Up-scaling CCS – In Salah Lessons lain Wright (ex) In Salah JIP Manager •  lain Wright is giving this presentation in a personal capacity ॰ To say “thank-you” for Japanese contributions to the In Salah Project - Views expressed may not be the same as BP’s •  Context & Overview 。 Up-scaling CCS •  In Salah JIP Key Learnings 。CO, Storage: Planning and Operation 。 Monitoring •  Data Acquisition • Integration •  Quantified Risk Assessment • Informing Regulation •  Summary and Discussion
-  Context & Overview
In Salah JIP Key Learnings . • CO₂ Storage: Planning and Operation 。 Monitoring •  Data Acquisition • Integration •  Quantified Risk Assessment • Informing Regulation . Summary and Discussion
CCS industry and transformation 9% CCS power generation 10% Nuclear 6% -Renewables 21% Power generation efficiency & fuel switching 7% End-use fuel switching 11% End use electricity efficiency 12% End use fuel efficiency 24% INTERNATION 2005 201  201  202  202  203  203  2040  2045  2050 Large–Scale Integrated Projects (GCCSI: 2013)
•  Regulatory Framework 。Clear allocation of liabilities .  Policy Framework 。 Investor confidence that investments will be recovered ॰ ie a long-term (20-year) CO₂ price .  Public Confidence 。 Balance global benefits with local costs and risks • Demonstration Projects 。 In Salah and Tomokomai
• Context & Overview
•  In Salah JIP Key Learnings
• CO₂ Storage: Planning and Operation o Monitoring •  Data Acquisition • Integration •  Quantified Risk Assessment • Informing Regulation Summary & Discussion .
Project Summary Industrial Scale Demonstration of CO, Geological Storage (Conventional Capture) o 。 Storage Formation is common in Europe, USA & China 。 Started Storage in August 2004 at 1mmtpa, 3.85 mmt CO, stored . $100mm Incremental Cost for Storage No commercial benefit o Test-bed for CO, Monitoring Technologies: $30mm Research Project L
- 1960s: Krechba gas field discovered (Total) :  1996: Krechba lease acquired by BP - 1998: Kyoto Protocol & BP GHG trading •  2000: In Salah development approved (with CCS) •  2002: CO, Injection wells drilled • 2004: CO, storage starts •  2008: EU CCS Directive • 2011: CO, Storage suspended • 2013: In Amenas Tragedy
. Provide assurance that secure geological storage of CO₂ can be cost-effectively verified and that long-term assurance can be provided by short- term monitoring. ■ Demonstrate to stakeholders that industrial-scale geological storage of CO, is a viable GHG mitigation option. Set precedents for the regulation and verification of the geological storage of CO₂, allowing eligibility for GHG credits
1. Monitoring should be part of the Field Development Plan (FDP) and routine field operation ■ In service of risk assessment: designed to address site-specific risks Acquisition, modelling and integration of a full suite of initial baseline data is essential . 2. . 3. The main seepage risks are driven by: Legacy well-bore integrity . Cap-rock integrity . CO, plume migration direction . 4. Compared to hydrocarbon developments, CO 2 storage projects require the integration of a wider-scope of datasets (InSAR, soil gas, seismic) over a greater aerial/vertical extent A diverse suite of technologies should be deployed and integrated . 5. . 6. Injection strategies, rates and pressures need to be linked to geomechanical modelling Of both the storage formation and caprock CO₂ plume development is not homogeneous Reservoir characterization and modelling requires high-resolution data ■ QRAs should be carried out prior to injection and periodically throughout the operation Several methodologies are available
• Context & Overview • In Salah JIP Key Learnings 。CO₂ Storage: Planning and Operation 。Monitoring •  Data Acquisition • Integration • Quantified Risk Assessment • Informing Regulation Summary & Discussion
KB8 Legacy Wells Preferential orientation of injector fractures Minimum horizontal stress Maximum horizontal stress
: CO, monitoring should be part of the Field Development Plan (FDP) and routine Field Operations . Quantified Risk Assessments (QRA) should be carried out pre- injection and during Operation and used to manage leakage risk . Several methodologies are available . There is no regulatory agreement on acceptable levels of risk : The CỌ₂ storage moniţoring progrạmme should be designed around an early assessment of leakage risks : Initial appraisal and development of a CO2 storage project should collect a comprehensive set of baseline data To adequately characterise the Storage Complex / Area of Review
At Krechba:
: : Baseline data acquisition should have begun earlier & been more- comprehensive Top Three risks were: Integrity of wells and caprock, plus COدmigration direction
• Context & Overview • In Salah JIP Phase 1: Key Learnings • CO₂ Storage: Planning and Operation 。 Monitoring •  Data Acquisition • Integration • Quantified Risk Assessment • Informing Regulation Summary & Discussion .
Low-cost technologies can be very effective tools .
At Krechba: these included:
. . . . Wellhead (pressure & flowrate) annulus monitoring (including tracers) Soil-gas surveys, permanent soil-gas detectors, microbiological sampling Gas surface flux (using laser surveys) Shallow aquifer sampling
. Acquisition of a high-quality, pre-injection 3D seismic baseline is a vital for characterising the overburden and the injection horizon ■ . The value of subsequent (time-lapse) 3D surveys will depend on rock- quality and density difference between in-situ fluids and injected CO, Comprehensive understanding of the interaction of rock-physics, fluids and fractures is required to adequately model Seismic responses
At Krechba:
4D  Seismic may never be a good option for CO 2 monitoring (due to poor rock quality and insufficient density contrast between fluids)
•  2009 seismic acquired to improve overburden imaging •  Designed to provide wide angle multi-azimuth coverage to help identify fracture zones •  Focused on northern area with 3 injectors, 4 legacy wells and 2 producers •  75% of CO, injected into northern area
InSAR image: phase difference ( 01 - 02 ) for ixel during time interval ( displacement toward satellite 2.83 cm • Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) • Technology developing rapidly due to: • Publicly available data • Better data resolution (satellite) ・ Improved processing capabilities • Competition between providers Provides accurate information on ground surface deformations over time • Surrogate for pressure (not CO,) • Not Specific to CO, Monitoring
•   InSAR (with geo-mechanical modelling), was key to understanding the subsurface distribution of  pressure fronts and CO₂ plumes o Benchmarked by CO 2 observation at KB5 。 Influenced the 2009 seismic survey and Quantified Risk Assessment 。 Future value could be restricted as CO 2 moves into the depleted zone 。 Data available from2003 (pre-injection), C-Band (Envisat & Radarsat2) 。 Inversion using diversity of research partners and techniques Used as an observation constraint for geo-mechanical modelling o 2005 2007 2009
• Context & Overview • In Salah JIP Key Learnings • CO₂ Storage: Planning and Operation 。Monitoring •  Data Acquisition • Integration • Quantified Risk Assessment • Informing Regulation Summary & Discussion . CO, plume development is far from homogeneous . o Requires high resolution data for reservoir characterization and modelling . o Effects that require advanced, coupled  modelling are: fluid-dynamics, o rock mechanics o temperature o geochemical reactions .
At Krechba:
o o Faults and fractures play a key role in the subsurface migration of CO2 This was not sufficiently well-understood before injection started. The JIP undertook a significant amount of work to understand the control that these features have on CO2 plume flow and implications for long-term storage
Error/uncertainty in modelling parameters flow of CO, from well head to sandface PROSPER – WH P&T to BH P&T Error/uncertainty in modelling parameters from sand face to storage volume PIE – dynamic, analytical model Error/uncertainty in modelling parameters storage volume Irap RMS + Wellwhiz - static description Error/uncertainty in modelling parameters dynamic evolution of CO, plumes STARS – dynamic behaviour of CO, & other components Set of possible outcomes How are these to be created & assessed? What has been achieved so far? Workflow
• Context & Overview • In Salah JIP Key Learnings • CO₂ Storage: Planning and Operation 。Monitoring •  Data Acquisition • Integration • Quantified Risk Assessment • Informing Regulation Summary & Discussion .
. o . .
At Krechba:
o o o Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) is an invaluable tool to understand, manage  and communicate the performance of CO, storage Should be periodically repeated over the life of a CO, storage project Several methodologies exist: . CCPCF, URS, FEP, Oxand There is no regulatory agreement on acceptable leakage risk Pre-injection risk-register highlighted the key risks and informed the initial (minimal) baseline survey data and early monitoring programme The 2008 QRA highlighted changes to the risk profile of the project and the injection and monitoring programmes were amended to address that Without a proper QRA conducted on a regular basis, these changes to the monitoring or operational strategies may not have been implemented in a timely manner
Monitoring Stewardship Project Phase IPCC Special Report on CCS: • “the fraction [of CO₂] retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs .....is likely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years" - 17mm tonnes x 0.01 x 0.2   = 34k tonnes ll ll 0.05 =   8k tonnes
34

In Salah Containment Risk Acceptable Single Event Containment Risk (RQ)
KB8 Legacy Wells Preferential orientation of injector fractures Minimum horizontal stress Maximum horizontal stress
• Drilled in 1980  and temporarily suspended (no integrity to gas) •1.5 km NW of KB502 CO₂ injector (expected CO2 migration direction) • 0.1 tonne CO₂ seeped in 2007 (valve leak – not pressure on gauge) • Caused by lack of well & wellhead integrity (physics not chemistry) KB5 now fully decommissioned with CO 2 resistant cement
• Context & Overview • In Salah JIP Key Learnings • CO₂ Storage: Planning and Operation 。Monitoring •  Data Acquisition • Integration • Quantified Risk Assessment • Informing Regulation Summary & Discussion .
Colour Key Compliant In Salah CO2 Storage vs. EU CCS Guidelines Compliance possible Non or difficult compliance Storage Project Stages
• Context & Overview • In Salah JIP Key Learnings • CO₂ Storage: Planning and Operation 。Monitoring •  Data Acquisition • Integration • Quantified Risk Assessment • Informing Regulation • JIP2 Plan .
Summary & Discussion

1. Monitoring should be part of the Field Development Plan (FDP) and routine field operation In service of risk assessment: designed to address site-specific risks ■ Acquisition, modelling and integration of a full suite of initial baseline data is essential ■ 2. ■ 3. . The main seepage risks are driven by: Legacy well-bore integrity Cap-rock integrity . CO, plume migration direction . 4. Compared to hydrocarbon developments, CO 2 storage projects require the integration of a wider-scope of datasets (InSAR, soil gas, seismic) over a greater aerial/vertical extent A diverse suite of technologies should be deployed and integrated . 5. . Injection strategies, rates and pressures need to be linked to geomechanical modelling Of both the storage formation and caprock 6. CO₂ plume development is not homogeneous Reservoir characterization and modelling requires high-resolution data . QRAs should be carried out prior to injection and periodically throughout the operation Several methodologies are available