Storage, Integrity, Monitoring and the

SECARB Storage Project

Prepared for:

RECS
Prepared by:

George J. Koperna, Jr., Vice President

Advanced Resources International, Inc.

June 10, 2015

University of Alabama at Birmingham

11

Disclaimer
This presentation is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy
National Energy Technology Laboratory under DE-FC26-05NT42590 and 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 not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
Government or any agency thereof.

2
2

Background

SECARB Phase III Projects

Storage Overview
Project Schedule and Milestones
The CO2 capture unit at Alabama Powers
(Southern Co.) Plant Barry became operational
in 3Q 2011.
A newly built 12 mile CO2 pipeline from Plant
Barry to the Citronelle Dome was completed in
4Q 2011.
A characterization well was drilled in 1Q 2011
to confirm geology.
Injection wells were drilled in 3Q 2011.
114k metric tons were injected into the Paluxy
formation beginning in the 3Q 2012.
Injection operations were terminated
September 3Q 2014
3 years of post-injection monitoring.

Project Objectives

1. Support the United States largest commercial prototype CO2 capture and transportation
demonstration with injection, monitoring and storage activities;
2. Test the CO2 flow, trapping and storage mechanisms of the Paluxy Formation, a regionally
extensive Gulf Coast saline formation;
3. Demonstrate how a saline reservoirs architecture can be used to maximize CO2 storage
and minimize the areal extent of the CO2 plume;
4. Test the adaptation of commercially available oil field tools and techniques for monitoring
CO2 storage (e.g., VSP, cross-well seismic, cased-hole neutron logs, tracers, pressure,
etc.);
5. Test experimental CO2 monitoring activities, where such technologies hold promise for
future commercialization;
6. Begin to understand the coordination required to successfully integrate all four components
(capture, transport, injection and monitoring) of the project; and
7. Document the permitting process for all aspects of a CCS project.
6

Coordination is a Full Time Job!

Geology

Injection/Storage Site Geology

Proven four-way closure at Citronelle
Dome
Injection site located within Citronelle
oilfield where existing well logs are
available
Deep injection interval (9,400 ft)
Numerous confining units
Base of USDWs ~1,400 feet
Existing wells cemented through primary
confining unit
>260 net feet of clean sand
Average porosity of 19%
(ranges from 14% to 24%)
Average permeability of 300 md
(ranges from 30md to 1,000 md)
No evidence of faulting or fracturing,
based existing 2D seismic lines.

Geologic Characterization
Baseline Reservoir Characterization:
Analysis of over 80 existing oilfield
well logs for porosity, thickness
and depositional style.
Sand mapping to determine open
or closed sand units.

Collected new geologic data on the Paluxy reservoir and confining

unit with the drilling of the projects three new wells:
210 feet of whole core and 70 percussion sidewall cores
Full set of open hole logs on all three wells (quad combo, MRI, spectral gamma,
mineralogical evaluation, waveform sonic, cement quality, pulsed neutron
capture)
Baseline vertical seismic profiles and cross-well seismic collected in Feb 2012
10

Extrapolated Continuity of
Upper Paluxy Sandstones
At Citronelle Southeast Unit
Northwest - Southeast
11

Paluxy Sandstone
Section of the D-9-7#2 core (9,598 to 9,607ft)

1.6
Darcy

680
mD

1
Darcy

730
mD
1.8
Darcy

12

1.1
Darcy

0.27
mD

279
mD

860
mD
600
mD

Fine to medium coarse-grained

fluvial sandstones.
Grains are sub-round, moderately
well sorted, predominately quartz.
Occasional clay pebble
conglomerate and rip-up clasts at
base of fluvial channel
sequences.
Burrowed to bioturbated
sandstone at top of channel
sequences.
Mottled red-brown to light gray.
Sandstone permeability generally
correlates to grain size.

D-9-9 #2
Core: 9,424 - 9,434

8.56%
0.004
mD

7.76%
0.004
mD

7.23%
(Perm n/a)

Paluxy
Mudstone
Low permeability mudstones
provide local confining layers
and flow baffles between
reservoir sandstones.
Shale Rock Properties (D-9-9#2)
CO2 Adsorption Isotherm Test
TOC

8.99%
0.006
mD

7.76%
0.002
mD

8.62%
0.008
mD

8.96%
0.011
mD
7.43%
0.06 mD

13

Shale Sample sent to UAB s Caprock

Laboratory for Analysis

Permitting

14

Permitting Outline
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)

Alabama Historical Commission

U.S. Fish and Wildlife
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(ADEM)

15

National Environmental Protection

Act (NEPA)
Environmental Impacts
Categorical Exclusion: All locations performing office work, planning,
coordination, etc.
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Environmental Information Volume and Supplements for Storage Project, Pipeline
and Electric Transmission Line
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued by NETL on March 18, 2011

16

Alabama Historical Commission

2 cultural resources assessments
4 archaeological sites discovered in the
Transmission Line survey, though not
eligible under the National Register of
Historic Places
no further investigations warranted
No cultural resources were discovered

no further investigations warranted

Following review of EA, agree with
the EA as it pertains to no effect to
National Register eligible cultural
resources by State Historic
Preservation Officer, April 2011
17

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

U.S. Fish and Wildlife permit and NEPA compliance mandate the protection of
threatened and endangered species
Potential impacts to an threatened species and its habitat (Gopher Tortoise)

Over 100 tortoise burrows encountered long pipeline easement, over 30

actively inhabited gopher tortoise burrows
Directional drilling under tortoise burrows/colonies less expensive than
temporary relocation (would have cost $2MM for relocation of all turtles)
Burrows identified at or near most well sites
Avoid drilling/monitoring activities in proximity to burrows

18

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Army Corps of Engineers permit covers
wetland impacts due to pipeline and injection
site construction
Pipeline route
12 miles
Directional drilled 18 sections of the
pipeline, 30-60 ft deep, under wetlands,
roads, utilities, railroad tracks, and tortoise
colonies
Surface re-vegetation and erosion control
Well pad construction
Wetlands impacts mitigated after drilling
completed

19

EPA UIC Class V Permit

A Class V Experimental Well permit was sought for the following reasons

Short duration of injection (3 years) and modest volumes of CO2

Characterization and modeling of stacked CO2 storage
CO2 Injection Under real world operating conditions
Demonstration of experimental monitoring tools and methods

After comments by EPA, most Class VI (CO2 sequestration well) standards were applied

Injection Area of Review (AOR) determined by modeling and monitoring results

Extensive deep, shallow and surface CO2 monitoring
Injection stream monitoring
Periodically updated Corrective Action Plan
Site closure based on USDW non-endangerment demonstration (5-yr renewal)
Pressurized annulus throughout injection (+/- 200 psig)
Class V Experimental injection permit was awarded in November 2011, eleven months after initial draft
application

Permission to operate issued in August 2012

20

Monitoring

21

UIC MVA Elements and Frequency

Frequency

MVA Method
Shallow
Soil flux
Groundwater sampling (USDW)
PFT survey
Deep
CO2 volume, pressure & composition
Reservoir fluid sampling
Injection, temperature & spinner logs
Pulse neutron logs
Crosswell seismic
Vertical seismic profile (VSP)
Experimental
Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS)
Comparative fluid sampling methods
MBM VSP
Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS)
MBM VSP & OVSP Seismic
22

Continuous

Monthly

Quarterly

Annual

Milestone
(Baseline,
Injection,
Post)

CO2 Monitoring, Verification and

Accounting
CO2 Injection and Storage Site

One new injector (D-9-7 #2)

Two new deep observation
wells (D-9-8 #2 & D-9-9 #2)
Two in-zone & above zone
monitoring wells (Citronelle
wells D-4-13 & D-4-14)
One PNC logging well (D-9-11)
12 soil flux monitoring
locations
PFT monitoring on nine well
pads

23

Soil Flux Sampling Results

Shallow MVA
USDW Groundwater Sampling
3 - Background Monitoring Events:
January 2012 (N=1) through July 2012
(N=3)
10 - Injection Period Monitoring Events:
November 2012 (N=4) through February
2015 (N=13)

PFT Survey

24

Inoculation
Testing
Well/Sample AUG 2012 JUN 2013 NOV 2013
D-9-1
ND
ND
ND
D-9-2
ND
ND
ND
D-9-3
ND
ND
ND
D-9-6
ND
ND
ND
D-9-7-1
ND
ND
ND
D-9-8
Invalid Data
ND
ND
D-9-9
ND
ND
ND
D-9-10
Invalid Data
ND
ND
D-9-11
ND
ND
ND
Air Blank 1
ND
NST
NST
System Blank
ND
ND

Background anomalies of Mn, Fe, and Cl

above UIC permit discharge limits.
To evaluate the potential exceedance of
regulatory standard (e.g., UIC permit
discharge limit), the EPA GW Unified
Guidance recommends statistical
comparisons (value to value comparison
to standard and evaluation of changes
between baseline and monitoring)
Quarterly testing to continue throughout the
PISC

Deep MVA
CO2 Injection History
CO2 Stream composition data (%)
CO2
O2
N2
Total
Nov-13
99.968
0.003
0.029
100
Oct-13
99.971
0.002
0.027
100
Sep-13
99.950
0.007
0.043
100
Aug-13
99.984
0.003
0.013
100
Jul-13
99.893
0.031
0.076
100
Jun-13
99.893
0.031
0.076
100
May-13
99.976
0.003
0.021
100
Apr-13
99.977
0.003
0.020
100
Mar-13
99.977
0.003
0.020
100
Feb-13
99.977
0.003
0.020
100
Jan-13
99.978
0.004
0.018
100
Dec-12
99.981
0.016
0.003
100
Nov-12
99.984
0.014
0.002
100
Oct-12
99.984
0.014
0.002
100
Sep-12
99.979
0.011
0.010
100
Aug-12
Aug-13
99.975
0.004
0.021
100
average
99.965
0.010
0.025

25

Deep MVA
D-9-8#2 Downhole Pressure

D9-8#2

D4-14
In Zone

D4-13
Above
Confinement

CO2 Injected

26

The system, as expected, is getting

more compressible with continued
injection. As a result, the pressure
transient travel time between the
injection and observation wells
continues to grow.

Deep MVA
Plume Image Comparison with Spinner Surveys
Time-lapse image
shows CO2 plume
located primarily in
Paluxy sands F-H
J
I

H
G

October 2013 spinner

survey show these
sands taking only 10%
of the flow

F
E

C
B

27

Sand Sand Unit Properties (ft) Nov 2012 Aug 2013 Oct 2013
Unit Bottom Top Thickness Flow % Flow % Flow %
J
9,454 9,436
18
14.8
18.7
16.7
I
9,474 9,460
14
8.2
20.4
19.6
H
9,524 9,514
10
2.8
7.4
7.7
G
9,546 9,534
12
2.7
2.1
0.9
F
9,580 9,570
10
0.0
1.2
1.2
E
9,622 9,604
18
26.8
23.5
30.8
D
9,629 9,627
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
C
9,718 9,698
20
16.5
11.8
10.3
B
9,744 9,732
12
4.9
0.6
0.4
A
9,800 9,772
28
23.3
14.3
12.4

Deep MVA
Comparison of Crosswell Reflectors
Baseline
Tomogram

Weak and/or
discontinuous reflectors

Strong, continuous
reflectors

Repeat
Tomogram

Injection Zone

Confining Zone

No reflector was
detected at or
near the top of
the CO2 where
one should be
present

Reflection data from the repeat survey are of poor quality and limited use.
Likely cause is interference by tube waves moving up and down the well
28

Time-Lapse Differencing Using the

Baseline and Repeat Velocity Tomograms

Time-lapse difference image

indicates a decrease in seismic
velocity in the upper injection
zone of up to 3%, suggesting an
increase in CO2 saturation

More importantly, no negative velocity

anomalies are observed in or above
the confining unitimplying no
detectable leakage out of inj. zone
29

No significant negative
velocity anomalies

Confining Zone

Injection Zone

First arrivals from repeat survey

were of sufficient quality to
produce a velocity difference
image (right) showing regions
where seismic velocity has
changed over time

Decrease in velocity
(negative anomaly)

Pixelized difference tomography results without seismic

reflection overlay showing positive velocity differences
in warm colors and negative differences in cool colors

MBM Geophone Array: Baseline VSP,

OVSP and Walkaway
Next Step:
Resolution Comparison
Crosswell ~ 10 feet
Full VSP ~ 25 30 feet
MBM VSP~ 50 feet
Establish fence post
Collect time lapse
seismic events
Collaborative analysis of
varying resolutions

30

Map of
VSP
shot
points

MBM Design: Flat-Pack & Geophone

31

Reservoir Modeling

32

Model 3D View

Monitoring Wells (D413, D4-14 and D98#2)

Injector
D9-7#2

Monitoring
Well D9-8#2

Note: Vertical to Horizontal Ratio Exaggeration of 10

33

Elevation and thickness maps

generated using Petra software
based on available logs
Divided the interval
between the various sand
flow units and their
associated shaly
interburden units
Layers further subdivided
to adequately represent
the injection well
perforations and
heterogeneity
Grid blocks are 400 by 400
(before refinement)
52 layers

Perforation Data
Sand Perforated
Name Intervals (ft)
9460
9520
9540
9570
9620
9670
9710
9740
9800
9840
9900
9970
10030
10040
10100
10130
10310
10370
10400
10470
10500
34

9436 - 9454,
9460 -9474
9514 -9524
9534 - 9546
9570 - 9580
9604 - 9622,
9627 - 9629
N/A
9698 - 9718
9732 - 9744
9772 - 9800
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

9460 A1
9460 A2
9460 A3
9460 B
9460 C
9460 D
9460 E
Interburden 9460 to
9520

9520 A1
9520 A2

Total Perf
Footage

9520 B1
9520 B2

9520 C
Interburden 9520 to
9540

9540 A

28

9540 B1
9540 B2
9540 C
Interburden 9540 to
9570
9570 Top
9570 B
9570 C
Interburden 9570 to
9620

10
12
10
20
N/A
20
12
28
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

Perforated intervals
respected in the model

9620 A1
9620 A2
9620 B
9620 C1
9620 C2
9620 C3
9620 D
9620 E
Interburden 9620 to
9670
9670
Interburden 9670-9710

9710 A
9710 B
9710 C
Interburden 9710 to
9740

9740 A
9740 B
9740 C
Interburden 9740 to
9800

9800 A
9800 B
9800 C
9800 D
9800 E

Depth from
Model
9420.1
9428.0
9436.0
9443.9
9453.4
9461.1
9472.9

Thickness
from Model
7.93
7.93
7.93
9.5
7.7
11.8
9.6

Model
Layer
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

9482.5

22.9

13

9505.4
9512.9
9520.3
9524.8
9529.3

7.45
7.45
4.5
4.5
4.1

14
15
16
17
18

9533.4

3.3

19

9536.7
9541.7
9547.3
9552.9

5
5.6
5.6
4.4

20
21
22
23

9557.3

12.5

24

9569.8
9576
9584.7

6.2
8.7
4.1

25
26
27

9588.8

8.6

28

9597.4
9602.9
9608.4
9616.7
9620.9
9625.2
9629.4
9638.1

5.5
5.5
8.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
8.7
5.7

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

9643.8

16.4

37

9660.2
9687.5
9700.1
9718.1
9721.3

27.3
12.6
18
3.2
5.1

38
39
40
41
42

9726.4

6.8

43

9733.2
9739.9
9743.9

6.7
4
16.3

44
45
46

9760.2

20.6

47

9780.8
9785.4
9790.1
9803.4
9813.0

4.6
4.7
13.3
9.6

48
49
50
51
52

Perforated
Layer

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

Permeability and Porosity

Permeability and
porosity values from
core plugs were
available for sand
packages 9570 and
9620 at the D 9-7#2
(injector) and for sand
package 9460 at the D
9-8#2 well.

Layer
9460 A1
9460 A2
9460 A3
9460 B
9460 C
9460 D
9460 E
Interburden 9460 to 9520
9520 A1
9520 A2
9520 B1

When no core data

were present, densityneutron porosity and
their equivalent
permeability values
(determined by crossplots) were used.

X
X

9520 B2
9520 C
Interburden 9520 to 9540
9540 A
9540 B1

X
X

9540 B2
9540 C
Interburden 9540 to 9570
9570 Top
9570 B
9570 C

35

Perforated Model
Model
Layer Porosity Permeability
0.178
14.1
0.195
56.9
X
0.169
12.5
X
0.190
45.0
X
0.200
187.5
X
0.208
37.6
0.212
40.1
0.185
0.185
0.217
0.217
0.170

1.2
1.2
17.2
17.2
0.7

0.208
0.195
0.195
0.161

18.9
4.4
4.4
0.5

Layer
Interburden 9570 to 9620
9620 A1
9620 A2
9620 B
9620 C1
9620 C3

0.150
0.130
0.150

1.3
1.6
1.9

67.1
48.1
48.1
48.1
493.8
87.5
66.9
35.6

0.170

3.3

0.191
0.195
0.180

28.8
20.0
16.5

X
X

0.179
0.200
0.191

7.0
23.6
14.4

X
X
X

0.185
0.196
0.175
0.187
0.143

42.0
76.5
23.0
47.0
2.4

X
X
X
X

9620 D
9620 E
Interburden 9620 to 9670
9670
Interburden 9670-9710
9710 A
9710 B
9710 C
Interburden 9710 to 9740
9740 A
9740 B
9740 C
Interburden 9740 to 9800
9800 A
9800 C
9800 D
9800 E

Model
Permeability

0.218
0.193
0.193
0.193
0.210
0.183
0.200
0.167

9620 C2

9800 B

Perforated Model
Layer
Porosity

Vertical & Directional Permeability

Vertical permeability
measured on 9 samples was
found to be on average 4
times smaller than horizontal
permeability: ratio
implemented in the model.
Directional core data on 7
samples showed an average
horizontal anisotropy of 2 but
with an unknown direction.

Sample

8H
8V
28H
28V
29H
29V
46H
46V
49H
49V
52V
55V
59H
59V
61H
61V

Note: Vertical to Horizontal Exaggeration Ratio of 15

36

Depth

Number

9577.20
9577.4 9577.50
9597.35
9597.45 9597.65
9598.35
9598.45 9598.70
9614.65
9615.05 9615.30
9617.65
9618.1 9618.25
9621.2 9621.35
9624.25 9624.45
9627.65
9627.8 9628.10
9629.75
9630.05 -

Net Confining

Porosity

Stress (psig)

(%)

Permeability
Klinkenberg (md)

1200.00
1200.00

17.38
17.21

34.71
17.78

1200.00
1200.00

21.62
22.04

496.23
462.93

1200.00
1200.00

20.20
19.90

74.82
14.14

1200.00
1200.00

20.27
18.07

167.32
32.27

1200.00
1200.00

17.71
16.83

52.28
6.98

1200.00

20.83

756.16

1200.00

20.42

535.71

1200.00
1200.00

13.70
20.74

26.50
612.96

1200.00
1200.00

17.06
12.37

223.67
0.80

Relative Permeability Curves

Laboratory versus Simulation Curves
1
0.9
0.8
0.7

Kr

0.6
0.5

0.4
0.3

0.2
0.1
0
0

37

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5
Sw

0.6

0.7

0.8

Simulation Krw

Simulation Krg

Krg Sample 16 (2012)

Krw Sample 16 (2012)

Krg Sample 36

Krw Sample 36

Krg Sample 16 (2011)

Krw Sample 16 (2011)

Krg Sample 46

Krw Sample 46

0.9

Injection Rate Match

CO2 Injection Rate
14,000,000
12,000,000

Gas Rate, scfd

10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
7/1/2012

7/1/2013
Simulation Injection Rate

38

7/1/2014
Actual Injection Rate

Pressure at Monitoring Well D 9-8

Until end of injection September 1st, 2014
4,500
4,480
4,460

Pressure, psia

4,440
4,420

4,400
4,380
4,360

Until September 1st, 2017

4,340
4,320

4,500

4,300

4,480
4,460
D9-8 Bottom Gauge

D9-8 Top Gauge

Simulation Data

Pressure, psia

4,440
4,420

4,400
4,380
4,360
4,340
4,320

4,300

D9-8 Bottom Gauge

39

D9-8 Top Gauge

Simulation Data

Pressure at Monitoring Wells

D 4-13 and D 4-14
Until end of August 2014
SECU D4-13/ D4-14 Pressure
4500
4450

D 4-14 Bot

4400

D 4-14 Simulation

Pressure, psia

4350
4300
4250

D 4-14 Top
D 4-13 Bot

D 4-13 Simulation

4200
4150

Until end of August 2017

D 4-13 Top

4100
4050

SECU D4-13/ D4-14 Pressure

4000
Jun-12

Sep-12

Dec-12

Mar-13

Jul-13

Oct-13

Jan-14

May-14

4500

Aug-14

4450

Date

D4-14 Top

D4-13 Bottom
D4-13 Simulation

4400

D4-14 Bottom
D4-14 Simulation

D 4-14 Bot

D 4-14 Simulation

4350
Pressure, psia

D4-13 Top

4300
4250
4200

D 4-14 Top

D 4-13 Simulation
D 4-13 Bot

4150

D 4-13 Top

4100
4050
4000
Jun-12

Dec-12

Jul-13

Jan-14

Aug-14 Feb-15

Sep-15

Apr-16

Oct-16 May-17

Date

40

D4-13 Top

D4-13 Bottom

D4-14 Bottom

D4-14 Top

D4-13 Simulation

D4-14 Simulation

SECARB Phase 3 - Plant Barry

Gas Saturation 2014-09-01 K layer: 10

1200 feet

286,000

287,000

GasInj1

1200 feet
286,000

41

D_9_8

387,700 387,900 388,100 388,300 388,500 388,700 388,900 389,100 389,300

CO2 Plume View Gas Saturation as of

September 1st, 2014
File: match_update_fetkovitch20_2-june5.irf
User: anne
Date: 6/8/2015
Scale: 1:3943
Y/X: 1.00:1
Axis Units: ft

0.00

255.00

510.00 feet

0.00

80.00

160.00 meters

Note: grid refined

grid blocks are 80 by 80

0.80
0.73
0.65
0.58
0.50
0.43
0.35
0.28
0.20
0.13
0.05

287,000

D 9-7

D 9-8

SECARB Phase 3 - Plant Barry

Gas Saturation 2017-12-31 K layer: 10

1200 feet

286,000

287,000

GasInj1

1200 feet
286,000

42

D_9_8

387,700 387,900 388,100 388,300 388,500 388,700 388,900 389,100 389,300

CO2 Plume View Gas Saturation

as of December 31st, 2017
File: match_update_fetkovitch20_2-june5.irf
User: anne
Date: 6/8/2015
Scale: 1:3943
Y/X: 1.00:1
Axis Units: ft

0.00

255.00

510.00 feet

0.00

80.00

160.00 meters

0.80
0.73
0.65
0.58
0.50
0.43
0.35
0.28
0.20
0.13
0.05

287,000

D 9-7

D 9-8

Summary
We have a good capacity, injectivity, and no apparent
formation damage
The injected CO2 volume is accounted for
There is no evidence of CO2 at the off-set monitoring wells
MVA results indicate the CO2 is contained
Data, data, & more data
When deploying non-commercial MVA protocols, redundancy
with more commercial tools is necessary to ensure the data
quality
Every potential storage project is different & MVA should be
site specific in design
Regulators may add to a projects MVA plan
43

but what if we were in Narnia?

(Its a little known fact that the subsurface
geology is extremely favorable for longterm underground storage of CO2!)
but there was no existing regulatory
framework for our carbon capture
utilization and storage project?
How could Narnia begin to develop,
enact, and regulate such programs from
scratch?

Thats where the International Standards

Organization (ISO) comes in.

44

International Standards ISO

What are Standards?
Consensus based
Designed as a rule, guideline
or definition
Revisable and updateable
Voluntary

Standards must fit to purpose:

Prescriptive based
Objectives based
Performance based
Principles based
Hybrids
45

Why Standards?
Because they are not laws
Standards & regulations can work
together

Not Mandated
Typically initiated by industry
And therefore better received and
used by industry because they are
part of the process

Demonstrate regulatory
compliance
Streamline the regulatory process
Harmonize across jurisdictions

ISO Standards Development

ISO does not write standards
Technical Committees write standards
P-Member countries approve standards
Nations adopt ISO standards
ISO does not influence the technical content

46

ISO Standards Process

47

ISO TC 265 CCS Organization

Twined
Secretariat
Members

Participants

48

Canada &
China

Countries

P-Member
Nations

O-Member
Nations

Liaisons

NGOs &
Liaisons

TC-265 Working Groups

TC-265

WG1
Capture

49

WG2
Transportation

WG3
Storage

WG4
Q&V (MVA)

WG5
Cross-Cutting

WG6
CO2-EOR

SECARB Expertise Globally

SECARB Members

RCSP Members

Richard Esposito, SoCo

Sue Hovorka, UT-BEG
George Koperna, ARI
Shahab Mohaghegh, WVU
Jack Pashin, GSA/OSU
Nino Ripepi, VT
Kimberly Sams Gray, SSEB
Greg Schnacke, Denbury
Mike Surface, Dominion
Steven Carpenter, ARI

~40% of expertise
50

Andrew Duguid
Jim Ekman
Sarah Forbes
Scott Frailey
Sallie Greenberg
Randall Locke
Sarah Wade
Mark Woods

SECARB + other RCSP

~75% of expertise

Thank You!
Washington, DC
4501 Fairfax Drive, Suite 910
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: (703) 528-8420
Fax: (703) 528-0439
Houston, TX
11931 Wickchester Lane
Suite 200
Houston, TX 77043-4574
Phone: (281) 558-6569
Fax: (281) 558-9202

Advanced
Resources
International
www.adv-res.com

51

Cincinnati, OH
1282 Secretariat Court
Batavia, OH 45103
Phone: (513) 460-0360
Knoxville, TN
1202 Kenesaw Ave
Knoxville, TN 37919-7736