this may open the door to cost effective storage expansions, through the reuse of platforms, pipelines and ..... Guided by the selection work by others on regional clusters, this was fed to Hewett and then Viking and ..... sthash.5AB43FfB.dpuf. 3.
The information in this document is the property of Energy Technologies ... The value in the debate â at multiple levels ... Least cost optimisation, policy neutral.
Jan 18, 2017 - Film includes: The Woman in Black: Angel of Death, Far From the .... Jerwood Theatre Downstairs, Royal Court Theatre, Sloane Square, SW1W ...
and summarised in the article - and reviews the strengths and weaknesses of the ... Professor of Criminology, Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, ...... www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/Fraud%20in%20the%20UK.pdf.
the occasional use of Romani words in English conversation. This is .... loanwords from different European languages create an additional hurdle toward mutual ...
method used, tabulate the analytical results and describe the sampling plan used to ... range of chemicals in food, to identify trends in exposure levels over time and make ..... https://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/finalacrylamidestatement.pd
project has been activated by the Group, with the aim of purchasing all its .... monitors the production process, the work environment, the equipment and the plants. ..... of compressed air leakages, savings ... produce in-house injection moulded.
Chapter 1000 of Scripture: The Key and Summary of the Bible. Alexanders Restaurant at the Metropolitan Motor Inn,. 106 Leichardt Street, Spring Hill, Brisbane.
Sep 4, 2015 - August is 'hungry ghost month' (considered an inauspicious time to buy property), so it's ... percentage of deposits; 19% of DBS's deposits are demand deposits on ..... in exchange rates between US dollars and Euro or foreign.
Apr 9, 2015 - Arbitrage links currencies, interest rates, and the futures markets .... Singapore's currency is also a basket of trade-weighted currencies, which ...
A Picture of CO2 Storage in the UK Learnings from the ETI’s UKSAP and derived projects
A Picture of CO2 Storage in the UK – learnings from ETI’s UKSAP and derived Projects Dennis Gammer, Strategy Manager, Carbon Capture and Storage, ETI
Regional Breakdown of Storage……………………………………………………………………………8 Storage Required…………………………………………………………………………………………….9 2.2 Types of Storage……………………………………………………………………………………….11 2.2.1 CO2 trapping mechanisms……………………………………………………………………….11 2.2.2 Types of store……………………………………………………………………………………..11 2.3 Building a cost effective network……………………………………………………………………14 2.3.1 Regional cost variation…………………………………………………………………………...14 2.3.2 An outlook for planning…………………………………………………………………………...16 2.3.3 Down selecting storage…………………………………………………………………………..17 2.3.4 Selected stores……………………………………………………………………………………19 2.3.5 Costing a storage network……………………………………………………………………….20 2.3.6 Learning from sub sites…………………………………………………………………………..22 3.
A storage network……………………………………………………………………………………..23 3.1 Trajectories…………………………………………………………………………………………..23 3.2 Metrics………………………………………………………………………………………………..27
Further details on ETI insights and work on carbon capture and storage can be found in: Potential for CCS in the UK – a summary insights report by the Energy Technologies Institute, 2013 http://eti.co.uk/downloads/related_documents/ETI_CCS_Insights_Report.pdf 2.
Executive Summary This paper sets out to provide indicative estimates of the size and cost of equipping the UK with a CCS infrastructure which allows it to meet its 2050 climate change target. This target includes the reduction of the UK’s emissions to 20% of those in 1990. The ETI’s Energy System Modelling Environment (ESME), a national energy system design tool has been used to provide decadal estimates of the amount of CO2 that needs to be captured on the basis that the UK adopts the lowest cost means to meet the targets (when averaged over hundreds of different cost permutations). In this “lowest cost” solution CCS operates alongside a greatly expanded nuclear and renewable fleet.
All of the nation’s requirements for an aggressive CCS programme can be accommodated in the North Sea, to 2050 and beyond With a national plan including successful aquifer appraisal, this programme could be serviced by as little as six shoreline hubs feeding less than 20 stores, and having a net present infrastructure cost of less than £5bn Without a national CCS infrastructure, the cost of reaching UK Climate Change targets will double from a minimum of around £30bn per year in 2050 For successful commercialisation to be efficient, assets need to be shared and onshore and offshore networks developed to achieve economies of scale Development of the Southern North Sea is important as Eastern and South East England will be the country’s largest emitters Aquifers offer low cost storage facilities – appraisal work on these needs to start soon
Not equipping the UK with a national CCS infrastructure would double the cost of reaching the UK’s Climate Change targets from a minimum of circa £30bn/a in 2050 – making CCS deployment the most impactful option the UK has at its disposal. This stems from its flexibility in creating clean power on demand from customers, and its application to different emitting technologies, including the use of bioenergy sources to create “negative emissions”. Storage of CO2 represents the biggest challenge in the CCS solution, and a clear picture of what expenditure and infrastructure is needed to deliver this is still required. Factors affecting the distribution of emissions is discussed in a separate ETI paper “Optimising the Location of CCS in the UK” by George Day, Head of Economic Strategy. In 2011 the ETI completed a project called UKSAP (UK CO2 Storage Appraisal) which gathered data on potential CO2 storage sites around UK waters. This database is now available under license from The Crown Estate and the British Geological Survey as a software model - “CO2 Stored” - and was used to select stores for costing purposes in this paper. Viewable at http://www.co2stored.co.uk/ 3.
We have also created a model for in-house use which builds up estimated costs for the offshore infrastructure such as onshore compression, pipelines, platforms and wells. Infrastructure incorporating six shoreline hubs, less than 20 stores and having a net present cost of c. £5bn should accommodate the UK’s CO2 storage requirements to meet its 2050 climate change targets. Such schemes use both depleted oil and gas and saline aquifers as stores, but rely on the appraisal and development of saline aquifers to provide sufficient cost effective storage.
1. The UKSAP project The ETI’s UKSAP project was a £4m project which provided an auditable estimate of the UK’s CO2 storage potential. 600 potential stores, both depleted hydrocarbon and saline aquifer sites, were examined and high level analysis was used to estimate potential storage capacity. Assessments were made of the security of storage of each of the aquifer stores and a modelling tool was developed to build up the costs of transportation and storage. Headline information from the study was published during 2011 and 2012 (see appendix 1), and the database is now available under license from The Crown Estate and BGS under the name of CO2 Stored. Supplementary work included the development of economic analysis by adding discounting to the storage and pipeline costs and developing an economic model in conjunction with Element Energy to allow us to undertake high level estimations and analysis of the costs of storage networks. The data used by these analyses is of “screening” quality and not of sufficient rigour to support investments in individual stores without additional appraisal work. Nevertheless the study was wide–reaching and systematic and suitable for high level planning purposes. It can be used to develop a picture of what a nationwide storage infrastructure could look like, and cost, in 2050.
Footnote: “CO2 Stored” is available at www.co2stored.co.uk
2. UKSAP Principal findings 2.1 Distribution The distribution of potential CO2 storage is given in figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Distribution of UKSAP stores, type and size, and major emitters
There is material potential storage all around the waters of the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). The majority is in the Central North Sea (CNS). The Southern North Sea (SNS) and East Irish Sea (EIS) are also endowed with good storage, and are near the shorelines from which most of the UK’s major emitters would dispatch their CO2. Potential stores occur in varying geological formations (rock layers), each with different properties which make some more favourable than others for storage purposes. The store viability will be affected by the quality of the cap rock which will form the impermeable roof of the store, other sealing features, the aquifer thickness, the rock permeability and the nature of faults. Store depth, water depth and distance from shore increase likely costs.
The two main categories of store are saline aquifers (shown in blue in figure 1) and depleted oil and gas reservoirs (DOGRs, shown in green in figure 1). Saline aquifers are rock layers which contain water (brine). As CO2 is injected into the aquifer water is displaced. CO2 occupies space in the rock, and is slowly dissolved in the water. Depending on how easily the brine is displaced and the filling rate, the store pressurises. Saline aquifer projects carry more risk than DOGR projects as the cap rock has not been tested by hydrocarbons, and there is no history of how fluids flow in the store. Some of these stores are very large, offering economies of scale, and there is considerably more total capacity of this nature (see figure 2). Major stores demonstrating CCS technology in saline aquifers include Snohvit, Sleipner (both offshore Norway) and In Salah (Algeria). DOGRs are rock layers which, due to their shape and sealing cap rock, have trapped buoyant hydrocarbons (for hundreds of thousands or in many cases millions of years). Man has removed the hydrocarbon, and the depleted reservoir can be re-filled with CO2. Depleted oil and gas reservoirs have the advantage of having proven cap rock and sealing integrity. Operators of oilfields have accumulated knowledge of the rock structure and how liquids flow in it, so minimum extra work to evaluate the store (“appraisal costs”) is required. Many are depressurised by the removal of hydrocarbons, and so can accommodate CO2 until the reservoir reaches its original pressure. DOGRs tend to be smaller however, than many of the identified aquifers, and some have extremely high numbers of well penetrations which will be costly to assess and reclose if this proves necessary. Worldwide, there are several Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) projects exploiting depleted oilfields. Overall the capacity in depleted gas fields in the SNS and the EIS is material. Many of these stores are individually able to accommodate emissions from a group of power stations or industrial works for decades. There is also significant capacity in depleted oilfields and gas condensate fields in the CNS and the Northern North Sea (NNS) but many of these are suboptimal in size if considered on their own, as they would be filled in less than 10 years by a single large power station. There is a large potential for aquifer storage in all regions. At this point it is worth noting that based on the assumption that the UK meets its climate change targets by 2050, and adopts the lowest cost technologies to achieve this then our ESME model shows that storage for about 3 Gtes of CO2 is needed by 2050. This compares to a UKSAP estimate of 78Gtes of potential storage (unrisked) available in UK waters.
Regional Breakdown of Storage
45000 40000 35000
Mtes of potential storage in the UK Continental Shelf by region, before any screening for cost or risk.
30000 25000 20000 15000 Storage Capacity [Mt]
10000 5000 0 Southern North Central North Sea Northern North Sea Sea
East Irish Sea Basin
Central English Channel
Figure 2: Regional breakdown of storage by type
The challenge is to provide confidence in the availability of secure storage in support of new onshore emission site investments (particularly new power plant investments). Prior to final investment commitments some power plant investors may want to see 25-40 years of storage capacity appraised and in preparation for use. Since there is a long lead time for saline aquifer appraisal and development in particular (up to 9 years), and the risk that any appraisal may end in a decision to abandon a store, this activity needs to begin now. By 2025 about 2 Gtes of viable storage needs to have been identified, building to 4Gte by 2030.
Storage Requirement 6000 5000
Lead time to appraise & develop aquifers is ~9 years 30 years of storage
Figure 3: Build-up of storage used and storage needed to support new onshore investments for a 30 year life cycle.
In addition to the aerial perspective of figure 1, aquifers occur in certain geological formations (rock layers), and these layers have different properties which make some more favourable than others for storage purposes. Cap rock quality, aquifer thickness, permeability and the number of faults all effect store quality and cost. Many of these formations overlap, when “viewed” from above, and this may open the door to cost effective storage expansions, through the reuse of platforms, pipelines and other infrastructure. A table summarising formations of interest is provided in Appendix 2. The main aquifer which incorporates the stores of the SNS (the Bunter Sandstone Formation in the Bacton Group) has both an excellent cap rock and many ‘closures’ – structures which will retain CO2 laterally and vertically. It is the dominant aquifer in the UKCS in terms of storage potential. Although some of the stores have particular geological faults which make them unattractive today without further study, eliminating these and several which are rather shallow still leaves impactful quantities of clustered storage. The larger aquifers in this structure would be such a convenient and economic disposal option that it is important they are fully appraised soon. If found suitable they could shape a low cost development pathway for UK storage.
The gas fields of the SNS are with a handful of exceptions in a different formation (the Leman Formation) below the Bunter Sandstone, and also offer independent secure storage. Many of the stores in this formation are “compartmentalised” which will increase their costs and uncertainty in use. Nevertheless the Leman formation contains the bulk of the available DOGR capacity in the UKCS, all the way through to 2050. The SNS is in relatively shallow water (averaging 35m), has relatively shallow stores (averaging 2100m), reasonable permeability (Bunter) and lies a short distance from major emission sites, which helps keep costs low. The CNS presents a larger and more complex planning issue. The majority of the 50+ formations with storage potential listed in UKSAP are in the CNS. Although figure 2 shows a large quantity of aquifer storage in this area, the UKSAP assessors had lower confidence in much of it. This is sometimes due to lack of data and in other cases because some of the formations were of poor storage potential, for example being chalk (low permeability), or highly faulted with uncertainty about whether the faults were sealed or not. One example of this regional variation in risk outlook (risks in caprock seals) is provided in Appendix 3. These considerations illustrate how the security of the aquifer stores is a more important lens than their estimated capacity when planning appraisal or planning activities. Considerable quantities of storage could move from a status of “speculative “ to “promising” if significant appraisal effort was expended in the CNS. This exercise could be spearheaded by use of depleted reservoirs in this area. Appendix 2 lists formations offering average discounted CO2 storage costs below £25/te on a newbuild basis. Storage with cost greater than £25/te are not compatible with delivering overall power costs of less than £100/MWh as targeted by the CCSA (Carbon Capture & Storage Association) Cost Reduction Task Force (1). Several attractive stores are in formations not listed in this summary table, existing in isolation, or as low cost individual stores in formations with higher average costs (e.g. Forties Oilfield in the Sele formation). Filtering by cost removed most low permeability formations. When developing a storage network, it may be more economical to focus on a study of stores in a good formation, rather than to focus exclusively on geographical proximity. Favourable structures potentially with storage of “national “significance in the CNS include the Auk, Brae, and Wick Sandstone formations. Several formations exhibit good injectivity, which will be important when the storage rates increase in 2030 onwards. The Lista formation in the Northern North Sea (NNS) also looks interesting. When CCS is deployed and achieving reliable substantial flows, the CNS and the NNS may offer EOR opportunities using CO2 as an agent. EOR opportunities will expire unless developed in the 2020s. The fields require the CO2 output from a very large station or a collection of several power stations, so access to CO2 from an emission “cluster “ which is developed early is needed.
(1) The CCSA Task force Report can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/policy-advisory-groups/ccs-cost-reduction-task-force
2.2 Types of storage 2.2.1 CO2 trapping mechanisms
CO2 is trapped in stores in several ways. At depths greater than 800m pure CO2 is in a supercritical state i.e. a dense but buoyant phase and rises upward until it meets impermeable “cap rock”. Often the shape of a cap rock structure and lateral barriers such as faults physically traps the CO2 in a large confined space – the same type of rock structure which collects and stores crude oil and gas for tens of millions of years. This is termed “structural trapping”. When filling these stores, some rising CO2 gets immobilised in small interstices in the rocks, a process called “residual gas trapping”. CO2 is of course soluble in water and over hundreds and thousands of years it dissolves into the brine, and since CO2 saturated brine is denser than brine it sinks down the aquifer, reducing leakage potential considerably (“solubility trapping”). Over longer periods of time CO2 can react with minerals in the brine and rock, and will become permanently sequestered as carbonates or bicarbonates, a process termed “mineral trapping".
2.2.2 Types of store Defined structures (structural traps) are stores in which injected CO2 is confined by the shape of the cap rock and other lateral “walls” such as faults (see figure 4). Often, as CO2 is injected the brine in the rock formation can be displaced and the pressurisation caused by injection dissipates if filled at a modest rate. Provided temporary pressurisation does not threaten the integrity of the cap rock, or cap rocks in surrounding structures, these can be filled until the enclosed capacity is used up, even spilling into other structures. However in some cases there is no quick escape path for displaced fluid and as the store is filled it pressurises, such stores being termed “closed aquifers”, “fully confined” or “pressure cells”. In these stores filling rate and volume is controlled so that the integrity of the cap rock is not compromised. Some aquifers have mobile brine, but lack significant lateral trapping structures. These rely on the CO2 “plume” from injection being trapped in small roof spaces and on residual trapping from the plume as it moves long distances over large areas and in very large volumes of brine. These are termed “open aquifers” and Sleipner is an example. Diagrams showing these types of structure are overleaf:
ROCK CO2 SALINE AQUIFER
Figure 4: Different types of aquifer store in the UKCS. Brown represents the rock above and below the aquifer, blue saturated aquifer rock, and red injected CO2. The thin vertical black line represents the injection well, and the thicker black lines represent faults.
The UKSAP project carried out dynamic simulations to model the behaviour of the CO2 in different types of store over thousands of years as well as understanding the impact of pressure effects. The distribution of these types of store and their inherent relative risks has a bearing on how CCS is developed in the UK. The defined structures (traps) tend to be small in area, so are less likely to “overlap” with other licensed areas, and are cheaper to explore, appraise and monitor. However 65% of UK saline storage in UKSAP is in 33 large closed or open aquifers - each over 200Mte in capacity. If industry is able to develop some of these, albeit over time, the task in hand becomes much less intense. It could well be that new techniques that make open stores the most desirable technical option are developed in the medium term.
Figure 5: Aquifer Stores over 200 Mte capacity by type
2.3 Building a cost effective network 2.3.1 Regional cost variation The UKSAP project used data on rock structures and properties to estimate each store capacity and its cost of construction and use – the “storage” cost. Pipeline and shore terminal pumping costs were added on the basis that each store has one feeder pipeline from its nearest shoreline hub - the “transmission” costs. These costs were worked out for different injection rates. In subsequent work Weighted Average Costs of Capital (WACC) were added to the analysis to reflect the time value of money and the financial risk of these ventures. All costs were on an “as new” basis. No re-use of existing oil and gas infrastructure was taken into consideration. Due to the simplifications employed to take a systematic view, the nature of the store and cost data in use (screening level data and order of magnitude costing) cost estimates are no better than +100%/-50%. Calculated cost elements are based on equivalent industry activities practised today and are therefore not increased by “first of a kind” additional costs. Transmission and Storage (T&S) costs of all sites (before down selection) show regional variations in cost.
Figure 6a: Distribution of Storage Costs (new build basis), each store having its own pipeline (assumed to operate at high pressure, CO2 a dense phase).
Figure 6b: Distribution of Offshore Transmission & Storage Costs (new build basis), each store having its own pipeline (assumed to operate at high pressure, CO2 a dense phase).
The stores in the EIS and the SNS are the cheapest on a “new build” basis. Investigation shows some of this can be explained by the obvious benefits of shallow water, short wells etc., but more subtly much of the CNS has high operational costs, which are calculated as a percentage of capital costs, and punitive for chalk reservoirs which require a large number of wells. Adding transmission costs to the storage eliminates some NNS storage, for which the nearest chosen shoreline hub is St Fergus. Figures 6a & 6b show that even with “point to point “pipeline projects there are healthy quantities of storage with transport & storage costs below £20/te (roughly £10/MWh for gas, or £20/MWh for coal). When storage is above £20/te, transport & storage costs begin to look comparable with capture costs – and CCS baseline costs for coal in particular begin to look expensive. Using our in-house modelling tools, this study looks at the costs of networks not point to point systems. The contribution to total costs from pipelines is reduced as a result of these networks and clustering emitters, but it is still material.
2.3.2 An outlook for planning
The ETI has undertaken a “planning” exercise to examine the key aspects of laying down infrastructure. It started with the perspective of what we know today about stores as embodied in UKSAP, in the belief that as appraisal, technology and confidence develops significant “upside” will emerge. The purpose was to estimate the costs and resources needed for the task of storing the nation’s CO2, and to see, with a conservative view of storage capacity, if the task was feasible. ESME was used to give decadal estimates of CO2 captured from the UK. The reference case assumptions in the model were taken and the mean results used to shape an emission profile. Since this is estimated regionally, emissions could be pointed towards pre-selected shoreline hubs for despatch to undersea stores. No estimate for onshore pipelines was used. The emission profile was smoothed as shown in figure 7, and the early years rationalised to accept recognised options such as those involved in the DECC competitions. Emissions from south Tees (Yorkshire) are in the Easington pipeline. Emissions from the South West of England and Wales were not addressed in this exercise due to lack of materiality or a convenient store. Nevertheless most of the 3 Gtes that needs to be stored to put us on track to meet UK’s 2050 targets are included in the costs calculated in this solution. A demand pattern as follows was used:
Build up of Flows from Shoreline Hubs MTe/a Barrow
Figure 7: ESME informed outlook on capturable CO2, dispatched through nearby terminals.
2.3.3 Down selecting storage
Store selection at the planning stage was restricted to storage units which were evaluated in the UKSAP database and had “reasonable” costs and security prospects. This was to make sure that the cost estimation was based on stores that could most reasonably be relied upon to succeed based on what we know today, rather than working from a more speculative palette.
A down selection of stores was undertaken in four stages 1.Stores in the UKSAP database which had incomplete data or cost estimates or were deliberately disqualified (too small, extreme pressure etc.) were eliminated. Only about 15% of the UKSAP database storage capacity was removed by these cuts and this was evenly spread geographically, but regrettably included some of the more interesting depleted gas and gas condensate fields due to lack of data. 2. Stores of cost greater than £22/te (10 % WACC) were then eliminated. This eliminated 50% of remaining storage, the EIS and the SNS being barely affected. 3. UKSAP assessors assigned risk profiles to the saline aquifer stores and those which had higher risks or in which assessors had lower confidence (often due to lack of data) were eliminated. Then saline aquifer stores with high risks in two individual risk categories (seals and faults) were eliminated. This was to prevent very large stores with a couple of potentially fatal flaws undermining confidence in the work. The brunt of this cut was taken by the NNS and to lesser extent the CNS, and overall it also reduced the remaining storage to 50% of the previous figure. DOGRs were not affected by this cut, and as a result rose to almost half the storage in our pool of stores.
This gave a selected storage profile as follows:
REDUCED STORAGE OPTIONS GTes DOGR SALINE AQ SNS 3.2 5.4 CNS 0.6 2.1 NNS 1.3 EIS 1.0 CHANNEL 0.5 TOTAL 6.1 8.0 Figure 8: Summary of selected stores. 17.
4. When it came to the actual selection of stores used in the network two further constraints were added:
Stores with high well counts (over 70) were avoided as wells are points of potential leakage, and so require assessment and possibly remedial work. Saline aquifers which had sections shallower than 800m in depth were avoided where possible as CO2 is a gas at these depths, exhibiting high buoyancy.
Even with all these constraints, the EIS, SNS and CNS could accommodate the storage plan shown in Figure 7, but neither the SNS nor the CNS could, under these constraints, on their own accommodate all the requirements. A less aggressive, but still impactful plan in terms of CO2 stored, could be accommodated within the SNS alone. These down selections are not rejecting capacity, instead they are trying to form a picture of the most likely storage regions which can most reasonably be expected to be developed from the UKSAP data, and may be suitable candidates for further early appraisal.
2.3.4 Selected stores The list of down selected stores is provided in appendix 4. These lower risk stores have a high DOGR content, as DOGRs were assumed to have sound cap rocks and seals. Saline aquifers with superficially similar features to some of these DOGRs were rejected. As a group these stores are more expensive than the outright optimist would choose (as they are on average smaller than a pool of the cheapest stores, and require more assessment and possibly remediation of old wells in accordance with developing practises). Some exhibit low injectivity. It is noteworthy that many stores in this selection fill within 20 years, and several have economic injection rates as low as 2Mt/a. Pipelines below 10Mt/a suffer in terms of economies of scale and pipelines should last 40 years. Planning needs to ensure that long pipes fill more than one store at a time and fill different stores consecutively over time. Big stores with high injectivity greatly ease the challenge of building capacity. A map of the down selected stores is shown below.
Figure 9: Map of lower cost, higher security stores selected from UKSAP for cost estimation. 19.
2.3.5 Costing a storage network In order to gain insights into the most important factors in network design and to compare the value of different options and strategies the ETI asked Element Energy to build an economic tool in Excel to cost networks. This model takes store data such as capacity from UKSAP and costs phased development in five year periods. All common financial indices are included – WACC, tax, interest, inflation, depreciation, loan periods etc. are represented. The model builds up costs in both undiscounted and discounted forms and calculates NPVs and levelised real costs in the five year phases and collectively out to 2050. The model user selects the stores and lays out the pipeline connectivity, and the model assists in sizing. The model does not deal with gas phase operation except through intervention by the user. The main elements of costing are shown in figure 10 below.
Figure 10: The elements costed in the model used in this paper
Offshore hubs are modelled when significant distribution of CO2 is required at a store, and the “designer” can choose between subsea templates and a selection of platform sizes depending on scale and the number of wells required during each phase. For expanding the use of pipework to other stores, offshore compression can be used and both the capital and variable cost elements of this were accounted for in the estimates. This means there is adequate basic infrastructure in the costing to notionally cross connect stores. However the estimation exercise is not detailed enough to account for the cost of the extra equipment needed to manage downhole temperature and pressure issues when stores at radically different pressures are drawing off the same main. 20.
The model was tested against published costs for specific projects of known configuration (eg Baird, Babbage) and found to give reasonable agreement. When compared to the published costs from the first UK CCS Demonstration Competition Front End Engineering Design (FEED) study (Kingsnorth project), it is found that the model agrees well with the FEED costs for pipelines, but that other offshore costs are lower than the DECC FEED study. This may be due to Kingsnorth handling gas in the early years of operation. The DECC FEED study provides guidance on how to use the model in a way that mitigates non-conservative assumptions in the model, such as that of dense phase operation and use of a simple well design.
2.3.6 Learnings from sub studies
Several studies using the same tool on sub- networks were carried out by the ETI and Element Energy to investigate network properties. The principal findings of these are:
The economies of scale for pipelines are very high, particularly up to 10MT/a. It is therefore particularly valuable to cluster emitters when starting infrastructure. The cost of every power station having its own offshore pipeline is prohibitive, and the spatial requirements too onerous.
Combining onshore projects and oversizing pipework, especially for longer lines is advantageous, but the follow-up project which uses the excess capacity must occur within a few years of construction. In several examples clustering and temporarily oversizing pipework reduced transport costs by between 30-50%.
Even with WACC added to the model and long lead times, appraisal costs did not damage the prospects of saline aquifers. Phasing capital expenditure over time in large stores improved their outlook.
Fewer shoreline hubs meant less offshore infrastructure costs.
Stores (on average) will be filled long before a pipeline reaches the end of its economic life. Extending the existing pipeline to new stores saves considerable cost, and puts CCS down the path of decreasing costs over time. Smaller stores, which could not be justified as stand-alone investments, can be bundled into the network, lowering costs of redundancy.
Transporting CO2 from Yorkshire and Thames to CNS rather than SNS comes at a price. Sensitivities show a cost penalty of £7/te (levelised) for connecting at network scale. So although EOR offers a great opportunity to reward construction of a CCS infrastructure (see for example 2CO publication “Making the business case for CCS”), pre-emptive investment in CNS rather than SNS in the hope EOR happens later is an expensive option.
After the 2030s, when demand for storage reaches around 100MT/a, large individual stores with good injectivity become much more important because storage projects limited to storing 2Mt/a for 10 years will not be impactful, and used only to extend the life of existing infrastructure.
Well remediation costs are important when looking at individual stores, but were not a threat to the economics of the down selected group of stores overall.
3. A storage network Using the selection process above and the ESME informed output in figure 7 the ETI and Element Energy built networks and costed these to obtain metrics on such systems. One such plan is mapped below in figures 11a,11b & 11c.
3.1 Trajectories Scotland’s emissions were first dispatched from St Fergus to Goldeneye. UKSAP did not have details on Goldeneye, so an analogous nearby store was used for cost estimation. This pipeline was extended to the north east via an aquifer in stages, eventually feeding the Brae Condensate fields, as these showed low cost in the database. There were several equally good options to the west of Goldeneye (Captain), and the region has the potential to store more CO2 if required.
Figure 11a: Pipeline plans for the Central North Sea. Numbers refer to the CO2 Stored code number 23.
The North and South Morecambe Bay fields easily coped with emissions from the West of England, via a line from Barrow, oversized for gas phase operation, ultimately in both fields. Merseyside emissions were fed via Barrow by a pipeline which was assumed to operate at high pressure.
Figure 11b: Pipeline plans for the East Irish Sea. Numbers refer to the CO2 Stored code number.
The “Humber” region was the heaviest emitter in all phases of development and its emissions were dispatched from Easington. These included emissions from further north and south and were initially deposited in a large Bunter Dome (currently under appraisal by National Grid). This could potentially be an offshore hub for dispatch to the CNS or NNS regions for EOR as recently proposed by the Don Valley Project. This pipeline was extended east via three Bunter Domes over 20 years. Offshore compression on platforms was used to minimise pipeline investment. This pipeline connected saline aquifers only and so is operated at high pressure and in dense phase throughout its life. This makes it suitable for transport north for EOR if needed, particularly as the time window for EOR is early in the 2020/2050 period. A spur south is added to connect with other SNS aquifers and to permit interconnection to other stores and supplies. Emissions from Teesside were routed to Easington, optionally overland, but costed as an offshore pipeline. 24.
Figure 11c: Pipeline plans for the Southern North Sea. Numbers refer to the CO2 Stored code number.
Thames was the only other region with significant accessible CO2 in the 2020s. Guided by the selection work by others on regional clusters, this was fed to Hewett and then Viking and eventually this was supplanted by an aquifer. The DOGRs were picked to provide a mix of store type and to spread risks. Some of these stores are depressurised and so are initially filled with low pressure CO2. Filling these first makes for the best use of the pipeline assets in early years, switching to dense phase operation later when higher flows are needed to fields that are further out. In the cost estimate, allowance was made to feed Thames material to Bacton for flexibility when some stores were in gas phase operation. Should an emission source at Bacton emerge early, this is a better place from which to fill de-pressurised stores as the oversized pipelines needed for gas phase are short in length, and the main line from the Thames can be designed for dense phase flowrates. Some parallel piping was selected to give operational flexibility to stores transitioned to dense phase operation. Bacton also fed a DOGR and later an aquifer. With the main transmission lines already in place by 2030 and the demand rate no longer increasing, replacement storage could be met by infill and extensions to existing lines. 25.
Obviously in such a small region interconnecting lines such as that in red in the map 11c can join regional supplies and increase reliability. In this illustration, the prime stores in SNS are closing by 2050 or their fill rates are slowing down. There are many smaller stores that can be economically used now that pipeline infrastructure is in place, but new large stores will be needed to accommodate the bulk of the flow. By 2050 some of the large quantity of storage that was left “on the table” by the selection process above may be fully appraised and cleared (or not) for use. At national level there are clearly “regional” dimensions to the matching of emissions and storage. In the particular networks depicted, there are also regional “railways” from the key hubs which would best be developed under the auspices of one organisation and at the very least regulation would need to be in place to enable the co-operation required between users to build in this way. In spite of the selection process “parking” huge amounts of saline aquifer storage it remained the storage of choice, largely based on cost. A rigorous appraisal programme is needed to confirm the suitability of such storage. The larger aquifers permit phasing of capital over long time periods, building satellites to core infrastructure as is currently done in the oil and gas industry.
Using the same economic model, Element Energy designed a similar network to that depicted using similar flows with a similar down selection of stores from the ETI, covering the CNS and SNS only. Element Energy had access to Close of Production data to ensure that hydrocarbon fields that would still be in use were not selected. Further, any store whose centroid was within 10kms of the centroid of a producing hydrocarbon field was rejected. Neither the depicted design in this report nor the Element Energy report were optimised. The two designs have similar infrastructure components and these are given below: Infrastructure in phase Start Year Total Flow, Mte/a Number of Hubs Sinks in use Number of Wells (smoothed) No of transmission pipelines
Phase 1 2020 15 2 2 15 2
Phase 2 2025 40 4 5 30 6
Phase 3 2030 80 5 10 100 12
Phase 4 2035 110 6 14 130 16
Phase 5 2040 110 6 14 150 16
Phase 6 2045 110 6 16 200 18
Figure 12: Key physical metrics of a UK storage network, building to 2050
Taking the costs from the Element Energy case, as it was more constrained on site selection in its early years, the cost structure of these assets provided in figure 13 below shows that, in spite of networking, pipelines remain a significant piece of the investment. So too are “injection facilities” (platforms) which plays into the strengths of UK offshore engineering businesses. Appraisal costs, which look onerous looking forwards, will not be significant looking backwards in time, in spite of the number of aquifers in use. Wells also remain costly, and these well counts would mean a growth in the UKs drilling activity. In the Element Energy case well remediation was restricted to 25% of old well count.
Figure 13: Cost breakdown for a UK CCS network
Turning to the financials from the two schemes, we found the discounted cost of all the networks total less than £5bn, at a real discounted rate of 10%.They have an average levelised discounted cost across all phases in the range between £13/te and £17/te for different designs, easily accommodated within an offering of less than £100/MWh for clean, on demand power from a CCS system. The Easington network has a good combination of scale and low cost. As can be expected the investments in the early “phase 1” projects which lay down the key infrastructure struggle to remunerate when compared to the later phases, requiring intervention by government in seed projects such as the DECC competition. Several operators will also require access to the arterial pipeline network to achieve this level of economy. It should be noted that these networks are not optimised and are based on a small subset of the total potential storage. The top two graphs in figures 14 below show cumulative NPV (2012) with time across the investment phases on a discounted basis. The storage plan is that of figure 7, so accumulation of storage after 2030 increases linearly. Costs shown before the storage part of each phase are the capital elements of construction and cumulative NPV is eroded for a few years after each phase by repayment of the loans. For illustrative purposes revenue was provided by a pipeline real tariff of £13/te and a storage real tariff of £13/te. Clearly at lower tariffs or increased WACC more patience is needed by the investor. Undiscounted total costs for the network are around £15bn.
Figures 14: The Financial performance of a UK CCS Transmission and Storage Network. These
graphs were prepared with a 10% real WACC. 29.
4. Conclusions Analysis by the ETI using its ESME model suggest that about 3 Gtes of CO2 storage is needed by 2050 if the UK adopts a lowest cost solution in order to meet its climate change targets. Even when the choice of stores within UKSAP is constrained to those in which we can have reasonable confidence to appraise today, all of the nation’s requirements for an aggressive CCS programme can be accommodated in the North Sea to 2050, and most likely beyond. Clustering of onshore emissions and offshore pipework networks permit costs to drop over time, such that these can easily be accommodated in a power offering below £100/MWh for CCS. Development of the SNS is key to keeping transportation and storage costs down, although quality stores exist in all regions, and other regions will contain stores or clusters of stores of national importance. New storage techniques and a development plan incorporating tests launched from nearby high confidence stores could open up cheap storage potential beyond the UK’s needs. A selection process based on cost, risk and other factors produced a storage network based on the development of saline aquifers, requiring a significant appraisal program to be instigated. In the illustrative example provided, seven aquifers were deployed, the majority before 2035. Returning to figure 3, and the value of having storage approved in advance of on-shore investment, roughly one major successful appraisal every year from now to 2025 is required. Early appraisals should cover different formations and store types in case systematic weaknesses are revealed during commercialisation, and focus on large stores with good injectivity. Shoreline compression, offshore transmission and storage infrastructure incorporating six shoreline hubs, and less than 20 stores and having a net present cost of c. £5bn should accommodate the UK’s CO2 storage requirement to meet its 2050 climate change targets, as part of a lowest cost solution. In present day costs, this is of a similar magnitude to the new investment in oil and gas in the North Sea in 2012 alone (£12bn). Finally, the evolution of the network depicted is “demand driven” from the ESME model, relies heavily on UKSAP data and its underlying assumptions, and starts by taking CO2 from those regions in the UK where there are likely to be capturable emissions in the short term. In practise the UK CCS demonstration projects will set the scene for the earliest development pathway, and key players or particularly advantaged projects will stimulate growth thereafter. A national plan for storage should be developed using the considerable additional sources of information and expertise available within the UK.
Figure 15: A possible network for CO2 storage in the UK to 2050
5. Glossary and Acronyms EOR: Enhanced Oil Recovery is a technique to increase the amount of oil removed from an oilfield. One such technique involves injecting CO2 into the field to improve the flow characteristics of the oil. Some of this CO2 is permanently stored in the field. FOAK: “First of a kind” designs are those which have not been commercialised before, and often incorporate additional features and costs to ensure they work. NOAK: “Nth of a kind” designs are streamlined through multiple use over many years, and incorporate little redundancy. Repeated construction has lowered costs. Subsea Template: This is a large steel frame which forms the base of undersea wellheads, manifolds and other equipment. Sometimes these can obviate the need for large oil and gas platforms. UKCS: The United Kingdom Continental Shelf is the body of water surrounding the UK within which UK claims mineral rights UKSAP: The UK Storage Appraisal Project was an ETI sponsored project which estimated the UK’s potential storage capacity for CO2. WACC: The weighted average cost of capital is the average rate a company has to pay to pay to those who finance its assets.
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the ETI members (1), The Crown Estate, The British Geological Survey and Element Energy for help in the creation of this document, and the members of the original UKSAP consortium who provided insights into the use of UKSAP data. The UKSAP project was executed by a consortium of ten leading UK Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and geological organisations, including representatives of the following: The British Geological Survey (BGS), Durham University, Element Energy Limited, Geo Pressure Technology Limited, Geospatial Research Limited, Heriot Watt University, Imperial College London, RPS Energy Limited, Senergy Limited and University of Edinburgh. (1) The Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) is a public-private partnership between global energy and engineering companies and the UK Government. Our role is to bring together engineering projects that develop, affordable, secure and sustainable technologies to help the UK address its long term emissions reduction targets as well as delivering nearer term benefits.
APPENDIX 1. Publications using UKSAP (CO2 Stored) data
Papers 1. Mathias, S. A., de Miguel, G. J. G. M., Thatcher, K. E., & Zimmerman, R. W. (2011). Pressure buildup during CO2 injection into a closed brine aquifer. Transport in porous media, 89(3), 383-397. 2. Wilkinson, M., Haszeldine, R.S., Hosa, A., Stewart, R. J., Holloway, S., Bentham, M., Smith, K., Swarbrick, R., Jenkins, S., Gluyas, J., Balbinski, E., Mackay, E., Smith, G., Daniels, S. and Anderson, D.: “Defining simple and comprehensive assessment units for CO2 storage in saline formations beneath the UK North Sea and continental shelf” presented at the 10th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-10), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 19-23 September 2010, and in Energy Procedia (April 2011) 4, (4865-4872). DOI: 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.454. 3. Gammer, D., Green, A., Holloway, S., Smith, G., Balbinski, E., Bentham, M., Gluyas, J., Haszeldine, S., Mackay, E., Pershad, H., Raistrick, M., Stewart, J. and Wilkinson, M.: “The Energy Technologies Institute's UK CO2 Storage Appraisal Project (UKSAP)” paper SPE 148426 presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Aberdeen, UK, 6–8 September 2011. 4. Niklas Heinemann , Mark Wilkinson , Gillian E. Pickup , R. Stuart Haszeldine , Nick A. Cutler: “CO2 storage in the offshore UK Bunter Sandstone Formation” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Volume 6, January 2012, Pages 210–219 5. Pickup, G.E., Jin, M., Mackay, E.J., Williams, J.D.O. and Bentham, M.S.: “Efficiency of CO2 Storage in a Domed Structure” paper 12270 presented at the 3rd EAGE CO2 Geological Storage Workshop: Understanding the Behaviour of CO2 in Geologic Storage Reservoirs, Edinburgh, UK, 26-27 March 2012. 6. Williams, J.D.O., Bentham, M., Jin, M., Pickup, G.E., Mackay, E M., Gammer, D., and Green, A.: “The effect of Geological Structure and Heterogeneity on CO2 Storage in Simple 4-way Dip Structures; a Modeling Study from the UK Southern North Sea” presented at the 11th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-11), Kyoto, Japan, 18-22 November 2012. 7. Williams, J.D.O., Jin, M., Bentham, M., Pickup, G.E., Hannis, S.D. and Mackay, E.J.: “Modelling carbon dioxide storage within closed structures in the UK Bunter Sandstone Formation” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 18 (2013) 38–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.06.015 8. Hosa A, Esentia M, Stewart J. & Haszeldine R S (2011) Injection of CO2 into saline formations: Benchmarking worldwide projects. Chemical engineering research & design, special issue. 89, (9A) 1855-1864. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2011.04.003
9. A L Goater, B Bijeljic and M J Blunt, “Dipping open aquifers — The effect of top-surface topography and heterogeneity on CO2 storage efficiency,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17 318–331 (2013). 10. Michelle Bentham, Andrew Green and Den Gammer. 2013. The occurrence of faults in the Bunter Sandstone Formation of the UK sector of the Southern North Sea and the potential impact on storage capacity.GHGT-11. Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 5101 – 5109.
ETI Presentations on UKSAP
1. Potential for CCS in the UK – a summary insights report by the Energy Technologies Institute, 2013 http://eti.co.uk/downloads/related_documents/ETI_CCS_Insights_Report.pdf 2. ETI CEO David Clarke presented 'If the answer’s gas, the question must be CCS...' to the Scottish Oil Club, April 25th 2013. - See more at: http://www.eti.co.uk/presentations/article/if_the_answers_gas_the_question_must_be_ccs# sthash.5AB43FfB.dpuf
3. CCS Programme Manager Andrew Green presented ‘CCS Program Overview’ at the Advanced Power Generation Technology Forum on 21st February. - See more at: http://www.eti.co.uk/presentations/article/eti_ccs_programme_overview#sthash.dlHC6iG9.d puf
4. ETI CCS Strategy Manager Dennis Gammer presented on 'CCS: Exploiting the opportunity' as a part of the CCS session 1 discussions at All Energy 2012 in Aberdeen on May 23. See more at: http://www.eti.co.uk/presentations/article/ccs_exploiting_the_opportunity#sthash.38n7Lv1o. dpuf
5. ETI Chief Executive Dr David Clarke’s Presentation to the 12th Annual APGTF Workshop: 'Carbon Capture & Storage – can the UK maintain a leadership role?' in London on 14 March. - See more at: http://www.eti.co.uk/presentations/article/building_towards_a_commercial_reality_accelerati ng_ccs_in_the_uk#sthash.VbwzBlN3.dpuf
APPENDIX 2: Major aquifer formations, from a CO2 storage perspective AREA FORMATION
SNS SNS EIS EIS CNS CNS CNS CNS CNS CNS CNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS NNS EC
DOMINANT WATER TYPICAL DEPTH to TYPICAL SEAL FAULT WELL AVERAGENUMBER oCAPACITYNUMBER ofCAPACITY TOTAL COMMENTS RISK RISK COST AQUIFERSAQUIFERS DOGRS of DOGRSCAPACITY STORE DEPTH (m) POROSITY CENTROID(m)PERMEABILITY RISK (MT) (MT) TYPE (AVERAGE) (mD) OUTLOOKOUTLOOKOUTLOOK (£/te) Bunter Sandstone Fm Structural Trap 37 0.17 1480 126 L M M 12 50 10,798 8 339 11,137 About one third of this is shallow Leman Sandstone Fm Structural Trap 29 0.11 2600 65(var) ML M Mixed 12 0 0 83 3758 3,758 Many compartmentalised Ormskirk Sandstone FormatOpen with structure 30 0.15 870 1100 ML M M 9 22 1423 12 1272 2,695 Much of this is shallow St Bees Sandstone Formati Open, no structure 30 0.09 2376 10 L MH L 22 1 981 0 0 981 Single low confidence Wick Sandstone Formation Mixed 105 0.3 1272 4100 MH L Mixed 24 3 246 2 134 380 Captain, Punt Brae Formation Fully Confined 115 0.16 4368 600 M MH Mixed 11 3 0 11 390 390 2* 100MT Kimmeridge Clay FormationOpen, with structur 104 0.15 3500 250 M M M 24 1 860 2 20 880 One big aquifer Piper Formation(Chanter) Fully Confined 141 0.2 3570 2900 ML Mixed H 13 8 151 8 176 327 100MT HC,2 SA Auk Formation Fully Confined 96 0.19 3363 5 M L M 23 3 3828 2 61 3889 Well sized, good mix Horda Fm Fully Confined 92 0.26 2180 410 ML M M 12 1 116 3 0 116 1* 100Mt 75 0.12 2910 53 M MH Mixed 23 1 344 1 0 344 Argyll_038_14 Halibut Carbonate FormatioFully Confined Statfjord Formation Fully Confined 124 0.22 3077 M M Mixed 17 5 274 1 211 485 Hugin Formation Fully Confined 115 0.2 4126 75 M MH Mixed 24 6 373 2 157 531 Cormorant Formation Fully Confined 152 0.16 2926 40 M MH Mixed 22 16 4739 0 0 4739 High injection, higher risk/low conf Lista Formation Fully Confined 110 0.27 1005 897 M H MH 11 1 2901 0 0 2901 High injection ,high risk/low conf Sele Fm Fully Confined 115 0.26 1826 600+ M MH MH 17 4 247 1 8 253 Horda Fm Fully Confined 121 0.29 1300 2070 M ML MH 14 6 440 3 0 324 Open aq is shallow/ Otter Sandstone Formation Open, no structure 55 0.18 1500 150 ML M L 14 1 490 0 0 490 Shallow
Note 1. Seal, Fault and Well risks shown are an overview of data from UKSAP, and within formations there is variability in store characteristics. Note 2, Green and red denote positive and negative features.
APPENDIX 3: Variation in Seal risks by region – SNS has an excellent seal risk profile Northern North Sea
Central North Sea
Southern North Sea
Very Low Very High 0% 0%
Very High Very Low 0% 0%
Very Low Very High 0% 0%
Unknown 7% High 22%
Low 39% Low 45%
Figure a: Seal Fracture Risk by Region Northern North Sea
Central North Sea
Very Low High 0%Very High 0% 0% Unknown 6%
Southern North Sea
High Unknown 0% 0%
Very High High 0% 0% Very Low 4%
Very High 0% Low 0%
Very Low 90%
Figure b: Seal Chemical Reactivity Risk by Region Northern North Sea
Very Low Very High 0% 0%
Central North Sea
Southern North Sea
Very High 0% Unknown 0%
Low Very HighVery Low 0% 0% 0%
Medium 37% High 91%
Low Very Low 0% High 0% 0%
Medium 100% High 59%
Figure c: Seal Lateral Degradation Risk by Region 38.
APPENDIX 4: STORES DOWN SELECTED by ETI for ESTIMATION PURPOSES Part 1
UNIT FORMATION ETI and CO2 Stored ID 82 Saline Aquifer Fulmar Fm 82.002 Oil & Gas Fulmar Fm 98.002 Oil & Gas Fulmar Fm 129.003 Gas Condensate Brae Fm 129.004 Gas Condensate Brae Fm 129.007 Oil & Gas Brae Fm 132 Saline Aquifer Orrin Fm 133.001 Gas Condensate Statfjord Fm 139.015 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm 139.016 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm 139.018 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm 139.019 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm 139.02 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm 139.022 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm 141.001 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.002 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.003 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.005 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.007 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.023 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.024 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.027 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.028 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.034 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.035 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.036 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.038 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.044 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.046 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.047 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.049 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.053 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.055 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.056 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.058 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.062 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.065 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.072 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.074 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 141.079 Gas Leman Sandstone Fm 152.001 Oil & Gas Buchan Fm 154 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm
AREA of UKCS
Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Northern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Southern Central Southern
Fulmar_030_17 Fulmar Oil Field Erskine Oil Field Brae East Condensate Field Brae North Condensate Field Kingfisher Oil field Orrin_012_26 Bruce Gas Condensate Field Bunter Closure 35 Bunter Closure 36 Bunter Closure 38 Bunter Closure 39 Bunter Closure 40 Bunter Closure 42 Leman gas field Barque gas field Amethyst East gas field Camelot Central South gas field Cleeton gas field Indefatigable gas field Johnston gas field Neptune gas field Pickerill gas field North Valiant gas fields Viking gas fields Anglia gas field Audrey gas field Excalibur gas field Galleon gas field Ganymede gas field Lancelot gas field Ravenspurn gas field Skiff gas field Thames gas field Victor gas field West Sole gas field Amethyst West gas field Rough gas field Markham gas field Valiant South gas field Buchan Oil Field Bunter Sandstone Formation Zone 2
USED in ESTIMATE
Yes Yes Yes
Yes (part) Yes
APPENDIX 4:STORES DOWN SELECTED by ETI for ESTIMATION PURPOSES Part 2
ETI and UNIT FORMATION AREA of DESCRIPTION CO2 Stored UKCS ID 154.002 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm Southern Bunter Closure 32 166.002 Oil & Gas Tarbert Fm Northern Alwyn North Oil Field 166.007 Oil & Gas Tarbert Fm Northern Brent Oil Field 166.009 Oil & Gas Tarbert Fm Northern Murchison Oil Field 173 Saline Aquifer Pentland Fm Central Pentland_015_18 179 Saline Aquifer Pentland Fm Central Pentland_015_21 180 Saline Aquifer Pentland Fm Central Pentland_015_26 195.001 Oil & Gas Hugin Fm Northern Beryl Oil Field 207 Saline Aquifer Piper Fm Central Pibroch_015_21 208.001 Oil & Gas Piper Fm Central Piper Oil Field 216 Saline Aquifer Wick Sandstone Fm Central Punt_012_24 218 Saline Aquifer Wick Sandstone Fm Central Captain_013_17 221 Saline Aquifer Auk Fm Central Auk_020_05 223.001 Oil & Gas Tor Fm Central Banff Oil Field 226.002 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm Southern Bunter Closure 18 226.003 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm Southern Bunter Closure 2 226.005 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm Southern Bunter Closure 22 226.008 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm Southern Bunter Closure 25 226.009 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm Southern Bunter Closure 26 226.011 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm Southern Bunter Closure 9 227.001 Gas Bunter Sandstone Fm Southern Orwell gas field 227.003 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm Southern Bunter Closure 17 227.006 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm Southern Bunter Closure 28 227.007 Saline Aquifer Bunter Sandstone Fm Southern Bunter Closure 3 248.003 Gas Ormskirk Sandstone Fm East Irish Sea Hamilton North gas field 248.004 Gas Ormskirk Sandstone Fm East Irish Sea North Morecambe gas field 248.005 Gas Ormskirk Sandstone Fm East Irish Sea South Morecambe gas field 248.009 Gas Ormskirk Sandstone Fm East Irish Sea Millom gas field 248.025 Saline Aquifer Ormskirk Sandstone Fm East Irish Sea Ormskirk closure 7 264 Saline Aquifer Otter Sandstone Fm English Channel Otter Sandstone Formation 320 Saline Aquifer Firth Coal Fm Central Firthcoal_026_07 326 Gas Westcoe Coal Fm Southern Murdoch gas field 327 Gas Schooner Fm Southern Schooner gas field 358 Oil & Gas Heather Fm Northern Nevis Oil Field 359 Gas Condensate Brae Fm Northern Rhum Gas Condensate Field 365.001 Oil & Gas Lista Fm Northern Andrew oil field 367.001 Gas Condensate Maureen Fm Northern Fleming condensate field 367.002 Gas Condensate Maureen Fm Northern Everest condensate field 372.005 Oil & Gas Sele Fm Central Nelson oil field 373.001 Oil & Gas Sele Fm Central Pierce oil field 380 Saline Aquifer Firth Coal Fm Central Firthcoal_015_13_CLONE 385 Saline Aquifer Kimmeridge Clay Fm Central Claymore_014_18_CLONE