Lessons learned from international CCS projects, regulatory
challenges and solutions, and certification of storage projects
CCS Technical Workshop - Tokyo
Jørg Aarnes, Global Lead Hydrogen and CCS, DNV

24 January 2024

DNV in CCS – helicopter view

2

DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

A global assurance and risk management company

Purpose: To safeguard life, property, and the environment

159 ~13,000 ~100,000years

3employees

customers

100+countries

Ship and offshoreclassification and advisory

Energy advisory, certification,verification, inspection andmonitoring

Software, cyber security,platforms anddigital solutions

Management system
certification, supply chain andproduct assurance

DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

5%+of revenue in R&D

CCS captures 6% of emissions in 2050

4DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Helping scale CCS – 200+ projects in past 10 years

5CAPTURE

TRANSPORTSTORAGE• Fossil power plants• Natural gas CO2 reduction• Other industrial processes• Pipelines• Ships• Depleted oil or gas reservoirs• Saline aquifers• Enhanced oil recovery (EOR)•••••••••••••••••••Cost estimations
Introduction of new technologies
Technology review and benchmarking
Up-scaling risk assessment
HSE risk assessment
Accidental release and dispersion
Value of avoided CO2
DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

CorrosionMaterial selection and structural design
Flow assurance and operational issues
Accidental release and dispersion
Concept design for CO2 ships
Requalification of infrastructure

Verification of storage sites
Permanence of storage
Risk management
Monitoring and verification
Public concern
Transfer of responsibility

Driving development of first international CCUS standards
DNV
RESEARCH/JOINT
INDUSTRY
PROJECT•••••••

CO2 RISKMAN – Guidance on CCS CO2 Safety and Environment Major Accident Hazard Risk Management
CO2 PIPETRANS – Guidance on transportation component of CCS projects
CO2 SAFEARREST – Guidance on the efficient design of CO2 pipelines
CO2 QUALSTORE – Guidance for the selection and qualification of CO2 storage sites
CO2 WELLS – Guidance on the risk management of existing wells at CO2 storage sites
CO2 CAPTURE – Guidance on procedure for capture technology qualification
HiPerCap – Development of novel Capture technologies•ECO2 – Best environmental practice for offshore CO2 injection

DNVRECOMMENDED
PRACTICEDNV-RP-J201
Qualification procedures for carbon
dioxide capture technology

DNV-RP-F104
Design and operation of carbon dioxide
pipelines

DNV-RP-J203
Geological storage of carbon dioxide

INTERNATIONAL
STANDARD

ISO 27919-1
Carbon dioxide capture – Performance
evaluation methods for post-combustion
CO2 capture integrated with a powerplant

ISO 27913
Carbon dioxide capture, transportationand geological storage – Pipelinetransportation system

ISO 27914
Carbon dioxide capture, transportationand geological storage – Geologicalstorage

DNV-SE-0160

DNV-ST-F101

DNV-SE-0473: Certification of sites andprojects for geological storage of CO2
DNV-SE-0617: Qualification management
for geological storage of CO2

DNV FRAMEWORKS
FOR ASSURANCESERVICES

6DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Technology qualification management
and verification

Submarine pipeline systems

What have we learned frominternational CCS projects?

7DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Lessons Learned - Sleipner- Storage works, the value of seismic• Sleipner was initiated in 1996 – will runout of CO2 soon.
• Has demonstrated safe long term
storage in aquifers.
• Has informed policy and regulators
about the value of seismic monitoring todemonstrate CO2 migration.
• Conformance with models (migration
through interbedded baffles occurred
faster than initially modelled)

8DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Lesson Learned – Snøhvit
First offshore CO2 pipeline, compartmentalization• Initial injectivity challenges due to salt drop-out + fines• Rising pressure due to geological barriers• Deployed back-up option in the injector (new completion)• New well drilled to allow continued injection
9DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Lessons Learned – CarbonNet
Government led, regulatory challenges• Storage first, then emitter contracts• Built team within government• Needed clear separation with regulatory body
• Dependence on government funding• Significant outsourcing of studies• Regulations existed. But storage sites thatstraddled boundary between state boundaryand commonwealth waters not legal.
• Dialogues in 2012, resolved in 2021

• Testing SRSOAI meaning for CCS
10DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Lessons learned – Weyburn (+Midale)
CO2-EOR is CC(U)S, value of assurance monitoring• Started in 2001
• Comprehensive monitoring and risk
assessment delivered confidence in storage• 1300+ wells (at Weyburn), many old.
• Petroleum regulations apply• The One Stakeholder …
• Kerr farm claims of leakage• Robust monitoring and scientific evidence
provided to dispute claims• Operator may not have been home-free without
support from IEA GHG M&S project
11

DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Lessons Learned – SECARB at Citronelle• Carbon capture from Plant Barry (equivalent to 25MWe).
• 12-mile CO2 pipeline constructed by Denbury Resources. Injectioninto ~9.400 ft. deep saline formation (Paluxy) above Citronelle Field.
• Lessons learned• Regulatory process biggest risk (in hindsight). Last project to bepermitted under Class V – experimental well regulation, with req. for4.5” pipeline.
• First major demonstration with intermittent injection (low gas prices
led to coal plant being switched off and on). No issues.
• Duration of project shortened due to lack of CO2 – Denbury pulled out
when their minimal contract commitment of 100kt was met.
• Initial intent was to continue with CO2 EOR after project, but low oil
prices didn’t support business case. Similar for PetroNova.
• First integrated project with different entities for capture, transportmonitoring and storage.
• Risk mng challenge: Provide sufficient transparency to allow the risk
assessments to be auditable and traceable across companies.

12DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Lessons Learned – Gorgon
Barrow island act, pressure management issues• Placed on a Class A Nature Reserve – allowed throughbarrow island act with many regulatory constraints• Chevron is required to sequester at least 80% of thecaptured CO2 from the LNG plant over a five-year period• CO2 injection started in 2019 (gas production in 2016) fornext 40 yrs.
• Injection reduced, not meeting promised injection rates• Major fault system implied need for water production to manage
pressure (away from fault system)• Injectivity reduction – due to sand/fines in water production led toissues implying reduced water injection

13

DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Lessons Learned – In Salah, Algeria (EOR)
Risked based monitoring: value of satellite InSAR
Injection wellPlan: Injected CO2 through 3 new wells located in the water legof the field; CO2 was expected to migrate towards the gas field

Injection well

Event: CO2 migrated unexpectedly in a northly direction andbroke through at KB-5 well (suspended legacy well)• Detected by integrating a combination of geochemical, geodic andgeophysical technologies – low-cost satellite InSAR was key

Injection well

Result: Update to risk-based monitoring plan & injection strategy
Key Learning• Inadequate understanding of subsurface structure

InSAR DataKB-5• Deployment of multiple monitoring technologies• Adaptive risked based MMV plan
Ringrose et a., 2013

Predicted plume migration
14

DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Actual plume migration

EOwikiQuest – Shell Alberta Canada
Public Acceptance (2008 to date)• Quest - 1MT of CO2 per year from 2015
• CCS was unknown to the community, objections centred on government
funding which could have been used for other local activities• Many non-believers in climate change
Approach• Started public engagement 2 yrs. before drilling started in 2010
• Shell worked with local NGO to provide technical information• Engaged with the community – local coffee shop sessions• Set up a Community Advisory Panel to raise issues and present responses
when drilling started• Pipeline route selected to meet stakeholder requirements• Got the project third-party verified prior to injection
Lessons learnt• Engage at local level in an informal manner (no suits, local settings)• Public acceptance won by building relationships and trust; not by providing
technical info or trying to win people round to the purpose of the project.
• Do not over do it – local aquifer water sampling, farms got fed-up
Source: Shell15DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Differing risk profiles of Saline aquifers vs. Depleted fields
Deep saline aquifers

Risk factor
Containment- Well- Faults & sealCapacity

 Typically fewer legacy wells – primary anthropogenetic path ofleakage

 Typically higher density of legacy wells, as the field has been exploreddeveloped and produced.

 Faults and seals not geomechanically weakened throughproduction

 Due to depletion of HC, fields may be geomechanically impacted
 Proven in the local area to hold HC

 Regional capacity ranges typically higher due to large lateralextent Larger uncertainty range on capacity estimates, linked tolimited data on reservoir (store) properties

 Typically offer smaller overall capacity, as the capacity is limited to the fieldsize Uncertainty on capacity range less, due to better reservoir (store)
knowledge

 Greater uncertainty due to lack of data, cannot be derisked
until appraisal well conduct injectivity tests

 Production data gives you confidence on dynamic injectivity rates early onin CCS storage maturation phase Depletion can create high pressure differentials and lead to significant J-T
cooling, and potentially form solids (ice and hydrates) which may havesignificant impact on injectivity. Well material (cements, casing) and thenear-wellbore formation may also be impacted by the thermal andmechanical stresses, impacting well performance and integrity.

 Geophysical monitoring techniques inside and outside thestorage complex are not hampered by the presence ofresidual HC

 If residual HC remain, especially gas, they can inhibit geophysical(seismic) techniques aimed at visualizing plume migration with theconfines of the structurally defined ‘’store’ (injection reservoir) unit.
However, it does not preclude the use of seismic outside for detecting CO2
leakage or migration outside the defined store or storage.

Injectivity

Monitorability

DNV ©

Depleted fields

24 JANUARY 2024

Example technical issues and mitigations• Salt precipitation• Principally an issue when injection into high salinity aquifers (QUEST, Bunter Sandstone UK)• Well stimulation may be required on regular basis to maintain injectivity• Hydrates• Principally an issue caused by J-T cooling during blow-down, well blow-out or injection into depleted fields.
• Injection: Heating of CO2 and potentially start injection at lower rates.

• Pressure build up in closed structures (second target?)• Pressure build-up depends on hydraulically connected volume (to absorb injected fluids). This will constrain the capacity
due to fracture pressure constraints. Vbulk/Vtrap = 5  Storage efficiency = 0.5-2.0.
• Critical points: wells (plugs, near wellbore region), faults (reactivation), shallowest point (capillary entry pressure).

• Where does displaced formation fluids go?
• To shallower units through off-structure legacy wells (mitigation: placement of plugs).
• To seabed through outcrops (mitigation: produce formation brine and inject into other aquifer)• To nearby reservoirs (repressurized – mitigation may not be required).
17DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Regulatory challenges andsolutions (in Europe)

18DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Regulatory challenges –a European perspective• DNV coordinated update of guidance tosupport adherence to CCS Directive.
• 3000+ stakeholder comments• Challenges noted:• Establishing consensus on what constitutes
significant vs. non-significant risk.
• Coordination and permitting of multiple sites withinsame hydraulic unit, incl. X-border.
• Enabling mineralization projects (storage in mafic
rocks without traditional seal).
• Transfer prior to 20 years post-closure.
• Enabling transition from O&G license to storage
license (without competitive process)• When is CO2 EHR combined with storage?
19DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Proposed solutions
Significant risk (leakage + HSE): Cannot put into question the purpose of the CCS Directive.
• No assumption of zero risk or zero leakage (eliminating as far as possible (ALARP) risk) – Need to defend selection ofrisk treatment for individual risks.
• Guidance: Consider nature of the damage, relevant risk acceptance criteria in applicable regulations and corporate
policies, and the benefits of the CO2 storage activity.

Multiple sites in the same hydraulic unit: Pressure interference.
• Operators: Map and describe other known activities within the hydraulic unit that may impact pressure within thestorage site.
• CA: Enable sharing of related information between operators and between CAs, and maintain records ofpressure influence from previous operations.

Mineralization projects without a seal: Caprock and CO2 stream• Caprock should – in tandem with other trapping mechanisms – have sufficiently low permeability to deliver permanentcontainment of CO2 and formation fluids, and prevent any significant risk in site-specific circumstances.
• CO2 stream is not overwhelmingly CO2. This gap is not resolved.

20DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Proposed solutions
Handover prior to the end of a 20-year period following closure• Operator: Specify in the post-closure plan quantitative KPIs for compliance with the criteria for transfer.
• Discuss and agree indicators with the CA as part of the evaluation of the post-closure plan.
• The indicators should be based on the site-specific context, and consider the evolution of containment risk over time.

Exploration permits are to be granted or refused on the basis of non-discriminatory criteria.
• O&G operators holding licenses for depleted fields may not require an exploration permit.
• Leeway to allow such project proponents to apply directly for storage permit, and will also have competitive
advantage for exploration permits.

CCS Directive shall apply if CO2 EHR (or potentially geothermal operations) is combined with storage.

• EHR is considered combined with geological storage of CO2 when long-term storage of CO2 is a primary objective.

• EU ETS accounting: Life-cycle emissions of the EHR operations, including from the combustion of incremental HC.

21

DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Certification of CO2 storage

22

DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Certification frameworks

23

Certification against ISO 27914:2017

Certification against DNV-RP-J203

https://www.dnv.com/oilgas/download/dnvse-0473-certification-of-sites-and-projects-forgeological-storage-of-carbon-dioxide.html

https://www.dnv.com/oilgas/download/dnv-se-0617qualification-management-for-geological-storage-ofCO2.html

DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Addressing the trust issue:
Benefits of Storage Site Certification
Stakeholder Assurance•

Subsurface CO2 storage remains a novel and unfamiliar concept for many – stakeholder assurance is key.

Minimising and mitigating risk to developer•

Objective QA of storage site development by independent experts – brings key issues into focus.

Creates confidence with regulator•

General alignment between certification stage and permitting milestones – can accelerate permitting processes forearly projects.

Enables implementation of CCS in countries without established regulations for CCS•

Certification can be used alongside regulatory E&P milestones to demonstrate alignment with industry best practice

EU Taxonomy compliance•

The EU Taxonomy requires compliance with ISO 27914 – Relevant for import of H2 and NH3 and for EU companies
doing storage outside Europe.

Positioning for public funding•

Helps companies be positioned for public funding, e.g. EU Innovation Fund.

24DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

CO2 storage certification framework

DNV-SE-0473 guides verification of conformity with ISO 27914 at generic milestones in project life-cycle
Requirements in ISO 27914 mapped to align with project milestone
Initiate
Project

SelectProspective sites

SelectStorage site

Storage permit
application

Initiate
Construction

Initiate CO2injection

Terminateinjection

Close site

1234

FID

678

Pre-inject
Screening

Drilling

DesignConstruct

DefineExecuteInject

Post-Inject

OperateClose

Appraisal

Permitting

Identify

AssessSelectPhase IPhase II

Phase III

Phase IV

Certificate ofconformity- Site
Feasibility

Certificate ofconformity- Site
Endorsement

Certificate ofconformity- Site
Storage

Certificate of conformity- Site
Development

Certificate ofconformity- Site
Operations

Certificate ofconformity- Site
Closure5.2-5.3

4.1, 4.3, and 4.6
5.1, 5.4-5.5 and 6
7.3, 7.5-6 and 7.8
8.2 and 9.2-9.4

4.1- 4.2 and 4.5- 4.7
6.6 and 6.10
7.1 and 7.5
8.2 - 8.5. 9.2 and 10

7.2 - 7.5
8.4 - 8.5

6.3 and 6.9.1
7.5 - 7.8
8.4 - 8.6
9.2.3

10ESDNV certification of conformity
DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

IClauses in ISO 27914 for eachproject stage

Post-closureCOperate
Carbon SAFE terminology

Decision gate

Independent review and certification of storage projects• QUEST (CA) (2010-2011): 1 onshore site, aquifer• CarbonNet (AUS) (2012-2019): 631 offshoreaquifer sites• Gorgon (AUS) (2013): 1 on/offshore aquifer site
• Greensand (DK) (2020-2022): 1 depleted field site
• NEP (UK) (2021-2023): 5 aquifer sites• 3 confidential onshore projects in Eur. (20212023): 6 aquifer sites and 1 depleted field• 2 confidential projects in Aus. (2023): 2 onshore
and 1 offshore depleted fields.
• Total: 23 sites

26DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

General recommendations• Structure documentation to align with requirements, or provide a document with pointer torelevant documents for respective requirements.
• It is highly recommended to have risk assessment at the core:• Site characterization activities are informed by the need to de-risk the site
• Site ranking and selection is informed by qualitative risk assessment• Uncertainties are considered and managed in a risk assessment context• MMV plan developments are risk-based• QC that the documentation does answer the full question being addressed.
• Don’t lose sight of non-technical issues – often quick to de-risk, but can have substantial impact• Well integrity is normally “manageable” (at high cost and effort for many depleted fields), but does notmean site is preferable

27

DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Thank you

Jorg.aarnes@dnv.com

www.dnv.com
28

DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Screening / Identify Phase
Aim: Initial evaluation of site suitability. Screen for major technical & nontechnical showstoppers (containment, injectivity, capacity, monitorability,stakeholders) and surface access issues for the site
ISO sections: 5.2-5.3 (site screening, selection, and characterization)
Focus areas:• Geological screening of area of interest for potential CO2 storage sites.
• Qualitatively rank sites based on containment, capacity, injectivity, and project feasibility• Screening for legal and regulatory requirements
Output:• List of prospective storage sites that fulfil the operator’s site selection requirements and associated recommendations in ISO 27914
Decisions:• Commit budget and resources for site characterization and apply for exploration permit or equivalent for prioritized sites.
• Stop progressing sites that cannot be de-risked further or have major showstoppers
Certification: DNV Certification of Conformity - Site Feasibility

29DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Appraisal/ Assess Phase
Aim: Appraise prospective sites in detail and develop a well engineering concept that can deliver required volumes of CO2 at aneconomic rate. At the end of this phase a storage complex(s) is selectedISO sections: 4.1, 4.3, 4.6 (Management systems); 5.1,5.4,5.5 (Site Characterization); 6 (Risk Management); 7.3,7.5,7.6,7.8 (WellInfrastructure); 8.2 (Injection Operations); 9.2-9.4 (Monitoring and Verification)
Focus areas:• Data collection and evaluation: Design & drill a characterization well (if required – aquifer stores), collect all data required forpermitting, geologic modeling of storage complex• Modeling and evaluation of containment, injectivity, capacity and monitorability• Stakeholder engagement.
• Detailed legacy well review• Risk assessment• Initial planning & design for injection and monitoring (MMV feasibility work)
Output: Documentation that there is a feasible development opportunity based on ISO recommendations and TECOP principles, and all
required information for permitting.
Decisions: Commitment of budget and resources for storage permit and public engagement
Certification: DNV Certification of Conformity- Site Endorsement
30

DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024

Process and deliverables• Performed by a review team
• Often consisting partly of nonDNV resources.

• Evaluation positive:• Certificate of conformity andverification report.

• Evaluation negative:• Verification report with
nonconformity observations.

31

DNV ©

24 JANUARY 2024