Programme Area: Carbon Capture and Storage

Project: DECC Storage Appraisal

Title: Initial Screening & Down-Select

Abstract:
Twenty sites have been selected from 579 for further due diligence. Key features of the Select Inventory are: -
Significant overall capacity target of 6.8GT, - Strong balance between saline formations and depleted
hydrocarbon fields with good geographic diversity, - Strong compliance with IEAGHG screening guidelines and
the Project BoD qualifications, - Proximal sites to 5/42 and Goldeneye, - Strong technical diversity of sites, -
Deselection of sites with high risk high confidence containment issues.

Context:
This project, funded with up to £2.5m from the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC - now the
Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy), was led by Aberdeen-based consultancy Pale Blue Dot
Energy supported by Axis Well Technology and Costain. The project appraised five selected CO2 storage sites
towards readiness for Final Investment Decisions. The sites were selected from a short-list of 20 (drawn from a
long-list of 579 potential sites), representing the tip of a very large strategic national CO2 storage resource
potential (estimated as 78,000 million tonnes). The sites were selected based on their potential to mobilise
commercial-scale carbon, capture and storage projects for the UK. Outline development plans and budgets were
prepared, confirming no major technical hurdles to storing industrial scale CO2 offshore in the UK with sites able
to service both mainland Europe and the UK. The project built on data from CO2 Stored - the UK’s CO2 storage
atlas - a database which was created from the ETI’s UK Storage Appraisal Project. This is now publically
available and being further developed by The Crown Estate and the British Geological Survey. Information on
CO2Stored is available at www.co2stored.com.

Disclaimer:
The Energy Technologies Institute is making this document available to use under the Energy Technologies Institute Open Licence for
Materials. Please refer to the Energy Technologies Institute website for the terms and conditions of this licence. The Information is licensed
‘as is’ and the Energy Technologies Institute excludes all representations, warranties, obligations and liabilities in relation to the Information
to the maximum extent permitted by law. The Energy Technologies Institute is not liable for any errors or omissions in the Information and
shall not be liable for any loss, injury or damage of any kind caused by its use. This exclusion of liability includes, but is not limited to, any
direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, punitive, or exemplary damages in each case such as loss of revenue, data, anticipated
profits, and lost business. The Energy Technologies Institute does not guarantee the continued supply of the Information. Notwithstanding
any statement to the contrary contained on the face of this document, the Energy Technologies Institute confirms that the authors of the
document have consented to its publication by the Energy Technologies Institute.
2015 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select
10113ETIS-Rep-03-2.0
February 2016

www.pale-blu.com
www.axis-wt.com
 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select Contents

Contents
Document Summary

Client The Energy Technologies Institute

Project Title DECC Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project

Title: D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select

Distribution: A Green, D Gammer Classification: Client Confidential

Date of Issue: 19th February 2016
Name Role Signature

Chief Technologist, Scientific Advisor

Prepared by: A James, S Baines & S McCollough
& Subsurface Lead
Approved by: S J Murphy Project Manager
Amendment Record
Rev Date Description Issued By Checked By Approved By Client Approval
V00 07/07/15 Draft S Baines
V02 09/07/15 Draft A James
S Baines, S
V07 20/07/15 Issued for Review A James McCollough, F S Gomersall
Harding
V1.0 03/08/15 Final A T James S J Murphy S J Murphy
V2.0 19/02/16 Final (incorporating Jan’16 comments) D Pilbeam S J Murphy A T James A Green

Disclaimer:

While the authors consider that the data and opinions contained in this report are sound, all parties must rely upon their own skill and judgement when using it. The authors do not make
any representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the report. There is considerable uncertainty around the development of CO2 stores and
the available data are extremely limited. The authors assume no liability for any loss or damage arising from decisions made on the basis of this report. The views and judgements
expressed here are the opinions of the authors and do not reflect those of the ETI or any of the stakeholders consulted during the course of this project.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 1 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select Contents
Table of Contents
CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.0 OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

3.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11

4.0 INVENTORY AND DATA SOURCES ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14

5.0 QUALIFICATION ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

5.1 QUALIFICATION CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 19

5.2 RECOMMENDED PRACTICE .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28

5.3 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32

6.0 RANKING .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 38

6.1 CRITERIA .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 40

6.2 CRITERIA WEIGHTING ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 43

6.3 BENCHMARKING ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 45

6.4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 46

6.5 SENSITIVITIES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51

7.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57

9.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 61

APP. 1 KEY VALUATION ASSUMPTIONS – WOOD MACKENZIE 2Q 2015 .......................................................................................................................................... 62

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 2 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select Contents
APP. 2 STAKEHOLDER MEETING REPORT – 2ND JULY 2015............................................................................................................................................................... 64

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 3 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select Contents
Figures
FIGURE 1 - W ORKFLOW FOR WP3 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
FIGURE 2 – IMPACT OF QUALIFICATION ON SITE NUMBERS. .............................................................................................................................................................................. 32
FIGURE 3 - IMPACT OF QUALIFICATION ON THEORETICAL CAPACITY. ................................................................................................................................................................. 32
FIGURE 4 - IMPACT OF INDIVIDUAL QUALIFICATION CRITERIA ON INVENTORY NUMBER AND TOTAL THEORETICAL CAPACITY, CODED BY STORE UNIT TYPE. ....................................... 34
FIGURE 5 - IMPACT OF THE THEORETICAL CAPACITY (>50MT) QUALIFICATION CRITERIA ON TOTAL CAPACITY. ..................................................................................................... 35
FIGURE 6 - QUALIFICATION SENSITIVITY TO PERMEABILITY THRESHOLD ............................................................................................................................................................ 36
FIGURE 7 - ILLUSTRATION OF THE TOPSIS METHOD ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 39
FIGURE 8 - RANKING FACTOR INDEPENDENCE CHECK...................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
FIGURE 9 - DEVELOPMENT OF INITIAL RANKING CRITERIA WEIGHTING .............................................................................................................................................................. 44
FIGURE 10 - INPUT TO TOPSIS SCORE FOR QUALIFIED INVENTORY ................................................................................................................................................................. 47
FIGURE 11 - SITE RANKING RESULTS FOR THE "ROUNDED VIEW" CASE ............................................................................................................................................................ 48
FIGURE 12 - RANKING METHOD PERFORMANCE CHECK ................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
FIGURE 13 - FINAL SELECTION OF TOP 20 SITES - "ROUNDED VIEW" ................................................................................................................................................................ 50
FIGURE 14 - WP3 DOWN-SELECT RECOMMENDATION...................................................................................................................................................................................... 54

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 4 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select Contents
Tables
TABLE 1 - THE RECOMMENDED SELECT INVENTORY .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF SITES IN THE CO2STORED DATABASE. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14
TABLE 3 – TOTAL HYDROCARBON FIELD INVENTORY........................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
TABLE 4 – HYDROCARBON FIELDS CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION TO INITIAL INVENTORY ....................................................................................................................................... 16
TABLE 5 - PROJECT-SPECIFIC QUALIFICATION CRITERIA ARE BASED UPON THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND BASIS OF DESIGN ............................................................................... 20
TABLE 6 - QUALIFICATION CRITERIA DRAWN FROM RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES AND BEST PRACTICE .................................................................................................................. 22
TABLE 7 - EXTRACT FROM IEAGHG GUIDELINES FOR SALINE AQUIFER SITE SELECTION (IEA GREENHOUSE GAS R&D PROGRAMME, 2009) ....................................................... 23
TABLE 8 - LIST OF FIELDS WITH COP DATES BEYOND 2030 – SOURCE W OOD MACKENZIE ................................................................................................................................ 24
TABLE 9 - NORTH SEA OILFIELDS IDENTIFIED AS HAVING CO2-EOR POTENTIAL (ELEMENT ENERGY LTD, 2012) .................................................................................................. 25
TABLE 10 - CONTAINMENT RISK FAILURE RATE ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
TABLE 11 - CONTAINMENT ATTRIBUTE FAILURE FREQUENCY............................................................................................................................................................................ 27
TABLE 12 - RP-J203 SCREENING BASIS - MAPPING ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 30
TABLE 13 - RP-J203 REQUIREMENTS AND APPLICABLE W ORK PACKAGES ........................................................................................................................................................ 31
TABLE 14 – QUALIFIED INVENTORY CHARACTERISATION .................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
TABLE 15 - RANKING CRITERIA ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
TABLE 16 – EXAMPLES OF GEORISK CONTAINMENT QUANTIFICATION................................................................................................................................................................ 41
TABLE 17 - OPTIMAL POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IDEAL SOLUTIONS FOR EACH RANKING CRITERIA ........................................................................................................................... 41
TABLE 18 - SELECT INVENTORY SITES BY GEOLOGICAL AGE ............................................................................................................................................................................ 52
TABLE 19 - SELECT INVENTORY SITES BY UNIT DESIGNATION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 53
TABLE 20 - SELECT INVENTORY SITES BY STORAGE TYPE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 53
TABLE 21 - SELECT INVENTORY SITES BY NEAREST BEACHHEAD ..................................................................................................................................................................... 53
TABLE 22 - BEACHHEAD DISTRIBUTION OF DISTANCE W EIGHTED CAPACITY IN THE SELECT INVENTORY ............................................................................................................. 53
TABLE 23 - SELECT INVENTORY - FULL DETAILS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 58
TABLE 24 - RESERVE INVENTORY - FULL DETAILS ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 59

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 5 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 1.0 Executive Summary

1.0 Executive Summary

Twenty sites have been selected from 579 for This Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal

further due diligence. Key features of the Select project has been commissioned on behalf of the Department of Energy and
Climate Change. The project brings together existing storage appraisal
Inventory are:
initiatives, accelerates the development of strategically important storage
capacity and leverages further investment in the building this capacity to meet
 Significant overall capacity target of 6.8GT.
UK needs.

 Strong balance between saline formations and The primary objective of the overall project is to down-select and materially

depleted hydrocarbon fields with good progress the appraisal of five potential CO2 storage sites on their path towards
final investment decision (FID) readiness from an initial site inventory of over
geographic diversity.
500. The desired outcome is the delivery of a mature set of high quality CO2
storage options for the developers of major power and industrial CCS project
 Strong compliance with IEAGHG screening
developers to access in the future. The work will add significantly to the de-
guidelines and the Project BoD qualifications. risking of these stores and be transferable to storage developers to complete
the more capital intensive parts of storage development.
 Proximal sites to 5/42 and Goldeneye.
This is the report for Work Package 3 (WP3) of the project. The objective of

 Strong technical diversity of sites. WP3 was to deliver a Select Inventory of 20 potential CO2 Storage sites from an
Initial Inventory of over 500 sites. In addition a Reserve Inventory of 5 sites was

 Deselection of sites with high risk high identified as a potential backup. The Initial Inventory was developed primarily
from the CO2Stored database (Energy Technologies Institute, 2010). It was
confidence containment issues. augmented with further hydrocarbon fields for which DECC hold production
records (DECC - UK Government, 2015). Whilst there were over 207 oil and
gas fields in the DECC list which were not in CO2Stored, these are almost
entirely small satellite fields which had little potential CO2 storage capacity to

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 6 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 1.0 Executive Summary
offer. Five fields of some significance were added to an Initial Inventory which which itself was based largely on the work of Chadwick et al (Chadwick, et al.,
totalled 579 sites. Any oil and gas fields with cessation of production dates 2008).
estimated by Wood Mackenzie (Appendix 1) to be before 2031 and therefore
The Project Requirements qualification had the overall effect of removing
potentially available were considered by this project. Whilst oil and gas fields
68% of the Initial Inventory eliminating a large number of sites with low individual
were considered as CO2 storage sites, their use for enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
capacities. Site numbers reduced from 579 to 186; total theoretical capacity
is outside the scope of this project. Fields with significant EOR potential as
reduced from 78,142MT to 77,051MT.
identified by recent studies (Element Energy Ltd, 2012) are considered likely to
be “unavailable” to CO2 storage developers. • Removed 68% of Initial Inventory sites.
• Removed 1.4% of Initial Inventory capacity.
The methodology used to extract 20 sites from the Initial Inventory was outlined
in WP1 and was deployed here with only minor refinements after input from a The IEAGHG Qualification step resulted in the removal of a large number of

Stakeholder meeting on 2nd July 2015 (Appendix 2). The methodology involved potential sites which did not meet the minimum cautionary key attribute metrics

an initial qualification step to ensure that the site met both the requirements of for a potential CO2 storage site. Some of these sites carried large-to-very large

the project screening basis of design (WP1) and also global best practice capacities, but did not meet other key criteria.

guidance where it exists. The qualification step delivered a “Qualification • Site numbers reduced from 186 to 37; total theoretical capacity
Inventory” which was then subjected to a ranking step to deliver the “Select reduced from 77,051MT to 8,295MT.
Inventory” of 20 sites together with the Reserve Inventory of 5 backups. • Removed 80% of project qualified sites.
Whilst the screening basis of design has several components of the kind of • Removed 89% of project qualified capacity.
storage sites that are required to meet these study objectives, The Project Neither of the storage sites being considered for UK CCS Phase 1 projects
qualification criteria were limited at this stage to a minimum theoretical capacity reached the qualification inventory. Goldeneye did not meet the capacity
threshold of 50MT and a maximum distance to the nearest ETI Scenarios requirement being limited to significantly less than 50MT as currently specified.
beachhead of 450km (Energy Technologies Institute, 2015). 5/42 could not be included simply because this project could only access 3D
The key document used for best practice guidance was DNV recommended over a part of the full structure. Both sites also failed on “Availability” as they
Practice 203 (Det Norsk Veritas, 2012). This referred to the IEAGHG document are both anticipated to be fully licensed to their operators and be unavailable to
on screening CO2 Storage sites (IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, 2009) other storage developers. It should be highlighted that whilst these sites are
considered to be strong CO2 storage candidates for Phase 1 CCS projects, they
do not meet the requirements of this project.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 7 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 1.0 Executive Summary
The qualification step delivered a Qualified Inventory of 37 potential sites. Both and include sites in the East Irish Sea, the Southern North Sea and the Central
5/42 and Goldeneye were added to this inventory to provide useful benchmarks North Sea.
in the screening process.
Capacity Unit Nearest
Code Site Description
Ranking was performed using a Multiple Attribute Decision Making process MT Designation Beachhead

called TOPSIS (Yoon & Hwang, 1995). Six attributes were selected from the 226.011 1691.0 Saline Aquifer Bunter Closure 9 Barmston
372.000 1388.0 Saline Aquifer Forties 5 St Fergus
CO2Stored database. These were either database values such as the P50
248.005 776.0 Gas South Morecambe gas field Connah's Quay
Theoretical Capacity, simple calculations such as injectivity (permeability x 227.007 409.0 Saline Aquifer Bunter Closure 3 Barmston
thickness) or quantification of qualitative assessments such as containment risk. 266.001 243.0 Gas Hewett gas field Barmston
139.016 232.0 Saline Aquifer Bunter Closure 36 Barmston
The six attributes were: 303.001 205.0 Gas Hewett gas field (Bunter) Barmston
248.004 175.0 Gas North Morecambe gas field Connah's Quay
 P50 Theoretical Capacity in MT
336.000 175.0 Saline Aquifer Grid Sandstone Member St Fergus
 Injectivity in mDm 361.000 174.0 Saline Aquifer Mey 1 St Fergus
 Engineered Containment Risk Factor in wells/km2 366.000 162.0 Saline Aquifer Maureen 1 St Fergus
218.000 156.0 Saline Aquifer Captain_013_17 St Fergus
 Georisk Factor (dimensionless) Gas
133.001 211.0 Bruce Gas Condensate Field St Fergus
Condensate
 Development Cost factor (dimensionless)
248.002 120.0 Gas Hamilton gas field Connah's Quay
 Upside Potential (in MT) 217.000 81.0 Saline Aquifer Coracle_012_20 St Fergus
218.001 97.0 Oil & Gas Captain Oil Field St Fergus
The TOPSIS process required that these criteria be independent of one another 139.020 84.0 Saline Aquifer Bunter Closure 40 Barmston
and linearly distributed. Each attribute was weighted to capture the relative 141.035 271.0 Gas Viking gas field Barmston
141.002 120.0 Gas Barque gas field Barmston
significance of each and sensitivities to this weighting from Stakeholder input 252.001 76.0 Oil & Gas Harding Central oil field St Fergus
were also used in the final selection. The process performed well and was
Table 1 - The Recommended Select Inventory
verified against two simple ranking processes. There was agreement from all
approaches on the “progress or drop” position of 75% of the Qualified Inventory. Had 5/42 reached the “Qualified Inventory” then it would have been ranked

The destiny of the final 25% was finalised by expert judgement and Stakeholder around 5th overall. Had Goldeneye reached the “Qualified Inventory” then it

input. would have been ranked around 25 out of 37. This reflects the importance of
capacity in the ranking process.
The recommended “Select Inventory” comprised 10 depleted hydrocarbon fields
and 10 saline aquifers. 15 of the sites were discrete structural closures with 5
being in open formations. Sites are located throughout the geological column

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 8 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 1.0 Executive Summary
Key features of the Top Twenty Select Inventory are:

• Significant overall capacity target of 6.8GT.

• Strong balance between saline formations and depleted
hydrocarbon fields.
• Deselection of sites with high risk high confidence containment
issues.
• Strong compliance with IEAGHG screening guidelines and the
Project BoD qualifications.
• A strong portfolio with a broad geographic spread:
o SNS, CNS and EIS.
o Proximal sites to 5/42 and Goldeneye.
o Strong technical diversity of sites.

The results have been shared and tested with a broad group of Stakeholders at
an event in London on 2nd July. The authors of the report appreciated the
constructive engagement from all those involved.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 9 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 2.0 Objectives

2.0 Objectives
The primary objectives for this project are to identify and materially progress the The scope of work for this WP3 has been divided into the following 4 tasks:
appraisal of five high potential CO2 Storage sites on their path towards FID
1. Procure screening data and build the Initial Inventory of potential
readiness. The desired outcome is the delivery of a mature set of high quality
storage sites.
CO2 Storage options for the developers of major power and industrial CCS
2. Deliver a "Select Inventory" of twenty sites with five reserves.
projects to access in the future. The work will add significantly to the de-risking
3. Document the screening results and develop a presentation.
of these five stores and will be available to storage developers as a basis for
4. Present the results to Stakeholders and gain approval of the Select
them to commission the more capital intensive parts of storage site appraisal.
Inventory.
The focus of this Work Package 3 (WP3) is to select a pool of twenty storage
This report documents the process and results of this WP3 down select. The
sites with five reserves on the UKCS from which the project requirements can
report is organised into a series of sections which mirror the work flow for this
be met. This "Many to Twenty" down-selection follows a screening process,
stage of the project as presented in WP1.
based on both physical character and geographic location, designed to generate
a portfolio of five sites with the greatest potential for safe, material and long term
storage of CO2. The workflow for selection complies appropriately with the
requirements of the EU Directive 2009/31/EC (THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,, 2009) on the Geological
Storage of Carbon Dioxide and other key recommended practice guidelines
such as DNV-RP-J203 Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide. (Det Norsk
Veritas, 2012) and IEAGHG Recommended Practice (IEA Greenhouse Gas
R&D Programme, 2009).

Further details of the overall methodology and approach to this challenge are
described in the WP1 report. Minor aspects of this approach have been
modified following a detailed review of the site inventory available via the
CO2Stored database and Stakeholder review but the general method remains
the same. Methodology refinements are included in this report.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 10 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 3.0 Methodology

3.0 Methodology
Approach methodology for qualification and ranking are described in Sections 5.0 and 6.0
of this report.
A five step work flow for the WP3 "Many to Twenty" site selection was presented
The “Screening Basis” is a common set of requirements against which all
in WP1 and is shown here in Figure 1.
potential storage sites will be assessed. Specifically this defines the
The planned approach generally fitted well to the data available at this stage requirements to be fulfilled during the project screening in order to be able to
and was retained in full. Some further refinements of the details of the

Figure 1 - Workflow for WP3

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 11 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 3.0 Methodology
regard a storage site as both prospective and qualified for considered appraisal. Capacity Estimates
Here, the two key elements of the “Screening Basis” are:-
Several capacity estimates are present in the CO2Stored database. Following
1. Qualification and Compliance – Here the Initial Inventory was
a review of the reports and data, and a brief discussion with the BGS, the P50
subject to two tests to check whether the site could meet basic
'theoretical capacity' values, available for both saline aquifers and hydrocarbon
project requirements outlined in a preliminary basis of design
fields, were selected as these are the best representation of the site capacity,
and then meet basic International Energy Agency Greenhouse
albeit still a value with high degree of uncertainty attached to it, especially with
Gas (IEAGHG) guidance for CO2 storage sites. The output of
regard to the saline aquifers.
this was a "Qualified Inventory".
2. The second step involved ranking the "Qualified Inventory" against a Limitations of Methodology
series of attributes that reflected the interests of the project as a whole.
A number of limitations and issues exist with the proposed methodology. These
The output from this was a “Select Inventory”.
were highlighted in the WP1 report and are primarily related to establishing the
Finally – some key sensitivities were run to check the robustness of the Initial Inventory. Whilst CO2Stored represents the most comprehensive and
proposed selection. consistent data package available in the public domain, there are, a number of
The approach applied in the work package is primarily based upon information limitations with both saline aquifer and hydrocarbon field data:
held within the CO2Stored database, focusing on the technical attributes of each • The database values are sometimes based on limited information -
potential site (location, capacity, injectivity and containment), plus a average values e.g. for porosity, permeability or depth, are in some
“Development Cost Factor” and a view of proximal upside potential. cases derived from a small number of wells but applied to a very
Prior to deploying the data in the CO2Stored dataset, the UKSAP report (Energy large rock volume.
Technologies Institue, 2011) was reviewed to develop a good understanding of • As with all subsurface analysis, most of the data inputs are not direct
the database contents and methods used to derive both the capacity estimates measurements but are estimates derived from other data or
and qualify other aspects such as risk factors. This was augmented by helpful correlations which are then extrapolated as averages across the full
discussions with the database authors at BGS. The available data files were volume of the site.
downloaded as excel files and a 'master' excel dataset created. Using the • Key inputs for calculating saline aquifer pore volume are based on
guidance in the UKSAP report and Appendices, the capacity calculations were data for which a 'low' measure of confidence is sometimes assigned.
repeated to ensure the data could be matched. • With so many sites to assess, it was not feasible to use dynamic
simulation models for each site to develop saline aquifer storage

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 12 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 3.0 Methodology
efficiency factors (E). This also contributes significant uncertainty to Data Sources
the capacity estimates, although the use of dynamic model
exemplars in UKSAP on some sites has helped to calibrate this. Bearing these limitations in mind, CO2Stored is the best place from which to
• Capacity estimates for the hydrocarbon fields are based on the net start this screening process given:

volume of fluids produced from the reservoir for each field using • UKSAP and the CO2Stored database were designed to develop a
cumulative production data made available by DECC. UKSAP used standardised methodology for CO2 storage capacity estimation.
production data up to end-2010 and so the capacity estimates only • No other extensive, internally-consistent dataset exists.
represents the pore volume available for CO2 storage based on • CO2Stored is subject to update and refinement and improvement
historical production to that date. Further capacity would result from through a separate project.
a further 4 years production data (to 2015). The assessment here
CO2Stored will primarily be used for this “Many to Twenty” work package.
suggests that this is generally a minor contributor to uncertainty at
Subsequent WP4 and WP5 will collect and apply site specific data. The
this point.
qualifying and ranking criteria used in this work package attempt both to
• The uncertainty range applied to some of the inputs to the saline
recognise these complex uncertainty limitations within the database and to limit
aquifer data in CO2Stored have been set at +/-10% across the
the use of data which carry greatest uncertainty or lowest confidence.
dataset. This implies an unrealistic consistency of uncertainty levels.
In oil and gas, +/- 10% often does not even capture direct Finally, it was decided not to deploy economic assessments from CO2Nomica
measurement error for some attributes and so it is possible that the at this stage in the project. It was considered that simple metrics very close to
uncertainty in capacity estimates may have been under estimated. the database should be used to provide clarity and direct linkage with screening
This raises some concerns about the reliability of the P90 (too big?) decisions. Furthermore it was considered that the deployment of the
and P10 (too small?) theoretical capacity estimates which arise from sophisticated modelling of CO2Nomica may enhance confidence in site
the Monte Carlo analysis. outcomes where such confidence is not merited by the UKSAP assessment at
this time. CO2Nomica will be considered within WP4.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 13 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 4.0 Inventory and Data Sources

4.0 Inventory and Data Sources

The backbone of the Initial Inventory is the CO2Stored database and its 574 This project does not consider (nor did the parent UKSAP) any storage options
identified offshore storage units around the UKCS derived from the ETI-funded in the area West of Shetland due to the large distance to both a suitable
UK Storage Appraisal Project (UKSAP) (Table 2). CO2Stored provides the first beachhead and a significant source of CO2. The uncategorized unit represents
comprehensive, auditable and defensible estimates of CO 2 storage capacity in a site encompassing the extent of the Triassic Bunter Sandstone Formation and
the UK using standardised methodologies for both depleted hydrocarbon fields is an empty data entry.
and saline aquifers. As such it provides a source of recent and internally
consistent data for use in this project (subject to the limitations discussed in the
Data Sources
previous section). The data sources used for WP3 did not change from the initial plan. These are
detailed in the WP2 report. This was supplemented by up to date cumulative
Site numbers Unit Designation
production figures to February 2015 from DECC and also 2015 estimates of
Saline Oil & Gas Cessation of Production dates from Wood Mackenzie (discussed in more detail
Storage Unit Type Gas Total
Aquifer Gas Condensate below). The assumptions behind these estimates are included as Appendix 1
Fully confined (closed to this report. Additional sources of information include Element Energy's report
228 3 1 8 240
box) 'Economic Impacts of CO2-EOR for Scotland, Final Report' (Element Energy Ltd,
Open, with identified 2012) which was used as the most up-to-date source of information on oilfields
structural/stratigraphic 20 0 0 0 20
confinement considered to have strong EOR potential.
Open, no identified
structural/stratigraphic 62 0 0 0 62
Update to Store Inventory
confinement
A full review and update of the CO2Stored database is neither required or within
Structural/Stratigraphic
50 85 15 101 251 the scope of this project. However not all UK registered hydrocarbon fields are
confinement
Uncategorised 1 0 0 0 1 explicitly identified as potential CO2 Storage units within the UKSAP study
Total 361 88 16 109 574 (Table 3). It is also clear that where such sites are included in the database they
are not always well populated with information.
Table 2 - Summary of sites in the CO2Stored database.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 14 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 4.0 Inventory and Data Sources
The following approach has been taken to ensure that these omissions did not
Hydrocarbon Field Inventory Offshore
impact upon the workflow and results here:
CO2Stored Database Hydrocarbon Sites 213
1. There were 213 hydrocarbon fields noted in CO2Stored. These are
reservoir specific sites such that where one field has oil and gas at Additional Hydrocarbon Fields from DECC 207
several different geological formations and structures, each formation
Additional Commercial Fields from Wood
is designated as a separate site. An example is Hewett where there a 65
Mackenzie
single integrated facility but many different sites.
2. An inventory of hydrocarbon fields was supplied by DECC. These Additional Technical Fields from Wood
60
Mackenzie
included all sanctioned hydrocarbon fields and introduced an additional
207 specific potential offshore sites for consideration. After careful Total Hydrocarbon Field Inventory 545
review of these, five sites with the largest cumulative production were
Table 3 – Total Hydrocarbon Field Inventory
added to the Initial Inventory. These represented the largest capacity
The vast majority of these additional potential sites represent small fields and
sites using the UKSAP methodology.
reservoirs which have little CO2 storage potential because of their size. However
3. A further inventory of hydrocarbon fields was provided by Wood
the following 12 fields are notable by their absence and have been considered
Mackenzie to this study. These contain a range of producing,
as additions to the Initial Inventory (all but 5 were eliminated by the Qualification
commercial and technical field sites and introduced a further 65
threshold metrics - Section 5.0).
specific commercial sites and a further 60 potential offshore sites for
consideration from the Wood Mackenzie – pre commercial “Technical”
category. Since there was no production data from any these sites
their capacity cannot be estimated using the UKSAP method. An
inspection suggests that these are small satellite development projects
and not significant here. No further consideration has been given to
these at this time.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 15 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 4.0 Inventory and Data Sources
of these factors are seal related (Fracture pressure capacity, Seal chemical
Reservoir
Field Screening Result*
Stratigraphy reactivity and Seal degradation) and three are fault related (Fault Density, Fault
Throw and seal and Fault vertical extent). These were reviewed for oil and gas
Alba Tertiary Include
fields and the mode values assigned to fields where such data was missing.
Exclude - because of West of This was deemed appropriate at this stage since it is most unlikely that any
Foinaven Tertiary
Shetland location
hydrocarbon field would be eliminated on the grounds of containment risk at this
Exclude - because of West of early stage given the substantial containment demonstrated by their ability to
Schiehallion Tertiary
Shetland location
trap and hold oil and gas over geological time.
Elgin Jurassic Exclude - because of depth
The final Initial Inventory, therefore, contained the 574 possible storage units
Maureen Palaeocene Include from CO2Stored together with the additional 5 hydrocarbon field sites making
Exclude - because of complex chalk an Initial Inventory of 579. A full list is provided in Appendix 3.
Mungo Cretaceous
reservoir
Hydrocarbon Field Capacity Updates
Franklin Jurassic Exclude - because of depth
Since the analysis for the UKSAP project was delivered in 2010, existing oil and
Bittern Tertiary Include
gas fields have continued to produce. These values of cumulative production
Braemar Jurassic Include are important as the theoretical CO2 storage capacity in CO2Stored is linked to
Gryphon Tertiary Include the volumes of hydrocarbons produced. Whilst the production from small, new
fields is not significant, continued additional production on the larger fields was
Exclude - because of 2055 Cessation
Mariner Tertiary checked to assess whether the capacity estimates required updating. This was
of Production
approached as follows:
Table 4 – Hydrocarbon fields considered for addition to Initial Inventory
• Overall, oil fields that had produced over 100 mmstb of oil by the end
Screening data for these potential sites including depth and area have been
of February 2015 had incremented recovered volumes by 5% since
accessed from publically available papers such as the Millennium Volume.
the end of 2010. Whilst this overall figure is insufficient to warrant a
Where containment risk data was not available for hydrocarbon fields, the most
recalculation of CO2 Storage capacities, there are individual fields
frequently occurring risk assessments for hydrocarbon fields were used. In
where production growth has been much more significant. These
CO2Stored there are six important containment factors, each of which has been
include the Buzzard, Braemar and Captain fields.
rated as low, medium or high risk with low, medium or high confidence. Three

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 16 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 4.0 Inventory and Data Sources
• In gas fields that had produced over 200 bcf of gas by the end of
February 2015, recovered volumes had incremented on average by
.
8% since the end of 2010. Again this overall figure is insufficient to
warrant a recalculation of CO2 storage capacities for all fields at this
stage, there are individual fields where production growth has been
much more significant. These include the Ketch, Saturn, Carrack
and Sean fields.

After consideration of these factors and also the lowering of the qualification
hurdle for capacity from 75MT to 50MT, it was concluded that a recalculation
and refinement of capacity using the UKSAP process was no longer useful for
this project as it would not change the fields under consideration.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 17 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.0 Qualification

5.0 Qualification
The Initial Inventory of potential sites stands at 579 (574 from CO2Stored
together with an additional 5 hydrocarbon field sites). The initial qualification
and compliance step seeks to ensure compliance with project needs and
recommended screening practice whilst at the same time reducing the Initial
Inventory to a more manageable size.

The final 'threshold' criteria were selected to meet two sets of requirements:

1. Project-specific qualification requirements which were selected to

ensure compliance with both the project objectives and the Screening
Basis of Design.
2. Established carbon storage screening protocols, in this case DNV-RP-
J203 Screening Basis (Det Norsk Veritas, 2012); to ensure the
screening and site selection processes are as rigorous as possible.

It should be noted that, to ensure that a strong population of sites survived the
qualification step, the theoretical capacity threshold set by the Basis of Design
for Screening was relaxed from 75MT to 50MT. This maintained a stronger
inventory into the ranking process. It also helped to ensure that those sites or
larger hydrocarbon fields which might have been eliminated through a marginal
failure to meet a 75MT threshold with uncertain capacity estimates would not be
eliminated too early in the process.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 18 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.1 Qualification Criteria

5.1 Qualification Criteria

Project Specific Qualification Criteria
The following Project-Specific qualification criteria are based upon the project objectives and Basis of Design (Table 5).

Qualification Impact in the

Threshold Description Rationale Data Source
Criteria inventory
Latitude / Longitude 14 sites failed this test,
Sites must lie within
coordinates from these are mostly
Distance to 450km of one of the This is a practical threshold to ensure Phase 2 sites do not cost
<450km CO2Stored. (Energy located north of the
Beachhead beachheads noted in escalate through the need for extended pipeline infrastructure.
Technologies Institute, Statfjord field in the
the BoD.
2010) Northern north sea.
387 sites failed this
The project is seeking to materially progress significant storage sites The P50 Theoretical
The P50 estimate of test. This represents
to meet Phase 2 and Phase 3 demand. These will require sites with capacity estimate in
Theoretical Capacity in over two thirds of the
Capacity >50MT capacities of at least 50MT and ideally over 100MT. Larger threshold CO2Stored database.
CO2Stored must be at inventory and is the
values were considered (75MT), but higher values start to remove a (Energy Technologies
least 50MT. subject of further
very significant proportion of the total capacity inventory. Institute, 2010)
sensitivity analysis.
No Routine Phase 2 sites will not The early requirement of pressure management wells to achieve
Theoretical capacity
Pressure rely upon water basic capacity thresholds is considered to be a significant additional
estimates for Fully
manageme production to create cost (potentially doubling the offshore development costs). Whilst it
Reservoir Confined units in No sites were excluded
nt through significant essential is envisaged that many sites will benefit from local pressure
Pressure CO2Stored database. by this criteria.
water storage capacity. The management to optimise the development, at this stage, water
(Energy Technologies
production sites need to be large production from the start of injection to create essential voidage is not
Institute, 2010)
wells. and low cost. being considered.
Assigned 'Unit
All Unit Designation' in
Saline aquifers, oil and There was no exclusion of a site based simply upon its designation or CO2Stored database.
Designatio No sites were excluded
Store Type gas fields, gas fields, storage type in order to try to preserve diversity within the Select (Energy Technologies
ns will be by this criteria.
gas condensate fields. Inventory. Institute, 2010)
considered.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 19 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.1 Qualification Criteria
Qualification Impact in the
Threshold Description Rationale Data Source
Criteria inventory
Complex
No sites were
dual A simplified play fairway consideration has indicated that there are Geological description
eliminated as a result of
porosity Sites with good quality, several reservoir intervals whose complexity does not suggest them provided in CO2Stored
Reservoir this criteria directly.
reservoir primary pore systems as ideal DECC 'Phase 2' sites. Examples include Chalk and database. (Energy
Type Most complex
systems will be considered. Zechstein carbonate reservoirs and also fractured Devonian Technologies Institute,
reservoirs failing on
will not be sandstones, both with complex dual porosity systems. 2010)
many other criteria.
considered.

Table 5 - Project-Specific qualification criteria are based upon the project objectives and Basis of Design

Qualification Criteria from Recommended Guidelines

A second set of qualification criteria drawn from recommended guidelines and best practice was also used (Table 6).

These ensure that the Qualified Inventory only held sites which meet recognised minimum screening criteria (i.e. DNV RP 203 Screening Basis guidelines (Det Norsk
Veritas, 2012)) in addition to the project requirements. The DNV RP-J203_2012-04 Recommended Practice cites the IEA GHG 2009 report (IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D
Programme, 2009) with selection criteria recommended by (Chadwick, et al., 2008) for screening requirements for saline aquifers. It is recognised that many of these
criteria are time dependent (e.g. availability, data availability) or are indications but not proof of unsuitability (e.g. fault throws) and therefore deselection knowing what
we know today does not necessarily mean they will be deselected in the future.

Qualification Rationale
Threshold Description Data Source Impact on the Inventory
Criteria
COP<2031 Some oilfields which have been identified by significant studies as
and no having high potential for miscible CO2-EOR projects were excluded on Wood MacKenzie
significant The site should have data (Appendix 1).
the basis that when CO2 is flowing into the offshore area then they 14 sites failed this test, 9
EOR reasonable
might reasonably be considered for CO2 EOR by their license owners. Economic Impacts of through EOR potential, 3
potential. availability for use by
Availability As such they would be unavailable for CO2 storage. Goldeneye and CO2-EOR for through COP constraints
a prospective
Not 5/42 are also assumed to be unavailable as it is assumed they will Scotland, Final and 2 through CO2
developer in the 2015
currently already be licensed. Finally some of the recent and larger hydrocarbon Report (Element Storage licensing.
to 2030 timeframe.
licensed for fields are forecast to continue operations past 2030 and these are Energy Ltd, 2012)
storage. considered unavailable for the purposes of this project.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 20 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.1 Qualification Criteria
Qualification Rationale
Threshold Description Data Source Impact on the Inventory
Criteria
PGS dataset
coverage. (PGS, 25 sites failed this test
Must have good 3D 2015) because of lack of well
The authority is likely to require that 3D seismic data and geological
Data 3D seismic seismic coverage and data with a further 8 sites
information from drilling is available ahead of filing any storage Well count in
Availability plus >1 well at least one well with failed because of limited
development plan. CO2Stored. (Energy
good log data. 3D seismic access by
Technologies this project.
Institute, 2010)
243 sites failed this test
(42% of the initial
The saline aquifer inventory). 20 were less
CO2Stored database than 800m but 223 were
formation centroid Positive indicators >1000m and <2500m, cautionary indicators <800m
(centroid depth). between 2500m and
Centroid >800m and depth must be below and >2500m - (Chadwick, et al., 2008). These limits are driven by CO2
(Energy 6000m.
Depth < 2500m 800m in depth and no phase control at the shallow limit and reservoir quality degradation at
Technologies
more than 2500m in the deeper limit. This criteria was not
Institute, 2010)
depth. applied to oil & gas
fields, 73 of which are
below 2500m
CO2Stored
Sites given a 'High' database. (Energy
risk which are located EU Directive 2009/31/EC on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide. Technologies 91 sites failed this test
Trans- (THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE Institute, 2010)
close (<1km) to being assessed as a high
national High Risk EUROPEAN UNION,, 2009)
median lines with a UKSAP Final Report transnational migration
Migration elements
high trans-national The Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc.) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/2221). Appendix A6.2. risk in CO2Stored
Risk
migration risk are not (UK Government, 2010) (Energy database.
considered further. Technologies
Institue, 2011)
CO2Stored database
(saline aquifers).
(Energy 188 sites failed this test
The formations Technologies (32% of the Initial
should have an Positive indicators >300mD, cautionary indicators <10-100mD - Institute, 2010)
Permeability >50mD Inventory). This was the
average permeability (Chadwick, et al., 2008)
Published data subject of a further
in excess of 50mD.
(hydrocarbon fields). sensitivity study.
(DECC - UK
Government, 2015)

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 21 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.1 Qualification Criteria
Qualification Rationale
Threshold Description Data Source Impact on the Inventory
Criteria
CO2Stored database
The formations
(saline aquifers).
should have an Positive indicators >50m, cautionary indicators <20m - (Chadwick, et Only 9 sites failed to
Thickness >20m (Energy
average net thickness al., 2008). meet this test.
Technologies
in excess of 20m.
Institute, 2010)
CO2Stored database 11 sites failed this test.
The formations
(saline aquifers). They included tight
should have an Positive indicators >20%, cautionary indicators <10% - (Chadwick, et
Porosity >10% (Energy Triassic and Devonian
average porosity in al., 2008)
Technologies sandstones and some
excess of 10%.
Institute, 2010) Permian limestones.
The formations 31 sites failed this test
CO2Stored database
should have a water and have fresher
(saline aquifers).
salinity in excess of Positive indicators >100,000mg/l, cautionary indicators < 30,000 mg/l - formation water than
Salinity >30,000mg/l (Energy
30,000mg/l to avoid (Chadwick, et al., 2008) 30,000mg/l. These were
Technologies
potable water all formations deeper
Institute, 2010)
sources. than 2500m.
A saline aquifer site
UKSAP (Energy
with any containment
Technologies 147 sites failed this test
High risk / element considered
Institue, 2011)& on at least one of six
High to be high risk and
Positive indicators: >100m thick unfaulted caprock, Cautionary CO2Stored 'Security containment factors.
Geological confidence high confidence will
indicators: lateral caprock variability with overburden faulting and thin of Storage' analysis This represents 25% of
Containment containment not be considered
seal formations <20m. of saline aquifers. the initial inventory.31
risk further. Hydrocarbon
(Energy sites failed on 2 or more
elements. fields are considered
Technologies factors.
to meet this
Institute, 2010)
requirement.

Table 6 - Qualification criteria drawn from recommended guidelines and best practice

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 22 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.1 Qualification Criteria

Positive Indicators Cautionary Indicators Availability

Storage Capacity An initial check has been made to sites where there may be a conflicting use of
Total capacity Total capacity the subsurface. These conflicts occur in three primary areas:-
estimated to be much estimated to be similar
Total storage capacity larger than the total to or less than the total 1. Where a site is still in use for hydrocarbon extraction.
amount produced form amount produced from 2. Where a site might have a reasonable chance of a positive response
the CO2 source. the CO2 source. to CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery and therefore would not be available
Reservoir Properties for simple CO2 storage.
3. Where a site is likely to have already been licensed for CO2 storage to
Between 1000 and
Depth <800 m or >2500 m a specific operator. Goldeneye and the whole of the 5/42 structure
2500 m
have been considered as not available in this regard.
Reservoir thickness >50 m <20 m

Porosity >20% <10%

Continued Hydrocarbon Extraction

Permeability >300 mD <10 – 100 mD For the purposes of this qualification step, Wood Mackenzie have provided for
this project the results of an analysis of estimated Cessation of Production
Salinity >100,000 mg/l (ppm) <30,000 mg/l (ppm)
(COP) dates. Wood Mackenzie have taken a view of these dates based upon
Caprock Properties their understanding of the fields and the forward price forecast held in May 2015.
Lateral variations, More details of their forecast assumptions are included in Appendix 1.
Lateral continuity Unfaulted
faulted
At this stage it has been concluded that only hydrocarbon sites where the COP
Thickness >100 m <20 m dates fall before 2031 will be considered as qualified. This threshold currently
Much greater than Similar to the buoyancy excludes the fields in Table 8.
Capillary entry buoyancy force of force of maximum
pressure maximum predicted predicted height of CO2
height of CO2 column. column.

Table 7 - Extract from IEAGHG guidelines for saline aquifer site selection (IEA
Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, 2009)

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 23 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.1 Qualification Criteria

Estimated Field Type Status Estimated COP

Field Type Status
COP

MARINER Oil Commercial 2055 APPLETON BETA Oil Technical 2033

BENTLEY Oil Commercial 2051 CONQUERER Gas Technical 2033

BRESSAY Oil Commercial 2051 GLENN (JURASSIC) Oil Technical 2033

CLAIR Oil Commercial 2050 KILDRUMMY Oil Technical 2033

CAMBO Oil Technical 2043 SEAGULL Oil Technical 2033

LOCHNAGAR Oil Technical 2042 SOLAN Oil Commercial 2033

TORNADO Gas Technical 2040 WEST FRANKLIN Gas/condensate Commercial 2033

KRAKEN Oil Commercial 2039 WHIRLWIND Oil Technical 2033

KRAKEN NORTH Oil Commercial 2039 ARBROATH Oil Commercial 2032

ROSEBANK Oil Commercial 2039 ARKWRIGHT Oil Commercial 2032

BREAGH Gas Commercial 2037 MONTROSE Oil Commercial 2032

CULZEAN Gas Commercial 2037 WOOD Oil Commercial 2032

COURAGEOUS Gas/condensate Technical 2036 CAYLEY Gas Commercial 2032

JACKDAW Gas/condensate Commercial 2036 CRAWFORD Oil Technical 2032

REDEVELOPMENT
LANCASTER Oil Technical 2036 MARCONI Oil & Gas Technical 2032

LOYAL Oil Commercial 2035 PEACH Gas/condensate Technical 2032

SCHIEHALLION Oil Commercial 2035 SHAW Oil Commercial 2032

ALLIGIN Oil Commercial 2035 TALBOT Oil & Gas Technical 2032

J2 Oil Technical 2035 APPLETON Oil & Gas Technical 2031

PERTH Oil Commercial 2035 CROSGAN Gas Technical 2031

SUILVEN Oil & Gas Technical 2035 FARADAY Gas/condensate Technical 2031

FRAM Oil & Gas Commercial 2034 FULHAM Gas Technical 2031

JOCELYN Oil & Gas Technical 2034 PUFFIN Gas/condensate Technical 2031

ELGIN Gas/condensate Commercial 2033 Table 8 - List of Fields with COP dates beyond 2030 – Source Wood Mackenzie
FRANKLIN Gas/condensate Commercial 2033

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 24 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.1 Qualification Criteria
CO2-EOR Utilisation Potential Country
Field Incremental oil Incremental CO2 stored
Name recovered (mbbl) during EOR (MTCO2)
There have been many studies of the CO2-EOR potential of the North Sea. Most UK Alba 119 39
recently these have included the “CO2 storage and Enhanced Oil Recovery in UK Auk 53 11

the North Sea: Securing a low-carbon future for the UK” (SCCS July 2015) and UK Beryl 232 82

also “Economic impacts of CO2 Enhanced oil recovery for Scotland” (Element UK Brae 104 34
UK Brent 502 154
Energy Ltd, 2012). The latter reports on a specific range of named fields which
UK Buzzard 108 31
are deemed to have significant EOR potential (Table 9). These sites were
UK Claymore 144 46
excluded from the qualified inventory on the basis that as soon as CO2 becomes
UK Clyde 41 21
available offshore then these sites are likely to remain unavailable for simple UK Cormorant 157 45
CO2 storage as EOR developments start. The Basis of Design excludes CO 2- UK Dunlin 83 24
EOR opportunities as primary storage candidates but includes them on a UK Forties 420 80
portfolio basis for upside potential. Their potential role in initiating a CCS UK Fulmar 82 81
industry as has happened in the onshore US is not considered here due to the UK Janice 129 87

complex challenges of financing and consenting two first of a kind projects at a UK Miller 75 25
UK Nelson 79 26
major power plant and major oilfield at the same time.
UK Ninian 292 94
Existing CO2Storage Sites UK Piper 140 20
UK Scott 95 29
It has been assumed for the purposes of the qualification step that both the
UK Teal 82 55
proposed Goldeneye storage site and the proposed storage site at 5/42 will be UK Thistle 82 22
developed by their current operators and will not be available for licensing by UK/NO Murchison 79 25
other third parties. Clearly both have upside capacity potential in excess of that UK/NO Statfjord 635 236
required by the UK CCS commercialisation programme, but the future Table 9 - North Sea oilfields identified as having CO2-EOR potential (Element Energy
development of this additional potential will be for the owners of those storage Ltd, 2012)
licenses to progress. Both are therefore deemed unavailable at this stage.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 25 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.1 Qualification Criteria
Data Availability The risk associated with each is estimated together with the confidence level for
that estimation. For the purposes of qualification, if any of these factors were
Appropriate data is an essential part of any appraisal programme. To this end assessed as high risk of containment loss with a high confidence then the site
it has been concluded that for qualification purposes, a site must have at least was deselected. Altogether, 147 sites were deselected on the basis that
one well with data available and also good 3D seismic coverage available to the available data showed potential weakness in at least one containment attribute
project. Of course a simple well count cannot fully describe the quality of the (Table 10).
information available since one well with a good data acquisition programme
purpose drilled for the task of appraising a CO2 storage site will often have far Number of Sites
High Risk High Confidence Containment Risk
more value than a site with several old wells which have drilled through the target Deselected

storage reservoir on the way to a deeper hydrocarbon target with very little data 1 out of 6 attributes 116
acquisition focussed upon the potential storage interval. At this stage however
2 out of 6 21
a single well is required to qualify. Later on in WP4 the quality of the available
data will be assessed. 3 out of 6 7

out of 6 3
Geological Containment
Total 147
Whilst all the sites in the Initial Inventory possessed the basic attributes to be
considered as a potential viable CO2 storage site, the IEAGHG guidance rightly Table 10 - Containment Risk Failure Rate

stresses the importance of containment risk in any selection process. Within the
CO2Stored database, there are six geological containment attributes. Three are
linked to the caprock system and three relate to the fault related structures in
the caprock and overburden geology.

 Fracture Pressure Capacity

 Seal Chemical Reactivity
 Seal Degradation
 Fault Density
 Fault Throw and Fault Seal
 Fault Vertical Extent

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 26 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.1 Qualification Criteria
Of these, the most frequently occurring high risk elements carrying a high
degree of confidence are shown in (Table 11).

Number of Site
Containment Attribute
Deslections

Fracture Pressure Capacity 88

Fault Density 67

Fault Vertical Extent 29

Seal Chemical Reactivity 27

Fault Throw and Fault Seal 25

Seal Degradation 0

Table 11 - Containment Attribute Failure Frequency

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 27 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.2 Recommended Practice

5.2 Recommended Practice

While the most important compliance process for CO2 storage sites on the thereby qualify for appraisal” (Det Norsk Veritas, 2012). This document is
UKCS is with the EU Directive (THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE designed to be used at the key milestone, Site Selection, in the DNV life cycle
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,, 2009) and UK Carbon Dioxide for CO2 geological storage. Table 12 summarises the RP-J203 Screening Basis
Regulations 2010 (UK Government, 2010), the project methodology also aims requirements and context items and demonstrates how the screening and site
to comply with the broad set of recommended steps set out by Det Norske appraisal methodologies for this project map to them.
Veritas: Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide: Recommended Practice (Det
Norsk Veritas, 2012) which provides guidance on site selection and appraisal.
At present, there is no regulatory requirement to comply with this Recommended
Practice, however it represents both a useful reference and is close to being an
accepted industry standard at this time. It is therefore considered useful to map
the site selection work flows for this project onto RP-J203 to help ensure
technical rigour and communicate the processes used.

The DNV Recommended Practice (RP) for geological storage sites (RP-J203)
was developed to provide “a systemic approach to the selection, qualification
and management…. of sites” (Det Norsk Veritas, 2012), specifying what DNV
regard as the best industry practice. The RP (J203) is fairly broad-ranging
however it contains one performance requirement and procedure pertinent to
this work programme: the selection and qualification of geological storage sites
for long-term storage of CO2. Other RP requirements and procedures exist
which, may be applied to later work programmes (WP4 and WP5) of this project.

The storage site screening process is rolled-up in the “Screening Basis”, a

“document that defines the requirements to be fulfilled during the project
screening stage in order to be able to regard a storage site as prospective and

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 28 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.2 Recommended Practice

DNV Screening Basis Requirement Description Rationale UKSTORE Screening Basis Compliance

BoD: (minimum practical capacity >50MT)

Quantitative requirement for minimum
total CAPACITY (MT) Project Requirements: portfolio leading to
1500MT capacity by 2030.

BoD (3-15MT for a minimum of 15 years)

Quantitative requirement for minimum
annual INJECTION(MT/annum) Project Requirements: 50MT/yr by 2030 across
five sites.

Positive indicators of long term

Depth: CO2 remains in dense phase condition Depth Qualification: threshold >800m and
CONTAINMENT (documented
(>300kg/m3) under reservoir conditions. <2500m.
evidence)

Seal presence: presence of laterally-extensive UKSAP/CO2Stored qualification criteria for

seal above the injection zone. inclusion in the Initial Inventory.

Well integrity: confidence that well integrity can High Well Density contributed to lower site
be established and maintained. ranking in WP3.

Georisk Qualification: high geological

Containment will not be jeopardized
Geological Faults. containment risk/high data confidence sites are
by natural tectonic activity
excluded.

Absence of existing fault-related Georisk Qualification: high geological

flow paths penetrating storage containment risk/high data confidence sites are
complex. excluded.

Positive indicators of the potential to Legal availability of the storage site over WP3-5 provide input for UK storage license and
monitor and deploy risk treatment expected life cycle. permit process.

Physical accessibility to the storage site over

Availability Qualification: CoP dates <= 2030.
expected life cycle.

Screening Basis Context Location of source of CO2. BoD: Beachhead locations defined.

BoD: representative composition applied. ETI

Mass rates and composition of CO2 steam(s) .
Scenarios used for mass flow rates.

Expected rates of supply and lifetime of CO2

BoD (3-15MT for a minimum of 15 years).
sources.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 29 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.2 Recommended Practice

DNV Screening Basis Requirement Description Rationale UKSTORE Screening Basis Compliance

Natural environment interaction potential with

storage complex or leakage.

Resource/activity conflict potential. Availability Qualification criteria.

Social and cultural context of storage site. All sites are offshore.

EU Directive 2009/31/EC. (THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE
Legal and regulatory environment. EUROPEAN UNION,, 2009)
UK Carbon Dioxide Regulations (UK
Government, 2010)

Project Design: stakeholder meetings and

workshops.
Expectations of operator, regulators and
stakeholders to screening process. Project requirements: portfolio management &
compliance with UK CCS 'development
scenarios'. (Energy Technologies Institute, 2015)

Table 12 - RP-J203 Screening Basis - Mapping

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 30 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.2 Recommended Practice
RP-J203 also requires that the methodology and activities planned to achieve
the Screening Basis are reported in a 'Screening Plan' ('to describe the scope
of each screening step and the activities to be carried out'). Table 13
summarises the main requirements and maps the work packages in this project
which will provide compliance.

UKSTORE Screening Plan

DNV Screening Plan Requirement
Compliance
Data to be used for screening WP2
How data will be obtained WP2 / WP5
Application of data to identify potential
WP1 / WP3 / WP4 / WP5
storage sites
Calculation of storage capacity WP3: CO2Stored database
methodology (UKSAP project results)
Identification and risk assessment of WP3 (CO2Stored database)
existing wells / WP4 / WP5
Identification and risk assessment of WP3 (CO2Stored high level
potential leakage risks screening) / WP5
Identification of resource/usage conflicts WP3
Evaluation of source-site location WP3
Identification of stakeholders for
N/A
inclusion in project
Communication strategy and rationale
N/A
with stakeholders
Assessment of legal and physical
WP3 (CoP dates);
accessibility to storage sites
Table 13 - RP-J203 Requirements and applicable Work Packages

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 31 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.3 Results

5.3 Results
Figure 2 summarises the results of the Qualification Screening process. From Figure 3 summarises the effect of the same qualification process but on the total
the starting Initial Inventory of 579 sites, a Qualified Inventory of 37 sites has theoretical capacity of the inventory. Note that some deselection criteria are
been developed. This “Qualified Inventory” passes all of the threshold metrics temporal and others based on indicative rather than conclusive properties, and
for both the project Basis of Design and the established recommended so deselection now does not mean deselection in the future.
guidelines for carbon storage.

Figure 2 – Impact of Qualification on Site Numbers. Figure 3 - Impact of Qualification on Theoretical Capacity.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 32 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.3 Results
In summary, the Project Requirement qualification step and the IEAGHG right shows the impact of site removal on the total theoretical capacity of the
Qualification step combined to reduce an Initial Inventory of 579 sites down to remaining sites.
37. Each had a different impact:-
The Capacity threshold (50MT) has the most significant impact on the inventory
The Project Requirements qualification had the overall effect of removing size cutting 64% (373) of sites from the initial inventory. Saline aquifer site
68% of the Initial Inventory eliminating a large number of sites with low individual numbers are cut by over 55% but the relative number of hydrocarbon fields
capacities. Some of these sites, such as Goldeneye, are excellent storage removed is significantly greater at over 80%. The impact on the total theoretical
locations for small volumes, but they do not meet the requirements of this capacity of the remaining inventory is, however, almost insignificant at 1.4%.
project. The removal of the large number of low capacity sites has a limited effect (Figure
5).
• Site numbers reduced from 579 to 186; total theoretical capacity
reduced from 78,142MT to 77,051MT.
• Removed 68% of Initial Inventory sites.
• Removed 1.4% of Initial Inventory capacity.
• Removed Sites had an average theoretical P50 capacity of 3MT.

The IEAGHG Qualification step resulted in the removal of a large number of

potential sites which did not meet the minimum cautionary key attribute metrics
for a potential CO2 storage site. Some of these sites carried large to very large
capacities, but failed other key tests.

• Site numbers reduced from 186 to 37; total theoretical capacity

reduced from 77,051MT to 8,295MT.
• Removed 80% of project qualified sites.
• Removed89% of project qualified capacity.
• Removed Sites had an average theoretical P50 capacity of 461 MT.

Figure 4 illustrates the impact of each individual criteria on the Initial Inventory
and the total theoretical capacity, colour coded by store unit type. The image on
the left shows the cumulative effect of each qualification criteria on the number
of sites remaining in the inventory at each screening step. The image on the

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 33 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.3 Results

Figure 4 - Impact of individual qualification criteria on inventory number and total theoretical capacity, coded by store unit type.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 34 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.3 Results

Figure 5 - Impact of the theoretical capacity (>50MT) qualification criteria on total capacity.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 35 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.3 Results
It is worth noting at this point that the P50 theoretical capacity estimate in threshold (Figure 6). WP4 will begin to verify the permeability ranges where
CO2Stored does not equate to a true dynamic capacity of each site. As such, it possible for each selected site.
is anticipated that the capacity values for each qualified site will change (most
likely fall) as the site progresses further through evaluation and appraisal -
experience indicates that capacity tends to decrease as knowledge increases.
The 50MT threshold is very much a minimum cut-off value.

Figure 4 indicates that Georisk, or the geological risk to secure containment (as
opposed to the engineered containment risk associated with existing and new-
drill wells) was effective at cutting the saline aquifer site number by 51 which
were considered to have both a high risk factor linked to secure, long term
containment and high confidence in the data used to assign that risk. This was
considered a key qualification criterion - there being little point in investing
development money to investigate and derisk such stores when an abundance
of less risky candidate stores are available.. Hydrocarbon sites were excluded
from Georisk qualification at this stage and so show no impact to this cut.

The permeability cut-off (>50mD) was also selected to allow for the significant
uncertainty associated with the values held within the CO2Stored database
(Energy Technologies Institute, 2010) while also removing the 51 sites which Figure 6 - Qualification Sensitivity to Permeability Threshold
are unlikely to support the required injection rate (as per the Basis of Design). The removal of the lower permeability sites also has a significant impact on the
The IEAGHG (2009) guidelines actually suggest >300mD is required for a site total inventory capacity, dropping from around 45000 MT by over 50% to 19350
to have 'positive indicators' for carbon storage; a 10-100mD range is a MT. These losses arise from the elimination of 43 deep saline aquifers (average
cautionary indicator (IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, 2009). The depth 2940m) and 6 large low permeability Leman Sandstone gas fields.
selection of 50mD provides for the level of uncertainty associated with the
It is noted that permeability effects cost more than security, and cost is also
permeability values reported. A sensitivity analysis suggests that of 118 sites
correlated with other fundamentals (depth, water depth, distance from shore
remaining before the permeability cut off was applied just over 40% were lost
etc).
with a 50mD threshold whilst only a further 10% were lost with a 100mD

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 36 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 5.3 Results
The Qualified Inventory This Qualified Inventory was then progressed to the Ranking phase of this work
programme to produce the final selection of the Top 20 sites to move into WP4
The final result of the Qualification screening process is a “Qualified Inventory” where each will be subject to detailed due diligence.
containing sites which carry the greatest potential for long term, secure storage
and have good potential to meet the project objectives. The qualified inventory
of 37 sites has a total theoretical capacity of 8295 MT held in a broad portfolio.
Figure 14 illustrates the full Qualified Inventory plus two additional
Benchmarking sites. Table 14 summarises the distribution of unit designations,
store types and nearest Beachheads for the Qualified Inventory.

Unit Designation Store Type Nearest Beachhead

Structural /
Saline Aquifer 16 Stratigraphic 27 Barmston 12
Trap
Gas Field 10 Fully Confined 4 St. Fergus 20
Open (no
Oil & Gas Field 7 4 Connah's Quay 4
confinement)
Gas
Open (with
Condensate 4 2 Redcar
confinement)
Field
Medway 1
Total 37 Total 37 Total 37
Table 14 – Qualified Inventory Characterisation

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 37 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.0 Ranking

6.0 Ranking
Each of the sites in the Qualified Inventory now generally satisfies the 4. The sites then underwent ranking using the TOPSIS methodology
requirements of both the project and also best practice guidance. The next step using the criteria weightings and a TOPSIS Score assigned to each
is to consider a ranking of these sites such that a “Select Inventory” of the 20 site. These delivered a TOPSIS ranking of the Qualified Inventory.
most favourable sites can be progressed to Work Package 4 (“Twenty to Five” 5. A simple average rank for each site in the Qualified Inventory was also
site selection). calculated across all criteria in order to validate and compare with the
TOPSIS rank. This was completed assuming equal weighting for each
Ranking was carried out using 3 different techniques to ensure the best 20 sites
criteria.
were selected. Sensitivity analysis was also carried out using a set of different
6. Step 5 was repeated but using the weightings assigned in step 3. An
'perspectives' to evaluate the impact on site ranking.
average weighted rank for each site was calculated across all criteria
The ranking methodology was carried out as follows: in order to further validate and compare with the TOPSIS rank.
1. A set of 6 relatively independent factors or criteria important to a 7. The three ranking lists from steps 4, 5 and 6 were assembled and
successful CO2 storage site were chosen to evaluate each site. These compared ahead of a development of a final single ranking which was
included factors which described capacity, injectivity, containment performed manually.
(both georisk and engineering), development costs and upside 8. In total, 4 scenarios were completed using different criteria weightings
potential. to assess their impact.
2. The criteria for each site in the Qualified Inventory were then quantified 9. Results from each scenario were compared and a final “Select
from information held in CO2Stored database. These were either Inventory” of 20 sites was developed with input from Stakeholders.
deployment of existing numeric values in the database (eg Capacity), This Select Inventory was recommended to progress to WP4.
simple calculation based upon numeric values in the database (eg
TOPSIS Analysis
Injectivity) or a quantification of a qualitative coding held in the
database (eg Georisk). TOPSIS, or Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (Yoon
3. A criteria weighting exercise was carried out by the project team & Hwang, 1995) , was selected in WP1 as the tool to lead the site ranking
members after input from a Stakeholder meeting. process. The benefits of TOPSIS have been discussed in more detail in the
WP1 report are summarised here:

• Multi-criteria decision-making analysis method.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 38 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.0 Ranking
• Alternatives (sites) are compared to pairs of positive (best of all
worlds) and negative (worst of all worlds) ideal solutions
hypothesised by decision maker.
• Ideal solutions derived from set of criteria, e.g. in a two criteria
system, the highest capacity value and the highest injectivity value
would together represent the positive ideal solution (even if these
values came from different sites); the lowest capacity value and the
lowest injectivity value would represent the negative ideal solution.
• The best alternative is the one with the shortest direct distance from
the positive ideal solution and greatest distance from the negative
ideal solution (Figure 7).
• Each alternative is assigned with a TOPSIS 'score' (the separation
of the negative ideal solution divided by the sum of the separation
from the positive and negative ideal solutions). This can then be
used to rank every alternative in the inventory.
• Unlike the Qualification screening, TOPSIS is a compensatory
process since sites are not cut out on the basis of a threshold value.
• Both qualitative and quantitative data can be handled. Qualitative
data must be numerically coded in order to be used.
Figure 7 - Illustration of the TOPSIS method
A key requirement of the TOPSIS method is that all criteria must be independent
of each other and their data values must increase or decrease on a linear scale.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 39 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.1 Criteria

6.1 Criteria
The six ranking criteria selected are described in Table 15 below. In a complex system such as a CO2 storage site, it is very difficult to find totally independent
parameters. For example, capacity and permeability are both related to porosity, injectivity is dependent upon permeability and even development cost is dependent
upon depth which also controls pressure – a key element of capacity. As a result, each criterion has undergone careful consideration to ensure the set are relatively
independent. This was tested later quantitatively through a correlation search.

Ranking Criteria Description Data Source

CO2Stored database. (Energy Technologies
1 Theoretical capacity Database Value - P50 theoretical capacity in MT.
Institute, 2010)
Calculated Value - The product permeability and thickness mid case values as CO2Stored database. (Energy Technologies
2 Injectivity
a proxy for injectivity index. Institute, 2010)
Containment: Calculated Value - The density of existing and legacy wells (number of CO2Stored database (area estimates and well
3
Engineered wells/km2). count). (Energy Technologies Institute, 2010)
Containment: Quantification Value - A quantification of the three caprock seal factors and
4 CO2Stored database.
Georisk three fault risk factors assigned to each site (Table 16).
Calculated Value – A proxy cost factor based on approximate pipeline and well
cost for a standardised development of a store 5 wells based only on
geographic location and reservoir depth. This approach is required to ensure
that the cost factor is independent of all other factors (as required by TOPSIS) CO2Stored site coordinates
Development Cost and in particular capacity and injectivity. In reality of course the development TVU report (pipeline). (Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd,
5 cost is dependent upon both capacity and injectivity as well as a range of other
Factor 2015)
items. Estimating factors of £1.1m/ km of installed pipeline and £17m/km of Aspen Conceptual Well Design Options (spd, 2012)
well depth were used, these are derived from the Data Sources quoted.
DCF(£m) = (distance to beachhead in km)*£1.1m/km + 5*(depth of well in
metres)*£17m/km
Summation of all the P50 theoretical capacity estimates from the full Initial CO2Stored database (full inventory minus specific
6 Upside Potential
Inventory sites with centroid positions within 20 km radius of site in question. site). (Energy Technologies Institute, 2010)
Table 15 - Ranking Criteria

While the majority of the criteria are quantitative, it was necessary to quantify a in CO2Stored for containment is a consistent qualitative risk assessment ranked
qualitative value for the Georisk Containment criteria. The information available as high, medium or low. It was based on a methodology which had undergone

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 40 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.1 Criteria
a benchmarking process. Here these risk assessments were quantified by uncorrelated clouds of points. This provides further confidence that the selected
replacing the high, medium and low risks with scores of 3, 2 and 1 for each of criteria are indeed largely independent of one another.
the six containment factors and then summing these scores. The resulting
Georisk factor ranges from a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 18 (Table 16).
TOPSIS Ideal Solutions
The ideal positive and negative solutions for the TOPSIS analysis are shown in
Table 17. For the ranking criteria selected, capacity, injectivity and upside
Seal Characterisation Fault Characterisation
Fracture Seal Fault Georisk potential are normal criteria while both containment criteria and the development
Seal Fault Throw and Factor
pressure chemical vertical
capacity reactivity
degradation Density fault seal
extent
cost factor are reverse criteria (lowest value is optimal).

Site A low high medium high high medium 14 Criteria Positive Ideal Negative Ideal
Criteria
Label Solution Solution
Site B low low low low low low 6
1 Capacity 1691MT 50MT
Site C medium medium medium medium medium medium 12 2 Injectivity 1,286,651 mDm 2,743mDm
Containment
Site D high high high high high high 18 3 0.013 wells/km2 18.378 wells/km2
(Engineered)
Containment
4 6 (dimensionless) 16 (dimensionless)
low = 1 medium = 2 high = 3 (Georisk)
Development
Table 16 – Examples of Georisk Containment quantification. 5 116 (dimensionless) 751 (dimensionless)
Cost Factor
Finally, to be confident that the criteria being used in the ranking process were Upside
6 10016MT 421MT
Potential
independent of each other (a requirement of TOPSIS), a simple correlation
Table 17 - Optimal positive and negative ideal solutions for each ranking criteria
search was completed. This was achieved by plotting the data for each of the
37 sites in the qualified inventory for each pair of criteria. Figure 8 shows a
matrix of scatter plots each of which displays either poorly or completely

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 41 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.1 Criteria
Engineering Development Cost
Capacity Injectivity Geo Containment Risk
Containment Risk Factor
1500000
28

Injectivity
1000000

27
23
12
500000
29
2615
36
34
17
16
19
11 4
0
21
37
22
33
32
31
25
30
189876 5 3
10
13
20
14
16
24
17
35 2 1
0 1000 2000

20 20
18 27 18 27

Containment Risk
16 16
14

Engineering
14
12 12
10 10
8 8
32 32
6 6
23
34 4 34 23
4 28 36 28
3616 2 1617 12
2 17
12 17 937
21
17
21
18 9 18
24
35
68
725
531
30 3411
133
10
22 19
0 37
33
19
24
35
31
30
22
29
2611
16
15
20
25 876 5 4 3
10
14
13 2 1 0 2
14 13
20 29
16 26
15
0 1000 2000 0 1000000 2000000

18 18 18
Geo Containment Risk

16 2 16 2 16 2
14 14 14
14 14 14
13 13 13
12 31
28
22
20
15 12 3120
22 15 28 12 20
15
22
31 28
30
29
26
1976 630
7 19 26 29 26
29
30
7619
10 17
16
11 3 10 17 311
16 10 1617
311
33
18 5 1 18
5133 533118
8 37
34
27
24
23
21
17
16
12
190 8 24
1617
937
21
1034 12
2327 8 10
243721
912
17
16 34
23 27
6 36
35
32
258 4 6 35
825
32
4 36 6 425
835 36 32
4 4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0
0 1000 2000 0 1000000 2000000 0 10 20

800 800 800 800

21 21 21 21
700 700 700
Development Cost

700 9 9 9 9
17 600 17 600 17 600 17
600 3416 1634
2016 161716 34
20 34
16 16
16
20
17 17 17 20
500 500 13 500 13 500 13
13
Factor

61432 36 27 14 624 36 32 27 32 27
36
27
36
32146
24
29
22
31 400 24
23122 29 400 29
222
31 400 24 6 22 142
2931
400 2 18 18 18
18
37 35 37
5133 37
33
58735 35 3733
5
300 3312
35 87 5 300 8725 10 12 300 25 101 12 300 25 12
8 101 7
2510
30 1 30 30 30
200 4 15 200 415 200 4 112615
200 26
23
28
11 4 3
15 311 26 23 28 311 2823
26 23 3 28
19 100 19 100 19 100 19
100
0 0 0 0
0 1000 2000 0 1000000 2000000 0 10 20 0 10 20

12000 12000 12000 12000 12000

10000 17 10000 17 10000 12 17 10000 17

Upside Potential

10000 17
12 12 12 12

8000 8000 8000 8000 8000

3413 14 1334 29 13
29
14
34 34
29 13 14 2913 34
14
2914
6000 37 6000 37
11 261523 6000 26
15 37
11 23 6000 37
23 112615 6000 15 37
11
26
23
2611
15
23
24 24 24 24 24
3
5133 333
531 183 7 3 533
4000 33
36
27
18
28
19
31 1970 5
3
1
4000 1819
73191036 27 28 4000 19
10
7 9 36
118 28 27 4000 105
36 9
2733
1 28
1931 4000 1928 10 36
27
17 1831 9
20
32 30 20
32 2030 32 32 3020 30 632 20
30 6 62 26 6 2
2000 25 2 2000 25 21
22
17 2000 25
22 2117 2000 25 21
17 22 2000 25 222 17 21
21
22
17 16
35 35 16 35 16 35 16
168 4
35 84 48 8
4 4 8
16 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 16
0
0 1000 2000 0 1000000 2000000 0 10 20 0 10 20 0 500 1000

Figure 8 - Ranking Factor Independence Check

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 42 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.2 Criteria Weighting

6.2 Criteria Weighting

Both the TOPSIS analytical process and the average ranking process allow 2. Equal Weighting - Uses all six criteria with equal weighting
each criteria to have a different weight or relative importance assigned to them. 3. Container View – Uses the four subsurface characteristics (Capacity,
A base case set of criteria weights was developed using a pairwise Injectivity and 2x Containment) equally weighted
consideration matrix. Here each criteria was compared to each other to consider 4. Simple View – Uses only capacity and development cost to focus on a
their relative importance of each to the project objectives (safe, long term, “keep it simple” approach and taking advantage of all “qualified sites”
economically-viable storage). The results are outlined in Figure 9. In the plot, having passed the IEAGHG site characterization guidelines (IEA
Theoretical Capacity is considered to be moderately more important than Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, 2009).
injectivity with a score of 3 for example. A weight for each criterion was rolled
up from the process with Georisk containment being the dominant criterion
(46%) followed by theoretical capacity (21%). The input into the matrix was
controlled by the project team using expert judgement and so is subjective in
nature. The impact of the weightings on the site selections was tested further
during the sensitivity analysis.

The Stakeholder Workshop on 2nd July 2015 included a session on criteria,

weighting and ranking. The insights from the session were used to develop four
alternative weighting scenarios. These were used to ensure robustness in the
ranking process and are summarized below.

1. Rounded View – Uses all six criteria and initial weighting from a
pairwise consideration matrix

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 43 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.2 Criteria Weighting

Figure 9 - Development of Initial Ranking Criteria Weighting

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 44 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.3 Benchmarking

6.3 Benchmarking
Following the ranking process, and feedback from stakeholders, it was operators and will therefore be unavailable to other prospective storage
concluded that it would be useful to benchmark the ranking using some of the developers.
well-known CO2 storage targets in the UKCS which have been significantly
It is very important to stress that the absence of these two specific sites in the
invested in and matured through FEED programmes. The key benchmark sites
Qualified Inventory does not imply they are in any way technically unsuitable for
for consideration included:-
CO2 storage, but merely that they did not qualify under the metrics applied to
1. 5/42 – Prospective Phase 1 storage site, a saline aquifer Triassic this project.
Bunter Formation structural trap in the Southern North Sea.
The Hewett field is another potential storage site which has also undergone
2. Goldeneye – Prospective Phase 1 storage site, a depleted Lower
significant evaluation and early appraisal through projects which were partly
Cretaceous gas field in the Central North Sea.
publically funded. Hewett has made the Qualified Inventory by passing the
3. Hewett – Prospective Demo1 FEED storage site, a depleted Bunter
threshold tests.
gas field in the Southern North Sea.
In addition to Hewett, both 5/42 and Goldeneye have been used as Benchmarks
All of these sites were part of the Initial Inventory, however neither 5/42 nor
to provide useful reference points in the ranking process.
Goldeneye were able to pass the qualification requirements for this project. 5/42
was eliminated because there was not enough 3D seismic coverage available Stakeholder Input
to this project to consider it further. New 3D is available to the Operator over
Stakeholder input has been an important part of bringing the focus of a wide
the whole structure, but access to this is commercially beyond the budget for
range of expertise from industry, policymakers and academic research together
this project. Goldeneye was eliminated because it did not meet the requirement
to help sense check and inform the process and outputs from the project to date.
to have a P50 theoretical capacity of at least 50MT. Furthermore it is assumed
In the course of WP3 a workshop was completed around the detailed screening
that both of these sites will be licensed long term to the respective CO2 Storage
methodology and first pass results. A short workshop report is included as
Appendix 2 to this report

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 45 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.4 Results

6.4 Results
The input data and the TOPSIS score for each site in the Qualified Inventory is Comparison of Results and Ranking Methods
illustrated in Figure 10. At this stage the site identity remains hidden to minimise
any bias influence. Only three sites are identified. These are the benchmarks An initial review of the three ranking methods suggests strong agreement
of 5/42, Goldeneye and Hewett. Of these only Hewett is actually a part of the regarding the bulk of the Top 20 sites. At the site rank level, there is more
Qualified Inventory. The sites are simply ordered by their P50 Theoretical variation, particularly amongst the Top 10 sites. The two plots shown in Figure
Capacity. In the plot, the green bars denote normal criteria where larger 12 compare the TOPSIS site ranking with both the "Average Rank' and
numbers are favourable, and the red bars denote reverse criteria where smaller 'Weighted Average Rank'. As would be expected, the TOPSIS and Weighted
numbers are favourable. Average Ranks (using the same criteria weighting values) are significantly better
correlated. Two outliers are circled in Figure 12, representing sites 15 and 16.
The data set was then used to calculate a TOPSIS score with the base case
This highlights the importance of using expert judgement to ultimately decide
criteria weights in place. This base case or Rounded View TOPSIS score is
whether to keep the site in the final selection or whether to place on-hold. Other
also shown in Figure 10. A key to the site number and identifiers is given at the
than these outliers, the results provide confidence that TOPSIS performed well
end of the ranking and sensitivity analysis in Figure 14.
as a tool and the ranking process is both useful and comparable between
Two additional ranking methods were added as a result of Stakeholder methods and, as such, is ready for advancing to sensitivity analysis.
feedback. These have been used to validate and sense check the TOPSIS
approach. The first of these simply looked at the rank that each site achieved
for each criteria (Capacity, Injectivity, Development Cost Factor etc) and then
averaged this position. The second performed this same calculation again, but
this time accounted for the relative weights assigned to each criteria. The results
of these ranking methods are shown alongside the TOPSIS ranks in Figure 11.
The ranks for all criteria & sites are colour-coded by whether they fall into the
top 5 sites (green), the next 15 sites (white) or sites in the drop zone below
position 20 to allow easy visual comparison of results.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 46 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.4 Results

Engineering Geo Containment Development Cost

Basic Select Data Capacity Injectivity Upside Potential TOPSIS SCORE
Containment Risk Risk Factor
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Weight-> 21 11 46 8 8 4 1
Site 1 1691.0 33380.0 0.6 9.0 292.1 3898.0 1

Site 2 1388.0 19012.0 0.1 16.0 396.2 2534.0 2

Site 3 776.0 90753.0 0.4 10.0 167.1 4429.0 3

Bmk 5/42 554.0 98052.0 0.0 6.0 210.4 1057.0 4

Site 4 409.0 23926.0 0.2 9.0 313.7 4287.0 5
Site 5 271.0 8350.0 0.4 11.0 423.5 2711.0 6
Site 6 - Bmk Hewett 243.0 20500.0 0.3 11.0 299.5 3812.0 7
Site 7 232.0 11051.5 0.2 6.0 301.5 1179.0 8
Site 8 211.0 36540.0 1.2 8.0 685.2 3923.0 9
Site 9 205.0 82749.2 0.3 8.0 276.9 3856.0 10
Site 10 175.0 109728.0 0.6 10.0 193.8 5958.0 11
Site 11 175.0 612500.0 2.0 8.0 304.1 9624.1 12
Site 12 174.0 48906.0 0.1 13.0 476.6 7140.0 13
Site 13 162.0 10978.0 0.1 15.0 434.9 6868.0 14
Site 14 156.0 430010.0 0.1 12.0 194.8 5777.0 15
Site 15 137.0 177000.0 0.1 10.0 562.8 421.0 16
Site 16 130.0 4572.0 1.4 10.0 548.2 10016.1 17
Site 17 128.0 10500.0 2.3 8.0 576.0 1495.5 18
Site 18 122.0 178560.0 2.1 8.0 625.7 1825.5 19
Site 20 120.0 11430.0 0.6 9.0 359.4 4019.0 20
Site 19 120.0 175715.0 0.5 11.0 116.1 3946.0 21
Site 21 114.0 46288.0 0.1 12.0 555.4 3379.0 22
Site 22 104.0 81600.0 1.0 8.0 751.3 1947.0 23
Site 23 99.0 64860.0 0.2 12.0 412.1 1889.5 24
Site 24 97.0 630000.0 4.6 8.0 167.1 5746.0 25
Site 25 85.0 5720.0 0.4 8.0 432.7 5102.0 26
Site 26 84.0 22673.0 0.0 6.0 278.0 2127.0 27
Site 27 81.0 378585.0 0.1 11.0 177.5 5946.0 28
Site 28 76.0 723900.0 18.4 8.0 443.1 4139.6 29
Site 29 72.0 1286651.3 3.5 12.0 163.9 3982.0 30
Site 30 64.0 424080.0 0.2 11.0 432.0 6947.1 31
Site 31 63.0 19068.0 0.3 11.0 271.3 2978.0 32
Site 32 62.0 24888.4 0.3 12.0 410.9 3928.0 33
Site 33 60.0 27800.0 7.3 6.0 435.8 3285.5 34
Site 34 56.0 35476.0 0.5 9.0 317.5 4179.0 35
Site 35 53.0 182500.0 4.5 8.0 578.7 7543.0 36
Site 36 50.0 2743.0 0.4 6.0 315.7 1420.0 37
Site 37 50.0 228600.0 3.1 6.0 442.4 4165.6 38
Bmk GY 37.0 79000.0 0.6 8.0 331.4 6113.0 39

Figure 10 - Input to TOPSIS Score for Qualified Inventory

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 47 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.4 Results

Single Criteria Ranking Results Multi Criteria Ranking Results

Recommendation
Site Rankings Engineering Geo Containment Development Average Rank
Weighted
for WP4
Capacity Injectivity Upside Potential TOPSIS Average Rank
Containment Risk Risk Cost Factor Excl TOPSIS
Excl TOPSIS
Criteria Weightings - > 21 11 46 8 8 4 0 - Pass, 1 - Fail
Site 1 1 24 24 18 12 23 1 17 18 0
Site 2 2 31 9 39 21 30 2 22 14 0
Site 3 3 15 21 22 3 13 3 13 15 0
Bmk 5/42 4 14 1 1 8 38 4 11 5 1
Site 4 5 27 12 18 16 14 5 15 13 0
Site 5 6 36 18 26 24 29 8 23 19 0
Site 6 - Bmk Hewett 7 29 16 26 13 25 9 19 16 0
Site 7 8 33 13 1 14 37 10 18 14 0
Site 8 9 22 29 7 38 22 22 21 23 1
Site 9 10 16 16 7 10 24 12 14 14 0
Site 10 12 13 26 22 6 8 16 15 19 0
Site 11 12 4 31 7 15 2 21 12 19 0
Site 12 13 20 6 37 31 4 15 19 14 0
Site 13 14 34 7 38 27 6 7 21 16 0
Site 14 15 5 4 32 7 10 14 12 9 0
Site 15 16 11 5 22 34 39 31 21 13 1
Site 16 17 38 30 22 32 1 6 23 26 0
Site 17 18 35 33 7 35 35 33 27 28 1
Site 18 19 10 32 7 37 34 32 23 25 1
Site 20 21 32 27 18 20 18 23 23 25 0
Site 19 21 12 22 26 1 20 17 17 19 0
Site 21 22 21 3 32 33 26 18 23 15 1
Site 22 23 17 28 7 39 32 30 24 25 1
Site 23 24 19 11 32 23 33 19 24 18 1
Site 24 25 3 37 7 4 11 36 15 24 0
Site 25 26 37 20 7 26 12 26 21 22 1
Site 26 27 28 2 1 11 31 20 17 12 1
Site 27 28 7 8 26 5 9 11 14 13 0
Site 28 29 2 39 7 30 17 39 21 28 1
Site 29 30 1 35 32 2 19 34 20 27 0
Site 30 31 6 10 26 25 5 13 17 16 0
Site 31 32 30 14 26 9 28 24 23 21 1
Site 32 33 26 15 32 22 21 25 25 22 1
Site 33 34 25 38 1 28 27 38 26 31 1
Site 34 35 23 23 18 18 15 27 22 24 1
Site 35 36 9 36 7 36 3 37 21 29 1
Site 36 38 39 19 1 17 36 28 25 24 1
Site 37 38 8 34 1 29 16 35 21 28 1
Bmk GY 39 18 25 7 19 7 29 19 25 1

Figure 11 - Site Ranking Results for the "Rounded View" Case

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 48 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.4 Results

Figure 12 - Ranking Method Performance Check

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 49 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.4 Results
Weighted
Site Selection from Initial Results TOPSIS
Average Rank
Average Rank
Manual Drop
Site Rankings Excl TOPSIS
Excl TOPSIS
Selection

A “Rounded View” base case of 20 top ranked sites was made using the results 0 - Pass / 1- Fail
Site 1 1 17 18 0
from each ranking method. Wherever there was agreement across all three Site 2 2 22 14 0
Site 3 3 13 15 0
ranking methods (TOPSIS, Average Rank, Weighted Average Rank) to
Bmk 5/42 4 11 5 1
“progress” (because the site was always in the top 20 of the Qualified Inventory) Site 4 5 15 13 0
Site 5 8 23 19 0
or to “drop” (because the site was always in the bottom 17 of the Qualified Bmk Site 6 - Hewett 9 19 16 0
Site 7 10 18 14 0
Inventory) then these were preserved. Sites were then either added or removed
Site 8 22 21 23 1
based upon their overall ranking performance. Figure 13 illustrates this process Site 9 12 14 14 0
Site 10 16 15 19 0
for the “Rounded View” base case. The right hand column carries the final result Site 11 21 12 19 0
with a simple pass or fail (green or red). Site 12 15 19 14 0
Site 13 7 21 16 0
Site 14 14 12 9 0
From Figure 13, it is clear that had the Benchmark Site 5/42 reached the Site 15 31 21 13 1
“Qualified Inventory”, then it would have performed very well in this base case Site 16 6 23 26 0
Site 17 33 27 28 1
ranking process in positions ranging from fourth to eleventh from a total list of Site 18 32 23 25 1
Site 20 23 23 25 1
39 sites (The Qualified Inventory of 37 sites plus two unqualified benchmarks). Site 19 17 17 19 0
Benchmark Site 6 – the Hewett Sandstone in the depleted Hewett gas field also Site 21 18 23 15 0
Site 22 30 24 25 1
performed well in positions ranging from ninth to nineteenth. The Final Site 23 19 24 18 0
Site 24 36 15 24 1
Benchmark Site, Goldeneye performed poorly with a highest position of Site 25 26 21 22 1
nineteenth and a lowest position of twenty ninth. This is due to the importance Site 26 20 17 12 0
Site 27 11 14 13 0
of capacity in the ranking and the fact that all other sites had a capacity Site 28 39 21 28 1
Site 29 34 20 27 1
significantly bigger than Goldeneye. Extension of Goldeneye to adjacent stores Site 30 13 17 16 0
(or other combinations of stores) was not considered. Site 31 24 23 21 1
Site 32 25 25 22 1
Site 33 38 26 31 1
Across the process, the use of weighting criteria is important to balance each Site 34 27 22 24 1
ranking criteria against the others. Site 35 37 21 29 1
Site 36 28 25 24 1
Site 37 35 21 28 1
Bmk - Goldeneye 29 19 25 1

Figure 13 - Final Selection of Top 20 Sites - "Rounded View"

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 50 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.5 Sensitivities

6.5 Sensitivities
A set of four scenarios was developed to test the robustness of the ranking Overall given the nature of the screening data available and the uncertainties
process and evaluate the sensitivity of the site rankings to different criteria present, the Simple View case gained most support from the Stakeholder Group.
weightings: However specific questions and suggestions led to the following modifications
in the final Selected Inventory:-
1. Rounded View (Base Case) – This uses all six criteria and the initial
weighting from a pairwise consideration matrix. 1. Site 8 (Bruce Field) was taken forward in place of Site 16 (Britannia
2. Equal Weighting - Uses all six criteria with equal weighting. Field). The rationale behind this was that whilst Britannia has
3. Container View – This puts the technical aspects of the store first and significantly more potential upside and was closer to both St Fergus
foremost and uses the four subsurface characteristics (Capacity, and Goldeneye, Bruce had a P50 Theoretical Capacity that was over
Injectivity and both Containment criteria) equally weighted. 60% larger and a forecasted COP date several years before that of
4. Simple View – This focuses on capacity and unit cost by using only Britannia.
theoretical capacity, Development cost factor and the Upside Potential 2. Site 29 (Lennox Field) was removed as the weakest qualified site in
as a proxy for a “keep it simple” or 'large and low-cost' approach the East Irish Sea to improve the balance with the ETI Scenarios plan.
advocated by some stakeholders. It was replaced by the next strongest candidate in the Qualified
Inventory which was Site 26, a Bunter saline aquifer closure in the
Results of Sensitivity Analysis Southern North Sea.
The results for these cases were developed in exactly the same way as 3. Site 28 (Harding Central Field) was promoted and displaced Site 30
described in the previous section. Figure 14 shows the results for each into the reserve list. This was done despite the high well density on
sensitivity case together with the recommended decision in the column on the Site 28 because the Harding reservoir is known to contain injected
far right for progression to WP4 of this project. sandstones which require a higher well density to characterise
effectively and may have a significant Georisk issue which may not be
The analysis shows that there is full agreement to progress 14 top sites to the
perceived with poor well data coverage..
Select Inventory and also full agreement to drop a further 14 sites from further
consideration at this time. Stakeholder review and input helped to resolve the The outcome of the final Top 20 recommended selection is a portfolio of sites
position of the further six sites that would be progressed and the 5 sites that which pass all the qualification screening thresholds and represent the sites with
would not progress, but would be held on a reserve list. the greatest potential for success with respect to the objectives of this project.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 51 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.5 Sensitivities
The ranking process has taken the Qualified Inventory of 37 sites to a Select sites in the Select Inventory for which Redcar on Teesside or Medway in the
Inventory of 20 sites: a reduction of 46% of the fully qualified sites. Total Thames area are the nearest landfall, both have sites within relatively short
theoretical capacity has, however, decreased from 8,295 MT at the end of transport distance. Table 22 presents a view of the distance weighted Capacity
qualification (37 sites) to 6,765MT, a reduction of only 19%, reflecting the focus in the Select Inventory for each of the key beachheads. This in effect describes
upon capacity and cost in the 'Simple View'. The average theoretical site the Theoretical Capacity in the Select Inventory divided by the Distance to the
capacity rose by over 50% from 224MT in the Qualified Inventory to 342MT in Beachhead. This highlights the very strong position of Barmston on the
the Select Inventory. This remains in line with the overall project objectives. Yorkshire coast, Connah’s Quay on the North Wales and Redcar on Teesside.

Table 18 through Table 21 highlight the diversity of the Select Inventory. The
Top 20 sites by Geological Age
target storage reservoirs are distributed from the Permian to the Paleogene, but
interestingly include only one Jurassic reservoir. Many of the Jurassic reservoirs 1. Paleogene 5
failed to qualify on the basis of small capacity levels and deep reservoirs often
below 3000m. Further Northern Brent Province sites were excluded as they are 3. Lower Cretaceous 3
beyond the 450km threshold set out in this project basis of design.
5. Lower Jurassic 1
The Select Inventory has a 50:50 balance of saline aquifers and depleted
hydrocarbon fields. Most of the hydrocarbon fields are gas fields in the Southern 6. Triassic 9
North Sea. Bruce is the gas condensate field with Captain and Harding Central
representing the oilfields after those with significant CO2 EOR potential have 7. Permian 2
been removed.
Table 18 - Select Inventory Sites by Geological Age
70% of the Select Inventory comprises structural traps, with the remaining 30%
representing large open aquifer systems with or without associated structural
confinement. It is anticipated that the presence or absence of structural or
stratigraphic potential on these may well be refined in WP4.

Finally, the Select Inventory provides a portfolio of sites that can service all the
major emission centres and beachheads identified in the ETI scenarios plan
(Energy Technologies Institute, 2015). With 3 sites in the East Irish Sea, 8 sites
in the Southern North Sea and 9 in the Central North Sea. Whilst there are no

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 52 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.5 Sensitivities

Top 20 sites by Unit Designation Top 20 sites by Beachhead

Saline Aquifer 10 Medway 0

Gas 7 Barmston 8

Oil & Gas 2 St Fergus 9

Gas Condensate 1 Connah's Quay 3

Table 19 - Select Inventory Sites by Unit Designation Redcar 0

Top 20 sites by Storage Type Table 21 - Select Inventory Sites by Nearest Beachhead

Structural/Stratigraphic Trap 14 Top 20 sites by Distance Weighted Capacity

(MT/km)
Fully Confined (closed box) 0
Medway 20.9
Open, no identified structural/ stratigraphic confinement 4
Barmston 29.5
Open, with identified trap 2
St Fergus 23.6
Table 20 - Select Inventory Sites by Storage Type
Connah's Quay 28.5

Redcar 25.3

Table 22 - Beachhead Distribution of Distance Weighted Capacity in the Select Inventory

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 53 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 6.5 Sensitivities
Strategic United Kingdom CCS Storage Appraisal Project - WP3 Downselect Recommendation 8th July 2015
Top 20 Theoretical Capacity -> 6749 6510 6645 6741 6765 MT

"Equal
Normal Normal Reversed Reversed Reversed Normal "Rounded View" "Container View" "Simple View" "Final Recommendation"
Weighting"
Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 Criteria 6

Engineering
Geo Containment Development Proximal Upside Manual Drop Manual Drop Manual Drop Manual Drop
Code Site Number Capacity MT Injectivity mDm Containment Risk Unit Designation Geological Age Geological Formation Storage Type Site Description Nearest Beachhead Recommended Action
Risk Cost Factor $M Potential MT Selection Selection Selection Selection
per sq km

1 2 3 4

226.011 Site 1 1691.0 33380.0 0.6 9.0 292.1 3898.0 Saline Aquifer 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Bunter Closure 9 Barmston 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4
Open, with identified structural/
372.000 Site 2 1388.0 19012.0 0.1 16.0 396.2 2534.0 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Sele Fm Forties 5 St Fergus 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4
stratigraphic confinement
248.005 Site 3 776.0 90753.0 0.4 10.0 167.1 4429.0 Gas 6. Triassic Ormskirk Sandstone FmStructural/Stratigraphic Trap South Morecambe gas field Connah's Quay 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4

227.007 Site 4 409.0 23926.0 0.2 9.0 313.7 4287.0 Saline Aquifer 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Bunter Closure 3 Barmston 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4

266.001 Bmk Site 6 - Hewett 243.0 20500.0 0.3 11.0 299.5 3812.0 Gas 6. Triassic Bunter Shale Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Hewett gas field Barmston 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4

139.016 Site 7 232.0 11051.5 0.2 6.0 301.5 1179.0 Saline Aquifer 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Bunter Closure 36 Barmston 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4

303.001 Site 9 205.0 82749.2 0.3 8.0 276.9 3856.0 Gas 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Hewett gas field (Bunter) Barmston 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4

248.004 Site 10 175.0 109728.0 0.6 10.0 193.8 5958.0 Gas 6. Triassic Ormskirk Sandstone FmStructural/Stratigraphic Trap North Morecambe gas field Connah's Quay 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4
Open, no identified structural/
336.000 Site 11 175.0 612500.0 2.0 8.0 304.1 9624.1 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Horda Fm Grid Sandstone Member St Fergus 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4
stratigraphic confinement
Open, no identified structural/
361.000 Site 12 174.0 48906.0 0.1 13.0 476.6 7140.0 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Lista Fm Mey 1 St Fergus 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4
stratigraphic confinement
Open, no identified structural/
366.000 Site 13 162.0 10978.0 0.1 15.0 434.9 6868.0 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Maureen Fm Maureen 1 St Fergus 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4
stratigraphic confinement
Open, with identified structural/
218.000 Site 14 156.0 430010.0 0.1 12.0 194.8 5777.0 Saline Aquifer 3. Lower Cretaceous Wick Sandstone Fm Captain_013_17 St Fergus 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4
stratigraphic confinement
133.001 Site 8 211.0 36540.0 1.2 8.0 685.2 3923.0 Gas Condensate 5. Lower Jurassic Statfjord Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Bruce Gas Condensate Field St Fergus 1 1 0 1 Progress to WP5

248.002 Site 19 120.0 175715.0 0.5 11.0 116.1 3946.0 Gas 6. Triassic Ormskirk Sandstone FmStructural/Stratigraphic Trap Hamilton gas field Connah's Quay 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP6
Open, no identified structural/
217.000 Site 27 81.0 378585.0 0.1 11.0 177.5 5946.0 Saline Aquifer 3. Lower Cretaceous Wick Sandstone Fm Coracle_012_20 St Fergus 0 0 0 0 Progress to WP4
stratigraphic confinement
218.001 Site 24 97.0 630000.0 4.6 8.0 167.1 5746.0 Oil & Gas 3. Lower Cretaceous Wick Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Captain Oil Field St Fergus 1 0 0 0 Progress to WP4

139.020 Site 26 84.0 22673.0 0.0 6.0 278.0 2127.0 Saline Aquifer 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Bunter Closure 40 Barmston 0 0 0 1 Progress to WP4

Focus of WP3 Decision

141.035 Site 5 271.0 8350.0 0.4 11.0 423.5 2711.0 Gas 7. Permian Leman Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Viking gas fields Barmston 0 1 1 0 Progress to WP4

141.002 Site 20 120.0 11430.0 0.6 9.0 359.4 4019.0 Gas 7. Permian Leman Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Barque gas field Barmston 1 1 1 0 Progress to WP4

252.001 Site 28 76.0 723900.0 18.4 8.0 443.1 4139.6 Oil & Gas 1. Paleogene Balder Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Harding Central oil field St Fergus 1 0 1 1 Progress to WP4

248.007 Site 29 72.0 1286651.3 3.5 12.0 163.9 3982.0 Oil & Gas 6. Triassic Ormskirk Sandstone FmStructural/Stratigraphic Trap Lennox oil & gas field Connah's Quay 1 0 0 0 Reserve List

220.001 Site 16 130.0 4572.0 1.4 10.0 548.2 10016.1 Gas Condensate 3. Lower Cretaceous Britannia Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Britannia Condensate Field St Fergus 0 0 0 0 Reserve List

252.000 Site 30 64.0 424080.0 0.2 11.0 432.0 6947.1 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Balder Fm Fully Confined (closed box) Balder Sandstone Member 1 St Fergus 0 0 0 0 Reserve List

244.000 Site 21 114.0 46288.0 0.1 12.0 555.4 3379.0 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Sele Fm Fully Confined (closed box) Teal Sandstone Member St Fergus 0 1 1 1 Reserve List

241.000 Site 23 99.0 64860.0 0.2 12.0 412.1 1889.5 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Sele Fm Fully Confined (closed box) Flugga Sandstone Member St Fergus 0 1 1 1 Reserve List

139.015 Bmk 5/42 554.0 98052.0 0.0 6.0 210.4 1057.0 Saline Aquifer 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Bunter Closure 35 (5/42) Barmston 1 1 1 1 BENCHMARK ONLY

232.000 Site 15 137.0 177000.0 0.1 10.0 562.8 421.0 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Horda Fm Fully Confined (closed box) Frigg Sandstone Member St Fergus 1 1 1 1 Hold

129.004 Site 17 128.0 10500.0 2.3 8.0 576.0 1495.5 Gas Condensate 4. Mid/Upper Jurassic Brae Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Brae North Condensate Field St Fergus 1 1 1 1 Hold

129.003 Site 18 122.0 178560.0 2.1 8.0 625.7 1825.5 Gas Condensate 4. Mid/Upper Jurassic Brae Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Brae East Condensate Field St Fergus 1 1 1 1 Hold

166.002 Site 22 104.0 81600.0 1.0 8.0 751.3 1947.0 Oil & Gas 4. Mid/Upper Jurassic Tarbert Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Alwyn North Oil Field St Fergus 1 1 1 1 Hold

141.058 Site 25 85.0 5720.0 0.4 8.0 432.7 5102.0 Gas 7. Permian Leman Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Victor gas field Barmston 1 1 1 1 Hold

226.007 Site 31 63.0 19068.0 0.3 11.0 271.3 2978.0 Saline Aquifer 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Bunter Closure 24 Barmston 1 1 1 1 Hold

141.038 Site 32 62.0 24888.4 0.3 12.0 410.9 3928.0 Gas 7. Permian Leman Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Audrey gas field Barmston 1 1 1 1 Hold

365.001 Site 33 60.0 27800.0 7.3 6.0 435.8 3285.5 Oil & Gas 1. Paleogene Lista Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Andrew oil field St Fergus 1 1 1 1 Hold

226.002 Site 34 56.0 35476.0 0.5 9.0 317.5 4179.0 Saline Aquifer 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Bunter Closure 18 Medway 1 1 1 1 Hold

82.002 Site 35 53.0 182500.0 4.5 8.0 578.7 7543.0 Oil & Gas 4. Mid/Upper Jurassic Fulmar Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Fulmar Oil Field St Fergus 1 1 1 1 Hold

141.003 Site 36 50.0 2743.0 0.4 6.0 315.7 1420.0 Gas 7. Permian Leman Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Amethyst East gas field Barmston 1 1 1 1 Hold

252.002 Site 37 50.0 228600.0 3.1 6.0 442.4 4165.6 Oil & Gas 1. Paleogene Balder Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Harding South oil field St Fergus 1 1 1 1 Hold

218.002 Bmk - Goldeneye 37.0 79000.0 0.6 8.0 331.4 6113.0 Gas Condensate 3. Lower Cretaceous Wick Sandstone Fm Structural/Stratigraphic Trap Goldeneye Gas Condensate Field St Fergus 1 1 1 1 BENCHMARK ONLY

Top 20 sites by Geological Age Top 20 sites by Unit Designation Top 20 sites by Storage Type Top 20 sites by Beachhead
1. Paleogene 5 Saline Aquifer 10 Structural/Stratigraphic Trap 14 Medway 0

3. Lower Cretaceous 3 Gas 7

Figure 14 - WP3 Down-select Recommendation
Fully Confined (closed box) 0 Barmston 8

6. Triassic 9 Oil & Gas 2 Open, no identified structural/ stratigraphic confinement 4 St Fergus 9

7. Permian 2 Gas Condensate 1 Open, with identified structural/ stratigraphic confinement 2 Connah's Quay 3
Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Redcar 0 Page 54 of 74
D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 7.0 Conclusions

7.0 Conclusions
1. CO2Stored is an excellent basis for this study and represents a single 8. Both the threshold for Theoretical Capacity and permeability were
consistent source of site storage attributes, albeit with challenging maintained at low levels to accommodate data uncertainty in these key
uncertainty issues. This project could not progress in the time and factors.
scope in the absence of the CO2Stored database. 9. The Identification of the sites was hidden from stakeholders until the
2. The methodology outlined in WP1 has been successfully deployed with end of the project to try to minimise any bias.
only minor refinements to achieve the WP3 objective. 10. The 50MT capacity and 50mD permeability threshold were the most
3. The recommended Top 20 sites for progression to work package 4 impactful criteria in the qualification process. 387 sites failing the
(“Twenty to Five”) represent a broad portfolio covering a strong capacity test and 188 sites failing the permeability test. Both are
diversity of unit type, store type and geography (beachhead); this is indicative of cost rather than security.
illustrated in Table 18 to Table 22. 11. Neither Goldeneye nor 5/42 reached the Qualified Inventory.
4. The selection and screening process used here is fully compliant with Goldeneye was smaller than the threshold and 5/42 lacked the
DNV (Det Norsk Veritas, 2012) and IEAGHG (IEA Greenhouse Gas required data availability test (the project did not have access to 3D
R&D Programme, 2009) recommended best practice. seismic over most of the structure). Furthermore both sites fail on the
5. The many to twenty down-select was based substantially upon the data availability criterion because they either are or expect to be licensed to
in CO2Stored, augmented by information from Wood Mackenzie Phase1 participants.
regarding estimated Cessation of Production for oil and gas fields and 12. After careful consideration, it was concluded that updating the
general publications such as the Millennium Volume (Gluyas & CO2Stored capacities for hydrocarbon field production between 2010
Hitchens, 2003). CO2Nomica (The ETI’s storage costing tool) was not and 2015 could not be justified as only the very largest fields had
used at this stage of the project. enough capacity to meet the project qualification criteria, and many of
6. A large number of small hydrocarbon fields were missing from these either had produced very little in the period or were younger
CO2Stored. Five additional sites were added to the Initial Inventory, fields and were unavailable until after 2030.
but all were subsequently screened out on the basis of capacity. 13. The Project Requirements qualification had the overall effect of
7. The methodology has navigated issues of data uncertainty to minimise removing 68% of the Initial Inventory eliminating a large number of
the risk of site exclusion because of data uncertainty. sites with low individual capacities. Some of these sites, such as

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 55 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 7.0 Conclusions
Goldeneye are excellent storage locations for small volumes, but they 15. IEAGHG cautionary screening thresholds alone removed 396 (68%)
do not meet the requirements of this project. sites from the Initial Inventory and 87% of the P50 Theoretical capacity
within the Initial Inventory. Some of these effects cost rather than
 Site numbers reduced from 579 to 186; total theoretical capacity
security.
reduced from 78,142MT to 77,051MT.
16. The TOPSIS method worked well in handling the multiple criteria for
 Removed 68% of Initial Inventory sites. ranking. Meeting the independence requirements for the criteria was

 Removed1.4% of Initial Inventory capacity. achievable with care, although the method was impacted by very high
or very low value outliers.
 Removed Sites had an average theoretical P50 capacity of
17. The weighting of the criteria was important to create a balanced
3MT.
ranking.
14. The IEAGHG Qualification step resulted in the removal of a large 18. The Stakeholder group expressed a preference for the “Simple View”
number of potential sites which did not meet the minimum cautionary ranking which focussed upon Capacity and Development Cost Factor
key attribute metrics for a potential CO2 storage site. Some of these (including Upside Potential).
sites carried large to very large capacities, but failed other key tests. 19. Ranking sensitivities agreed on whether to maintain or drop sites
across 76% of the Qualified Inventory (28 out of 37).
 Site numbers reduced from 186 to 37; total theoretical capacity
20. If 5/42 and Goldeneye had been qualified then 5/42 would have ranked
reduced from 77,051MT to 8,295MT.
around 5th out of 37 and Goldeneye would have ranked around 27th out
 Removed 80% of project qualified sites. of 37 (because of its small capacity).
 Removed89% of project qualified capacity. 21. There is a 50:50 balance of saline aquifers and depleted hydrocarbon
fields in the recommended Select Inventory of twenty sites.
 Removed Sites had an average theoretical P50 capacity of 461
22. 70% of the recommended Select Inventory are structural traps.
MT.
23. Neither of Redcar or Medway are the closest landfall to any of the sites
Some of these tests are temporal or use indicative criteria, and so in the recommended Select Inventory, but both Redcar and Medway
deselection now does not necessarily mean deselection in the future. are serviced by the Select Inventory.
In any case, 8MT exceeds the UKs likely needs for many decades.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 56 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 8.0 Recommendations

8.0 Recommendations
The following twenty sites are recommended for progression to WP4 and for further consideration:-

Cost Factor $M
Risk per sq km
Proximal

Development
Containment
Containment
CO2stored

Engineering
Site Capacity Injectivity Upside Unit Nearest
Geological Age Geological Formation Storage Type Site Description
Code Number MT mDm Potential Designation Beachhead
MT

Risk
Geo
Structural/Stratigraphic
226.011 Site 1 1691 33380 0.6 9 292 3898 Saline Aquifer 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Bunter Closure 9 Barmston
Trap

Open, with identified

372.000 Site 2 1388 19012 0.1 16 396 2534 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Sele Fm structural/ stratigraphic Forties 5 St Fergus
confinement

Structural/Stratigraphic South Morecambe

248.005 Site 3 776 90753 0.4 10 167 4429 Gas 6. Triassic Ormskirk Sandstone Fm Connah's Quay
Trap gas field

Structural/Stratigraphic
227.007 Site 4 409 23926 0.2 9 314 4287 Saline Aquifer 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Bunter Closure 3 Barmston
Trap

Structural/Stratigraphic
266.001 Site 6 243 20500 0.3 11 299 3812 Gas 6. Triassic Bunter Shale Fm Hewett gas field Barmston
Trap

Structural/Stratigraphic
139.016 Site 7 232 11052 0.2 6 302 1179 Saline Aquifer 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Bunter Closure 36 Barmston
Trap

Structural/Stratigraphic Hewett gas field

303.001 Site 9 205 82749 0.3 8 277 3856 Gas 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Barmston
Trap (Bunter)

Structural/Stratigraphic North Morecambe

248.004 Site 10 175 109728 0.6 10 194 5958 Gas 6. Triassic Ormskirk Sandstone Fm Connah's Quay
Trap gas field

Open, no identified
Grid Sandstone
336.000 Site 11 175 612500 2.0 8 304 9624 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Horda Fm structural/ stratigraphic St Fergus
Member
confinement

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 57 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 8.0 Recommendations

Open, no identified
361.000 Site 12 174 48906 0.1 13 477 7140 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Lista Fm structural/ stratigraphic Mey 1 St Fergus
confinement

Open, no identified
366.000 Site 13 162 10978 0.1 15 435 6868 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Maureen Fm structural/ stratigraphic Maureen 1 St Fergus
confinement

Open, with identified

218.000 Site 14 156 430010 0.1 12 195 5777 Saline Aquifer 3. Lower Cretaceous Wick Sandstone Fm structural/ stratigraphic Captain_013_17 St Fergus
confinement

Structural/Stratigraphic Bruce Gas

133.001 Site 8 211 36540 1.2 8 685 3923 Gas Condensate 5. Lower Jurassic Statfjord Fm St Fergus
Trap Condensate Field

Structural/Stratigraphic
248.002 Site 19 120 175715 0.5 11 116 3946 Gas 6. Triassic Ormskirk Sandstone Fm Hamilton gas field Connah's Quay
Trap

Open, no identified
217.000 Site 27 81 378585 0.1 11 177 5946 Saline Aquifer 3. Lower Cretaceous Wick Sandstone Fm structural/ stratigraphic Coracle_012_20 St Fergus
confinement

Structural/Stratigraphic
218.001 Site 24 97 630000 4.6 8 167 5746 Oil & Gas 3. Lower Cretaceous Wick Sandstone Fm Captain Oil Field St Fergus
Trap

Structural/Stratigraphic
139.020 Site 26 84 22673 0.0 6 278 2127 Saline Aquifer 6. Triassic Bunter Sandstone Fm Bunter Closure 40 Barmston
Trap

Structural/Stratigraphic
141.035 Site 5 271 8350 0.4 11 423 2711 Gas 7. Permian Leman Sandstone Fm Viking gas fields Barmston
Trap

Structural/Stratigraphic
141.002 Site 20 120 11430 0.6 9 359 4019 Gas 7. Permian Leman Sandstone Fm Barque gas field Barmston
Trap

Structural/Stratigraphic Harding Central oil

252.001 Site 28 76 723900 18.4 8 443 4140 Oil & Gas 1. Paleogene Balder Fm St Fergus
Trap field

Table 23 - Select Inventory - Full Details

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 58 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 8.0 Recommendations
The following five sites are recommended as reserve list sites and will only be progressed if due diligence in WP4 fails one of the Select Inventory

Geo Containment

Development Cost
Containment Risk
Proximal
Site Capacity Injectivity Upside Nearest

Engineering
Code Unit Designation Geological Age Geological Formation Storage Type Site Description

Factor $M
per sq km
Number MT mDm Potential Beachhead
MT

Risk
Structural/Stratigraphic
248.007 Site 29 72 1286651 3.5 12 164 3982 Oil & Gas 6. Triassic Ormskirk Sandstone Fm Lennox oil & gas field Connah's Quay
Trap

Structural/Stratigraphic Britannia Condensate

220.001 Site 16 130 4572 1.4 10 548 10016 Gas Condensate 3. Lower Cretaceous Britannia Sandstone Fm St Fergus
Trap Field

Fully Confined (closed Balder Sandstone

252.000 Site 30 64 424080 0.2 11 432 6947 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Balder Fm St Fergus
box) Member 1

Fully Confined (closed Teal Sandstone

244.000 Site 21 114 46288 0.1 12 555 3379 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Sele Fm St Fergus
box) Member

Fully Confined (closed Flugga Sandstone

241.000 Site 23 99 64860 0.2 12 412 1890 Saline Aquifer 1. Paleogene Sele Fm St Fergus
box) Member

Table 24 - Reserve Inventory - Full Details

Key features of the Top Twenty are: • A strong portfolio with a broad geographic spread:
o SNS, CNS and EIS.
• Significant overall capacity target of 6.8GT.
o Proximal sites to 5/42 and 5/42
• Strong balance between saline formations and depleted
o .
hydrocarbon fields.
o Strong technical diversity of sites.
• Elimination of sites with high risk high confidence containment
issues.
• Strong compliance with IEAGHG screening guidelines.
Further recommendations drawn from this work include:-
• Compliance with Project BoD qualifications.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 59 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 8.0 Recommendations
1. The sites that do not meet IEAGHG cautionary thresholds should be was enhanced by considering two additional and simpler ranking
clearly flagged within the CO2Stored database. methods. Care should be taken with data sets that contain outlier
2. Careful consideration should be given regarding the merits of further values as these tend to reduce the effectiveness of the technique.
investment into the CO2Stored database entries that do not meet
IEAGHG cautionary criteria.
3. Any future consideration of the CO2 storage resource potential of the
UKCS should deploy a more rigorous handling of uncertainty to capture
a more realistic range.
4. The staged approach used in the screening process worked well and
allowed effort to be focussed on the sites that had some potential to
meet the project objectives.
5. The TOPSIS ranking methodology was an effective and robust way of
considering multiple attributes to help discriminate between sites. This

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 60 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select 9.0 References

9.0 References
Chadwick, A., Arts, R., Bernstone, C., May, F., Thibeau, S., & Zweigel, P. Pale Blue Dot Energy Ltd. (2015). A Blueprint for Industrial CCS in the UK -
(2008). Best Practice for the CO2 Storage in Saline Aquifers - Business Case. Retrieved from http://www.teessidecollective.co.uk/wp-
Observations and Guidelines from the SACS and CO2STORE projects. content/uploads/2015/06/Teesside-Collective-Business-Case1.pdf
Nottingham: British Geological Survey.
PGS. (2015). The PGS Mega surveys. Retrieved from
DECC - UK Government. (2015, March). UK Detailed Monthly OIl Production. http://www.pgs.com/upload/31007/MegaSurvey%20(1366Kb).pdf
Retrieved from https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/pprs/full_production.htm
spd. (2012). Aspen Conceptual Well Design Options - SPD-BOD-MP-CODS-
Det Norsk Veritas. (2012). DNV-RP-J203 Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide. 0069. Aberdeen: CO2DeepStore Ltd.
Det Norsk Veritas. Retrieved from http://www2.dnvgl.com/dnv-rp-j203
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN
Element Energy Ltd. (2012). Economic impacts of CO2-enhanced oil recovery UNION,. (2009). DIRECTIVE 2009/31/EC OF THE EUROPEAN
for Scotland. Scottish Enterprise. PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON THE GEOLOGICAL
STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE. Official Journal of the European
Energy Technologies Institue. (2011). UK Storage Appraisal Project. Energy
Union, 114-135.
Technologies Institute.
UK Government. (2010). The Storage of Carbon Dioxide 9Licensing etc.)
Energy Technologies Institute. (2010). CO2Stored. Retrieved from
Regulations 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.co2stored.co.uk/home.php
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2221/pdfs/uksi_20102221_en.
Energy Technologies Institute. (2015). Carbon capture and storage - Building pdf
the UK carbon capture and storage sector by 2030 - Scenanrios and
Yoon, P. K., & Hwang, C. L. (1995). Mutliple Attribute Decision Making - An
actions. Loughborough: Energy Technologies Institute.
Introduction. Sage Publications Inc.
Gluyas, J. G., & Hitchens, H. M. (2003). United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields
Commemorative Millenium Volume. London: Geological Society.

IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. (2009). CCS SIte Characterisation

Criteria. IEA.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 61 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 1 Key Valuation Assumptions
– Wood Mackenzie 2Q 2015
App. 1 Key Valuation Assumptions – Wood Mackenzie 2Q 2015

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 62 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 1 Key Valuation Assumptions
– Wood Mackenzie 2Q 2015

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 63 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 2 Stakeholder Meeting Report
– 2nd July 2015
App. 2 Stakeholder Meeting Report – 2nd July 2015
A Stakeholder workshop (02) was held on 2 nd July in London and hosted by
Pinsent Masons. The objectives of this workshop were:-
Agenda

 To keep CO2 Storage stakeholders appraised of project progress and 09:30 Welcome & Safety Briefing SJM
09:35 Purpose of Workshop SJM
enrol interest from the CCS stakeholder community 09:40 Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project SJM
 Stimulate debate around the selected top twenty candidate sites & 09:55 Screening & Selection ATJ
10:15 Results ATJ
gather input to the process. 10:45 Break All
11:00 Workshop Session All
The materials assembled here represent a workshop report and were “work in 12:00 Feedback
progress” as of 2nd July. 12:20 Next Steps SJM
12:30 Close SJM
Participants
Jeb Tyrie APEC Ltd
Ken Johnson Axis Well Technology
Stephen Cawley BP
Don Reid Capture Power
Brian Allison DECC
Graham Dawe DNV GL
Den Gammer ETI
Andrew Green ETI
Benjamin Court GCCSI
Bill Senior Ind
Nick Reeves National Grid
Eva Halland NPD
David Hartney OGA
Frances Harding Pale Blue Dot Energy
Alan James Pale Blue Dot Energy
Steve Murphy Pale Blue Dot Energy
Chris McGarvey Pinsent Masons

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 64 of 74

 D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 2 Stakeholder Meeting Report
– 2nd July 2015
Output 2. From a portfolio perspective it is good to see East Irish Sea sites in
the Top 20, but suggest reducing this to keep storage site
The following comments arose after group review and discussion of the process distribution proportionate with thee regional emissions picture.
adopted for down-select and also the preliminary results of the work:- 3. Notes that two of the Top 20 sites are representing the Hewett field
Group A and suggest that these could be amalgamated to simplify things
4. Suggest that the ranked sites would benefit from adding some well-
1. Suggestion to be clear that the “Development Cost Factor” is not a true
known benchmarks including 5/42 and Goldeneye
cost but a high level proxy for cost at this point. Perhaps consider
5. Happy with the diversity of store types – note that there are a
finding an alternative label for this.
number of open aquifers without structural confinement and
2. Suggest swap sites 30 and 28 – although that would lose the only “fully
suggest careful treatment of these going forwards.
confined box” in the top 20
6. Suggest swap sites 28 and 33
3. Concern that the Upside potential has played too much of a role in the
7. Suggest start to look for hybrid sites where confidence from a
selection. Suggest testing selection without the inclusion of the upside
depleted hydrocarbon field might be coupled with the capacity
potential
afforded by a saline aquifer build out. Noted that this effect is
4. Also suggested another sensitivity just using the “Qualified Inventory” in
reflected in the Upside potential available within a 20km radius of a
the Upside potential (ie exclude all capacity from outside the “Qualified
site.
Inventory”
8. Note that there is a good diversity of geological ages of potentials
5. The group has some concerns about site 16 and suggested perhaps
storage sites, but that the Jurassic is missing from the Top 20.
promoting site 8 in its place.
9. Important to look at the build out scenarios in WP4 and how sites
Group B might be connected together.

1. Agree with the broad focus on the “Simple View”.

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 65 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 2 Stakeholder Meeting Report
– 2nd July 2015

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 66 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 2 Stakeholder Meeting Report
– 2nd July 2015

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 67 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 2 Stakeholder Meeting Report
– 2nd July 2015

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 68 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 2 Stakeholder Meeting Report
– 2nd July 2015

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 69 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 2 Stakeholder Meeting Report
– 2nd July 2015

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 70 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 2 Stakeholder Meeting Report
– 2nd July 2015

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 71 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 2 Stakeholder Meeting Report
– 2nd July 2015

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 72 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 2 Stakeholder Meeting Report
– 2nd July 2015

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 73 of 74

D04: Initial Screening & Down-Select App. 2 Stakeholder Meeting Report
– 2nd July 2015

Pale Blue Dot Energy | Axis Well Technology Page 74 of 74