View source for OR/16/029 The broader perspective: experience of international CCS collaboration and industry view of research needs

__NOTOC__
{{OR/16/029}}
==Lessons learned from the experience of international research collaboration==
The broader perspective on international collaboration to share research and the lessons learned from the experience of IEAGHG was presented by James Craig. He highlighted journal publications, conference presentations, workshop and network meetings, research secondments and knowledge exchange visits as mechanisms for collaboration and illustrated projects demonstrating the value of international collaborative research. Examples were given of international collaborative projects that demonstrated the breadth and worldwide extent of research on the overburden to storage sites, experimental controlled releases of CO<sub>2</sub> and development of monitoring and modelling technologies.

Lessons learned from the review are that international collaborative CCS research projects are:
* Valuable to exchange research, development and design experience worldwide
* Excellent opportunities for comparative approaches for project development
* Platforms for technical innovation
* Enable comparison of approaches to regulation and outreach
* Inform strategies for risk assessment and mitigation

Research knowledge gaps were identified by the IEAGHG review were the capability to discriminate between the effects of changes in pressure and saturation from seismic data, and improved monitoring technologies hardware, better data processing and analysis, improved shallow subsurface imaging and more robust communications for permanent real-time monitoring. Quantification of geologically stored CO<sub>2</sub> and the detection and quantification of leakage also remain as a technical challenge.

==Industry perspective of ccs research knowledge gaps==
Industry participants, who had also participated in the breakout sessions, gave their perspective of knowledge gaps that should be addressed by CCS research.

'''Mervyn Wright, Wright Energy Solutions Ltd.''', emphasised the needs to advance CCS are reducing costs, by economy of scale and reducing the risk premium, and increasing confidence. Confidence should be increased for all stakeholder groups: regulators and other storage  formation users in secure containment; policy makers in the affordability of CCS; investors in  the performance of CCS chain. He advised to apply what was already available and to take a positive approach to illustrate that ‘CCS works’, give examples of success, and by drawing comparison with existing data and subsurface activities. A minimal approach to storage site monitoring and education of the regulators at the highest level, e.g. European Commission, was also recommended.

'''Tony Esbie, BP''', advised that research is needed to transform CCS from a feasible technology to a business by reduction of cost, also to increase storage capacity and confidence in operation and so reduce cost. Overall, the objective should be to change the perception of CCS to a view that ‘CO<sub>2</sub> storage is cheap’. Technologies for monitoring should be simple and straightforward, such as 2D and 3D seismic datasets, but cheaper technologies should be sought and development of fibre sensors was suggested for deployment both onshore and offshore. Telemetry systems are needed to transmit down-hole monitoring records. A system is needed to transmit monitoring data from pressure sensors deployed in wells fitted with packers and cement plugs. Mitigation of leaks fr

'''Theo Mitchell, Carbon Capture and Storage Association''', summarised the  industry perspective that practical implementation of CCS and at large scale would bridge knowledge gaps. He summarised the research and development priorities perceived by industry which are available at: [http://www.ccsassociation.org/index.php/download_file/view/990/496/ www.ccsassociation.org/index.php/download_file/view/990/496/.] Cost reduction, with rapid reduction in cost over the next 5 years, and increased confidence and certainty of cost are needed for CCS. Research should reduce the cross-chain risk to impart confidence in the CO<sub>2</sub> transport infrastructure, offshore storage and capture.

'''Andreas Busch, Shell, '''also affirmed the need to reduce costs and singled out monitoring as the largest cost for CO<sub>2</sub> storage. Cheaper methodologies and smarter technologies should be developed, also research to minimise baseline monitoring by reducing the areal extent and number of surveys. Research on migration processes, including the hydrodynamic properties of faults, is needed to inform computer flow modelling and tested at laboratory and pilot-scale projects. Funding support for data exchange, negotiating intellectual property issues and  embargo periods, would allow co-ordination not competition between storage formation operations. Overall, CCS research and development should aim to make CCS more cost effective and instil confidence in people who are not experts in CCS.

'''Rolando di Primo, Lundin''', supported the research needs identified by the preceding industry speakers and additionally highlighted CO<sub>2</sub> not as a cost but as a solvent for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). Research should consider how the cost of CO<sub>2</sub> storage could be reduced by CO<sub>2</sub> EOR, especially below the oil-water contact. He felt that zero-emissions hydrocarbon production, mandated by legislation, should be anticipated, with research to investigate the cost reduction associated with shared infrastructure for CO<sub>2</sub> storage and hydrocarbon production and delayed demobilisation of offshore infrastructure.

'''Alan James, Pale Blue Dot (Caledonian Clean Energy)''', noted that the greatest savings in cost can be made in those areas of largest spend. Knowledge sharing of costs would enable the areas of greatest spend to be identified. He felt that the biggest cost for transport and storage is infrastructure and research into increased storage efficiency would give greater return on the investment in costly CO<sub>2</sub> storage infrastructure. Other research areas identified were the monitoring and steering of the injected CO<sub>2</sub> plume and the geomechanical stability of depleted gas fields with re-pressurisation by CO<sub>2</sub> storage. Intermittency of CO<sub>2</sub> supply and increased cost associated with intermittent flow should also be investigated. Similarly, the consequence of abandoned wells and how to reduce the associated risk and cost of their presence within the extent of a storage site.
[[Category: OR/16/029 Pathways from pilot to demonstration: How can research advance CO2 geological storage deployment | 07]]