Underground storage of CO2 in depleted natural gas fields

Underground storage in Barendrecht

Margriet Kuijper, Shell CO2 Storage BV

SenterNovem Workshop Amsterdam 28 October 2009

Presentation Overview

Introduction Barendrecht Project

Learnings so far: Technical Commercial Legal (regulation, permits) Organisation

Public Acceptance Playing field Local proposition Communication strategy

3

What does the project entail?

Barendrecht CO2 storage

Pernis Refinery:almost 1 million tons of pure CO2

Annually:150,000 tons of CO2to soft drinks industry (& others)

Summer:380,000 tons of CO2 to greenhouses

Winter:injection of 400,000 tons of CO2 into Barendrecht gas field reservoirs

4

Pipeline

Largely in existing pipeline corridor Maximum pressure 40 bar (gas pipeline usually 60-90 bar)

5

Barendrecht gas production site

6

Why Barendrecht?

Dutch government keen to have 2 smaller storage demonstration before major demonstration projects are launched (in 2015).

In 2007 a tender invitation procedure was launched to identify suitable projects.

Preference was stated for an early start date and onshore location (there is already an offshore project in NL: K12).

Shell is involved in several CCS projects and studies worldwide, and so had the right expertise and assets to take part in the tender round.

7

What makes Barendrecht so suitable?

Relatively unique situation:

available in short term

suitable CO2 source (>99% pure)

suitable field reservoirs (safe, almost fully depleted)

learnings on entire life cycle would be quickly available

relatively close together; short distance to CO2 source

in a region where people take climate problem seriously and are keen to develop a CO2 infrastructure (Rotterdam Climate Initiative)

Forward Plan

November 2009: go-ahead (or not) decision by ministers

Dec 2009 to Dec 2010: Permit process

2010 – 2011: baseline surveys, preparations, procurement

2012: construction and start CO2 storage

Learnings so far (1)

Technical: Managing pressure (and temperature) drop into the reservoir Containment demonstration: translation of proven methods for surface

equipment to subsurface reservoirs (bow-ties, risk matrices, consequence analysis, risk-based monitoring plan)

QRA for CO2 compression, transport, wells

Conclusion: uncertainties can be avoided or managed by conservative assumptions

Commercial 4 contracts: Senternovem; OCAP; NAM; SNR Key issues: long-term liabilities, CO2 ownership, capacity infrastructure,

stranded gas, uncertainties CO2 market (demand/supply, price)

Conclusion: high risk, low reward from a pure economic/commercial perspective

Learnings so far (2)

Legal (regulation, permits) EIA submitted and approved; large part of EIA and reference documents is

aimed at demonstrating subsurface containment Moving ahead of changing/new legislation (e.g. implementation EU CCS

directive, CO2 probit) New legislation (Rijks Coordinatie Regeling) has caused delays, but should

help decision making once activated First? project to claim credits under ETS (monitoring & verification plan, etc)

Conclusion: experience so far confirms that this is a major learning area for this project (it has accelerated learning and capacity building with the many different government agencies and civil servants that need to be involved)

Organisation Project team mainly part-time staff (to shift costs in case of external delays) Internal engagement and support is (almost) as challenging as external

Public Acceptance

Brief overview of theory Understanding the playing field The local value proposition Communication strategy (main elements)

Experience Barendrecht project The playing field The local value proposition Communication: lessons learned

Understanding the Playing Field

Urgency: Climate Change and Energy Security

Necessity of CCS (in addition to other options)

Sufficient knowledge and experience

Small demo’s:- capture- storage

Framework:- legal- financing- commercial-(spatial) plans

Large scale demo’s 2015Local Politics & Issues People in

Key Positions

Local Value Proposition

Local benefits Local impact and risks

National (global) benefits

Challenge: Negatives: here, now, “us”Positives: there, later, “them”

Public Acceptance Strategy

Key elements of a Public Acceptance Strategy:

1. Actions to improve the “playing field”

2. Actions to improve the local value proposition

3. A good communications strategy that takes account of the identified strengths and weaknesses in the playing field and local value proposition

Communication Strategy

Who-company

-experts

-partners

-gov’s

-Ngo’s

What-key messages

-risk communication

-words

-pictures

-process

How-media

-face2face

-packagingWhom-surveys

-role

-diversity

Where-existing meetings

-market stalls

-location

-schools

When-1 yr before formal procedure

-avoid local elections

-as often as needed

-use key external events

-partners need to be ready

Organisation-Competencies for

public acceptance

-Coordination

The Barendrecht Playing Field

Urgency: Climate Change and Energy Security

Necessity of CCS (in addition to other options)

Sufficient knowledge and experience

Small demo’s:- capture- storage

Framework:- legal- financing- commercial-(spatial) plans

Large scale demo’s 2015Local Politics & Issues People in

Key Positions

Local Value PropositionBarendrecht perspective

Local benefits Local impact and risks

National (global) benefits

Challenge: Negatives: here, now, “us”Positives: there, later, “them”

Risk Perception

Risk Property Score CO2-opslag

-- = publieke perceptieTimescale -

Worst case fatalities/impact +/--

Choice (exposure) -

Cost/benefit (equity) -/--

Personal influence/control -/--

New technology +/--

Damage irreversible +/-

Identification victims --

Harmful intention +/-

20

Uncertainties, risks and HSE risks

Uncertainties

Risks

HSE risks

New gas field

(or storage in saline aquifer)CO2 storage in depleted gas field

CO2 transport pipeline

Conclusion Public Acceptance

“playing field” was not favourable; national government started communications late

Local value proposition is/was not good enough

Risk perception challenges need more attention in communication

Difficult to control: NATME effect: Not According to My Expert Media choice of experts (credible) Individual Crusaders; e.g. media quoting CDA-politician “there

could be hundreds of thousands deaths in case of an accident”