Upscaling CCS: How In Salah can inform Tomakomai
Iain Wright, Program Manager In Salah JIP (retired)
CO2 Capture and geological Storage (CCS) has the potential to solve a fifth of the Climate Change problem.
All the elements required to capture, transport and geologically store CO2 at industrial-scale are in
operation somewhere in the world today and a great deal of research has been undertaken on the topic. The
three existing industrial-scale CCS projects (Sleipner, Weyburn and In Salah) are all in the oil and gas
sector and represent significant diversity:•••The Sleipner CCS project is economically viable because it avoids Norwegian offshore CO2 tax. It
is regulated under Norwegian Petroleum Law and a separate research project monitors thedisposition of the stored CO2.
The Weyburn Enhanced Oil Recovery uses anthropogenic CO2 (recycled through multiplepatterns) to recover oil. It is economically viable because the value of oil recovered exceeds thecost of CO2 injected. It is regulated under Canadian Petroleum Law and a separate research
project monitors the disposition of the stored CO2.
The In Salah CCS project was initiated in expectation of credit under the Kyoto Protocol and shutdown when it became clear that such credit would not be realised. It is regulated under Algerian
Petroleum Law and a separate research project monitored the disposition of the stored CO2.

The Tomakomai project will be one-tenth the scale of the In Salah project and can build the technicalconfidence required to construct an industrial-scale CCS project in Japan. Lessons we learnt at In Salah –that I would like to hand-over to the Tomakomai project include:
1. Careful site selection is essential
Careful site selection, characterisation and management are essential requirements for secure CO2
storage and determine the success of the subsequent monitoring programme. It is essential to acquire
high-quality baseline data.
2. Monitoring techniques must be site specific
The CO2 stored at In Salah was monitored to assess site-specific leakage risks identified during site
selection, development and operation. Technologies for monitoring stored CO2 at one site may notwork at all for other sites. There is no “one size fits all” monitoring programme.
3. Storage sites share common leak risks
The main leakage risks for most CO2 geological storage sites are governed by:a. Legacy well-bore integrityb. Cap-rock integrityc. CO2 plume migration direction
4. Quantified Risk Assessments (QRA) – should inform operations
QRAs should be carried out periodically and used to manage leakage risk by informing operations andmonitoring strategies. Several assessment methodologies are available, but there is no regulatory
agreement on acceptable levels of risk.
5. Injection rates and pressures need ongoing management
CO2 injection rates and pressures need to be linked to geo-mechanical modelling and must becontinuously monitored and managed. CO2 plume development is not homogeneous: requiring highresolution data for reservoir characterization and modelling. Advanced geo-mechanical modelling
requires further work - focusing on the coupled effects of fluid-dynamics, rock mechanics, geochemistry and temperature.

CO2 Storage, Monitoring and Verification Activities at Krechba, Algeria, 2006 -2010