XXXXX
The implications of CCS economics for
monitoring and modelling of CO2 storage
Prof. Dianne E. Wiley
Minh Ho, Peter Neal
CO2CRC Economics @ UNSW © CO2CRC
All rights reserved
Professor Dianne WileyHead, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
Combined Meeting of the IEAGHG
Modelling and Monitoring Networks
6th – 8th July 2016, Edinburgh,
Scotland
Introduction
• Commercial and R&D CCS projects are underway
– they could not happen without MMV
BUT …
• Costs of MMV technologies are rarely reported publicly
– it is difficult to compare conventional or prospective technologies
for different projects
Source: https://www.e-
education.psu.edu/drupal6/files/meteo469/lesson11/ccs
.jpg
QUEST: Multiple domains for MMV
Source: www.slideshare.net/globalccs/shell-quest-canada
QUEST: Multiple technologies for MMV
Source: www.slideshare.net/globalccs/shell-quest-canada
Management cost at 15%
Post- Op enchancements
Closure - Seismic survey
Operational enhancements
Micro-seismicity
Wellhead atmospheric CO2concentrationInjection and productionratesWellhead pressure
Seismic survey
Pre-Op enhancements
Basline atmosphericmonitoringMicro seismic baseline
Pre-op Seismic survey
Injection and productionrate testingFormation pressure
Wellhead pressure
Well logs
Pre-operational MMV costs
Operational MMV costs
Post-operational MMV
General management
Breakdown of MMV costs (2004)
Saline reservoir
Adapted from: Benson et al (2004) Overview of Monitoring Requirements for Geological
Storage Projects. Report PH4-29. IEA GHG
Enhanced MMV technologies
Previous findings on MMV costs (2004)
• Pre-operational costs
– dominated by seismic surveys
• Operational costs
– dominated (~70%) by seismic surveys and injection
monitoring
• Total project costs
– increased (~60%) by ‘enhanced’ MMV during
operation and closure periods
Adapted from: Benson et al (2004) Overview of Monitoring Requirements for Geological
Storage Projects. Report PH4-29. IEA GHG
What do we know in
2016 about the
contribution of MMV
to CCS costs?
www.co2crc.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/LCOE_R
eport_final_web.pdf
What’s in the report?
• Costs of ‘building blocks’ for
CO2 transport and storage
– pipelines
– booster pumps
– wells
– platforms
– MMV
• Costs for specific Australian
case studies
Assessing transport and storage options for
East Coast Australia
North
Queensland
South
Queensland
North NSW
South
NSW
Latrobe Valley
Surat
Galilee
Eromanga
Gippsland
Darling
Cooper
Key points about methodology
• Total Plant Costs reported as $/CO2 injected (or transported)
– not total project costs (which include owner’s and risk adjusted
costs)
– not $/t CO2 avoided (which includes amount of CO2 generated
due to energy usage)
• Costs include
– capital costs
– operating costs (including energy for booster pumps)
– on-costs
• MMV costs cover
– 3D seismic surveys (at 5 year intervals)
– borehole seismic logging (complementary 5 year intervals)
Cost of 3D seismic surveys
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 5,000 10,000
3D
seis
mic
su
rve
y c
ost
(A$ m
illio
n)
Areal extent (km2)
Onshore
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 5,000 10,000
3D
seis
mic
su
rve
y c
ost
(A$ m
illio
n)
Areal extent (km2)
Offshore
High cost
range
Low cost
range
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000Bo
reh
ole
seis
mic
co
st
(A$ m
illio
n p
er
log
)
Total vertical depth (m)
Cost of borehole seismic profiling
0 20 40 60 80
Cost of T&S – selected case studies
Specific Cost of CO2 Injected (A$/t 2015)
MMV
Pipelines
Boosters
Wells
Facilities
On-costs
South Qld – Eromanga (onshore)
North Qld – Galilee (onshore)
Latrobe V. – Gippsland (offshore)
South Qld – Surat (onshore)
Short distanceHigh injectivity
Moderate distance
Hunter V. – Gippsland (offshore)
Energy cost
Long distance> 1,000 km
Adapted from: APGTAR (2015)
Specific Cost of CO2 Injected (A$/t 2015)
Cost of storage
South Qld – Eromanga (onshore)
North Qld – Galilee (onshore)
Gippsland (offshore)
South Qld – Surat (onshore)
0 2 4 6 8
Wells
Facilities
Oncosts
MMV
Large areal extent (>30,000 km2)
Moderate areal extent (10,000 km2)
Small areal extent (2,000 km2)
Adapted from: APGTAR (2015)
Effect of frequency and cost on MMV
Baseline
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 5 10 15
MM
V c
ost
$/y
r
Frequency of measurement (years)
Transport of CO2 from South Queensland to Surat Basin
Adapted from: APGTAR (2015)
Cost breakdown for CCS
Transport2%
Storage~1%
Capture96%
MEA capture from USC black coal fired power plant in South Queensland with storage in Surat Basin
Adapted from: APGTAR (2015)
Conclusions
• MMV (in $/t injected) accounts for:
– ~ 0.6% of a CCS project cost
– ~ 4% of transport & storage cost (0.1% to 20%)
– ~ 20% of storage cost (0.1% to 40%)
• MMV cost increases when
– areal extent of the reservoir increases
– a small amount of CO2 is injected over a large area
• Limited cost data for MMV technologies is available
• New MMV technologies need to be cheap, reliable
and easily deployed within regular project phases
