Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC)SCALING UP TO INDUSTRIAL CCUS PROJECTSA Regional Perspective
North Dakota, USA
CCS Technical Workshop 2020
Tokyo, JapanJanuary 23, 2020
John HamlingAssistant Director for Integrated Projects© 2020 University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center.

4254,000 SQ FT OF FACILITIESWORKING AROUND THE GLOBEMORE THAN 1300 CLIENTS IN 53 COUNTRIESCLIENT-FOCUSEDTHIS IS HOW WE WORK

INDUSTRYSTATE ENTITIES7GOVERNMENT(U.S. and others)

EERC VISION
TO LEAD THE WORLD IN
DEVELOPING SOLUTIONSTO ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTALCHALLENGES.

A STATE OF ENERGY

Population ‒ ~760,000 (~70,000 square miles)

CO2 emissions ‒ 34th ‒ ~56 million tonnes per year
Total Energy Production 6th•••••Oil ‒ 2ndNatural gas ‒ 10thCoal ‒ 8th
Wind ‒ 10th
Ethanol ‒ 10th

Agricultural products• 19 ‒ top three

Image Credit – Steve Shook1

A RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY
Mission to promote and prudently develop North Dakota’s
oil, gas, fossil, and renewable energy resources.
“Public interest to promote geologic storage of carbon
dioxide...”Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) is a key toleveraging a tremendous endowment of fossil energy toprovide secure, reliable, affordable, safe, clean energy.
Public accustomed to energy industry and the role it plays.

CO2 POINT
SOURCES WITH
EMISSIONSGREATER THAN
100,000 METRICTONS/YEAR
Many industrial sourcesof anthropogenic CO2
are in proximity to
sedimentary basins thatprovide the opportunity
for geologic CO2storage.
Source: NATCARB, 2013

REGIONAL
POTENTIAL
A Prolific Oil-Producing Regionin North America••••Conventional
Unconventional
Stacked horizons
Residual oil zones (ROZs)?

Abundant Anthropogenic CO2
Sources Proximal to Enhanced
Oil Recovery (EOR) and Storage
Opportunities

Growing CO2 Transportation
Network
Massive CO2 Storage Potential in
Deep Saline Formations

GEOLOGY

21 hydrocarbon-bearing formations;several contain multiple producing
horizons.
Multiple potential unconventional sourcerock formations.

ENORMOUS EOROPPORTUNITY
86 conventional unitized fields:• 280 million to 630 million bbl
of incremental oil• 47 million to 283 million
metric tons of CO₂ needed
200+ conventional fields• >1 Bbbl of incremental oil• >358 million metric tons of
CO2 needed
Conventional +Bakken Petroleum System:– 4 Bbbl‒7.6 Bbbl ofincremental oil– 2 Btons‒3.8 Btons of CO2needed…or more

ENORMOUS
DEDICATEDSTORAGEPOTENTIAL
IN DEEP SALINEFORMATIONS
More than 330 GT ofstorage potential,
100+ billion tonnes in ND alone.
https://undeerc.org/pcor/NewsandPubs/pdf/PCOR-Partnership-Atlas.pdf

UNDERGROUNDINJECTION CONTROLNORTH DAKOTA’SGOT CLASS!
I, II, III, IV, V, AND VI

Class IClass IIClass IIIClass IVClass VClass VIND Dept of Health

NDIC Oil & GasDivision

ND GeologicalSurvey

ND Dept of Health

ND Dept of Health

NDIC Oil & Gas
Division

Hazardous andnonhazardous fluids(industrial andmunicipal wastes).

Brines and otherfluids associatedwith oil and gas
production.

Fluids associatedwith solution miningof minerals.

Hazardous orradioactive wastes.
This class is banned
by EPA.

Nonhazardous fluids
into or above a
USDW and are
typically shallow.

Injection of carbon
dioxide for long-term
storage.

PRUEDENT REGULAITONS THAT ENABEL CCUS
Codified in North Dakota Law

CHAPTER 38-22 CARBON DIOXIDEUNDERGROUND STORAGE38-22-01. Policy. It is in the public interest to
promote the geologic storage of carbon
dioxide. Doing so will benefit the state and theglobal environment by reducing greenhousegas emissions. Doing so will help ensure theviability of the state's coal and powerindustries, to the economic benefit of North
Dakota and its citizens. Further, geologic
storage of carbon dioxide, a potentiallyvaluable commodity, may allow for its readyavailability if needed for commercial, industrial,or other uses, including enhanced recovery ofoil, gas, and other minerals. Geologic storage,
however, to be practical and effective requires
cooperative use of surface and subsurface
property interests and the collaboration ofproperty owners. Obtaining consent from allowners may not be feasible, requiring
procedures that promote, in a manner fair to allinterests, cooperative management, thereby
ensuring the maximum use of naturalresources.

Carbon dioxide storage facility administrative fund ($0.01/ton): administrative costs
associated with regulating storage facilities.
Carbon dioxide storage facility trust fund ($0.07/ton): cost of long-term monitoring.

Certificate of Project Completion – Release of Bond – Transfer of Title and Custody

ANCILLARY State issues certificate of project completion (all criteria met – at least 10 years postinjection)
REGULATORY • Releases responsibility, regulatory requirements, and bonds
MECHANISMS • Transfer of title and custody to storage facility and stored CO2 state
FACILITATE • State oversees/responsible for monitoring and managing the storage facility until suchtime as federal government assumes responsibility (assures site access/confidence)
INDUSTRIAL
CCUS State retains all authority to regulate future mineral and UIC activities• protection from recapture of incentives.
State issued determination of storage (facilitate trading and incentive programs)

45Q Tax Credits

INCENTIVES•Projects beginning construction before January 1, 2024, canclaim credits for 12 years after operations begin.

West Coast LCFS Markets••

Tax credits claimed by the taxpayer capturing the emissions ortransferred to operators of CO2 EOR projects.

Credits trading up to $213 per ton.

••

Tax credit for CO2 stored in a qualified EOR project

Stacked with 45Q(10-year ramp up to a maximum of $35/tonne in 2026).

•Tax credit for CO2 stored in a saline formation(10-year ramp-up to a maximum of $50/tonne in 2026).

• Coal conversion tax: tax
reduction with CO2capture (up to 50%)

• No sales tax on
capture-related
infrastructure• No sales tax on CO2
sold for EOR

North Dakota CCUS Incentives• No sales tax onconstruction of pipeline.
• Property tax-exempt for 10years (equipment)• No sales tax on CO2 EOR infrastructure• 0% extraction tax for 20 years for tertiary
incremental recovery• Production tax still applies

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS RESULTS INDICATE EOR WITHCAPTURED CO2 FROM ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES RESULTS
IN LOWER-CARBON-INTENSITY OIL
Extraction

Port-to-Port

Port-to-refinery

RefineryCombustion

Upstream electricity

dapted rom
Man mee haiiee ee o ei iooi eee d e e i ed ooo e ioi i.
eiDissertation arne ie
Mellon niversity itts ur hCoal-to-liquid (CTL) (High)
Synthetic crude oil (SCO) oil shale mining (High)SCO oil shale mining (Low)SCO oil shale in-situ (High)SCO oil shale in-situ (Low)
Dilbit B
SCO oil sands (mining process)
SCO oil sands (in-situ process)Dilbit ASynbit
MexicoVenezuela
U.S. domestic
U.S. status quo
Imported crude oilCanada
CTL (Low)
Saudi (Light)
UK
CO2 EOR0
CTL = coal-to-liquids
SCO = synthetic crude oil

Adapted from: Azzolina, N.A.; Peck, W.D.; Hamling, J.A.;
Gorecki, C.D.; Ayash, S.C.; Doll, T.E.; Nakles, D.V.; and Melzer,
L.S. (2016) How green is my oil? A detailed look at greenhousegas accounting for CO2-enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR) sites.
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 51:369–379.
Adapted from: Jensen, M.D.; Azzolina, N.A.; Schlasner, S.M.;
Hamling, J.A.; Ayash, S.C.; Gorecki, C.D.; (2018) A screeninglevel life cycle green house gas analysis of CO2-enhanced oil
recovery sourced from Schute Creek natural gas-processing
facility. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 78:236–243.

200

400600kg CO2e/bbl

80010001200

ENGAGED PARTNERS

CommercialIndustrial CCUS Projects•Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Dakota
Gasification Company Great PlainsSynfuels (commercial)•Basin Electric Power Cooperative
Ammonia Process Liquefaction Plant(commercial)•SaskPower Boundary Dam Carbon
Capture Project (commercial)•Exxon Mobil Shute Creek Natural Gas
Processing (commercial)•ConocoPhillips Lost Cabin Natural Gas
Processing (commercial)•Shell Quest CCS Facility* (commercial) –Alberta, Canada*not pictured.

Announced
Industrial CCUS Projects•Red Trail Energy – Richardton Ethanol
Facility (precommercial/FEED)•Minnkota Power Cooperative Project
Tundra – Milton R. Young Station(precommercial/FEED)•Basin Electric Power Cooperative Dry Fork
Station (precommercialization/FEED)•Great River Energy CCS2 - Coal Creek
Station (feasibility)•Midwest AgEnergy – Blue Flint Ethanol
Facility (feasibility)•SaskPower Shand Power Station(feasibility)

CO2 Transportation Network• DGC line (commercial)• 205-mile 14” - 1 ”• Greencore Pipeline (commercial)o232-mile lono(725 MMscf/day)o”

Anadarko CO2 pipeline
interconnect• Greencore Pipeline Expansion(sanctioned)o

110-mile expansion to Baker,
MT, and Cedar Creek Anticline• North Dakota Industrial Sources
Line(s) (conceptual)• DGC Food-Grade Truck Facility(commercial)RED TRAIL ENERGY, LLC
North Dakota Ethanol Production
Reduced Carbon Intensity of North Dakota
Ethanol Production Through Geologic CO2Storage
Incentive Programs• Low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) programs (~$200/tonne)• 45Q ($50/tonne)

Image Credit: Red Trail Energy

Image Credit: Energy & Environmental Research CenterPrecommercial:
Front-end engineering and design (FEED)

90% postcombustion CO2 capture(~4 million tons per year).
Preparing to pursue federal and statepermits required to build CO2 capture
facility and store CO2 in deep geologic
formations.
Exploring ND EOR opportunities.

Image Credit – EERCCARBONSAFE ZONES OF FOCUS
Approximate location of Center, ND

Fox Hills Formation: Lowest
USDW.

Inyan Kara: Primary target for produced
water disposal in the Williston Basin.
Potential target for CO2 storage.
Broom Creek Formation:
Primary target for CO2 storage.

Winnipeg/Deadwood: Secondarytarget for CO2 storage.

STEPS & TIMELINE TO IMPLIMENT
INDUSTRIAL PROJECTSDRIVERS FOR INDUSTRIAL CCUS

OBSTACLES FOR INDUSTRIAL CCUS

ENABLERS OF
INDUSTRIALCCUS

BRINE EXTRACTION AND STORAGE TESTNORTH DAKOTAGEOLOGIC CO2 STORAGECONSIDERATIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS• Buoyant fluid• Large volumes = large footprint• Transportation• Access to pore space– Leasing, unitization/amalgamation, trespass• Regulatory compliance• Assuring permanence for incentives or credits– Conformance and storage efficiency

Because of a host of technical, social, regulatory, environmental, andeconomic factors, brine disposal tends to be more accessible andgenerally quicker, easier, and less costly to implement compared todedicated CO2 storage.

ACTIVE RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT (ARM)
TWO COMPLEMENTARY COMPONENTS
ARM Test• Reduce stress on sealing formation• Geosteer injected fluids• Divert pressure from leakage pathways• Divert pressure from CO2 plume• Reduce area of review (AOR) and amalgamated area
• Improve injectivity, capacity, and storage efficiency• Validate monitoring techniques, and forecast model
capabilities
Brine Treatment Test Bed• Alternate source of water• Reduced disposal volumes• Salable products for beneficial use
Brine extraction can enable dedicated CO2 storage andimprove the geologic CO2 storage potential of a site.

Illustration modified from Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory https://str.llnl.gov/Dec10/aines.html

HOW ARM CAN ENABLE COMMERCIAL GELOGIC CO2 STORAGE
A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE• Collaboration with Thomas Buscheck (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)– Model developed and calibrated for CO2 storage in a continuous, open saline reservoir♦ Developed, in part, with data provided by the ND BEST project for SWD operations
injecting into Inyan Kara Formation• Modeled scenario– Inject 2.0 MT/year of CO2 from October 1, 2008, to March 1, 2019, with concurrent SWD– Six brine extraction wells (~11,000 bpd/well) with reinjection >12 miles away
♦ >95% reduction in AOR- From 249 km2 to 9 km2▪ Area within reservoir with pressures 75 psi or more above the original reservoirpressure at the end of the injection period♦ > 90% reduction in postinjection monitor period- From 26 years to 2 years▪ Time for reservoir pressure to decline to less than 75 psi above original reservoirpressure at the injection well following injection period
Results summarized from: Task 4: Active Reservoir Management (FEW-0191) presented by Thomas Buscheck of Lawrence Livermore National Lab at the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy
Te hnolo y La oratory ddressin the Nation’s Ener y needs Throu h Te hnolo y innovation – 2019 Carbon Capture, Utilization, Storage, and Oil and Gas Technology Integrated Review Meeting,
August 26-30, 2019

ACCOMPLISHMENTS
ACTIVE RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT

BRINE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGYDEVELOPMENT AND TEST FACILITY

Enable development, testing, andadvancement of commercially viable
extracted and produced water
treatment technologies that canmeaningfully reduce brine disposal
volumes and provide an alternate
source of water and/or salable
products for beneficial use.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS
BRINE TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT FACILITY

COST-EFFICIENT MONITORING• Intelligent, adaptive, scalable, strategic• Fast automated processing/quicker integration– Improve interpretations and performance forecasts– Actionable results that inform operational decisions– Integrated with autonomous operation• Low environmental and operational impact– Autonomous, remote sensing, no umbilical, site access• Viable long term (10‒100 years postinjection!!!)– Cost effective, robust, reliable, site access, highly
trainable• Understood and effectively communicated– Public and regulatory acceptance– Deterministic

Class VI
PrimacyBusiness Cases,
Public/PrivatePartnerships

CO2 Pipeline

Engaged Partners,
Technical Knowledge,
Resource Potential

CO2 Storage LongTerm Liability Laws

Foundation & Successof CarbonSAFE andPCOR Programs

Pore Space Ownership& Amalgamation Laws

North Dakota’s
Statewide Vision forCarbon Management

Incentives, Regulatory
Certainty, Markets

QUESTIONS&DISCUSSION

Credit: https://www.projecttundrand.com/young-station

John Hamling
Assistant Director for Integrated Projects
jhamling@undeerc.org
701.777.5472 (phone)

THANK YOU

Energy & Environmental
Research Center
University of North Dakota
15 North 23rd Street, Stop 9018
Grand Forks, ND 58202-9018
www.undeerc.org
701.777.5000 (phone)
701.777.5181 (fax)

Critical Challenges. Practical Solutions.

This presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government.
Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by
the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do notnecessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

LEGAL NOTICE: This work was prepared by the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), an agency of theUniversity of North Dakota, as an account of work sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy
Technology Laboratory. Because of the research nature of the work performed, neither the EERC nor any of its
employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed or represents that its use
would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service bytrade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or
recommendation by the EERC.