The Quest Facility: Learningfrom 6 years of Operations
Simon O’Brien
Global CCS Deployment Lead
Copyright of Shell Global Solutions International

November 20161

Definitions & cautionary note
The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate legal entities. In this presentation “Shell”, “Shell Group” and “Royal Dutch Shell” are sometimes used for convenience where references are madeto Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to Royal Dutch Shell plc and its subsidiaries in general or to those who work for them. These terms are also used where nouseful purpose is served by identifying the particular entity or entities. ‘‘Subsidiaries’’, “Shell subsidiaries” and “Shell companies” as used in this presentation refer to entities over which Royal Dutch Shell plc either directly or indirectly has control.
Entities and unincorporated arrangements over which Shell has joint control are generally referred to as “joint ventures” and “joint operations”, respectively. Entities over which Shell has significant influence but neither control nor joint control arereferred to as “associates”. The term “Shell interest” is used for convenience to indicate the direct and/or indirect ownership interest held by Shell in an entity or unincorporated joint arrangement, after exclusion of all third-party interest.

This presentation contains forward-looking statements (within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) concerning the financial condition, results of operations and businesses of Royal Dutch Shell. All statements
other than statements of historical fact are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are statements of future expectations that are based on management’s current expectations and assumptions andinvolve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in these statements. Forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements
concerning the potential exposure of Royal Dutch Shell to market risks and statements expressing management’s expectations, beliefs, estimates, forecasts, projections and assumptions. These forward-looking statements are identified by their useof terms and phrases such as “aim”, “ambition”, ‘‘anticipate’’, ‘‘believe’’, ‘‘could’’, ‘‘estimate’’, ‘‘expect’’, ‘‘goals’’, ‘‘intend’’, ‘‘may’’, ‘‘objectives’’, ‘‘outlook’’, ‘‘plan’’, ‘‘probably’’, ‘‘project’’, ‘‘risks’’, “schedule”, ‘‘seek’’, ‘‘should’’, ‘‘target’’,‘‘will’’ and similar terms and phrases. There are a number of factors that could affect the future operations of Royal Dutch Shell and could cause those results to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements included inthis presentation, including (without limitation): (a) price fluctuations in crude oil and natural gas; (b) changes in demand for Shell’s products; (c) currency fluctuations; (d) drilling and production results; (e) reserves estimates; (f) loss of market
share and industry competition; (g) environmental and physical risks; (h) risks associated with the identification of suitable potential acquisition properties and targets, and successful negotiation and completion of such transactions; (i) the risk of

doing business in developing countries and countries subject to international sanctions; (j) legislative, fiscal and regulatory developments including regulatory measures addressing climate change; (k) economic and financial market conditions invarious countries and regions; (l) political risks, including the risks of expropriation and renegotiation of the terms of contracts with governmental entities, delays or advancements in the approval of projects and delays in the reimbursement forshared costs; (m) risks associated with the impact of pandemics, such as the COVID-19 (coronavirus) outbreak; and (n) changes in trading conditions. No assurance is provided that future dividend payments will match or exceed previous
dividend payments. All forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. Readers should not place undue reliance on forwardlooking statements. Additional risk factors that may affect future results are contained in Royal Dutch Shell’s Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2020 (available at www.shell.com/investor and www.sec.gov). These risk factors also
expressly qualify all forward-looking statements contained in this presentation and should be considered by the reader. Each forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date of this presentation, January 20, 2022. Neither Royal Dutch Shell
plc nor any of its subsidiaries undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or other information. In light of these risks, results could differ materially from thosestated, implied or inferred from the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation.
We may have used certain terms, such as resources, in this presentation that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) strictly prohibits us from including in our filings with the SEC. Investors are urged to consider closely thedisclosure in our Form 20-F, File No 1-32575, available on the SEC website www.sec.gov.

Copyright of Shell Canada

2

◼
◼

◼

◼
◼

◼
◼

Government Support for Quest▪ Predicted total cost of Quest: $1.35B CAN(FEED, Capital + 10 years OPEX)▪ The governments of Alberta and Canada
contributed $745M and $120M respectively
to Quest, for a total of $865M CAN▪ Requirements – Quest will:▪ Only receive direct financial support until
a net revenue threshold is reached▪ Adhere to stringent annual reporting witha comprehensive MMV plan
▪ Conduct extensive knowledge sharing▪ Carbon tax credits provide a long-term commercial
incentive for capture and sequestration▪ Pore space tenure – permission to inject CO2 into thesubsurface▪ Requirements for monitoring, measurement andverification▪ Quantification protocol – accounting scheme forinjected CO2▪ Clarify long-term liability, closure planning

Community Perspective◼ Community around pipeline and wells

were new to Shell◼ CCS/CO2 pipelines were seen as“unknown”◼ Thorhild County was announced as new

location for regional dump
◼ Right before Quest announcement◼ Divided community◼ We were seen as “dumping” ourwaste there as well
◼ Significant stakeholder engagement

effort required

The Quest Facility◼ Located at the Scotford Upgrader, north of Edmonton,

Alberta (Canada)◼ JV with Canadian Natural Upgrading and Chevron◼ CO2 capture from 3 hydrogen manufacturing units with

rates up to 3600 tonnes/day.
◼ One million tonnes represents about 1/3 of theUpgrader’s emissions – equivalent to the output of
250,000 cars!
◼ 65 km pipeline to storage facility north of Scotford◼ Storage in secure saline reservoir – Basal Cambrian

Sands (BCS)◼ Started commercial operations in Oct, 2015

CO2 Capture Facility◼ Standard amine technology (Shell’s ADIP-X) utilized for CO2

removal from raw H2◼ CO2 compression via an 8 stage, integrally geared

compressor◼ 9-11 MPa discharge,◼ 12-16 MW power consumption: 1/3 of Quest emissions◼ CO2 dehydration via tri-ethylene glycol (TEG) to 4 lb

H2O/MMScf water content spec
◼ Integrated facility design in excess of 1.2 Million tonnes perannum(Mtpa)

Capture Issues◼ First compressor shutdown in

May 2015 resulted in reverse
rotation up to 500 rpm after
rapid deceleration◼ Additional blow-off capacity

added to 4th, 5th, and 6thcompressor stages◼ Successful test of the new

blow-off arrangement inAugust 2015

1400
1st Stg
5th Stg Disc
8th Stg Disc
Motor Speed

5000

4000

600

2000

400

1000
0
7:23 PM

1000
800

3000

200
7:24 PM

7:26 PM

7:27 PM

7:29 PM

7:30 PM

7:32 PM

Other Issues

1200

0
7:33 PM

Motor Speed (RPM)

Compressor Reverse Rotation

Compressor Pressures (kPag)

6000◼ Some furnace issues on

HMU3 limiting capture◼ Carbon steel in low pH

water service◼ Discharge to water

treatment not properly
scoped◼ Foaming/flooding in theamine absorbers tied tocarbon filters

Quest Pipeline◼ 65 km, 12” CO2 pipeline with 6 block valves (every 4-15 km)◼ Route selected to meet stakeholder requirements◼ Over 330 ROW crossings◼ 30+ re-routes to accommodate landowner input◼ Design pressure: 14.8 Mpa◼ Material – Z245.1 Carbon Steel◼ High strength and high toughness at low temperature to prevent

long running ductile fracturePipeline Issues◼ Pipeline Pigging Receiver Design – not able toaccommodate all pig sizes, including cleaning,
maintenance and smart pigs for inspection.
◼ Pig Receiver Locations - only allow pigging up to

LBV3 when the final wellsite is not in use◼ Solar Panel Reliability - not functional during winterdays with limited sunlight, required additional fuelcells
◼ Analyser reliability – created regulatory issue andrequired additional samplingQuest Storage Site Selection

Storage Geology◼ High Quality Reservoir: Basal Cambrian

Sands (17% porosity, 1000 mD
permeability) at a depth of 2000 m◼ Seals: thick, regionally extensive: Middle

Cambrian Shale (70m) and Lotsberg Salts(100m)◼ Existing fluid: saturated saline brine◼ Very secure storage – the only possible leaks

sites are at the wells◼ Comprehensive Measurement, Monitoringand Verification (MMV) Plan

Wells and Drilling
Storage Facility consists of three well pads:▪ Each pad has 1 injection well, 1 deep monitoring well andmultiple shallow ground water wells▪ Conventional drilling methods▪ Multiple steel casings for injection wells, 3 in the freshwaterzone, all cemented to surface: very secureQuest MMV Plan 2015: Pre-injection
Baseline
Atmosphere

Injection

Closure▪ Addresses Containment and Conformance▪ First of a kind – conservative approach▪ Comprehensive: from atmosphere to

LightSource Laser CO2 Monitoring
Eddy Covariance Flux Monitoring?

Biosphere

CO2 Natural Tracer Monitoring
CO2 Flux and Soil Gas
Remote Sensing (Brine & NDVI)

geosphere

Shell Groundwater Wells: Continuous EC, pH
Discrete Chemical and Isotopic Analysis on water and gas

Hydrosphere▪ Risk-based, site-specific and independently

Private Landowner Groundwater Wells (discrete chemistry and Isotopes on water and gas)

Geosphere?

reviewed

Time-Lapse Walkaway VSP Surveys▪ Combination of new and traditional

Time-Lapse 3D Surface Seismic

technologies

InSAR

Deep
Monitoring
Wells

Downhole Pressure & Temperature (DHPT) above Storage Complex (CKLK Fm)
Downhole Microseismic Monitoring

start-up

Injection Rate Metering, RST Logging, Temperature logging

Injection
Wells

DHPT, Well Head PT, Distributed Temperature and Acoustic Sensing,
Annulus Pressure Monitoring, Wellhead CO2 Sensor, Mechanical Well Integrity Testing,Operational Integrity Assurance

CBL, USIT

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Time (years)

2035▪ Considerable baseline data collected before

2040

2045

2050

▪ Extensive: expensive▪ Adaptive – updated every 3 years, learningfrom experiencePre-injection Containment Risk Bow-tie for Quest

Bow-tie: Quest Containment – 2020 MMV PlanMeasurement, Monitoring and Verification▪ Focus on addressing key risks: drive towards
ALARP▪ Reduce or eliminate those technologies that do
not drive decisions▪ Focus on well integrity and near well-bore▪ Tiered approach – much of the data analysis is
on as needed basis:▪ Tier 1: early warning system – continuous
monitoring near well-bore▪ Tier 2: periodic monitoring near well-bore▪ Tier 3: longer time-frame risks andcontingent data that can be analysed in caseof Tier 1/2 triggers

MMV Technology Examples
Tier 1: Tubing Head and Annular Pressures

Tier 2: Microseismic Data

▪ Essential well integrity monitoring▪ Production casing by tubing annulus contains▪ Geophone array in monitoring well
▪ Continuous recording, daily analysis andDrillsol with a nitrogen (N2) cushion above▪ Stable pressures and Drillsol levels confirm
annular integrity

reporting▪ Event locations in the basement and small
magnitudes confirm no risk to containmentConformance Monitoring – Modelling▪ Time lapse Vertical Seismic Profiles used to image thechange in lateral extent of the CO2 plume over time

▪ Pulse Neutron Logs used to verify the vertical
distribution of CO2 in the reservoir▪ Model has been refined with improved reservoir
properties – good history match achieved▪ Pressure build-up (P) in the BCS forecast to be lessthan 2 MPa over the life of the projectStorage Issues – Injectivity Decline▪ Declining injectivity due to halite precipitation:▪ Remediation with water flush successfully reversed

Notable drops following well interventions

decline in 2019 > 250% increase in injectivity!

▪ Not a concern for first four years of injection▪ Remediation with water flush successfully reversed▪ Subsequently applied to all 3 wells – all had
excellent results

decline in 2019
Quest CO2 Injector IW 7-11 Injectivity Index
Injectivity (kg/hr-kPa) & Flow Rate (tonnes/hour)120

A - Injectivity test prior
to treatment
100

B - Halite remediation
Treatment

E - Post Remediation
Treatment
Injectivity

80

C - CO2 flush post halite
remediation
60

40

D - Quest shut in for
turnaround20

0
1-Jun-2020

1-Jul-2020

31-Jul-2020

30-Aug-2020

Flow Rate

Injectivity Index

29-Sep-2020

Storage Issues▪ Hydrate formation during first post-injection logging
operation, caused operational delays▪ “CO2 compatible” elastomers swelled during
depressurization, making retrieval difficult▪ Weeping well head seals - looks like possible issues withmaterial coatings or grease compatibility▪ Subsurface operational processes were new to
Downstream – getting them established wasdifficult▪ Onboarding wells/MMV technologies to a DS site
was very challenging▪ Seismic imaging/monitoring below multiple coals
and salt took several iterations

Quest – Six Years of Operations▪ Operations are continuing smoothly: >98% reliability▪ Capture and monitoring costs well below expectations▪ Amine and TEG recycle has been very high▪ Well performance has been good, more than enoughcapacity with 3 wells running▪ Measuring Monitoring and Verification system working
well – well logging and seismic confirm CO2 plumedeveloping as expected▪ Through the end of 2021, Quest has captured andsafely stored more than 6.5 M tonnes of CO2