing research and development projects o New R&D activities Proposed organization of ongoing and new R&D work necessary to close the gaps (chapter 6) Proposed model for collaboration between R&D community, governmental T&L project and industry (chapter 6) The report will be made available at no charge to the participating institutions, to serve as a basis for future project applications in compliance with the conclusions of the report. 9

of 47 2 Background The climate is warming globally. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made clear in its Fourth Assessment, the past century has seen widespread increases in air and sea temperatures and sea levels, along with shrinking sea ice, glaciers, and snow cover. Most climate scientists agree that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions are the main cause for the rise in mean global temperatures, which will inevitably force major and unforeseen climate change. Demand for oil, gas and coal grows in absolute terms through 2035, but their combined share of the global energy mix falls from 81% to 75% during that period (IEA World Energy Outlook, 2012). Electricity generation and industrial processes release large amounts of CO 2. Going forward, coal and natural gas will remain major sources of energy for the global power and industrial sectors. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is essential in mitigating global climate change, and ensuring a secure energy supply. CCS is an unavoidable option if we are to ensure that we can meet the global energy demand with an acceptable carbon footprint. To meet the 2 0 C target, we will need to decarbonize the global power sector by the 2030s, and the heavy industry sector beyond that. CCS is currently the only option for decarbonizing the steel, chemical and cement industries. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated that to achieve a 50 % cut in global CO 2 emissions by 2050 (widely believed to be equivalent to limiting the increase in global temperature to 2 º C), CCS will need to contribute nearly one fifth of emissions reductions, across both power and industrial sectors. IEA, which recently warned current trends would lead to a catastrophic 6 º C of warming, says 3,000 large CCS plants will be needed by 2050, with three dozen within a decade. IEA has also estimated that by 2050, the cost of tackling climate change without CCS could be 70 % higher than with CCS. The message from EU estimates is similar: 40 % higher without CCS by 2030. One 900 MW CCS coal-fired power plant could abate around 5 million tons of CO 2 a year. If, as projected by IEA, 80-120 commercial CCS projects are operating in Europe by 2030, they would abate some 400-600 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. 2.1 Current status on CCS Unfortunately, the optimism that fuelled hopes of CCS driving deep carbon cuts has stalled. The infant industry was knocked off course by the world economic crisis, and there are currently no CCS projects operative or under construction in EU on power stations. Worldwide, the development of CCS is lagging behind the roadmap to 2050 according to IEA (ETP2012). IEA also warns that delayed implementation of CCS will make their 2 º C scenario significantly more costly. There are multiple practical hurdles to CCS deployment, creating risks of carbon lock-in or stranded assets. Chief among these is the absence of a clear business case for investment in CCS given uncertainties around technology, carbon prices, power plant load factors (degree of utilization) and the absence of robust economic incentives to support the additional high capital and operating costs associated with CCS (Element Energy report, 2012). This is supported by statements from the EU: Without CCS, the long term role of gas may be limited to back-up and balancing renewable energy supplies. For all fossil fuels, carbon capture and storage will have to be applied from around 2030 onwards in the power sector in order to reach the decarbonisation targets (EU Energy Roadmap 2050, 2011). European CO 2 storage capacity is distributed across thousands of discrete sites. Each site has unique characteristics this result in wide variations across the key performance indicators of capacity, containment, injectivity, cost, degree of appraisal work required, and lack of conflict with other land users. Published studies give aggregated national theoretical capacity estimates, typically based on pore space and a crude efficiency factor. There is no consistent estimate for bankable storage capacity, but this is expected to be a small fraction of theoretical European storage capacity (Element Energy report, 2012). 10

of 47 Currently the thresholds for CCS readiness set by the EU CCS Directive are light touch, reflecting the relative novelty of CCS technology and the uncertainties over future requirements. However, a wide range of technical, economic, political/social, and regulatory barriers for capture, transport or storage may prevent these nominally CCS ready plants from actually being able to implement CCS in the period to 2030. Stakeholders who wish to ensure widespread practical potential for gas CCS in the period to 2030 and beyond, must therefore consider interventions in the 2010s that ensure meaningful capture, transport and storage readiness can be undertaken (Element Energy report, 2012). 2.2 Revitalizing CCS If CCS is going to meet with international targets, there is a growing recognition that we need to scale up CCS deployment. Large volumes of CO 2 need be stored by 2050, posing tough requirements with regard to storage capacity and efficiency. Global deployment of CCS can be more effectively met by upscaling to fewer and larger storage sites, collecting CO 2 from multiple capture projects and integrated transport systems. Effective global deployment of CCS requires adequate measures: Think big: Large volumes of CO 2 need to be stored in few projects with least possible areas of conflict Fast track projects: Project execution in parallel with R&D in order to speed up process AND close knowledge gaps Find synergies and income possibilities: Large CO 2 streams enable CO 2 -EOR Focus on value creation: Build on national strengths and opportunities Holistic approach: Norway is a part of Europe and the world Mitigation of CO 2 emissions in Europe implies storing large volumes of CO 2 in the subsurface. The Norwegian offshore CO 2 storage potential is an important enabler to CCS in the EU through offering of excess (to local needs) storage capacity Large-scale storage of CO 2 offshore Norway, taking CO 2 from Norwegian as well as European capture projects, may represent an efficient way to deploy and boost CCS in Europe. There is currently little support for storing CCS onshore in Europe. Norwegian authorities are developing a plan for offshore storage of CO 2 from onshore gas power plants in Norway. However, no decisions have yet been made. In its CO 2 storage atlas (2012), the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) points to a large storage potential in the Norwegian North Sea. Large-scale storage of CO 2 in the North Sea may represent a significant business opportunity to Norway, help avoid the threats of lock-in or stranded assets in the 2030s and 2040s, and enable use of CO 2 for EOR in North Sea oil fields. In UK, similar conclusions are reached, realizing that there may be a business opportunity for the North Sea states with regard to CCS, including utilization of the petroleum sector expertise and capacity (UK CCS Roadmap, 2012). 2.3 CO 2 for EOR It is commonly agreed that there is a significant potential for increased oil recovery (EOR) by injection of CO 2. This is the current driver for CO 2 storage and climate mitigation in the US. The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate also emphasizes the potential for CO 2 for EOR in the North Sea, and that it is time critical. Recent studies have shown that in order to develop an effective CO 2 EOR infrastructure for the Norwegian North Sea oil fields, large volumes of CO 2 are needed. CO 2 from Norwegian capture plants cannot meet the required needs. Moreover, the need for CO 2 for EOR is on a relatively short term, whereas the life-cycle of a carbon capture and transport system has a much longer perspective. A Centre for North Sea Enhanced Oil Recovery with CO2 (CENSEOR-CO2) was launched in the UK in 2012, with a scope to develop understanding of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technology, which 11

of 47 creates a commercial use for CO2 captured from power plants and industry (http://www.sccs.org.uk/news/censeor-co2/). 2.4 Norwegian research on CO 2 storage In Norway, research on CO 2 storage is supported mainly through the CLIMIT program and the FME grants to the SUCCESS and BIGCCS centers. Over the past 5-10 years, a relatively large portfolio of research projects has been established targeting knowledge gaps related to CO 2 storage (see chapter 4). Important new knowledge and methodology have been developed through these projects. Challenges related to large scale storage of CO 2, however, have not been systematically addressed. In absence of a global system for carbon taxation and pricing, a commercial market for CCS is developing very slowly. As a result, research on CCS lacks the power and alignment that a commercial market would encourage. During spring of 2012, the research community in Norway in cooperation with CLIMIT issued a position document, or white paper, on large-scale storage of CO 2 on the Norwegian shelf. In this white paper, the research community has outlined an industry-political vision to guide further research on CO 2 storage: The Norwegian research community will contribute in developing the knowledge and technology necessary to enable large-scale storage of CO 2 (>10 Mt CO 2 /year) on the Norwegian shelf by 2018. Particular attention is put on the use of CO 2 for EOR, harvesting from the Norwegian petroleum expertise and business opportunities related to CO 2 storage. By this, we mean that all R&D issues necessary to allow detailed planning of large-scale storage of CO2 shall be adequately addressed by 2018. The reason for choosing the year 2018 as the target date is linked to the contractual period of the FMEs and the fact that large-scale climate mitigation through CCS requires swift measures. Ultimately, this may allow for subsequent engineering and construction/implementation within 2020. The vision is targeting three main stakeholders for CCS in Norway: Government needs a climate mitigation solution that will secure the value of petroleum production and export from Norway Emitters industry with large CO 2 emissions needs a climate mitigation solution that can secure business in a future carbon constrained world Companies that operates in the CCS value chain CCS operators, suppliers and oil companies needing CO 2 for EOR 2.5 This project During fall 2012, CLIMIT issued a purchase order to the Norwegian research community for a preproject to identify key geoscience and petroleum technology gaps related to large-scale storage of CO 2 on the Norwegian shelf. The above vision aims at aligning the Norwegian R&D community and directing its efforts towards effective utilization of Norway s CO 2 storage capacity. The storage potential needs to be developed in an efficient and safe manner and in a way that enables large-scale CO 2 EOR. This way, the research community may contribute to Norway building its strategic and competitive position related to a future CO 2 market and value chain. Norway has a unique opportunity and should take necessary measures to become an international lead in CO 2 storage. The scope of the pre-project is to identify scientific and technical gaps, and suggest measures that will contribute to: 12

of 47 Development of knowledge needed by commercial industry to undertake a future field development study New perspectives outside current project mandate and scope of ongoing oil company, commercial business or government projects Securing that ongoing research is strategically linked to the CCS value chain and relevant with regard to the above vision. 13

of 47 3 The collaborative process The pre-project has been conducted in the period from October 2012 to February 2013. A project e- room was established for the project to enable easy and open communication between participants and access to documents. The milestones were: Kick-off (2012-10-17, Gardermoen) The first meeting focused on establishing a common perception of the vision as a basis for identifying contributors, defining main technical topics to focus on and agreeing on the work process in the project. Possible stakeholders along the CO 2 value chain were identified and discussed to ensure a value chain perspective, and alternative scenarios/sites for large-scale CO 2 storage were discussed based on the CO 2 Storage Atlas presented by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate. Workshop to identify critical technology gaps (2012-10-30, Gardermoen) In the second meeting 35 participants from several research organizations participated to identify technology gaps that are critical to close in order to enable large-scale CO 2 storage, and that are not covered by on-going research. Three storage scenarios were presented as a common background for the technical discussions. The work was facilitated as creative group sessions with plenum presentation and discussion of results. The five main topics discussed were: Storage capacity utilization with main focus on reservoir Storage capacity utilization with main focus on sealing Monitoring Drilling and wells Development of large-scale storage solutions After the meeting, the results were summed up by the appointed group leaders and processed by the group members. 14

of 47 Aligning with industry During fall 2012 the pre-project was presented to industry partners of SUCCESS and BIGCCS in consortium/board meetings. In December 2012 the industry partners of the FMEs were invited to a meeting with the project to discuss the identified technological gaps and to initiate discussion on possible models for a collaborative effort. Statoil ASA, Total E&P Norge and Lundin Petroleum were present in the meeting and the project group received useful input both on the technical content, the industrial perspective of CO 2 storage and potentials of a national coordinated research effort on largescale CO 2 storage. Summing up The final project meeting with main stakeholders (same as Kick-off meeting) was organized 20th December 2012. The purpose was to sum up and consolidate results from the workshops and input from the industry meeting. An outline for the current final report was made, including findings on technology gaps, challenges related to the development of large-scale CO 2 storage on the Norwegian shelf and recommendations for implementation of a national effort on large-scale CO 2 storage. The report has been finalized in an iterative process among the project participants. The final report will be publically available. Building a national team on CO 2 storage The project is supported by Gassnova/Climit with NOK 500.000, distributed among BIGCCS, SUCCESS and five appointed group leaders in the workshop. This sum covered the overall facilitation of the process. Additional costs (time and travel costs to enable participation in the technical meetings and workshop) were covered by the participating organizations and exceed the public funding. This illustrates that the stakeholders of the CO 2 storage research community have given priority to the work and recognize the value of developing a common strategy. An important effect of the collaborative work process is that the participants got to know each other better across institutional and research center borders. Research on CO 2 storage in Norway will benefit from this with respect to both coordinating on-going research and directing future research on CO 2 storage. The closer relationship between the participants is also a great opportunity for identifying topics for collaborative research projects, and will serve as a robust basis for a possible main project. 15

of 47 4 Status of CCS research in Norway The following listed projects are not a complete list of all CCS research in Norway. The participating partners in this project carry out a large number of R&D and applied projects related to on-going CCS activities in Norway, and also planned CO2 EOR applications. FME BIGCCS Project period: 2009 2016 The vision of the BIGCCS Centre is to contribute to reaching the ambitious targets of the Climate Agreement adopted by the Norwegian Parliament in 2008 by conducting world class research on CO 2 capture and storage (CCS). BIGCCS develops knowledge and technology to enable sustainable power generation from fossil fuels based on cost-effective CO 2 capture, safe transport, and underground storage of CO 2. BIGCCS also develops and applies methods for CO 2 value chain analyses. Main activities related to CO 2 storage are: Qualification and management of storage resources: Development of methods and procedures for the qualification of identified pore volumes and seals for prospective storage sites. Furthermore, the development of tools for use in the qualification and capacity estimation process will be addressed. Storage behavior: Improved methodologies for detailed studies of short- and long-term behavior of CO 2 stored in saline aquifers. This includes the evaluation of safety margins related to leakage and geo-mechanical instabilities, improved understanding of basic mechanisms for CO 2 migration and behavior in porous media and the development of test cases and reference scenarios for verification of simulation tools. Monitoring, leakage, and remediation: Improved quantitative methods for geophysical monitoring of CO 2 in storage sites, investigation of the effects of CO 2 injection on the geomechanical properties and integrity of the reservoir- & cap-rocks to enable early detection of leakage from storage sites, and to improve the requirements for CO 2 -safe well design. Fundamental effects of CO 2 on rock properties: Investigates possible reduction in flow due to geomechanical failure effects or geological history, effects of flow of CO 2 through a low permeable rock and how wettability may influence flow in partly sealing barriers. The research center is financed by the Research Council of Norway and by a consortium of industrial partners. Partners: 8 international research institutes, 3 universities and 7 industry companies: Aker Solutions, ConocoPhillips Norge, Gassco, Shell, Statoil, Total E&P Norge, GDF Suez Web site LINK. FME SUCCESS Project period: 2010 2017 Main objective of the SUCCESS center is to provide a sound scientific base for CO 2 injection, storage and monitoring, to fill in gaps in our strategic knowledge, and to provide a system for learning and development of new expertise. The SUCCESS center addresses several important areas for CO 2 storage in the subsurface: storage performance, sealing properties, injection, monitoring and consequences for the marine environment. The CO 2 School is in addition a major educational program. Main objectives are: To improve our understanding and ability to quantify reactions and flow in carbon storage To develop advanced modeling tools for multiphase flow and reaction To investigate the integrity of sealing materials, and test their retention capacity To improve the understanding and develop new models for the relation between flow and geomechanical response 16

of 47 To improve the understanding and develop new models for geochemical-geomechanical interactions To improve the understanding and modeling tools for flow and reaction in faults and fractures To test, calibrate and develop new monitoring techniques and instrumentation To improve the understanding of shallow marine processes and the ecological impact of CO 2 exposure, and develop marine monitoring methods To reduce risk and uncertainties in sub-surface CO 2 storage To facilitate extensive and high quality education for CO 2 storage The CO 2 behavior and interaction in the subsurface, from pore scale to reservoir scale, and in marine environment, have been studied by various approaches and methodologies. The activities and applied methodology in the center include case studies, experiments, method and software development, modeling/ simulation and work flow. The participating research institutions have a wide range of state of the art laboratory facilities to conduct reservoir characterization, flooding experiments, geochemical and geomechanical testing. These facilities are available to all consortium partners. Partners: Christian Michelsne Research AS, Institute for Energy Technology(IFE), Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI), Norwegian Institute for Water research (NIVA), Uni Research AS, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), University of Bergen, University of Oslo, CGGVeritas Services SA, ConocoPhillips Norge, RWE Dea Norge, Statoil, Lundin Norway AS. Web site: www.fme-success.no CO2 Field Lab Svelvik Main objective: To improve carbon storage safety by building new knowledge about monitoring of CO 2 migration in geological formations. This will enable detection of possible CO 2 leakage at the earliest possible stage (CO2 Field Lab web page). Although a well-chosen and well-designed storage site is not expected to leak, the issue of leakage has to be addressed. Therefore, this project comprises two controlled releases of CO 2 in the shallow and very shallow subsurface in a Norwegian field setting. The CO 2 displacement in the subsurface and at the surface is monitored with an exhaustive set of techniques deployed by the different partners. Such an approach will enable us to: Evaluate capability of monitoring systems to detect shallow CO 2 migration and leakage at the surface Up-scale results to assess monitoring systems and requirements that will ensure safe CO 2 storage Develop a monitoring and certification protocol test and calibrate the migration models in well controlled conditions The first appraisal well was drilled in 2010 and reached a depth of 333 meters. CO 2 was injected in 2011. Mid-November 2012, the second drilling operation started. The new well will be used to test the injectivity of the sand layers down to approximately 115 meters. Partners: The project gathers partners that have shown a strong involvement in CO 2 storage site management and in CO 2 storage site certification from the early stages. Website: http://www.sintef.no/projectweb/co2fieldlab/ UNIS CO2 Lab Longyearbyen CO2 Lab phase 2a (demo) Objective: To establish a CO 2 laboratory on Svalbard as a basis for CO 2 research in cooperation between UNIS and industrial and academic partners. Phase 2a shall verify injectivity in reservoirs and study reservoir 17

of 47 properties through long term water injection, seismic investigations, and pressure based fracturing tests. Partners and cooperation: UNIS Uni CIPR, University of Bergen, University of Oslo,, NGU, SINTEF, NTNU, Store Norske Spitsbergen Grubekompani, Leonard Nilsen & Sønner, NORSAR, ConocoPhillips Norge, Statoil Petroleum ASA, Statkraft, Total E&P, Lundin Norway AS, FME SUCCESS, Web site: http://co2-ccs.unis.no INJECT Subsurface storage of CO 2 - Injection well management during the operational phase Project period: 2010 2015 Objective: The project addresses the effects of CO 2 injection on rock properties, with a special focus on the injectivity. The injectivity is a measure of the easiness of injection. The reservoir injectivity is studied with geochemical and geomechanical models. Rock samples from wells drilled at Svalbard are characterized and tested with respect to injectivity. Results from the project will form the basis for development of software tools and for guidelines for CO 2 injection. Partners: Institute for Energy Technology( IFE), Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI),, University of Bergen, University of Oslo, FME SUCCESS, CGGVeritas Services, ConocoPhillips Norge, RWE Dea Norge, Statoil Petroleum ASA, Lundin Norway AS. NORDICCS (Nordic Innovation and users) Project period: 2011 2015 NORDICCS is a virtual CCS networking platform aiming for increased CCS deployment in the five Nordic countries, led by SINTEF ER with SINTEF PR as a main contributor on CO 2 storage (NORDICCS web page). The center is funded by the Nordic Top-level Research Initiative and an industry consortium with a total budget of 47 MNOK. The main objective: Boost the deployment of CCS in the Nordic countries by integrating R&D capacities and relevant industry with the purpose to provide Nordic industry-driven leadership within CCS innovation and realization. An overall Nordic CCS roadmap will be developed, identifying required pathways and milestones for large-scale implementation of CCS. Collaborative R&D projects will be conducted and expected results are a Nordic CCS atlas as a tool for prioritizing CO 2 storage options, new knowledge on issues critical to CO 2 transport, and solutions for optimal energy use and minimum energy penalty in CCS processes based on energy analyses. New knowledge needed to implement Nordic CCS chains will result from case studies including CCS integrated in Nordic industries and feasibility studies including cost estimates, energy needs, market opportunities and industrial use of CO 2. Partners: The center includes 11 international research partners and 4 user/industry partners. Website: http://www.sintef.no/nordiccs Lowcap preproject (Low Carbon Area in the North Sea) Project period: 2012 2013 Objective: Develop basis for application to Interreg IV B in 2013 on combining experiences from the Skagerrak CO 2 project with relevant other cluster projects in the North Sea area focusing on reduced carbon footprint. Main achievements: Application process according to plan Project type: EU/Interreg IV B and Gassnova 18

of 47 Project partners: Tel-Tek, Telemark fylkeskommune, Aberdeen City Council, City of Bremen, Dundee College, Jade University of Applied Sciences. Virtual CO 2 Laboratory (VIRCOLA) Project period: 2012 2015 Objective: Virtual CO 2 Laboratory for visualization and analysis of various data types involved in CO 2 research Develop a better data platform and methodology that can facilitate better data utilization and work processes and lead to better understanding of the storage capacity, injectivity and long term confinement of CO 2. The project aims to include the majority of the data in the SUCCESS Centre and be available to all partners in the Centre.. Project type: KPN Project partners: Christian Michelsen Research AS (CMR), Institute for Energy Technology( IFE) University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS),CGGVeritas Services, Statoil Petroleum ASA, FME SUCCESS Numercial CO 2 Laboratory Project period: 2010 2013 Objective:The main objective is to develop an open-source code for modeling of CO 2 storage. Main activities are: Establish a platform for development and implementation of new modules that make it possible for researchers to test state-of-the-art algorithms Develop a credible simulation tool by modeling and simulation of real CO 2 storage projects Benchmarking to develop common standards and methods We have developed in SINTEF's MRST toolbox strong CO 2 sequestration modules with tutorials and gallery. There is also an open source simulator in C++ with functionality for simulation of CO 2 injection. Type of project: CLIMIT KPN project Project partners: SINTEF IKT (project responsible), IRIS, CIPR, University of Bergen, Statoil ASA (financial partner) Link to web page: http://www.climit.no/199978-a-numerical-co2-laboratory/?publish_id=1431 www.opm-project.org,github.com/opm Evaluation of long-term sealing capabilities in the southern Norwegian sector of the North Sea for CO 2 storage purposes. (CO2Seal) Project period: 2010 2013 CO2Seal has been divided into work packages that are closely linked. Main objectives: Evaluate the long-term sealing capabilities of shaly cap rock units overlaying potential adequate reservoirs in the Norwegian part of the North Sea Create a convincing framework for studying seal capability of a CO 2 storage site Focus on cap rock properties (lithology, thickness, geomechanical and geochemical properties) Project type: CLIMIT program Project partners: UiO, Statoil Petroleum ASA Impact of Realistic Geologic Models on Simulation of CO 2 Storage (IGEMS) Project period: 2010 2014 19

of 47 Main objectives: Establish a framework for realistic risk assessments in relation to CO 2 storage. The main focus is towards the quantification of uncertainty from geologic characterization. This is achieved by a series of realizations of aquifers based on related geological descriptions, after which numerical simulations is used in a predictive mode. Partners and collaborations: University of Bergen, Uni Research, Norsk Regnesentral, SINTEF IKT, Roxar, FME SUCCESS. Sorption and Migration of CO 2 in Porous Media (FP) Project Period: 2010-2014 Objectives Studies of sorption of CO 2 in nano-pores such as in clays Studies of migration of CO 2 in meso-pores such as in rocks. Studies of coupled sorption and migration of CO 2 in dual porosity systems Partners and collaborations NTNU, Institute for Energy Technology (IFE), University of Oslo, Universite de Rennes, France, Strasbourg Institute of Globe, France, Physics Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, USA, Impact of fault rock properties on CO2 storage in sandstone reservoirs (IMPACT) Project period: (2011-14) The IMPACT project is a 4 year project based at the Centre for Integrated Petroleum Research. The research focuses on the effect of geological heterogeneities such as faults, fractures and deformation bands on CO2 storage in sandstone reservoirs. It involves an integrated approach that utilizes geological field work, experiments and numerical modeling. In addition, studying a real case (Snøvit Field) gives the project a unique opportunity to investigate the interaction between the Snøvit complex structure, its diagenetic and sedimentary features and CO2 injection and sequestration. The proposed project aims to increase our understanding of the processes and products of faulting in porous sandstone in order to forecast the distribution and impact of faults and deformation bands on reservoir/aquifer performance and seal properties. This will contribute to improved risk assessment when planning and developing potential reservoirs for CO2 sequestration. Partners: Uni CIPR, Statoil Petroleum AS Web site: http://org.uib.no/cipr/project/impact/index.htm Geological Storage of CO 2 : Mathematical Modeling and Risk Assessment (MatMoRA-II) (Associated spin-off project: Development and Analysis of Vertically Averaged Models in Porous Media (VAMP)) Project period 2012 2015 Objective: To develop methods for modeling and simulating the leading-order effects of pertinent CO 2 flow dynamics in appropriate geological storage formations Quantify thermal and mechanical effects to avoid caprock fracturing and hydrate formation near the injection well Quantify effect of heterogeneity on CO 2 dissolution Quantify effect of caprock topography and parameterize geological features that significantly impact CO 2 migration and trapping Develop optimized injection strategies Quantify effect of pressure on reservoir/caprock integrity using simplified coupled flowgeomechanical models 20

of 47 Type of project:kpn Project partners: University of Bergen, Uni CIPR, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute(NGI), SINTEF ICT, Statoil Petroleum ASA Link to web page: www.sintef.no/projectweb/matmora Methodologies and technologies for mitigation of undesired CO 2 migration in the subsurface Project period: 2012 2013 Objective: The main objectives are to describe according to precise criteria mitigation and remediation measures with emphasis on the novel practices, and to carry out a generic study on cost and benefits of the measures in order to provide elements of comparison. In addition the project has gathered detailed information on mitigation and remediation plans through interviews of project holders, either in process or upcoming and use this information along with the above to come up with guidelines for CO 2 stakeholders regarding the intervention plan needed to be implemented. Main achievements (so far): The report has been submitted to IEA GHG where it is at present undergoing a review. We are awaiting their comments to complete the project work. Type of project: IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme grant to CO2GeoNet Association Project partners: BRGM (project leader), IRIS RAMORE (KPN) Project Period: 2007 13 Objective: The objective of the RAMORE project was to establish technology for risk assessment and monitoring of CO 2 storage. The project has also addressed potential leak mechanisms, as well as sealing integrity in caprocks and hydrates. Partners: University of Oslo, Institute for Energy Technology( IFE), Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI),, University of Bergen, Statoil Petroleum ASA, ConocoPhillips Norge, Shell, Schlumberger, RWE-DEA Norge The Skagerrak CO 2 project. Project period: 2009 2011 Objective: Technical and economic feasibility of identified CO 2 sources around Skagerrak (Sweden, Norway, Denmark), evaluation of potential for CO 2 storage in the area, develop scenarios for CO 2 transportation/infrastructure. Main achievements: Promising storage formation identified, infrastructure scenarios including cost estimates developed, plan for further work developed. Project type: Combination of funding from Climit and industry on the one hand and public bodies and EU/Interreg IV A on the other. Project partners: Tel-Tek (Norwegian lead), Chalmers University of Technology (Lead), University of Oslo, Sintef Petroleum Research, GEUS, Göteborgs Universitet, Høyskolen i Telemark, Statoil, Yara, Preem Petroleum, Esso Norway, Skagerak Kraft, Gothenburg Energy, Borealis, Vattenfall, Västra Götalandsregionen, Energimyndigheten, Vestfold fylkeskommune, Telemark fylkeskommune, Innovasjon Norge. Web page: http://www.ccs-skagerrakkattegat.eu/ 21

of 47 Muligheter for lagring av CO 2 i Skagerrak og østlige Nordsjø, og på land i Danmark (demo) Project period: 2009 2011 Objective: To give an extensive and updated analysis of possibilities and potential solutions for CO 2 storage in the named area, based on existing data from seismic investigations. Partners: Tel-Tek, Universitetet i Oslo, Sintef Petroleumsforskning AS, Yara Norge AS, Skagerak, Kraft AS, Statoil ASA, Esso Norge AS, Preem AB, Vattenfall AB, Borealis AB, Göteborg, Energi AB Skagerrak CO 2 injection pilot preproject Project period: 2012 Objective: Prepare for eventual test injection into the Gassum formation onshore in Denmark Main achievement: Basis for new application to Climit developed. Project type: Climit and Statoil Project partners: Tel-Tek, Statoil, University of Oslo. 22

of 47 5 Critical technology gaps identified in the project This section presents the main findings of the five work groups focusing on the identification of the technology gaps that must be closed before large-scale CO 2 storage can be implemented on the Norwegian continental shelf. It should be clearly stated that division into the groups as such is done to make project structure more clear and the overall problem easier to tackle. Nevertheless the activities carried out within each group require to and would be synchronized within the project. It is clear that to underpin and accelerate the development and operationalization of CCS technology within the timeframes set by IEA, the CO 2 storage research community must concentrate on the critical knowledge gaps and define a schedule that is more forceful than before to provide the step change needed. This is in line with the feedback from the industry partners in this project: The research community must be clear on the priorities from a technological perspective - what issues must be resolved before 2020 and what issues are beneficial to solve, but can be handled on a longer term. The presentation is organized in accordance with the five work groups: - Storage capacity estimation and long-term behavior - Sealing - Monitoring techniques - Drilling and well construction - Developing large-scale solutions and infrastructure To set the frames for the technical discussions, three storage sites were presented and used as a common back cloth. The sites represent different storage solutions with various characteristic features and are presented in section 4.1. So far the storage solutions are used to illustrate the span of challenges and hence, stimulate the work processes to cover all critical matters. In a future project, one of the solutions may serve as a case suited for feasibility studies and technology/model validation. 5.1 Storage sites Almost all geological and reservoir information in the North Sea has been obtained by exploration and production of hydrocarbons within the last four decades. Outside the main area for oil activity the data are relative sparse compared to the hydrocarbon-rich regions. Even in the petroleum provinces, the information below the major hydrocarbon accumulations may be sparse. Various studies have identified a number of aquifers in the North Sea that could be candidates for large-scale CO 2 storage, i.e. 10 100 million tons CO 2 per year (JOULE II, CO2 storage atlas Norwegian North Sea).). Some of these aquifers are so large that one reservoir alone would maintain this rate. Due to the low compressibility of rock and brine, any large-scale CO 2 storage project will depend on simultaneous production of reservoir brine to maintain reservoir pressure below a manageable and safe level. There are several large candidate formations, but most of these are immature with respect to a decision on large-scale storage within a five years period. For several of these candidates large sand bodies may have been identified, but injectivity and / or cap rock integrity may be unknown. 5.1.1 Utsira The successful storage project on Sleipner, where 14 million tons CO 2 has been injected into the Utsira formation, has illustrated some of the exceptionally good reservoir properties of this formation. Wells drilled in Utsira for water production purposes (without any relation to CCS project) have confirmed extension of this high quality reservoir over a large area. Sleipner storage project has also demonstrated effectiveness of 4D seismic to visualize the CO 2 distribution in this kind of young sediments. A thick cap rock of massive mudstone in the Nordland formation above completes the picture of the important features that are desired for a storage reservoir. The Utsira formation along with the Miocene sands just below it (Skade, Eir) will therefore be a one of the most obvious 23

of 47 candidates for large-scale storage. Further extensive exploration (explorations wells) will not be needed before the first injection and water production wells are drilled. 5.1.2 Frigg The second most mature storage site that could be available for large-scale storage is the Frigg area depleted gas reservoirs. The reservoir properties are well known after decades of gas production and there are also interesting sands below the Frigg gas field that may provide flexible options for development of a storage project. The production history has shown that the aquifer below the gas cap has a relatively good communication laterally, because the reservoir was naturally depressurized during the end of the production. This may allow a postponement of the need for water injection wells for pressure control. Water production from this formation must be carried out with some care because initially there was an oil zone between gas cap and aquifer. 5.1.3 Jurassic sands (e.g. Bryne/Sandnes, Johansen, Gassum, etc.) There are several deeper formations, especially from the Jurassic age, that have been studied for CO 2 storage. The largest of these, according to the NPD Storage Atlas, is the Bryne/Sandnes formation. The reservoir properties are interesting from a storage point of view, but the lateral connectivity and the integrity of the seal both are largely unknown, and to develop this formation to a large-scale storage candidate an extensive exploration will be required. There has also been a lot of attention on the Johansen formation in the Troll area. This interest stems mainly from its proximity to Mongstad, which may be a source for industrial CO 2 in 2020. There are several wells in the formation, but due to variation in cementation and large faults the lateral communication is uncertain. Extensive exploration (exploration wells) will be needed to verify the storage potential, but for the volumes considered in this study the Johansen formation is probably not a feasible case. Finally, the Gassum, located in Skagerrak, is interesting due to presumed good reservoir properties (20 % porosity and 200 to 500 md permeability). The well information from Gassum is, however, collected from wells in the Danish part of Skagerrak only, and there are large uncertainties both on the extension of the formation and the quality on the Norwegian side. 5.1.4 Conclusion The Bryne/Sandnes, Johansen and Gassum formations are just examples from a large group of potential formations that might be prospective candidates for storage, but only on a time-horizon outside the scope of this study. Since large-scale capacity in the shallower formations (Utsira, Skade, Frigg) is much more readily available, the focus should be directed to these recourses for the first central storage project. 24

of 47 Figure 1: Map showing the three possible storage scenarios, Utsira/Skade, Frigg (and Bryne/Sandnes), Johansen(andGassum Fm. 25

of 47 5.2 Large-scale storage: Capacity estimation and long-term behavior 5.2.1 Assessment of models and data collection Reliability The large investments necessary for large-scale CO 2 storage require a high reliability in the simulation predictions. Such reliability is often not available due to poor data or insufficient understanding of dominating processes and their numerical modeling. In traditional oil reservoir simulation, the reliability of predictions initially is poor. However, the purpose of the predictions is to have a tool for decisions, not to make precise predictions. For CO 2 storage, the purpose of the predictions is different and a higher reliability is demanded. This may be unrealistic with the available understanding and simulation tools. Needless to say, the outcome of a simulation heavily relies on the data. However, data are far more expensive than simulation tools, and therefore, when a simulation tool is applied to input data, its reliability is a must. A special requirement for high reliability applies to possible showstoppers. For example if lack of injectivity could stop the whole project, it is important that appropriate data and models are available before the investments are done. Validation and verification Important procedures to obtain reliability of simulation tools are validation and verification. When validating a tool, one asks if the dominating processes are accounted for. Flow equations are the basis of all reservoir simulation tools, but assumptions may restrict the validity in actual applications. Thermal effects, formation dry-out, salt precipitation, convective mixing and hysteresis are examples of processes which are often insufficiently represented in commercial simulation tools commonly used in oil and gas industry. Other essential flow effects may be misrepresented due to simplified or erroneous data. Barriers and caprock topography are important examples. When verifying a tool, one asks if the processes are correctly handled. This may seem straightforward with commercial reservoir simulators, but unfortunately it is not. Different dominating processes often require different mathematical and numerical implementations. Buoyancy is an important process in CO 2 storage, while production of oil reservoirs encompasses flow controlled by pressure differences between wells. All modern state-of-the-art tools are developed with this viscous-dominated flow in mind. This raises a need for comparison of tools to establish the conditions under which a simulation tool is appropriate. Benchmarking is thus an important verification instrument. 5.2.2 Prediction of migration and trapping Poor predictability of long-term migration Reliable prediction of migration of thin CO 2 tongues in sloping aquifers is a challenge for 3D simulations due to the need for high vertical grid resolution. Large improvements in the predictions have been obtained with models based on vertical equilibrium. However, commercial software based on this principle which also handles the involved trapping mechanisms is still lacking. Also, research codes based on vertical equilibrium are still immature, and further development to enhance their capabilities is desirable. Examples of missing capabilities are non-isothermal flow and proper handling of horizontal barriers. Another alternative may be in usage of dynamic grid refinements methods, where grid is refined and coarsened automatically as a function of, for example, change in CO 2 saturation. This method have been successfully applied to oil and gas fields, however its application to CO 2 migration need to be verified. Insufficient understanding of trapping mechanisms The migration of CO 2 depends on the trapping mechanisms, and modeling of them often requires special tools due to fine-scale processes. Treatment of multi-physics simulation may be required. Important trapping mechanisms are capillary trapping, solubility trapping and topographical trapping. Solubility trapping can be enhanced by gravity-driven convection, which takes place on a much finer length scale than the migration process. 26

of 47 Observations/simulations History matching of the CO 2 migration is an important process for tuning of the prediction models. However, for CO 2 storage, the time scale of the migration is much larger than the history-matched time scale. Therefore, uncertainties in data and unreliability in the simulation tools play a larger role for CO 2 plume predictions. As a consequence, a stronger focus on uncertainty and reliability is necessary to obtain reasonable predictions. Monitorability of the CO 2 plume within the storage compartment is an important part of this issue. Acceptable reservoir pressure CO 2 storage sites should not leak, and hence it must be ensured that fracturing of the caprock will not occur when the reservoir pressure is changed. This requires application of geomechanics, possibly coupled with fluid flow. Fracturing of the caprock is very different from near-well fracturing and requires new understanding and new models. It is likely that traditional lab experiments will not give appropriate answers to these questions. It should also be stated that CO 2 dissolved in water forms weak acid which could interact with (dissolve) reservoir rock and thereby increase leakage potential. Natural fractures and / or faults may become more conductive as a consequence of changing stress and chemical interactions. Fracture / fault characterization based on field monitoring is therefore an important study area. 5.2.3 Conclusions Based on the discussion above, the following three research topics are suggested. Their common objective is the enhanced reliability. The desired reliability is strongly related to the size of the investments. It is, however, our conviction that the need for reduced uncertainties in the predictions is essential. Benchmarking This activity should contain comparison of simulation tools for relevant case studies. This will establish which set of simulation tools is appropriate for given dominating processes or geological properties and to what extent improvements are necessary or desirable. Sensitivity studies This activity contains investigation of sensitivities with respect to geological properties and processes. It is important to establish which properties and which processes are most important for the capacity estimation. Obviously, this is case dependent, but conclusions of some general validity can still be obtained. A result of this activity should be improved observation strategies to reduce uncertainties. History matching In this activity the quality of history matching for CO 2 storage should be assessed. It should be investigated to which extent history matching in the injection period reduces the uncertainties of longterm predictions. Ways to reduce the uncertainties in the observations (for example through combination of observations) could also be addressed. 5.3 Sealing large scale utilization Identified research gaps are grouped into gaps in process understanding, data gaps, and technical issues/tools. Seal integrity depends on important mechanisms that are not understood to a degree that is sufficient to make reliable predictions (even if we had all data available). Incomplete understanding of important processes and mechanisms also implies that the type of data needed to control and monitor these processes is not clear. In terms of gaps in the data, the focus is on lack of data that has a first order effect. What concerns technical issues/tools, the focus is on modeling and superior workflows. 27

of 47 5.3.1 Processes/understanding The identified process understanding gaps are illustrated by figure 2, and are listed and commented upon in table 1. A comprehensive review on several of these issues and a general discussion of geomechanics in CO 2 storage is provided by Rutqvist (2012). Figure 2: Illustration of the main processes during CO2 injection and possible geomechanical response of the reservoir and surrounding rocks. Concept illustration from Rutqvist, 2012. 28

of 47 Table 1 is a listing with comments of the major knowledge gaps in process understanding for the behaviour of seal in the context of large-scale CO 2 storage. Insufficiently understood process/potential leakage pathways Diagenesis Compartmentalization Faulting, conducting vs. sealing faults, connectivity of reservoir to onshore Well integrity Reactions under stress Fault reactivation, i.e. interaction between fluid flow, pressure build up, solid far field and local stresses. Possible solution Stay away from >80 C, deep, close to shore or faulted reservoirs concentrate on reservoirs that experience only first cycle shallow burial. Most sediments are compartmentalized, and the major barriers and flow paths in the reservoir and caprock sequence must be assessed. Knowledge of barriers is of vital importance as boundary conditions for pressure prediction. Compartment identification will also give fluid baselines required for monitoring (gas and water composition) from the same data. Make proper wells and monitor. Wells are potential leakage points and their long term integrity may be affected by the reactions between CO2 and cement/ casing under storage conditions. This is not fully understood and requires further experimental and modeling work. Further studies on geochemical reactions between reservoir/cap rock and CO2 plume and upscaling the hydro-mechanical impacts to reservoir scale. Also, changes of fault properties due to reactions: Will reactions between clay minerals and CO2 alter the fault properties? What kind of reactions, reaction fronts and property changes can be expected? The area around the selected reservoir (including large scale geology and the entire overburden) has to be characterized thoroughly and reservoirs close to major faults (visible on seismics) have to be avoided. Activation of minor or previously inactive faults (not visible on seismics) has to be addressed. Pressure management is critical since the crust is close to being critically stressed in many places (Zoback and Gorelick, 2012; Zoback et al., 2012). So just staying below fracture pressure is not enough. In addition, continuous real-time monitoring (geophysical,geochemical and flow) has to be applied to be able to immediately react to potential fault reactivation and possible leakage. We consider fracturing and fault reactivation as the most critical aspect for seal integrity since the lack of understanding of the mechanism, together with the lack of stress data at any point in the reservoir and overburden, prohibits the prediction or establishing of a safe upper limit for pressure increase. Moreover, fluid pressure may vary in the reservoir due to coupled hydraulic, mechanical and chemical effects and may actually exceed the pressure measured in the well and the assumed critical pressure for fault reactivation. So, real-time monitoring is the key for ensuring a safe storage. 29

of 47 Data gaps A few systematic studies of mechanical compaction of mudstones exist (Mondol et al. 2007, 2008 a,b), but the composition, structure and properties of individual overburden sequences are generally poorly known due to the scarcity of cores taken from overburden in hydrocarbon exploration. Although some data exist for the shale overlying Utsira, which is the heterogeneous Nordland sequence, drilling of exploration wells with continuous coring of the overburden is desirable. Measurements in the well (leak-off test, minifrac, dynamic response etc.) and characterization of solids and fluids are crucial before operation starts. Pressure transient data (from well tests, permanent gauges) may be useful for characterization of reservoir compartmentalization and fault sealing properties. Dynamic changes of fault conductivity due to fault reactivation may also be covered by pressure transient analysis. The scarcity of core samples and overburden well testing has resulted in a major data gap for the characterization of fluids and solids in sealing sediments. Some data have been, and can be, acquired from outcrops, but as these sediments are normally exposed due to uplift, their fluids and solids cannot be expected to be identical to their subsurface equivalents. Outcrops are however very useful in a more general geological sense as leakage analogs, where fracturing and fluid flow patterns can be studied in great detail. Technical issues/tools The two above mentioned issues, insufficiently understood processes and the lack of data, emphasize the need for extensive monitoring. We consider it necessary to develop an integrated workflow for simulation and monitoring. This includes a geomechanical model of the extended reservoir region (including over-, under- and side-burden) that is continuously updated with observations from monitoring. Such a tool could also include a risk evaluation and early warning module. Information from geochemical monitoring should also be included. Development of such an integrated workflow within 2018 is considered realistic. Ongoing research Ongoing research on seal materials is too strongly focused on theoretical concepts and remote data acquisition (surface seismic data), due to the lack of coring, sampling and measurements in the sealing part of the wells. The continuous coring of the LYB CO2 Pilot is an exception from this, making this a very valuable source of seal information. The strong uplift of these sediments is however making this case somewhat special. Scanty available core material, fluid samples and other types of well data, has limited seal research considerably, compared with reservoir research. In order to upscale the seal properties, there is a large need for several flexible wells permitting monitoring based on fluid samples (water/gas production, geochemistry/chemistry; tracers). These activities are not covered by ongoing research in FMEs or other CLIMIT projects. The issue of pressure reduction wells does not have a strong focus in ongoing projects either. Many institutes are strongly involved in cross disciplinary international cooperation in relation to CO 2 storage pilots (Hontomin, Lacq, Ketzin, Svalbard, and many others), but the focus on efficient workflows and data integration has not been developed to the same extent. 5.3.2 Prioritized research topics The following research topics have been identified as the most pertinent knowledge gaps for seal efficiency, in the context of large-scale CO 2 storage being ready for commercial action by 2018. They are considered to be possible showstoppers with respect to risk assessment and regulations. They can and must be eliminated by 2018. These tasks/activities are not covered at present, and should be included in a national R&D effort: 1. Reactivation of seismic and sub-seismic faults/fractures 30

of 47 2. Overburden baseline assessment by coring, testing and fluid sampling and analysis 3. Workflow for monitoring and simulation Reactivation of seismic faults/fractures: A strongly improved understanding of deformation mechanisms, stress, and safe upper limits for pressure is needed and can be obtained by 2018. Overburden baseline data assessment: A dedicated program for coring, testing and fluid sampling of the overburden, fluid and solid characterization, including baseline and compartment assessment should be run. The data acquired must be placed in basinal context, and be integrated with regional seismic. This will permit a much improved upscaling and risk prediction of seal properties. Workflow for monitoring and simulation: This implies the establishment of a geomechanical model, which is based on and consistent with integrated geophysical/instrumental/geochemical monitoring. This will permit a much improved risk assessment, including early warning definitions and remediation actions. 5.4 Monitoring techniques No particular showstoppers have been identified regarding monitoring for designing a largescale storage project in the North Sea within 2018. The main monitoring methods must have the ability to provide early-warning of potential leakage and to prove containment of the CO 2 over long periods. A monitoring plan for the various phases in the project must be in place before 2018. Most of the general work on reservoir and seafloor leakage monitoring will contribute to strengthen a plan. A specific effort to compile this plan should be started as soon as possible. 5.4.1 Introduction The objective for monitoring the injection of CO 2 is to support the injection process to ensure optimal and safe operation, provide input for update of the site geology and estimate the permanence of the storage. There will be limited number of possible sites for large-scale injection in the North Sea because of the time line in this project. Only sites which are already relatively well mapped and characterized will be feasible candidates. The large and shallow tertiary sands in the Skade/Utsira formation and the depleted Frigg gas field have been suggested. In this document the monitoring program is discussed in this context. For the Skade/Utsira complex the successful 4-D seismic on the Sleipner field illustrates a robust and cost effective monitoring method. Because of the size of this project (10 100 million tons/year), it has previously been shown (Lindeberg 2009) that it is not possible to inject these quanta without simultaneously controlling the reservoir pressure by actively tapping formation water from dedicated water production wells. These wells also provide an extra opportunity to monitor the internal reservoir flows in a cost effective way. For the Frigg field the integrity of the cap rock is of less importance, but possible leakage monitoring due to the existing gas production wells will require special attention. The sensitivity/ feasibility of seismic monitoring of CO 2 injection on Frigg should be studied as there may be a significant residual gas and oil saturation left in the field that may obscure or attenuate specific signals from a future CO 2 plume. There may also be need for active pressure control by water production pressure in Frigg, but this is less desirable, as residual oil and gas from these wells might be released. There is also a specific international legal requirement for seafloor monitoring of leakage that Norway will have to meet. There are, however, several industrial visual and sonic methods for detection of diffusive gas emissions from the seafloor. 31

of 47 5.4.2 Monitoring phases The monitoring needed for this project can be divided into four different phases: 1. Baseline characterization for supplying accurate reference information for the subsequent monitoring survey. This should include pre-injection geophysical surveys and seafloor mapping. 2. Monitoring in the injection period. The objective for this monitoring is to provide data for the injection operation itself and supply data in particular if deviation or risk issues are observed. This information is of crucial importance to adjust the on-going injection program to minimize leakage risk. Data obtained in this period can also be important to provide more data on the geological properties and input for updates of reservoir models. 3. Post injection monitoring. Also after the injection has stopped, there will be need for a minimum of monitoring to verify that the injection site is in such a condition that the responsibility for the site can be handed over to the appropriate authorities within the given period of time. 4. Long term monitoring. After the responsibility is handed over, there might still be some need to monitor the site to estimate the long-time integrity of the site and provide documentation for future activities and utilization of the underground. For all these four phases there will be a focus on the cost. 5.4.3 Challenges in offshore monitoring Although there are no specific showstoppers to design a comprehensive monitoring programme there are several areas where improved technology and methods could be wanted to make operations faster, more accurate and cheaper. Fast results If the monitoring result should be useful for the operation of the project it will be important that the responses in the field can be observed as fast as possible. Some methods (pressure, tracers) might be analyzed quickly or even in real-time (microseismic and pressure gauges) to provide feedback on the injection, while other methods (e.g. seismic and CSEM) require several months to provide results that can be interpreted. Improved processing and more automated inversion methodology could reduce this time-lag. Accuracy and detection limits While geophysical methods typically have been developed and applied in the petroleum industry for petroleum exploration where the main interest has been to detect large volumes, the need in CO 2 monitoring will be to provide detection of small changes (leakage detection) or accurate volume estimates. The sensitivity of the various methods will vary between different sites and it could be difficult to determine the sensitivity based on measurements from other sites. In the start of the injection project there is, however, a unique opportunity to test the detection limit in situ by gradually injecting small amounts of CO 2 while simultaneously conducting monitoring surveys. This can give an accurate assessment of the sensitivity of the data and a quality check of the feasibility of the method. Integration of different monitoring methods, e.g. gravity, resistivity, seismic and micro-seismicity by jointly inverting the data can also improve sensitivity compared to inverting each individual data type alone. Low-cost monitoring The existing CO 2 storage projects have been monitored mainly with respect to research tasks, and not from an operation and safety aspect. This is because there have been large research activities connected to the projects and that they also have had a significant component as test and demonstration programs. In this project the focus will be on cost effective methods particularly for the long-term program. These must to some extent be developed during the run of the project when the performance of various methods is known. 32

of 47 5.5 Drilling and well construction 5.5.1 Introduction This section summarizes the workshop discussions on technological and cost gaps associated to drilling and well for long-term CO 2 storage on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS). It is important to state that there should not be any showstoppers within the technological and cost gaps discussed further in this document. The different types of the wells that could be, potentially, used in the long term CCS projects are drilled, used, maintained and abandoned every day in the oil and gas industry. Many aspects during CCS projects would be similar to the conventional CO 2 -EOR operations. The focus should rather be on to which degree these wells are suitable for long-term storage and the differences imposed by it. The common differences for all the well types are: 1. Significantly longer time span under which the wells should remain their integrity, accessibility and safety. Special consideration to the fact that while the wells in abandoned oil and gas field remain in a relatively low pressure environment, the CCS wells will remain in a normal and often over-pressurized reservoir; 2. High diffusivity (especially in supercritical phase) and high reactivity of the CO 2 with porous materials including well cements; 3. Corrosion activity of wet CO 2 and impurities in the stream. 4. The different well types would also have several specific topics of R&D interest, for example: o A large number of CO 2 injection wells have been drilled and completed during CO 2 EOR projects, primarily onshore US. However, offshore CO 2 wells are limited (both in well numbers and in operational time). o Pressure relieve or water producing wells must be abandoned or converted into injectors after CO 2 breakthrough. o Monitoring wells may (for the sake of cost reduction) be converted injectors / producers, and should provide a high quality seal and stable and reliable monitoring tools. To summarize the well barrier design, well selection and construction principles should be reinforced to account for specific properties of CO 2 and the long life cycles required for the storage. Especially with regards to leaks and function tests, re-establishing of lost barriers and monitoring (Aas, Barre, & Sørbø, 2011). Existing experience and regulations already developed both nationally and internationally (Watson & Bachu, 2008; NORSOK, August 2004; WRI, 2008; DNV, 2011; Sides, 1992; SINTEF, 2011; Hossein & Amro, 2010) should be used as a starting point in researching the key gaps presented below. It is also crucial to create a system allowing open experience transfer and reporting within the CCS industry. This is very relevant to help the new industry develop in a safe and efficient manner, to decrease individual project cost, as well as to raise public acceptance to the CCS projects. 33

of 47 5.5.2 Technological and legal gaps Topic Short term (prior to 2018) Long term (post 2018) Well construction 1. Evaluate need for different well design / drilling procedures for different scenarios. Suggest simple yet flexible and robust smart completion(s) for long full cycle of CCS well life. 2. Evaluate diffusive transfer, deterioration of material (cement and rock) corrosive effect from CO 2 and possible impurities in the stream. Design cost and technology efficient recommendations for different stream compositions. 3. Evaluate current well barriers and their applicability to CCS. 4. Create effective and simple leakage remediation measures. 1. Work towards standard flexible CCS wells allowing simple and fast intervention and multiple well utilization to reduce costs and speedup well design phase. 2. Further implementation of smart and flexible completions, automation of their control to improve CO 2 spread. 3. Advances in material technology and experience from CCS as well as O&G industry should be monitored and used to further improve CCS well construction. 4. Develop leakage response and remediation procedures and special teams. Legislation Testing Long life cycle Create best practices / recommendations to legislation regarding drilling and completion, conversion of old oil and gas wells, changing well type (exploration/production/injection/monitoring), integrity, remediation strategies and abandonment Standards for testing and verification of well equipment need to be developed. 1. Evaluate requirements to design, reliability and maintenance taking into account long well life. 2. Availability of permanent downhole sensors which can detect CO 2 leakage/ barriers deterioration. 3. Evaluation of larger time scale on full cycle of well life Develop and implement complete and robust legislation framework based on the recommendations. Further improvements and implementation of testing standards. Maintain requirements incorporating the knowledge from large-scale CCS projects 34

of 47 5.5.3 Cost related gaps Topic Short term (prior to 2018) Long term (post 2018) Flexibility 1. Evaluate whole cycle costs of flexible Learn from running projects and continue wells vs. conservative solutions, use improving flexibility while reducing development of O&G wells as an complexity and costs of the well example. Are flexible wells cheaper in completions. the long run? 2. Look for and develop fast and simple well intervention solutions. Drilling 1. Automation remains to be expensive. Identify possibilities to reduce automation costs in next 5 years 1. 2. Scenarios for drilling into CO 2 flooded zones (either as remedy or for infill drilling): mud designs, hydrates formation, real time simulation. 3. Faster drilling from simpler and smaller vessels. Continued R&D and engineering activities to further reduce automation costs1. Work towards fully automated drilling of standard CCS well scenario(s). Installation Identify and evaluate cost gap associated with fixed vs. floating installations and platform vs. subsea approach. Specific challenges for subsea CO 2 factory crossing to installations workgroup. Remediation 1. Development of technologically efficient, fast to deploy and cheap CO 2 leakage remediation scenarios. 2. Permanent downhole sensors mentioned above would reduce intervention costs due to early warnings. Subsea installations offer smaller footprint, robustness and flexibility. Further development would also be coupled to O&G industry. Developing standard leakage response and remediation procedures and special joint teams. Exploration Cheap exploration tools 2 are key for less studied aquifers (compared to O/G fields). Technologies should be screened and driven forward. Further reduction in exploration costs (drilling, seismic, etc.) is needed for more in-depth studies of the storage possibilities in aquifers. 1 Drilling automation is largely coupled to on-going activities within O&G industry, for example IRIS / Secal drilling automation research. 2 Similar to, for example, http://badger.no/ 35

of 47 5.5.4 Concluding remarks The discussions during the workshops (including the one with the industry) led us to the following: 2018: Pick up low hanging fruits. This project is an important milestone that must work: go for the simple and reliable rather that for the scientifically challenging and far-fetched. In light of the previous bullet, it is crucial to identify the most promising candidate for storage site in the early project phase, in order to select and advance required technology (subsea or platform; flexible or simplistic construction, etc.) and to concentrate on essential goals. Identify and utilize overlaps and synergy with ongoing R&D to save time and money. Potential synergy is between institutes involved in the project; with other research programs; within OG21 priorities; with O&G industry; national and international (especially US CO 2 experience). Build and demonstrate confidence in solutions presented. 5.6 Development solutions and infrastructure Given that work starts without unnecessary delay, there are no potential technological showstoppers identified. However, a potential non-technological showstopper might be problems in getting international and bilateral regulations in place, in particular for the transportation of CO 2 across borders. Development of design specifications for offshore CO 2 injection as well as identifying candidate oil fields for primary use of CO 2 for enhanced oil recovery are both time critical activities. Planning and construction of large-scale infrastructure need to be started as soon as possible in order to meet a 2018 target or would otherwise be a showstopper. In Norway, for the time being, the group is not aware of any ongoing project that coordinates and systematically addresses these issues. It is recommended that the technological gaps should be addressed in a national R&D effort. Also, the non-technological issues should be addressed, including the development of a business model for large-scale infrastructure. The priority issues should be started early to meet a 2018 target. 5.6.1 Critical technology gaps Through the last years there have been several projects looking into large-scale infrastructure developments. Among these are the CENS (CO 2 for EOR in the North Sea) project by CO2 Global, the ECCO project (SINTEF and partners), A study into North Sea cross-border CO 2 transport and storage by One North Sea, the Rotterdam Climate Initiative, the Skagerrak CO 2 project (Tel-Tek and partners), Bastor (Baltic Sea Storage of CO 2 ) by VTT and partners. In the UK the British Geological Survey, University of Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt University have formed Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage (SCCS), and this group has launched the Central North Sea as an area for large-scale CO 2 storage, also outlining in broad terms an infrastructure. The CO2 Europipe project (Norwegian partners CO2 Global and Gassco) from 2009 to 2011 described several scenarios for large-scale CO 2 infrastructure in Europe, including scenarios involving the Norwegian part of the North Sea. Recently, the Global CCS Institute and the Chiyoda Corporation issued a Preliminary Feasibility Study on CO 2 Carrier for Ship-based CCS The localization of CO 2 sources and sinks determine in broad terms the outline of the CO 2 supply chain. Therefore, knowing not only where the CO 2 is to be captured but also where it is to be stored, is essential for establishing a CO 2 infrastructure. On the other hand, the infrastructure must be developed in order to trigger off the full potential of CCS and not only single-source-to-single-storage 36

of 47 projects. Even though capture of CO 2 is outside the scope of this suggested work and is primarily the responsibility of owners of CO 2 sources, knowledge of where large point sources are located as well as some of their key characteristics, is necessary. Also, injection of CO 2 into saline aquifers may require perhaps quite radical re-thinking with regard to development solutions. In the case of CO 2 for EOR, re-thinking based on large-scale utilization and early development should be considered. Hand in hand with technology gaps, there are gaps related to cost, business development and regulations/policies. These gaps should be addressed in parallel. Unlike offshore structures designed to handle petroleum-bearing pressurized reservoirs, structures which are supposed to handle only injection of CO 2 into a saline aquifer with no probability of finding oil or gas, may require less demanding equipment etc. Development solutions for such purpose may therefore be simpler and different from what is the norm in petroleum exploration and production. Technology for this kind of large-scale developments needs to be identified and detailed. In recognition of the existence of this technology gap and with the aim of taking into account findings from the above mentioned projects and other relevant literature, we suggest the following R&D actions: 1. Development of design specifications for offshore CO 2 injection into saline aquifers, including: 1a: An early decision on overall development solution: Should it be a platform or subsea development or combinations of these? This decision will influence the way the other underlying technology gaps are treated and needs to be taken early. 1b: Simplified requirements and solutions for CO 2 injection development. Points for R&D: Develop simplified and cheaper solutions for such purpose Decompose to equipment components Specify need for equipment, standard or tailor made SHE considerations Equipment lists as basis for cost estimation Identify potentials for savings This activity is potentially time consuming and needs to be started early. 1c: Simplified solutions for CO 2 transportation: As a task parallel to the previous, equipment related to transportation of CO 2 must also be decomposed to equipment components. Can components be bought off the shelf or is special design needed? Both design of equipment and eventual vessels must be taken into account. This goes for both pipeline and ship/barge alternatives as well as for combinations. List of subpoints are more or less identical to above. 1d: Localization and construction of infrastructure. Routing of pipelines in relation to aquifer storage and EOR. Hub sites onshore including design, equipment, SHE and cost. Ramp up, optimal utilization of capacity in short and long term. Planning and construction is time consuming and 2018 will be a tough deadline to meet. 2. Implications of using CO 2 as a primary method for oil production The rationale behind this suggestion is as follows: CO 2 for EOR has normally been considered as a secondary or tertiary method suited mainly for tail production in the North Sea, to the extent that CO 2 -EOR has been seriously considered. So far, no 37

of 47 such project has survived the initial phase on the Norwegian continental shelf. Reasons for this may be largely economical, combined with in some cases unfavorable reservoir conditions and/or uncertainty with regard to both regularity and amount of CO 2 supply. Among the oil fields considered are Gullfaks and Ekofisk. According to the CO 2 Storage Atlas by NPD, Gullfaks was considered not profitable due to the estimated oil price path at the time (2003/2004), while at Ekofisk studies are still ongoing and a pilot is considered an interesting option. Given that uncertainty with regard to CO 2 supply is no longer an issue, as will be the case if and when a large-scale CO 2 infrastructure will be in place, we suggest that CO 2 as a primary method for oil production is considered. A case study should look into all aspects of introducing CO 2 a primary method, including but not restricted to impacts for development solutions, economics over the lifetime of the oil field, risks and SHE. We further suggest that such study should take place for one or more oil fields in the planning stage. Candidate oil fields should be determined in cooperation with oil companies at an early stage. The group considers this to be one interesting way to boost the development of large-scale scenarios for CO 2 storage by introducing a possibility for bringing a capacity to pay into the CO 2 chain. 5.6.2 Non-technological gaps Hand in hand with technology gaps are the economical and other gaps. These gaps are equally important to address, and some could represent potential showstoppers. The group identified the following non-technological gaps: Business model for large-scale CO 2 infrastructure Defining an optimal business model for constructing and operating a large-scale CO 2 infrastructure is a necessary step for moving the idea of a central CO 2 storage towards realization. An important issue is to establish a company model; should for instance a state owned CO 2 infrastructure company be established? In 2005 two reports were issued in Norway, one by Bellona (Bellona 2005) and one by Tel-Tek (Tel- Tek 2005). The Bellona report focused strongly on CO 2 for EOR and suggested to establish two companies, one (NOCO a.s.) as a public/private company responsible for CO 2 capture, and CPETRO as a fully state owned company responsible for transport and storage. The Tel-Tek report suggested establishing one company, Norsk CO2 AS, which was imagined to operate in the CO 2 chain between CO 2 sources and receivers/users of CO 2. EOR was considered as the very basis of a development of a national strategy for overall handling of CO 2. Elements from these two reports are still valid, and may form a platform for suggesting a business model. Securing a stable supply of CO 2, in particular for eventual EOR purposes, will be an important issue. Part of this is also to the question of infrastructure sizing, particularly relevant for pipelines, and who is to pay for oversized or unused pipelines and other infrastructure in the making. Regulations and policy International regulatory work is progressing, but still there are several issues that are not resolved. For the time being one such issue relates to CO 2 transportation across international borders. Even though it is possible for Norway to enter into bilateral agreements with countries for supply of CO 2, this issue will be time consuming and is a potential showstopper in the perspective of 2018. Another possible issue is to evaluate how to regulate an eventual new industry dealing with infrastructure and injection of CO 2. As mentioned above, bilateral agreements are a way forward. Bilateral agreements regulating supply and delivery of CO 2 between Norway and other countries still need a long time to be negotiated, an experience which should be considered in the perspective of 2018. 38

of 47 6 Recommendations In absence of a commercial market for CCS, the Norwegian research community has launched an industry-political vision, stating "The Norwegian research community will contribute in developing the knowledge and technology necessary to enable large-scale storage of CO 2 (>10 Mt CO 2 /year) on the Norwegian shelf by 2018. Particular attention is put on the use of CO 2 for EOR, harvesting from the Norwegian petroleum expertise and business opportunities related to CO 2 storage." As concluded in this report, there are few technical barriers to launching and deployment of largescale storage (>10 Mt CO 2 /yr) on the Norwegian shelf within 2018. Yet, time is critical, and various technical, economic and legislative issues need to be addressed in due course if large-scale storage is to become a reality within this timeframe. Most importantly, alignment and direction of the total Norwegian research on CO 2 storage in a collaborative effort with Norwegian industry must be sought, along with a strong emphasis on international cooperation. 6.1 Key elements of a national R&D effort on Large-scale storage of CO 2 on the Norwegian Shelf (LessCO2) It is suggested that the best way of fulfilling this industry-political vision is to establish a joint national strategic platform on large-scale storage of CO 2, encompassing the leading national research institutions and an extensive project portfolio on CO 2 storage. This platform should consist of three main elements: 1) Ongoing research projects. Guided by the vision, the research community will align ongoing research on CO 2 storage. Consequently, ongoing research programs in the two FME centers, as well as in other publically financed projects on CO 2 storage, should be coordinated, attempting to close identified gaps. 2) A new cross-institutional project. In order to close remaining gaps a new project needs to be established, addressing time critical research, socio-political and legislative issues pertinent to the objective of realizing large-scale storage by 2018. 3) International collaboration. Other European countries, in particular UK, are thinking in the same direction as Norway. It is important that such initiatives are communicated and to some extent coordinated, with the purpose of exchanging information and results that may push large-scale storage of CO 2 in the North Sea/Europe. 6.1.1 Ongoing research projects The two FMEs SUCCESS and BIGCCS, together with the portfolio of ongoing Climit projects on CO 2 storage, include a total funding of some 3-400 million NOK. It is recommended as a first step that the two FMEs arrange a common workshop with the aim to align their research scope in the context of LessCO 2. As a second step, other Climit projects can be invited to join the LessCO 2 vision. In order to secure continued focus, the annual Climit Days conference may incorporate the LessCO 2 vision and use it as a checkpoint or fixed conference theme, against which the Climit projects could report their results. 39

of 47 6.1.2 A new cross-institutional project To reach the LessCO 2 vision, it is recommended that a new cross-institutional research project application targeting LessCO 2 be forwarded to Climit, to investigate issues not covered by the existing research portfolio. Such a project would have to be closely calibrated against and coordinated with industrial initiatives and legislative efforts, to secure optimal direction of the project and avoid confusion with respect to roles and responsibility. Objective of a future project to enable large-scale CO 2 storage on the Norwegian shelf: Close the gap between basic research and CO 2 storage demonstration through a comprehensive feasibility study based on data from representative storage site(s). Identification of research tasks and sub-objectives must be coordinated with and leveled against the existing research portfolio with the collaborative research partners. Sub-objectives Investigate case(s) for large-scale CO 2 storage and accompanying development strategy o Apply state-of-the-art knowledge and technology with real data to provide information needed for designing a case-based storage solution (> 10 Mt CO 2 /yr) Storage capacity, formation and well integrity, drilling technology, well distribution, reservoir management, monitoring & remediation Risks and challenges of up-scaling o Assess business models for large-scale CO 2 storage Large-scale infrastructure (sinks and sources, localization and construction) Stakeholders and business drivers Simple economic assessments Opportunities for securing the business case (e.g. EOR, CO 2 recipient) under various conditions (economic assessments and sensitivities) Challenges (e.g. lead time, transport capacity for future increase in CO 2 supply) Potential impact on deployment of CCS in Europe o Recommendations/input for regulations and policies based on analyses Validate current knowledge and technology for safe injection and storage of >10 Mt/yr o Verify analytical results by comparing with real data and history matching o Advance knowledge and technology to close identified gaps that are critical with regard to feasibility and cost Within ongoing research projects (input for current research) Need for new research projects (spin-offs) Facilitate knowledge sharing between research (national and international) and industry o In particular, gather and build on lessons learned from CO 2 storage sites in operation and EOR o Synergies with conventional E&P 6.1.3 International collaboration The lack of policy instruments sufficient to enable industrial implementation of large-scale CO 2 storage, imposes a considerable responsibility on the research community to keep CCS as a main measure to curb the CO 2 emissions high on the agenda of the climate debate. Through continuous efforts to advance and validate the technology and systematic assessment of feasibility in collaboration with industry, the research institution can promote the vision of CO 2 storage on the Norwegian shelf at a scale relevant for enabling CCS in Europe. This work is critical to avoid losing more momentum within CCS until economic and regulatory framework conditions that stimulate industry investments are in place. Communication of research-based knowledge on CO 2 storage can improve public confidence in CCS as a safe and long-term solution for reducing CO 2 emissions and 40

of 47 contribute to national and cross-border legislation, which is also important to pave the way for largescale CO 2 storage. UK has identified similar opportunities as Norway and faces comparable challenges to enable the Central North Sea as a European CO 2 storage hub (ref report on Central North Sea). As early as in 2005 The One North Sea Basin Task Force was founded by UK and Norway to explore opportunities for cooperation on CO 2 storage in the North Sea. In 2008 membership was expanded to include the Netherlands and Germany. The report, A study into North Sea cross-border CO 2 transport and storage (2010), concludes that the rapid deployment of large-scale low-cost infrastructure by 2030 is technically achievable and is necessary for full deployment, but government and industry cooperation around the North Sea is needed to co-ordinate and lead the pre-commercial deployment of CCS in the period to 2020 and beyond increase confidence in the location, volumes and reliability of sink capacity in and around the North Sea, and facilitate access to safe storage recognize shared interests, speak with one voice and act consistently, where possible, to promote the development of CCS. The One North Sea Basin Task Force can be used as a model/basis for developing a cross-national collaboration among the research institutions. This will enable the CCS community to draw on the extensive investments in CCS research over the last decade including theoretical and experimental research, field tests and pilots as well as lessons learned from the Norwegian large-scale implementations (Sleipner and Snøhvit). By building on the total base of knowledge and experience, it is possible to make a significant contribution to realizing the vision of a large European CO 2 storage site. In a joint research effort the research institutions should seek support from national public funding bodies in addition to financial support from the industry. The European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) is set up to enable knowledge sharing and development of alliances among European research institutions. The EERA Joint Program on CCS can be instrumental in establishing a European collaboration on large-scale CO 2 storage. The caseoriented approach recommended by the current project may be an interesting model also for the future work of EERA on CCS. Moreover, through ECCSEL there are opportunities to develop common infrastructures for CCS research, and ongoing field lab and pilot projects (e.g. Svelvik and Ketzin) can serve as a basis for international collaboration. Cross-border cooperation can also contribute to adjusting the CO 2 storage directive in a direction more relevant for meeting the practical challenges related to both methods and best practices for largescale CO 2 storage. 6.2 Timeline A cross-institutional project for large-scale CO 2 storage must build on the large portfolio of research projects on related topics and will contribute with validated knowledge and technology that support the industry in setting up CO 2 storage demonstration projects and in preparing the final investment decisions (FID) for full scale implementation of CO 2 storage. The time frame of collaborative project is estimated to be 2-4 years. The figure below illustrates the proposed large-scale CO 2 storage project as a measure to enable development of demonstration and full-scale implementation of CO 2 storage, building on a comprehensive knowledge and technology base built over many years through research. 41

of 47 Blue sky R&D Basic R&D Applied R&D Pilot & Demos Commercial LessCO 2 Large scale CO 2 storage Preparing FID CO 2 storage demo Large scale CO 2 storage implementation BIGCCS - SUCCESS Climit Climit projects 2018 6.3 Roles Realizing this bold vision, it is important that there is a clear understanding of roles. 1) The research community shall contribute to development of knowledge needed by the commercial industry to undertake a future field development study. A commercial field development study is the responsibility of the industry. 2) Oil companies, commercial business and government agencies are hosting and executing various projects on CO 2 storage. The research community shall contribute to ongoing project development with new perspectives outside current project mandate and scope. 3) Establishing a national platform on large-scale storage of CO 2 shall contribute to placing ongoing research projects in a value chain perspective and making it more relevant. It will not replace nor interfere with established research contracts, 42

of 47 Appendix Short presentation of contributing research institutions Christian Michelsen Research (CMR) Christian Michelsen Research (CMR) established a new business area, CMR Energy, in January 2010. CMR Energy has three main priorities: Offshore wind, geological storage of CO 2 and geothermal energy. CMR is the host institution of FME SUCCESS, which is organized at CMR Energy. In regards to CO 2 storage, a collaborating activity at CMR has evolved between CMR Computing and CMR Energy, which will cooperate closely with a new KPN; Virtual CO2 Lab (VIRCOLA) that started in February 2013. The CMR divisions CMR Computing, CMR Instrumentation and CMR Prototech have worked and are working with CO 2 related research. In particular, CMR Prototech is involved, together with IFE at Kjeller, in carbon capture research through the company ZEG Power. ZEG technology is a hybrid technology for co-production of electricity and hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels with integrated CO 2 capture. ZEG technology provides the power concept with highest energy efficiency from hydrocarbon fuels, and is the only concept with the potential to produce electricity and hydrogen with integrated CO 2 capture less expensive than today. CMR Prototech has also been collaborating closely with Statoil on developing rotating machinery for carbon capture (RDW). CMR Instrumentation work on Controlled Source Electro-Magnetic (CSEM) instrumentation, and has performed an uncertainty analysis in relation to detection of CO 2 in the subsurface. CMR Instrumentation is in addition hosting the SFI Michelsensenteret, where one of the projects is working on various monitoring techniques for CO 2 measurement in water. Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) IFE has been conducting CO 2 storage research since 2004. During a one year stay at Total in Pau, we contributed to the development of a complete CO2 storage strategy for Total. Through several successive CLIMIT projects IFE has gained a lot of knowledge and experience, with a special focus on these topics: Reactive transport in CO 2 rich systems Fluid characterization in CO 2 rich reservoirs and caprocks Durability of cement and steel exposed to high CO 2 contents Monitoring of CO 2 subsurface movement using tracers and geochemistry Reservoir and caprock characterization, including baseline and compartment identification (use of stable and radiogenic isotopes) The study of fluid flow and cementation of fractures Sealing efficiency and seal risk assessment IFE took a strong initiative in the establishment of the SUCCESS center, and is work package leader for two of the seven WPs in SUCCESS. International Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS) IRIS is one of the leading research institutes in Norway with 40 years of history (under the name of RF-Rogaland Research till 2006). Our main research areas are drilling and well, improved oil recovery and environmental monitoring. Research within CCS has been a natural expansion of our activities. Our specialists are now involved in a large number of national and international CCS research projects. These projects include evaluation of CO 2 injection and storage potential at several fields, such as Snøhvit, Utsira, and aquifers in the Czech Republic. IRIS has evaluated CCS drilling and well procedures for Gassnova. Together with Norwegian and international research partners we contribute in the development of an open source simulation toolbox that can be used to simulate CO 2 injection in underground reservoirs. Using our experience in marine 43

of 47 life ecology and monitoring from projects like Biotaguard we are actively involved in monitoring and environmental aspects of CO 2 capture, transport and storage. IRIS is a member of CO2GeoNet; partner in CGS Europe which is a Coordination Action within CO 2 storage under FP7; participant in European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) Joint Programme on CCS. The institute also participates and contributes in the NPD Lagringsforum and the Norway-US bilateral CO 2 partnership. NORSAR NORSAR has been working with the analysis of microseismic data related to fluid injection since 2000. From 2009 on, NORSAR has worked specifically with the analysis of microseismic data in relation to long-term CO2 storage through the NFR CLIMIT project SafeCO2. During the Gassnova project MIMOSA (NGI, NORSAR, Statoil, BP, Sonatrach), NORSAR and NGI showed that microseismic activity is directly related to CO 2 injection in the InSalah, Krechba, field, in Algeria. NORSAR s work within CO 2 storage focuses on: Location of injection-induced micro-seismicity Design of optimized monitoring networks Automation for real-time microseismic monitoring systems Correlation between microseismic event location and injection data Methods for improved detection thresholds for microseismic monitoring Determining source parameters of micro-earthquakes and correlation pressure/injection data Location and characterization of micro-seismicity during and after the injection of CO 2 is invaluable for ensuring integrity of the CO 2 storage sealing. Precise location and characterization (size of events, stress drops, b-values, etc.) are necessary to understand the CO 2 behavior within the reservoir. Vital information is for example whether observed micro-seismicity actually represents opening fractures in the reservoir for enhanced storage capacity, or whether the caprock is starting to get breached. The above points are also valuable for the concept of a continuous real-time warning system. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) NGI has been a main partner in the Ramore project, and is a partner in SUCCESS as well as in INJECT. NGI also has extensive experience from CO 2 pilot projects like Longyearbyen, Snøhvit and InSalah where we have analysed geomechanical conditions and defined the maximum allowable injection pressure. Our specific competence is in the field of rock mechanics, where we possess unique experimental facilities. Geomechanical consequences of fluid-rock interaction in CO 2 rich systems is a particularly important field in CO 2 storage technology, and prediction of fracturing is one of the most critical topics concerning the safety of CO 2 storages. These have been the focus of several projects at NGI since the past decade. SINTEF Petroleum Research SINTEF has a long record in the research on CO 2 storage in Norway. We have a particularly strong expertise in reservoir and basin modeling, directed towards CO 2 storage. Formation petrophysics and seismic interpretation is another strong activity area. SINTEF has planned and operated the Svelvik CO 2 injection and monitoring pilot study, and has also made a long series of contributions to other CO 2 pilots (Sleipner, Snøhvit, Johansen Fm, Longyearbyen). SINTEF Petroleum Research (SINTEF PR) is a non-profit contract research institute developing technologies and solutions for the exploration and production of petroleum resources and has been a pioneer in CO 2 storage research. Currently, SINTEF PR coordinates the CO2 Field Lab project, conducting shallow injections at the Svelvik site to develop and test monitoring systems and to validate CO 2 migration models. The institute leads the scientific work related to CO 2 storage in BIGCCS. SINTEF PR investigates qualification and management of storage resources, CO 2 storage behavior, monitoring, leakage and remediation as well as effects of CO 2 on rock properties. The institute has a complete infrastructure for integrated reservoir studies including reservoir technology and formation physics laboratories, necessary software and computer installations. SINTEF PR participates in several EU projects (e.g. SiteChar, ECCO, CASTOR, ULCOS, DYNAMIS, CO2GEONET, and RISCS) as well as industry projects addressing CO 2 storage, process technology, 44

of 47 concepts for reduction of CO 2 emissions, CO 2 -based EOR and aquifer storage of CO 2. In addition to the mentioned research projects SINTEF PR has conducted feasibility studies, e.g. CO 2 value chain from Tjeldbergodden to Draugen/Heidrun and safe storage of CO 2 from the Mongstad and Kårstø plants, and techno-economic assessment of CO 2 for EOR. SINTEF PR is a legal entity affiliated with the SINTEF Group, one of the largest private independent research groups in Northern Europe. Much of the work is based on the institute s own physical and numerical laboratories, located mainly in Trondheim, and research is performed also in cooperation with several universities, predominantly the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). Tel-Tek Tel-Tek is a research institute with main focus on energy efficient processes and low emission strategies. Tel-Tek has been working with CCS since 2003, and has a particular interest in R&D related to process industrial application of CCS. Tel-Tek performs studies within the total CCS chain and participates in several national and international CO 2 projects and initiatives, including NORDICCS, ECCO, ZEP. A selection of recent CCS projects comprises: Interreg project CO 2 capture, transport and storage in the Skagerrak/Kattegat region. Transport solutions by ship and pipeline in Germany and Poland CO 2 injection pilot Skagerrak, phase 1 CO 2 transportation projects for NPD Cost estimation of CO 2 transportation in ZEP Hubs and CO 2 infrastructure in ECCO Tel-Tek cooperates closely with Telemark University College and our combined work includes: Post-combustion capture technology, energy integration, amine degradation and waste handling Early phase cost estimation Solutions for energy-producing and energy-intensive industry CO2 transport and infrastructure Feasibility studies on CCS from source to sink Uni Research Uni Research carries out research and development in the fields of energy, health, modeling, marine molecular biology, environment, climate, and social sciences. It has recently been involved in two Norwegian centers of excellence and numerous projects on CCS funded by the Research council of Norway. Uni Research has ten years of experience in the topics of CO 2 storage through its centers of excellence, Centre for Integrated Petroleum Research (CIPR) and Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research. In the last years there has been a focus on CO 2 flow and monitoring at Uni CIPR. The center is partner in the SUCCESS center. The group at Uni CIPR works with numerical modeling and methods for subsurface flow, inversion and history matching. The group at Uni Bjerknes Centre works with chemical oceanography and has experience with measurement of geochemical parameters in seawater. University of Oslo UiO was leading the Ramore project (2007-2012), and has one of the two scientific leaders of the SUCCESS center. We are also a partner of the INJECT research consortium. Furthermore, we have made important contributions to the Skagerrak projects and to the CO2 Seal project. UiO has a particularly strong expertise in reaction and transport in CO2 rich systems, both from an experimental and from a modeling point of view. UiO also possesses strong expertise in several basic geologic disciplines, like sedimentology, petroleum geochemistry, mineralogy, structural geology and geophysics. 45

of 47 References Aas, B., Barre, A., & Sørbø, J. (2011). Design/engineering of CO2 injection weels - Pre-project report. Stavanger, Norway: IRIS. CLIMIT (2011) An industry for the future Norway s petroleum activities Meld. St. 28 (2010 2011) to the Storting (white paper) DNV. (2011). CO2WELLS @Guidelines for the risk management of existing wells at CO2 geological storage sites. DNV report No 2011-0448. Element Energy (2010)) One North Sea -A study into North Sea cross-border CO2 transport and storage, for the North Sea Basin Task Force, 112 pp Element Energy (2012). The Practical Potential for Gas Power with CCS in Europe in 2030. Final report for the Europena Climate Foundation, 63 pp. European Commission (2011). Energy Roadmap 2050. EU Publications Office, 24 pp. Hossain, M.M. and Amro M.M., "Drilling and completion challenges and remedies of CO2 injected wells with emphasis to mitigate well integrity issues. SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 18-20 October 2010, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. IEA (2012). World Energy Outlook (WEO2012), Executive summary. International Energy Agency, 12 pp. IEA (2012). Energy Technology Perspectives (ETP2012), Executive summary, International Energy Agency, 10 pp. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),(2007). Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 IPCC, Cambridge University Press, UK. pp 431. HOLLOWAY, S et al.,(1996) The Underground Disposal of Carbon Dioxide. Final of JOULE II Project no. CT92-0031, Non Nuclear Energy R&D Programme Lindeberg et al. (2009) Determination of the CO2 storage capacity of the Utsira formation, Energy Procedia Volume 1, Issue 1, February 2009, Pages 2777 2784 UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (2012). CCS Roadmap. Department of Energy and Climate Change, 50 pp. Mondol, N.H., Bjørlykke, K., Jahren, J. and Høeg, K. (2007). Experimental mechanical compaction of clay mineral aggregates - Changes in physical properties of mudstones during burial. Marine and Petroleum Geology 24, 289-311. Mondol, N.H., Fawad, M., Jahren, J., and Bjørlykke, K. (2008). Synthetic mudstone compaction trends and their use in pore pressure prediction. First Break 26, 7-15. Mondol, N.H., Bjørlykke, K. and Jahren, J. (2008). Experimental compaction of clays: relationship between permeability and petrophysical properties in mudstones. Petroleum Geoscience 14, 319-337. NORSOK. (August 2004). standard D-010, rev3 Well integrity in drilling and well operations Sides, W. I. (1992). Injection Safety valve Solutions for CO2 WAG Cycle Wells. Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference. Midland, Texas, USA. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (2012). CO 2 storage atlas Norwegian North Sea. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, 72 pp. Rutqvist, J. (2012). The Geomechanics of CO 2 Storage in Deep Sedimentary Formations. Geotech Geol Eng 30(3), 525-551. 46

of 47 Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage (2012) Central North Sea - CO2 Storage Hub Enabling CCS Deployment in the UK and Europe Scottish Funding Council, (2012) CENSEOR-CO2 - Centre for North Sea Enhanced Oil Recovery with CO2.networking all Scottish Universities. Main partners are University of Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt University, and British Geological Survey. http://www.sccs.org.uk/features/censeor-co2/ SINTEF (n.d.). Sintef report on CO2 injection well integrity. Retrieved August 2011, from http://www.ptil.no/getfile.php/pdf/sintef--co2-injection-well.pdf Tel-Tek (2005) Norsk CO2 AS, Tel-Tek report no. 2204060-1. pp 42 September 2005 The Bellona Fundation (2005) CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery on the Norwegian Shelf, report. Watson, T., & Bachu, S. (2008). Identification of Wells With High CO2-Leakage Potential in Mature Oil Fields Developed for CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery. SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery. Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA: SPE 112924. WRI. (2008). CCS Guidelines: Guidelines for Carbon sioxide Capture, Transport and Storage. Washington DC. Zoback, M.D. and Gorelick, S.M. (2012). Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide. P Natl Acad Sci USA 109(26), 10164-10168. Zoback, M.D., Kohli, A., Das, I. and McClure, M. (2012). The Importance of Slow Slip on Faults During Hydraulic Fracturing Stimulation of Shale Gas Reservoirs, SPE Americas Unconventional Resources Conference, 5-7 June 2012. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 47