This webinar presented the findings of a study to assess the geological opportunities for carbon dioxide (CO2) storage under the Baltic Sea. The study is part of a two year project commissioned by Elforsk (Sweden) and has been conducted in close collaboration with the Finnish Carbon Capture and Storage program (CCSP). This project has provided a great opportunity to learn more about the geological conditions for storing large volumes of CO2 in the Cambrian Sandstone under the south eastern parts of the Baltic Sea. Read the study here. This assessment of the opportunities for CO2 storage under the Baltic Sea was undertaken by SLR Environmental Consulting and researchers at Uppsala University. In this webinar we will share with you the methodology used and the key results, including: storage volume capacity estimations, injectivity, seal integrity and a proposed test injection methodology. The webinar was hosted by the Global CCS Institute who together with the Swedish Energy Agency and a number of industrial partners funded the project. For this webinar, the report findings were presented by Richard Vernon and Nick O’Neill from SLR Environmental Consulting.

1. Geological Assessment, CO2 storage in the
Baltic Sea Region
Webinar – 6 May 2014 , 1800 AEDT

2. Industry interest is the core driver behind BASTOR2
Apart from the future cost of emissions,
industry needs to know its long term operating
conditions:
• If CCS is deemed feasible for the industry,
which are the storage options?
• What are the political and public perceptions?
• How could the legal and financial conditions for
CCS be described?
• How could transport infrastructure be organized
and what would it cost?

3. Five work packages – Geology is key
Geology
Environmental impact
Societal aspects
Legal/fiscal aspects
Infrastructure
SLR Consulting
Uppsala University
OPAB
Yggdrasil
Environment
Stockholm
University
IVL, Linköping
University
The WP1 report is available to download now:
www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/final-report-prospective-sites-geological-storage-co2-southern-baltic-sea

4. BASTOR 2 - work package schedule
201420132012
Geological assessment
Environmental impact
Infrastructure
Societal aspects
Legal and fiscal aspects
January JanuaryNovember September September
Closing Report & Plan Phase 3

5. Richard Vernon
Technical Director – Energy – SLR Consulting
2000-2014 During the last 14 years, Richard has worked as a
consultant, an interim manager and project manager on a wide
range of energy related assignments in Ireland, the UK and
elsewhere. For a number of years he was an Associate
Consultant to SLR Consulting and then joined the company mid
2008. He is now Technical Director, with particular
responsibilities in the energy sector.
1989-2000 – Phillips Petroleum Company UK Director of
External Affairs for Phillips Petroleum Company, US multinational
oil and gas company.
1979-1989 – Petroleum Economics Limited Senior Consultant
with for all aspects of the international oil and gas industry.

6. Nick O’Neill
Director – SLR Consulting
1995-2014 – Director of SLR Consulting (Ireland) (previously
CSA Group) He is responsible within SLR Ireland for generating
new business in the Energy sector and is currently Project
Manager for the Irish Petroleum Infrastructure Programme
(www.pip.ie) that funds research to enhance Ireland’s
hydrocarbon prospectivity.
1987-1995 – Operations Geologist with Shell and later BP based
in London, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Dublin. Independent
Operations Geologist working internationally for a number of oil
exploration companies in the Middle East, West Africa and the
North Sea.
1977-1987 – Junior Geologist, Drilling Engineer and later Base
Manager for Geoservices in Abu Dhabi and Cairo.

7. QUESTIONS
 We will collect questions during
the presentation.
 Your MC will pose these
question to the presenters after
the presentation.
 Please submit your questions
directly into the GoToWebinar
control panel.
The webinar will start shortly.

8. PROSPECTIVE SITES FOR THE GEOLOGICAL
STORAGE OF CO2 IN THE SOUTHERN BALTIC SEA
Richard Vernon
Nick O’Neill
6th May 2014

9. OUTLINE
• CO2 storage capacity
• Static Modelling
• Seal Integrity
• Dynamic modelling
• Summary & Conclusions

10. THE CONTEXT

11. THE STUDY AREA
• The study area is defined as previously mapped Palaeozoic sedimentary
basins in the Baltic Sea Area
• Cambrian reservoirs deeper than 800m below seabed are the best storage
sites
• Some potential in depleted oil and gas fields
• Saline aquifers in border monoclines have significant storage capacity
Source: after Sliaupa S., 2009

12. THE DATA BASE

13. REGIONAL MAP OF SEDIMENTARY BASINS
WITH CO2 STORAGE POTENTIAL

14. RANKING OF BALTIC SEA SUB BASINS FOR
CO2 STORAGE
• Four main sub basins identified and ranked
in order of suitability for CO2 storage
• The border zones have potential storage
capacity in saline aquifers
• Existing oil and gas fields have some storage
capacity (e.g. Lotos refinery in Gdansk and
B3 Field offshore Poland)
Rank Basin Characteristics Score
1 Slupsk Border Zone Proven reservoir/seal pair, moderate size structures, offshore, large saline aquifer,
limited faulting, good accessibility, <500kms to strategic CO2 sources
0.76
2 Gdansk-Kura Depression Existing oil and gas production infrastructure, moderate sized structures, offshore,
fair accessibility, >500kms to some strategic CO2 sources
0.75
3 Liepaja Saldus Ridge Proven reservoir/seal pair, moderate size structures, offshore, fair accessibility,
<500kms to strategic CO2 sources
0.75
4 Latvian Estonian Lithuanian
Border Zone
Proven reservoir/seal pairs, small structures, potential saline aquifer, only small area
sufficiently deep for CO2 storage, accessible, 250kms to strategic CO2 sources
0.71

15. BASTOR 2 STORAGE CAPACITY
Following the ranking of the Baltic Sea sub-basins, storage
capacity calculations have been completed using the GeoCapacity
(2009) methodology.

16. ONSHORE STORAGE CAPACITY

17. DISTRIBUTION OF STORAGE CAPACITY IN
DEFINED STRUCTURES BY COUNTRY
Estimated CO2 Storage Capacity
(106
tonnes)
Latvia Lithuania Poland Kaliningrad
Hydrocarbon - Generic Storage Potential 28.87 3.28 54.33
Hydrocarbon - Field Storage Potential 1.86 2.62
Saline Aquifer - Field Storage Potential 633.46 18.99
TOTAL 633.46 30.72 5.90 73.32
Total 743.4

18. TECHNO ECONOMIC RESOURCE PYRAMID
(CSLF 2007)

19. STATIC MODEL

21. SEAL INTEGRITY

22. CAPROCK INTEGRITY
• Three possible modes
of seal failure
– top seal failure,
– migration up the
bounding fault planes
– leakage across fault
plane
• Top seal failure potential is low.
• Seal failure resulting in leakage across fault planes is more likely, however
the risk of this is still low.
• There is little or no risk of upward leakage of CO2 along fault planes.
• Smaller scale cross cutting fault structures are likely to be open and these
need to be considered as potential pathways for upward migration.

23. WELL COMPLETION AND INTEGRITY
Well No. B-3 B-3A B-7 B-9 B-10 B-11 BO-12 BO-20
Rotary Table Elevation (m) 21.5 20.7 28.2 26.42 25.91 24.99 24.7 25
Date 1974 1973 1974 1974 1976 1976 1976 1976
Casing
String (K55
Buttress)
30" 96 70 96.8 93 92.4 113.1 141.4 127
13 3/8" 290 292 330.5 501 90.8 111.4 193.3 125.3
9 5/8" 345.9 392.9 407.5 387.5
TD 1002 966.7 1037.5 1266 535.8 1036.9 818.2 689
Cement
Plugs
Top (m) 0 0 0 451 0 300 356 149
Bottom (m) 56 54 86 551 133 335 420 302
Top (m) 209 224 315 451 313 340 458 341
Bottom (m) 320 304 345 551 393* 457 533 438
Top (m) 662 681 - - 420 579 567 600
Bottom (m) 750 762 - - 480 920 630 690
Top (m) - - - - - - 700 -
Bottom (m) - - - - - - 749 -

24. DYNAMIC MODELING –RESULTS
• Approaches used
– Analytical and semi-analytical for pressure evolution,
estimation of the optimal number of wells in various
conditions
– Simulation of plume and pressure evolution using two
approaches: TOUGH2/MP & Vertical Equilibrium
Approach (Gasda et al., 2009)
– Evaluation of plume tip advancement after completion
of injection phase (TOUGH2 & Analytical solution)

25. RESERVOIR PRESSURE BEHAVIOUR
• CO2 injection rates per well are
governed by reservoir thickness and
permeability;
• The base case injection capacity is
2.5Mt per annum
• Increasing the number of wells will
increase the injection rate
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
x 10
7
Injection rate per well (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
Thickness 40 m
Thickness 50 m
Thickness 60 m
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
x 10
7
Injection rate per well (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
Permeability 20 mD
Permeability 40 mD
Permeability 80 mD
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
x 10
7
Total injection rate (Mt/yr)
Pressure(Pa)
3 wells
5 wells
7 wells

26. MULTIWELL INJECTION SCENARIOS

27. MULTIWELL INJECTION SCENARIOS
• Example TOUGH2
simulation showing
overpressure build up
after 50 years of
injection
• 3 injection wells
• 0.5 Mt/yr injection rate
50km
Year 50
Over pressure %

28. CO2 PLUME SPREADING
• Plume thickness at the end of
50 years of injection (right)
• Plume migration at 3,000
years after injection (below)
6km
Simulated CO2 saturation for the case of k-30mD, residual CO2 saturation 0.2 at 3000 years

29. CONCLUSIONS
• There is large theoretical storage capacity in the Baltic Sea basin
beneath a 900 metre thick impermeable caprock.
• The maximum injection rate is sensitive to parameters such as
formation thickness and permeability, and analyzing the effect of
their local variability fully does require more detailed modelling than
was possible in this preliminary study
• The southern Swedish sector, where dynamic modelling was
undertaken by Uppsala University, could be suitable as a storage
site for CO2 captured from a limited number of industrial facilities
• The reservoir quality in the presently modelled area is not suitable to
high injection rates and therefore not sufficient for commercial CO2
storage at the scale of projected emissions around the Baltic Sea.
• There are sweet spots in the Cambrian reservoir such as onshore
Latvia, where there is commercial gas storage, and both onshore
and offshore Kaliningrad, where there in ongoing hydrocarbon
production.
• Acquisition of further data will require much more regional
cooperation

30. RECOMMENDATIONS
• Existing seismic line data should be calibrated to available well data
and reinterpreted to identify fault structures and map reservoir
porosity and permeability variations
• Improved estimates of seal fracture pressures based on well leak off
test data and core sample analyses are needed
• New seismic and well data is required, in particular in the north east
of the Dalders Monocline, including offshore Latvia, where this study
has indicated better reservoir qualities exist than in the current study
area
• Reservoir formation data from core samples and wire line logs
should be obtained from any newly drilled wells to better understand
porosity, permeability and formation pressures associated with
reservoirs in different areas of the Baltic Sea
• Additional reservoir data covering both onshore and offshore
Kaliningrad should be obtained
• In order to achieve better understanding of the potential to store
captured CO2 in the region, Baltic Sea State cooperation is
imperative.

31. QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION
Please submit your questions in
English directly into the
GoToWebinar control panel.
The webinar will start shortly.

32. Please submit any feedback to: webinar@globalccsinstitute.com