CCS CC1026 6

Programme Area: Carbon Capture and Storage
Project: DECC Storage Appraisal
Title: Prospect Summary Sheets
Abstract:
This report contains data sheets on all the UK storage options considered by the Storage Apraisal Project.
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.
Site 1 – 226.011 – Bunter Closure 9 – SNS
Axis generated Top Bunter Sandstone depth map (ft)
~100km B
Capacity
A’ The calculated storage capacity is 1977MT compared to the reported capacity

in CO2Stored of 1691MT. Whilst the gross rock volume (GRV) calculated as a
part of the DD is lower, nearby analogue Bunter Sst data show higher average
porosity than those on CO2Stored resulting in a 20% higher calculated capacity.
49/27-e8 Whilst there are uncertainties associated with the inputs to the capacity
49/27-A2 calculation, there is a high degree of confidence in the storage capacity which
has been calculated.
49/27-F9
Whilst faulting within the Bunter can developed due to post depositional
A halokenisis, compartmentalisation due to faulting is not thought to be a risk for
B’ this storage site, and the volume should be well connected.
Major offshore areas covered by Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well
CO2Stored (© Energy Technologies
Image source: courtesy of CDA through an open licence agreement
Technology, 2015 Ci: 200ft
Institute)
Axis generated Bunter Sst Isochore (ft), generated from well data Bunter 9 Dip and Strike seismic lines from PGS MegaSurvey
A A’ B B’
Bunter Closure 9
Bunter
Closure 9
Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015
Data
Image source: modified from Cooke-
Yarborough (1991) “The Hewett Field,
Blocks 48/28-29-30, 52/4a-5a, UK North Bunter Closure 9 is covered by the 3D seismic from the SNS PGS MegaSurvey. The data quality is generally moderate
Sea”, In Abbotts, I. L. (ed.), 1991, United due to low fold of coverage in the shallow section. The acquisition foot-print can clearly be seen in shallow time Dip Line Strike Line
Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years slices. The well ties confirm the time interpretation.
Commemorative Volume, Geological
Society Memoir No. 14, pp. 433-442. CDA well data is available over the Leman field and surrounding exploration wells. E&A well data has been Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
downloaded from CDA. Log coverage over the Bunter interval is variable.
Top Triassic Top Rotliegendes Sandstone
Top Bunter Sandstone Near Top Carboniferous
Top Zechstein
Key Risk Summary
Capacit
Bunter Injectivity
y Engineered Containment Geo Containment
Closure 9 (mDm)
(MT) Injectivity
Wells Leakage Containment
/sq.km risk risk The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Bunter Closure 9 this was calculated as 33,380 mDm.
Selection 1691 33,380 0.57 n/a n/a 9 The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 94,500 mDm. This is considerably higher than the estimate based on the CO2stored data, and is due to a difference in the assumed average permeability. CO2Stored
Criteria assumes an average permeability of 100mD. This is very low when compared to nearby SNS analogue Bunter Sst reservoirs. The Hewett Gas Field has average permeabilites in excess of 500 mD. The nearby Little Dotty Gas Field (a part of
Due 1977 94,500 0.07 0.12 0.008 9 Hewett), with average Bunter Sst permeabilities of 350 mD, is used as an analogue for this storage site.
Diligence
With no permeability data available for the Bunter Sst at the storage site, permeability, its regional lateral variation and heterogeneity remain an uncertainty. Bunter Sst reservoir quality at this depth and initial CO2 injectivity within the
SNS is considered to be good. Neither reservoir quality or injectivity are considered to be a high risk.
Capacity Calculation A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over time. A simple model was built in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2 will be injected in critical or dense phase as the reservoir pressure is
expected to be high in saline aquifer. Injection pressure of 1900 psi is required to achieve the injectivity threshold of 1MT/year per well.
Pore Theoretical
Thickness2 GRV CO2 Density3 Pore Space
NTG2 Porosity1 Volume Capacity
[m] [MMm3] [Tonnes/ m3] Utilisation3
[MMm3] [MT]
300 106,534 0.9 0.21 0.75 0.13 20,135 1977
NB. 1: Analogue field data Little Dotty (Ref 6) 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored
Injectivity Validation
Depositional Gross Perm1 Kh Containment
Zone NTG2 Porosity1
Environment Thickness2 [m] [mD] [mDm]
Bunter Sst Fluvial/ Lacustrine 300 0.9 0.21 350 94,500 An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Bunter Sandstone to identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or
fault leakage of the sequestered CO2.
NB. 1: Analogue field data Little Dotty (Ref 6) 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored The site is an elongate 4-way dip closure with some faulting. The Bunter sandstone reservoir is overlain by over 2500ft of Triassic halites and claystones extending to the seabed and forming an excellent cap rock, however it is penetrated
by faulting. There are less than 10 faults with throws of less than 50m.
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 9. This is the same as the previous calculated factor in WP3 based on CO2Stored data. Due to poor shallow seismic data quality the vertical extent of the faults above the Bunter Sandstone is
difficult to resolve.
Containment Validation
Engineering Risk
Geo Containment
Risk code Fault Characterisation Seal Characterisation Georisk Factor The engineering containment risk is moderate to low, with 226 wells in total, but only 28 considered at risk of leakage. From CDA data there appears to be a large number of current producing wells, suggesting that they might not be
Throw & Fault abandoned until near COP, estimated to be 2030 by Wood Mac. This seems unlikely given the age of the wells and requires further investigation. From data available, 28 wells were plugged and abandoned, 13 of which were before 1986,
Fault Verical Fracture Pressure Seal Chemical Seal representing the highest risk. The 100yr probability of a leakage on the field is a moderate 0.12, and the well density factor is 0.07 wells/km2, resulting in a low containment risk assessment score of 0.008.
Density Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity Degradation
Bunter Closure 9 226.011 2 2 2 1 1 1 9
2 2 2 1 1 1 9
Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored

1 no additional data to qc, values taken from CO2Stored
Costs
Site
Site Reference: 1 Bunter Closure 9
Description
Water Depth
Capacity: 1977 30
(m)
Development Concept
Comparative Ultimate
Concept Cost (£m) Description
CO2 volumes cf ETI Scenarios Development Development
The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 29MT/yr by 2030 into the SNS via Barmston. It is possible that the first 17Mt/yr could be stored at 5/42. On the basis of this Scenario, additional SNS storage would be needed by 2027 and need to be capable of storing Tonnes Injected (MT) 100 1000 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
12Mt/yr by 2030. Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
Appraisal Cost: £54m £54m
Interpretation
Build out potential Development Well
Bunter Closure 9 is reasonably close to the two Hewett Reservoirs (600MT combined), Viking (310MT) and Bunter Closure 3 (232MT). The Barque depleted gas field (91MT) is on the likely pipeline route from Barmston. These all represent potential regional growth £80.3m £802.7m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
Cost:
opportunities.
Facilities Cost: £329.7m £1009.6m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
Comparative Development Concept PM & Eng: £33m £101m 10% of Facilities Costs
A new Normally Unmanned Installation (NUI) comprising a jacket and topsides with 5 deviated wells, each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT over 20 years. CO2 would be delivered via a new 20” 194km pipeline from Barmston with 10MT/yr capacity. Facilities will £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea
be controlled from the beach with the NUI including power generation and controls relay. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors. Decommissioning: £112.5m £552.4m
well
Subtotal £609.3m £2519.6m
Site growth potential; theoretical Ultimate Development Concept
The site has a theoretical storage capacity of ~1977MT; The capacity is constrained to 1000MT for this prospect evaluation stage. Contingency £121.9m £504m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
OPEX (20years) £395.6m £1211.5m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
10 new NUI Platforms, each with 5 wells injecting a total of 50Mt/yr; totalling 1000MT over 20 years. CO2 would be delivered via a new 36” 194km pipeline from Barmston with a 50Mt/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the beach. Power generation and Total: £1126.7m £4235m
controls relay will be provided from a single primary NUI. Platforms are connected by 10km infield pipelines and umbilical's.
£/T CO2 11.27 4.23
*These costs are not the full cost of storage as they omit MMV, security instruments, handover to DECC and profit.
Commercial Issues
Bunter C9 is in the vicinity of the Leman gas field which is not expected to cease production until
2030. There is likely to be some risk of operational interaction between gas extraction and CO2 Site 1 – 226.011 – Bunter Closure 9 – SNS
storage activity which would compromise CO2 storage at this site prior to COP on Leman.
Site Summary
Capacity (Due Diligence): 1977 MT UKCS Block: 49/26, 49/27
Unit Designation: Saline Aquifer Beachhead: Barmston
Well Design Formation: Water Depth:
Triassic Bunter Sst 30 m
The generic well design is discussed in the supporting document ‘Storage Site Due Diligence
Summary’. It is likely that this well design can be achieved in the Bunter C9. Containment Unit: Rot Halite Reservoir Depth: 840m TVDSS (2750 ft)
Availability/COP: n/a Region: SNS
Due to the shallow water depth (30m), wells can be drilled by a low cost class 1 Jack-Up Drilling
Unit. Platform well costs are assumed to be £16M per well, resulting in a 5 well development Client The Energy Technologies Institute Title D06: Prospect Summary Sheets Date of Issue 7th August 2015
cost of £80.3M. Project Title DECC Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project Classification Client Confidential Version V00
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
References 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
1. Vincent, C.J. 2005 “Porosity of the Bunter SST in the SNS Basin based on selected Borehole Neutron Logs” BGS Internal Report IR/05/074. 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.
2. Bentham, M.S.; Green, A.; Gammer, D. 2013 The occurrence of faults in the Bunter Sandstone Formation of the UK Sector of the Southern North Sea and the potential
impact on storage capacity. Energy Procedia, 37. 5101-5109
Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project
3. J.D.O. Williams, M. Bentham, M. Jin, G. Pickup, E. Mackay, D. Gammer, A. Green (2013) “The effect of geological structure and heterogeneity on CO2 storage in simple 4-
way dip structures; a modeling study from the UK Southern North Sea”, Energy Procedia, 37, Pages 3980–3988.
BEINN
156 WEST BRAE

KINGFISHER
BRAE
MILLER
137 201
11
ENOCH
LARCH
12
BIRCH
138 13
14
SYCAMORE
15
16
CLAYMORE
ATHENA PIPER TIFFANY
SCAPA
Site 2 – 372.000 – Forties 5 – CNS

139
HIGHLANDER SALTIRE TONI
IONA
LYBSTER CHANTER
TARTAN
DUART BALLOCH
CAPTAIN
DONAN
LOCHRANZA THELMA
PETRONELLA
140 JACKY MACCULLOCH BLADON
GALLEY
SCOTT
BLENHEIM
BLAKE
BEATRICE
NICOL BURGHLEY
TELFORD
BALMORAL KINNOULL
HAMISH STIRLING
141 ROB ROY
IVANHOE
BRENDA
BLAIR
GLAMIS BEAULY
ROSS
FARRAGON
MAUREEN
CROMARTY CALEDONIA
142 ALDER
CYRUS
RUBIE
RENEE
ATLANTIC BRITANNIA
SOLITAIRE ROCHELLE
ALBA
ANDREW MOIRA
GOLDENEYE
338 GOLDEN EAGLE MARIA
HANNAY
143 CALLANISH
TWEEDSMUIR
ENOCHDHU HAWKINS
TWEEDSMUIR SOUTH
FLEMING
CHESTNUT SEYMOUR
ETTRICK
BRODGAR
1°15'E 1°20'E 1°25'E 1°30'E 1°35'E 1°40'E 1°45'E 1°50'E 1°55'E 2°00'E 2°05'E 2°10'E
144 BUCHAN
DRAKE
BLACKBIRD
57°52'00"N
BUZZARD SHELLEY
339
57°52'00"N
57°48'00"N
57°48'00"N
22/10a-7
BACCHUS
TONTO
22/09-2
57°44'00"N
FORTIES
57°44'00"N
127 MAULE 22/09-3 EVEREST
BRIMMOND
22/10a-4
22/08a-3
22/09-4
57°40'00"N
57°40'00"N
372.000 Forties 5 – Forties SST Mbr., Sele Fm., Moray Group 372.000 Forties 5 – Forties SST Mbr., Sele Fm., Moray Group
17 NELSON 22/10b-6
HOWE
22/14a-2
22/12a-9
X-section 16'
57°36'00"N
18
HUNTINGTON 22/15-2
57°36'00"N
128 BARDOLINO 22/14-1
22/14b-5
19
DAUNTLESS
22/15-3
57°32'00"N
57°32'00"N
20
GOOSANDER
21
DURWARD 23/11-2
22
KITTIWAKE GROUSE 23
57°28'00"N
57°28'00"N
22/19b-4
129
GADWALL
MONTROSE 22/18-3
MALLARD CAYLEY
57°24'00"N
GODWIN
57°24'00"N
22/18-5
CARNOUSTIE
COOK ARBROATH WOOD MUNGO
1°15'E 1°20'E 1°25'E 1°30'E 1°35'E 1°40'E 1°45'E 1°50'E MONAN

1°55'E 2°00'E 2°05'E 2°10'E
130 0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500m
GANNET D
BRECHIN 1:337500
PICT
TEAL ARKWRIGHT
SHAW MIRREN
LOMOND
SAXON MARNOCK-SKUA (cond)
CLAPHAM TEAL SOUTH GANNET G
130 MARNOCK-SKUA (oil)
GUILLEMOTGUILLEMOT
NORTH WESTNORTH
GANNET B
GANNET A
GUILLEMOT WEST
GUILLEMOT A EGRET PIERCE
PIERCE (gas)
(oil)
GANNET C MADOES
MERGANSER PIERCE (oil)
PIERCE
PIERCE (gas)
(oil)
HERON
SCOTER (oil)
SCOTER (gas)
132
GANNET E
GANNET F
MACHAR
SHEARWATER ERSKINE
133
BANFF ELGIN
GLENELG
STARLING FRANKLIN
134
BITTERN
BITTERN(gas)
BITTERN (oil)
(oil)
KYLE
BLANE
135
JADE
FRAM
STELLA
JASMINE
CURLEW CURLEW C
Forties 5
HARRIER
JUDY
JOANNE
25
Northern Forties 5 26
27
28 HALLEY
Part
29
30
southern
FULMAR
LEVEN
AUK NORTH
CLYDE
MEDWIN
NETHAN ORION
AUK
JANICE
Part JAMES
123
Image source: courtesy of CDA through an open licence agreement Image source: courtesy of CDA through an open licence agreement
124
Major offshore areas covered by 125
CO2Stored (© Energy Technologies 126
Institute)
33
34
35
36
Axis generated Near Top Palaeocene depth map (ft)

37
38
Data Development Concept Axis generated Palaeocene Isochore (ft)

Approximately 95% of Forties 5 aquifer CO2 volumes cf ETI Scenarios
sandstone is covered by 3D seismic The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 11MT/yr by 2030 into the CNS via St Fergus. 1MT goes to
within the CNS PGS MegaSurvey. Data Goldeneye. 10MT/yr of additional storage may be required by 2030.
coverage in the northern part of the site
is not as extensive as it is to the south. Build out potential A
The data quality is generally good. The Forties 5 aquifer is en-route to the Maureen 1 and May 1 aquifers, which represent additional build out A
Utsira Sands outside site well ties confirm the seismic time potential should it be required. 111
area to North (22/4b-6) interpretation, however for WP4 the top B’

112
B’
Forties sandstone member had not been Comparative Development Concept 113
FORBES
mapped. A new subsea development with 5 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT over 20 years.
BREAGH
ESMOND
40
CYGNUS
41
CO2 would be delivered via a new 20” 186km pipeline from St Fergus with 10MT/yr capacity. Power and 42
43
C’ GORDON
44
2,106 wells have been drilled in this area controls will be supplied from an existing neighbouring platform. Monitoring will include downhole C’ B CAVENDISH HAWKSLEY
TYNE NORTH
Secondary Seal B MUNRO

TYNE SOUTH
and a range of digital and non-digital pressure and distributed temperature sensors. MCADAM
KELVIN
data are available.

HUNTER
KILMAR
TRENT
GARROW
RITA
MURDOCH
Primary Seal
RHYL
Site growth potential; theoretical Ultimate Development Concept MILLOM

BOULTON
CAISTER CARBONIFEROUS
C
CAISTER BUNTER
WATT
There are no engineering data available The site has a theoretical storage capacity of ~1400MT; The capacity is constrained to 1000MT for this NORTH MORECAMBE
C WOLLASTON
Primary Store
WHITTLE
DALTON
for aquifer sands. Analogue data and prospect evaluation stage.

RAVENSPURN
RAVERNSPURN SOUTH SCHOONER
KETCH
A’
CLEETON
SOUTH MORECAMBE BAINS JOHNSTON
Secondary Store correlations will be used. Some data may CALDER

A’ MINERVA
NEPTUNE
BABBAGE
ARTEMIS TOPAZ
be available from Forties reservoir fields. A new subsea development comprising of 10 subsea manifolds each with 5 wells injecting a total of
APOLLO
YORK
ROUGH
50Mt/yr; totalling 1000MT over 20 years. CO2 would be delivered via a 36” 186km pipeline from St Fergus
ERIS
HYDE

HAMILTON NORTH HOTON
CONWY
108 CERES
LENNOX (oil)
LENNOX (gas)
(oil) MERCURY
with a 50Mt/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the beach. Power and controls will be supplied Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015
HAMILTON EAST
MIMAS
HELVELLYN WEST SOLE

NEWSHAM SEVEN SEAS
HAMILTON
109
ANN
DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS WEST SATURN
from an existing neighbouring platform or a dedicated facility. Subsea centres are connected by 10km 110 AMETHYST WEST
Ci: 250ft
ROSE
infield pipelines and umbilical's. Forties 5 CO2Stored outline Forties 5 CO2Stored outline AMETHYST EAST BARQUE SOUTH
BARQUE ENSIGN
TETHYS
Ci: 250ft
WENLOCK
Maureen 1 CO2Stored outline

JULIET MALORY
PICKERILL AUDREY
46 GALAHAD

VIKING A
MORDRED
47
48
GALLEON ALISON 49
EXCALIBUR VIKING E
VAMPIRE
Image source: modified from Wills,

CLIPPER NORTH VICTORIA
VALKYRIE
GUINEVERE SKIFF VIKING C VIKING D

VIKING B
LANCELOT CLIPPER SOUTH B
VIXEN
ANGLIA VISCOUNT
J. M., The Forties Field, Block 21/10, WAVENEY

NORTH VALIANT VANGUARD
GANYMEDE VICTOR
INDEFA
22/6a, UK North Sea. BP Exploration,

SOUTH VALIANT
DURANGO INDEFATIGABLE SOUTH WEST
BAIRD
SINOPE
CALLISTO BELL
VULCAN
Fig 2
C
EUROPA
BESSEMER
BEAUFORT
DAWN
BURE
Random Dip seismic line across the Forties 5 Saline Aquifer Random Dip seismic line across the Forties 5 Saline Aquifer Random Strike seismic line across the Forties 5 Saline Aquifer BIG DOTTY
HEWETT
DEBORAH
DELILAH
DELLA
LITTLE DOTTY
LEMAN
DEBEN
THURNE
THAMES
WENSU
YARE
LEMAN SOUTH
CAMELOT NORTH EAST

CAMELOT NORTH
CAMELOT CENTRAL SOUTH
HORN
ABERDONIA
ARTHUR
A A’
W
B B’ C 106
C’
107
Forties Member
51
52
53
Forties Member
Forties Member
101
102
103
104
105
55
56
57
Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015. Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Near Top Palaeocene Base Cretaceous Unconformity
Near Top Palaeocene Base Cretaceous Unconformity Near Top Palaeocene Base Cretaceous Unconformity Near Base Tertiary
91
Near Base Tertiary Near Base Tertiary Near Top Middle Jurassic
Near Top Middle Jurassic
92
Near Top Middle Jurassic Near Top Lower Cretaceous

Near Top Lower Cretaceous
93
Near Top Permian
Near Top Permian Near Top Lower Cretaceous Near Top Permian 94
WYTCH FARM
BEACON
95
96
Key Risk Summary 97
98
99
Capacity
100
58
Capacity Injectivity Time slice at 4300msec through Forties Time slice at 4000msec through
Forties 5 Engineered Containment Geo Containment The calculated storage capacity is 1021MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of 1388MT.
(MT) (mDm) Saline Aquifer area Forties 5 Saline Aquifer area
Wells Leakage Containment 82
The capacity has decreased due to an decrease in the assumed average thickness.
/sq.km risk risk 83
Selection 1,388 19,012 0.13 n/a n/a 16 GRV for the Forties sandstone is calculated within the polygon area shown on the map (13,804 sq km). A 3D seismic coverage data gap
84 A
Criteria simple calculation of area times thickness has been made. 85
Due Diligence 1,021 22,871 0.14 0.98 0.14 16 86
Thickness and NTG are highly variable across the large Forties aquifer area. It should be possible to reduce 87 B’
88
Capacity Calculation some of this uncertainty range during any subsequent work phases both through more detailed modelling 89
and analysis of data. C’

Pore Theoretical B
Thickness2 GRV CO2 Density3 Pore Space Overlap of
NTG2 Porosity1 Volume Capacity Injectivity
[m] [MMm3] [Tonnes/ m3] 71 Utilisation3 Maureen and
[MMm3] [MT]
134 1,849,682 0.68 0.23 0.63 0.006 289290 1021 Forties storage C
The WP3 selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the
72
73
sites
NB. 1: Analogue field data and literature 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Forties 5 saline aquifer this was calculated as 19,012 A’
74
mDm. 75
Injectivity Validation Field data and published literature have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir properties which Forties 5 CO2Stored outline Well Forties 5 CO2Stored outline
Maureen 1 CO2Stored outline Maureen 1 CO2Stored outline
have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected injectivity.
Depositional Gross Perm Kh
Zone NTG Porosity CO2Stored Forties Exemplar Model CO2Stored Forties Exemplar Model
Environment Thickness [m] [mD] [mDm]
Forties 5 aquifer consists of sandstones of Upper Paleocene Forties Sandstone member of the Sele Fm. Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Forties Submarine Fan 134 0.68 0.23 251 22,871
61
and Moray Group 1. The aquifer extends over 7 quads, multiple blocks and fields – including the Forties
Field (CDA Map). These Paleocene Forties reservoirs are found in Montrose, Arbroath, Everest, Nelson and
Containment Validation Costs
62
Arkwright fields 2.
Site
Geo Containment Risk code Fault Characterisation Seal Characterisation Georisk Factor Site Reference: 2 Forties 5
Overall the variety of bed thickness ranges from the thicker central fan sequences in Forties, Montrose, Description
Fault
Arbroath and Arkwright, to the thinner Nelson field Forties sand. Porosity generally is good for the fan Water Depth
Throw & Verical Fracture Pressure Seal Chemical Seal Capacity: 1021 80
Density Fault Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity Degradation (m)
sequences with the distal Forties facies in the Everest field showing diagenesis. Permeabilities reflect this
Forties 5 372.000 3 3 2 3 3 2 16 Comparative Ultimate
with a large range over the Forties sand distribution. Concept Cost (£m)
Development Development
Description
3 3 2 3 3 2 16
Tonnes Injected (MT) 100 1000 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
Containment Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored Appraisal Cost: £86m £86m
1 no additional data to qc, values taken from CO2Stored Interpretation
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Forties 5 saline aquifer storage Development Well
£215.4m £2153.5m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
site to identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the storage Cost:
complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault leakage of the sequestered CO2. Facilities Cost: £247.9m £119.8m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
PM & Eng: £24.8m £12m 10% of Facilities Costs
The primary seal for the Forties Sandstones are the overlying Sele Formation shales. These form the top Decommissioning: £102m £430m £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea well
seal for the Forties Sandstone hydrocarbon fields. Subtotal £676m £2801.2m
Contingency £135.2m £560.3m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
Fault density is variable; there are large areas with no faulting. Containment risk would be dependent on the OPEX (20years) £297.4m £143.8m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
top seal and faulting within the local area of interest. Total: £1108.5m £3505.2m
£/T CO2 11.08 3.51
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 16, this is the same as the previously calculated factor in WP3
based on CO2Stored data. *These costs are not the full cost of storage as they omit MMV, security instruments, handover to DECC and profit.
Well Design
The generic well design is discussed in the supporting

document ‘Storage Site Due Diligence Summary’. It is
likely that this well design can be achieved in the Site 2 – 372.000 – Forties 5 - CNS
Forties 5.
Due to the moderate average water depth (80m), wells
have been assumed as drilled by a class 2 (Heavy Duty) Site Summary
Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Subsea well costs are assumed to Capacity (Due Diligence): 1,021 MT UKCS Block: Quads 15-16; 21-22; 28-30
be £43M per well, resulting in a 5 well development
cost of £215.3M. Unit Designation: Saline Aquifer Beachhead: St Fergus
Formation: Water Depth: 80 m
Sele Fm. (Forties Sst)
Commercial Issues Sele Fm Shale

Containment Unit: Reservoir Depth: 1,500 m TVDSS (5,000 ft)
The Forties aquifer covers a large area and therefore Availability/COP: n/a Region: CNS
the centre of the development has some flexibility.
Many of the blocks in the area are licensed for oil and Client The Energy Technologies Institute Title D06: Prospect Summary Sheets Date of Issue 7th August 2015
gas, but site flexibility would suggest that access should
Project Title DECC Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project Classification Client Confidential Version V00
not be an issue.
Disclaimer:
References 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
1. Carter, A. and Heale, J. (2003) “The Forties and Brimmond Fields, Blocks 21/10, 22/6a, UK North Sea”, in Gluyas, J. G. & Hichens, H. M. (eds) 2003. United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, Commemorative Millennium 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
Volume. Geological Society, London, Memoir, 20, 557-561. 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.
2. S. J. O'CONNOR and D. WALKER (1993) “Paleocene reservoirs of the Everest trend” From Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the 4th Conference (edited by J. R. Parker). 1993 Petroleum Geology '86
Ltd. Published by The Geological Society, London, pp. 145-160.
Site 3 – 248.005 – South Morecambe Gas Field – EIS
Development Scenarios
CO2 volumes cf ETI Scenarios

The ETI Balanced Scenario shows 5MT/y into the EIS by 2030, with initial injection circa 2026. S Morecambe does not become available until 2028. (Concentrated and
EOR scenarios show no CO2 being stored in the EIS before 2030).
North
Build out potential
Morecambe Build out of CO2 storage would be facilitated by the nearby N Morecambe field and Hamilton.
South Comparative Development Concept

Morecambe A new Normally Unmanned Installation (NUI) comprising a jacket and topsides with 5 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT over 20 years. CO2 would
be delivered via a 20” 83km pipeline from Point of Ayr with 10MT/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the beach with the NUI providing its own power and
controls. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors.

Lennox The site has a theoretical storage capacity of ~855MT.
Hamilton (Oil and A new development comprising 9 new NUI platforms, with a total of 43 wells injecting a total of 43Mt/yr; totalling 855MT. CO2 would be delivered via a 36” 83 km
pipeline from Point of Ayr with a 50Mt/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the beach. Power generation and controls relay will be provided from a single
Gas) primary NUI. Platforms are connected by 10km infield pipelines and umbilical's.
Major offshore areas covered by Image source: courtesy of CDA through an open licence agreement
Institute)
SW NE NW SE
AXIS Depth Structure Map: South Morecambe Field: A A’ B B’
Top Sherwood Sst Fm (ft tvdss)
B A’ Data
South Morecambe Gas field is densely
covered by 2D seismic of varying vintages
and one large 3D survey acquired in 1994.
Much of early data has poor reflection quality
and high background noise2. 3D Survey
covers 700 km2 and undershoots 6
platforms. Although footprints of the
A
platforms are visible on the data, the deeper
GWC 3750ft tvd reflectors can be discerned 1 . Current
evaluation for WP4 is based on 2D seismic
B’ interpretation. The 3D seismic volume is
released data and a copy can be obtained
from the operator (at a significant cost).
Data is available in CDA but digital log and

core data is limited. Well 110/2a-12 has log
data available in DLIS and LIS format.

South Morecambe Field
South Morecambe Field
Image source: modified from Yaliz, A. and Taylor, P The
Hamilton and Hamilton North Gas Fields, Block 110/13a,
East Irish Sea United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields
Commemorative Millennium Volume, The Geological
Society of London 2003
Key
Rossal Halite
Key Risk Summary Top Ormskirk Sst Fm
Image source: Seismic data provided by CDA through an open licence agreement. Original interpretation from Axis
South Well Technology, 2015. Top St Bees Fm
Capacity Injectivity Geo
Morecambe Engineered Containment
(MT) (mDm) Containment
Gas Field
/sq.km risk risk
Selection 776.2 90,753 0.44 n/a n/a 10 Capacity
Criteria The calculated storage capacity is 855MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of 776.2MT. These are in reasonable agreement.
Due 855 31,240 0.05 0.012 0.0006 12
Diligence For the South Morecambe field, the due diligence involves a recalculation of the capacity equivalent to the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at February 2015. In addition, the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at COP
was estimated and the capacity calculated at this time to confirm the full capacity estimate. The COP date for South Morecambe in the supplied Woodmac data is 2028.
Capacity Calculation South Morecambe produces a dry gas with condensate and small volumes of water production. DECC reports no gas and no water injection volumes. All produced fluids were accounted for in the material balance calculation to
check potential storage capacity.
Gas Production 146555 MCM
Condensate Production 2.15 MCM Current gas rates are ~4000Ksm3/d (~142mmscf/d). The additional storage capacity associated with continued production to COP is estimated to be 64MT (~8%).
Water Production *Based on production to date 0.026 MCM
Net Reservoir Volume Produced 1000.4 MCM
Injectivity
Storage capacity 855 MT The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the South Morecambe Field this was calculated as 90,753 mDm.
NB. Volumes refer to production volumes at February 2015. Field data and published literature have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir properties which have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected injectivity.
The field comprises moderate average net to gross, low-moderate quality dune and stacked fluvial sandstones of the Sherwood Sandstone (Ormskirk and St. Bees Fm.). Permeability decreases due to illite precipitation below the
Injectivity Validation palaeo GWC (Ref 2) which limits the capacity for CO2 storage 3.
Depositional Gross Perm Kh The sandstone can be subdivided into four Ormskirk zones – RL1, RL2, RL3 and RL4. The reservoir properties are summarised in the Injectivity Validation table.
Zone NTG Porosity
RLI Stacked fluvial 26 0.79 0.14 150 3,034 The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 31,240 mDm. This is approximately 66% lower than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. The gross thickness of the St Bees reservoir is uncertain, and
could be up to 1200m thicker below the Ormskirk (200-260m thick) 1 .
RL2 Fluvial/aeolian/sabkha 93 0.79 0.14 150 11,016
RL3 Sandflat SST 71 0.79 0.14 150 8,416
The gross thickness is obtained from well 110/02-12 comp log and confirmed by Ref erence 1. Available well log data does not cover the entire St. Bees formation; therefore the NTG of this formation is also uncertain. Only
RL4 Aeolian 54 0.79 0.14 150 6,357 110/8a-12 has a full section of the St. Bees Formation and a FWL of the reservoir is only calculated by RFT pressure data. Reservoir quality is extremely variable due to the presence of illite, with average porosity and permeability
St.Bees Stacked fluvial 20 0.79 0.14 150 2,417 values taken from the literature.
All Zones 264 0.79 0.14 150 31,240
Additional Injectivity checks
Two additional injectivity checks were carried out as part of the due diligence.
Containment Validation 1. The initial production performance per well was converted to an equivalent CO2 injection rate to gain some confidence that that the 1MT/year/well target could be met.
Geo Containment Risk code Fault Characterisation Seal Characterisation Georisk Factor Early life production data from a selection of wells is available on the DECC website. CO2 injection at the initial field pressure mostly meets the injectivity requirement per well. At low (current) field pressures, the injectivity is
Fault much smaller due to CO2 being in the gas phase. A much larger difference between well and formation pressure would be required to meet the required Final production pressure is based on depletion of approximately 10% of
Throw & Verical Fracture Pressure Seal Chemical Seal initial pressure.
Density Fault Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity Degradation 2. A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over time. A simple model was built in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2 will be injected in the gas phase initially as the reservoir pressure
South Morecambe gas field 248.005 3 2 1 1 1 2 10 is expected to be too low for dense phase injection. A DP (well–formation pressure) range of 150psi to 650psi was tested and the corresponding injectivity per well is 0.08 MT/year and 0.41 MT/year. However required target of 1
12 MT /year is achieved for higher DP of 770 psi. Injection pressure required to achieve 1 MT/ year is 950 psi which is less than the fracture pressure of 3265 psi. The required DP cannot be determined accurately with this simple
3 2 3 1 1 2
model but the results indicate that the injectivity can be achieved with higher DP of 770 psi for this site.

Containment Costs
Well Design Site
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Ormskirk Sandstone to identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration Site Reference: 3 South Morecambe gas field
Description
pathways out of the storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault leakage of the sequestered CO2. The generic well design is discussed in the supporting Water Depth
document ‘Storage Site Due Diligence Summary’. However, the Capacity: 855 25
(m)
Field data and published literature were reviewed to establish the effectiveness of trap and seal. Depth to crest of the reservoir is 914 m1
. Broad domal horst- South Morecambe Bay injection wells may depart from the Comparative Ultimate
structure passing southward to tilted fault blocks forms the trap South Morecambe, fault bounded on the western margin with closure on the eastern margin formed generic design due to the shallow reservoir depth. This suggests Concept Cost (£m) Description
by an easterly dip 1 ,2. Extensional faults which displace the reservoir trending E-W were identified using the 1997 3D seismic data 1 . The Ormskirk sandstone reservoir that, with restricted build angle and kick-off point, the well may
not reach horizontal in the target reservoir. Current producing Tonnes Injected (MT) 100 855 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
is overlain by 975m (3200ft) of Mercia mudstones and halites forming an excellent continuous cap rock. CO2 is not expected to leak through the top seal which has Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
wells include high angle wells (~60deg), but these have been
already trapped South Morecambe gas over geological time, or via reservoir level faults. Appraisal Cost: £0m £0m
drilled at an angle from surface in order to achieve the step out Interpretation
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 12. This has increased from 10 (calculated in WP3). The increase is due to the Fault vertical extent factor being increased required. Further detailed well design work is required, and the Development Well
from 1 to 3 (as the faults extend above 800m and possibly to the seabed). South Morecambe Bay target should not be discounted on this £111.5m £958.5m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
Cost:
basis at this stage. Of further concern is the ability to drill new
Engineering Risk wells in the depleted gas field, particularly at a high angle, due
to wellbore stability issues. This may limit the achievable PM & Eng: £14.9m £60.7m 10% of Facilities Costs
deviation in the reservoir section. £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea
The calculated engineering containment risk is low, with forty four wells in the field and only 4 considered at risk of leakage (other wells are suspended or still Decommissioning: £67.3m £413.7m
well
producing and are assumed to be abandoned at COP, which being after 2025, is expected to result in a negligible leak risk). Three wells were plugged and abandoned Due to the shallow water depth (25m), wells can be drilled by a Subtotal £342.4m £2039.5m
before 1986, representing the highest assessed risk. However, there is concern over future well abandonments as a number of the producing wells have been drilled low cost class 1 Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Platform well costs are
at a 30deg slant from surface (i.e. their production trees are also at a slant). There is no drilling rig that can access these slant wells currently operating in the UK. It is Contingency £68.5m £407.9m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
assumed to be £22M per well, including a contingency cost for
likely that coiled tubing abandonment will be used. Furthermore, as the wells are slant from surface, the top section of the well represents multiple point leak paths to managing CO2 phase change, resulting in a 5 well development OPEX (20years) £178.7m £728.1m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
surface (rather than parallel to the wellbore as with conventional wells). This will require a bespoke abandonment practice to be developed in the future, which will cost of £111.4M. Total: £589.6m £3175.5m
need to be risk assessed at that time. Assuming slant wells have been abandoned to the same standards as conventional wells, the total storage target leakage risk is £/T CO2 5.90 3.71
0.012 and the well density factor is 0.05 wells/km2, resulting in a very low leakage risk assessment score of 0.0006. This figure is subject to future review.
Commercial Issues
Site 3 – 248.005 – South Morecambe Gas Field - EIS
Centrica hold the Petroleum Licence for S Morecambe Site Summary
(but without CO2 storage rights). Centrica hold 100% of 110/2a, 3a, 8a
Capacity (Due Diligence): 855 MT UKCS Block:
the licence. Seismic and well log data available. Production
Unit Designation: Gas Field Beachhead: Point of Ayr
data may be available from Centrica. Current oil and gas
activity has precluded any other local activity, such as Formation: Ormskirk Sandstone Water Depth: 25 m
offshore wind. Centrica have previously done a study into
CO2 storage for Morecambe. Mythop Halite Member 914 m TVDSS (2998 ft)
Containment Unit: Reservoir Depth:
Availability/COP: 2028 Region: EIS
Client The Energy Technologies Institute Title D06: Prospect Summary Sheets Date of Issue 7th August 2015
Disclaimer:
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
1. Bastin, J.C., Boycott-Brown, T., Sims, A., and Woodhouse, R. (2003) “The South Morecambe Gas Field, Blocks l10/2a, l10/3a, l10/7a and l10/8a, East Irish Sea” GLUYAS, J. G. & HICHENS, H. M. (eds) 2003. United 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.
Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, Commemorative Millennium Volume. Geological Society, London, Memoir, 20, 107-118.
2.I.A Stuart & G.Cowan 1991 “The South Morecambe Field, Blocks 110/2a, 110/3a, 110/8a, UK East Irish Sea” From Abbotts, I. L. (ed.), 1991, United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years Commemorative Volume, Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project
Geological Society Memoir No. 14, pp. 527-541
3. Kirk, K. (2006) “Potential for storage of carbon dioxide in the rocks beneath the East Irish Sea” Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research & BGS. Working paper 100.
Axis generated Bunter Sst Isochore (ft), generated
from well data (49/17-4 ,-6 -9, 49/18-2, 49/22-2)
Axis generated Top Bunter Sst depth (ft) map
Viking Fields
A B B
E
C
D
B A’
A’
A
Bunter Closure 3 A
B’ B’
Major offshore areas covered by 0 10 km Ci: 200ft closing contour: -4500ft tvdss Ci: 50ft
Institute)
Bunter Closure 3: Strike and Dip seismic lines from PGS MegaSurvey
Development Concept
A A’ B (projected) B’
The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 29MT/yr by 2030 into the SNS via Barmston. It is possible that the first 17Mt/yr could be stored at 5/42. On the basis of
this Scenario, additional SNS storage would be needed by 2027 and need to be capable of storing 12Mt/yr by 2030.
Build out potential

Bunter Closure 3 is reasonably close to the two Hewett Reservoirs (600MT), Viking (310MT) and Bunter Closure 9 (1977MT). The Barque depleted gas field
(91MT) is on the likely pipeline route from Barmston. These all represent potential regional growth opportunities
Comparative Development Concept

A new Normally Unmanned Installation (NUI) comprising a jacket and topsides with 5 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT over 20 years. CO2
would be delivered via a 20” 238 km pipeline from Barmston with 10MT/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the beach with the NUI providing its own
power and controls. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors.

The site has a theoretical storage capacity of ~232MT.
A new development comprising 3 new NUI platforms, with a total of 12 wells, injecting a total of 12Mt/yr; 232MT. CO2 would be delivered via a 26” 238 km
pipeline from Barmston with a 20Mt/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the beach. Power generation and controls relay will be provided from a single
primary NUI. Platforms are connected by 10km infield pipelines and umbilical's.
Data
Yarborough (1991) “The Hewett Field, Blocks
48/28-29-30, 52/4a-5a, UK North Sea”, In Bunter Closure 3 is covered by the 3D seismic from the SNS PGS MegaSurvey. The data quality is generally good. The well ties confirm the time interpretation. Dip Line Strike Line
Abbotts, I. L. (ed.), 1991, United Kingdom Oil
and Gas Fields, 25 Years Commemorative CDA well data is available for wells targeting the underlying Viking Field and surrounding areas. Log coverage for the Bunter interval is variable.
Volume, Geological Society Memoir No. 14, Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
pp. 433-442
Top Chalk Top Bunter Sandstone
Key Risk Summary Base Chalk Top Zechstein Near Top Carboniferous
Capacity Injectivity Top Triassic Top Rotliegendes

Bunter Closure 3 Engineered Containment Geo Containment
(MT) (mDm)
Wells Leakage risk Containment risk
/sq.km
Crestal Faults at the top of Closure 3 extend up to the base Chalk
Capacity
Selection Criteria 409 23,926 0.21 n/a n/a 9
Due Diligence 232 79,800 0.25 0.07 0.017 10 The calculated storage capacity is 232MT compared to the reported A Top of fault A’ Closure 3 crestal collapse
capacity in CO2Stored of 409MT. The calculated capacity is significantly at approx 600m
smaller than that in CO2Stored, this is due to a large difference in the
calculated GRV. The GRV in CO2Stored appears to be overestimated due
to the simple Area x Thickness method used. This due diligence uses
depths derived from the 3D seismic to calculate the GRV.
Capacity Calculation The structure is elongate with a saddle in the middle. The relief in the
north of the structure is significantly lower than in the South. This is not
Pore Theoretical
Thickness2 GRV CO2 Density3 Pore Space accounted for in the simple approach to GRV calculation used for
[m] [MMm3] [Tonnes/ m3] Utilisation3 CO2Stored.
[MMm3] [MT]
240 9996 0.95 0.21 0.78 0.15 1994 232
The due diligence process is based on a depth top structure map and
NB. 1: Analogue field data and literature 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored mapped sand thickness from wells, which takes into account these
variations in the structural elevation. This is a more robust methodology
than what has been applied in CO2Stored.
Injectivity Validation A storage capacity of 232MT still places this site in the top 10 sites when
ranked on capacity.
Depositional Gross Perm1 Kh
Zone NTG2 Porosity1 Top Bunter Sandstone TWT surface
Environment Thickness2 [m] [mD] [mDm] Whilst there are uncertainties associated with the inputs to the capacity
Bunter Sst Fluvial/ Lacustrine 240 0.95 0.21 350 79,800 calculation, there is a high degree of confidence in the storage capacity
which has been calculated. Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original
NB. 1: Analogue field data and literature 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored Whilst faulting within the Bunter can develop due to post depositional interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
halokenisis, compartmentalisation due to faulting is not thought to be a
risk for this storage site.
Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original
interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Geo Containment
Base Chalk Top Bunter Sandstone
Risk code Fault Characterisation Seal Characterisation Georisk Factor
Fault Top Triassic Top Zechstein
Throw & Verical Fracture Pressure Seal Chemical Seal
Density Fault Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity Degradation
Bunter Closure 3 227.007 Injectivity
2 2 2 1 1 1 9
2 2 3 1 1 1 10
The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case Costs
reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Bunter Closure 3 this was calculated as 33,380 mDm. Site
Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored Site Reference: 4 Bunter Closure 3
The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 79,800 mDm. This is considerably higher than Description
1 no additional data to qc, values taken from CO2Stored the estimate based on the CO2stored data, and is due to a difference in the assumed average permeability. Water Depth
Capacity: 232 40
CO2Stored assumes an average permeability of 100mD. This is very low when compared to nearby SNS analogue (m)
Bunter Sst reservoirs. The Hewett Gas Field has average permeabilites in excess of 500 mD. The nearby Little Dotty Comparative Ultimate
Containment Concept Cost (£m) Description
Gas Field (a part of Hewett), with average Bunter Sst permeabilities of 350 mD, is used as an analogue for this Development Development
storage site. Tonnes Injected (MT) 100 232 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Bunter Sandstone to identify secondary containment horizons Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
and potential migration pathways out of the storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault leakage of the sequestered CO2. Appraisal Cost: £60m £60m
With no permeability data available for the Bunter Sst at the storage site, permeability, its regional lateral variation Interpretation
and heterogeneity remain an uncertainty. Bunter Sst reservoir quality at this depth and initial CO2 injectivity within Development Well
The site is an elongate 4-way dip closure with some faulting. The Bunter sandstone reservoir is overlain by 220m (730ft) of Triassic halites £100.8m £241.9m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
the SNS is considered to be good. Neither reservoir quality nor injectivity are considered to be a high risk. Cost:
and claystones forming an excellent cap rock however it is broken by faulting. There are less than 10 faults but some extend up to the
Base Chalk at approximately 600m (1970ft) (ref 2), however the fault throws are less than 50m (160ft). A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over time. A simple PM & Eng: £32.8m £49.5m 10% of Facilities Costs
model was built in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2 will be injected in critical or dense phase as the reservoir pressure is £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea
Above the Triassic marker is a 10m (33ft) thick layer of sandstone which in turn is overlain by 150m (490ft) of Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous expected to be high in saline aquifer. Injection pressure of 2550 psi is required to achieve the injectivity threshold Decommissioning: £111.9m £201.8m
well
claystone. Above this is over 300m (980ft) of Upper Cretaceous Chalk which is a potential reservoir with recent sediments on top which of 1MT/year per well. This is below the calculated minimum fracture pressure of 3349 psi at the well depth.
may only have a limited seal capacity.
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 10, this is higher than previous calculated factor in WP3 based on CO2Stored data. This is due to OPEX (20years) £392.7m £593.8m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
the Fault Vertical Extent being increase from 2 to 3 as it is clear from the seismic that faults extend above 800m. Total: £1151.7m £1851.2m
Well Design £/T CO2 11.52 7.98
Engineering Risk
The generic well design is discussed in the supporting document ‘Storage Site Due Diligence Summary’. It is likely
that this well design can be achieved in the Bunter 3.
The engineering containment risk is low to moderate, with 20 wells considered at risk of leakage. 11 wells were plugged and abandoned, 7
of which were before 1986, representing the highest risk. The 100yr probability of a leakage on the field is 0.07, and the well density factor
Due to the shallow water depth (40m), wells can be drilled by a low cost class 1 Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Platform well
is 0.25 wells/km2, resulting in a moderate containment risk assessment score of 0.017. costs are assumed to be £20.0M per well, resulting in a 5 well development cost of £100.8M.
Site 4 – 227.007 – Bunter Closure 3 - SNS

Commercial Issues
Bunter C3 is in the vicinity of Viking. Development probably needs to take place
Site Summary
after COP at Viking (2017)
Capacity (Due Diligence): 232 MT UKCS Block: Quad 49; blocks 11, 12, 16-18)
Formation: Triassic Bunter Sandstone Water Depth: 40 m
Containment Unit: Rot Halite Reservoir Depth: 1020 m TVDSS (3350 ft)
Disclaimer:
References 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.
1. J.D.O. Williams, M. Bentham, M. Jin, G. Pickup, E. Mackay, D. Gammer, A. Green (2013) “The effect of geological structure and heterogeneity on CO2 storage in simple 4-way dip structures; a modeling study from the UK
Southern North Sea”, Energy Procedia, 37, Pages 3980–3988.
2. Cooke-Yarborough (1991) “The Hewett Field, Blocks 48/28-29-30, 52/4a-5a, UK North Sea”, In Abbotts, I. L. (ed.), 1991, United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years Commemorative Volume, Geological Society Memoir No.
14, pp. 433-442.
Site 5 – 141.035 - Viking Gas Field – SNS
Development Concept Axis generated Top Rotliegendes depth map (ft tvdss)
Viking Fields
A CO2 volumes cf ETI Scenarios
The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 29MT/yr by 2030 into the SNS via Barmston. It is possible that the first 17Mt/yr could be stored at 5/42.
E On the basis of this Scenario, additional SNS storage would be needed by 2027 and need to be capable of storing 12Mt/yr by 2030. A’
C
Build out potential
D Bunter closure 3 is in the vicinity of Viking and represents a low cost build out option. The Barque depleted gas field (120MT) is on the likely
Viking A
B pipeline route from Barmston. These represent potential regional growth opportunities. B
Viking E

A new Normally Unmanned Installation (NUI) comprising a jacket and topsides with 5 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT Viking B
over 20 years. CO2 would be delivered via a 20” 238 km pipeline from Barmston with 10MT/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the
beach with the NUI providing its own power and controls. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors.
Viking C
Site growth potential; theoretical Ultimate Development Concept A
Bunter Closure 3 The site has a theoretical storage capacity of ~310MT.
A new development comprising 3 new NUI platforms each with 5 wells injecting a total of 15Mt/yr; totalling 300MT over 20 years. CO2 would Viking D B’
be delivered via a 26” 220 km pipeline from Barmston with a 20Mt/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the beach. Power generation
and controls relay will be provided from a single primary NUI. Platforms are connected by 10km infield pipelines and umbilical's.
0 10 km
Major offshore areas covered by
CO2Stored (© Energy Technologies Ci: 200ft
Institute) A A’
Lithology
• Shale/ Clay TOP SEAL: Axis generated Zechstein Isochore (ft), (depth
• Chalk Zone A – Reworked
converted with a constant velocity of 14460 ft/sec)
• Dolomite/ Lst sands
• Halite
• Anhydrite A’
• Sandstone Zone B – Margin
sabkha silts with,
Unconformity
minor aeolian A
Secondary Seal A’ B
Zone C – Mainly
fluvial
Secondary Store Zone D – Fluvial

and lake margin Well correlation across
sabkha
the Viking A site
A
showing the Leman
Sandstone zonation and
Zone E – Thick
aeolian dune sands dominant lithofacies. B’
Primary Seal with some sabkha Flattened on Top Leman
Sandstone.
Primary Store
Image source: modified from Cooke-Yarborough (1991) “The Hewett Field, Blocks 48/28-29-30, Ci: 300ft
52/4a-5a, UK North Sea”, In Abbotts, I. L. (ed.), 1991, United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25
Years Commemorative Volume, Geological Society Memoir No. 14, pp. 433-442.
Key Risk Summary

Viking Strike and Dip seismic lines from PGS MegaSurvey
Viking Gas Capacity Injectivity Geo Data
Engineered Containment
Field (MT) (mDm) Containment A A’ B B’
Wells Leakage Containment The Viking Gas Fields are covered by the 3D seismic from the SNS PGS MegaSurvey. The data quality is
/sq.km risk risk generally good, however there are reservoir imaging problems due to ray bending particularly in the
Selection 271 8,350 0.39 n/a n/a 11 areas of heavy Triassic/Jurassic faulting. The data quality is not good enough to pick the base
Criteria Rotliegendes reservoir, however well control shows that the Rotliegendes thickness is between 210 –
Due Diligence 310 5,599 1.54 0.12 0.18 11 240m (700 and 800ft). The well ties confirm the time interpretation.
Only limited digital logs are available in CDA.
Capacity
Capacity Calculation
The calculated storage capacity is 310MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of 271MT.
Condensate Production 1.3 MCM The Viking gas complex comprises 11 separate gas accumulations. The production is not allocated to
Net Reservoir Volume Produced 423 MCM the individual accumulations in the available data and the capacity for each accumulation can
Storage Capacity @COP 310 MT therefore not be calculated. The CO2 storage development for this site might not access all
accumulations and will therefore not access the 310MT capacity.
NB. Volumes refer to production volumes at February 2015.
For the Viking gas field, the due diligence involved a recalculation of the capacity equivalent to the net
reservoir volume of fluids removed at February 2015. In addition, the net reservoir volume of fluids
removed at COP was estimated based on an assumption of maintaining the current production rate to
Injectivity Validation COP and the capacity was calculated at this time. The expected COP date for the Viking gas field, in
the supplied Woodmac data, is 2020.
Viking gas field produces a dry gas with no water and small condensate production. The complete Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Depositional Gross Perm Kh Strike Line
Zone NTG Porosity production history is not reported in DECC as it only reports production post 1983. However,
Environment Thickness [m] [mD] [mDm] Dip Line
production up to December 1999 is reported in Ref 1. The complete production volume was
A Aeolian Dune 49 0.95 0.1 5 235
calculated by summing Ref 1 production and production post Dec. 1999 reported from DECC. Total
B Sabkha 29 0.44 0.1 5 64 production is 92.5 BCM and equates to a capacity of 308MT. Top Chalk Top Zechstein
C Aeolian Dune 28 1 0.1 50 1,395
Base Chalk Top Rotliegendes Sandstone
D Sabkha 12 0.34 0.1 5 21 Current gas rates are low, ~330 Ksm3/d (~12 mmscf/d). Assuming this rate is sustained until COP, the
E Aeolian Dune 68 0.91 0.2 50 3,106 additional production is estimated to be 547 MCM (19.3 Bscf). This equates to an additional capacity Top Triassic Near Top Carboniferous
F Fluvial Sands/silts/shales 33 0.94 0.1 50 1,554 of 1.9MT (+0.6%).
Top Bunter Sandstone
All Zones 220 0.92 0.12 27.5 5,599
Injectivity
The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Viking Fields this was calculated as 8,350 mDm.
Containment Validation Field data and published literature have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir properties which have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected injectivity.
The field comprises low to high net to gross, poor to moderate quality aeolian and fluvial sandstones of the Leman Sandstone Formation. Vertically there are permeability barriers, specifically in the sabkha silts in zones D and B. The reservoir is
subdivided into nine zones, which vary between the North and South areas, and show significant variation in reservoir quality. A summary of the six main reservoir zones properties are summarised in the Injectivity Validation table.
Geo Containment Risk code Fault Characterisation Seal Characterisation Georisk Factor
Fault The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 5,599 mDm. This is approx. 33% lower than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. The Viking fields consist of multiple separate accumulations. Reservoir quality is
Throw & Verical Fracture Pressure Seal Chemical Seal extremely variable both between these accumulations and within the 6 reservoir zones. The average porosity and permeability values are estimated from literature, and are highly uncertain. Well and core data would need to be more
Density Fault Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity Degradation extensively reviewed to reduce this uncertainty. The Gross thickness and resulting net to gross (taken from a Phoenix type log in the North Viking area) is also variable with an increase in thickness to the SW.
Viking gas fields 141.035 3 2 1 1 2 2 11 There is an encroaching aquifer in one of the southern compartments. The water flowing into the field may cause injection problems and reduce storage capacity.
It is believed that some of the later wells were hydraulically fractured to improve productivity. The impact of these fractures on containment needs to be assessed.
3 2 1 1 2 2 11
Two additional injectivity checks were carried out as part of the due diligence.
Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored 1. The initial production performance for a selection of representative wells in Viking was converted to an equivalent CO2 injection rate to gain some confidence that the 1MT/year/well target could be met. None of the wells meet the target
1 no additional data to qc, values taken from CO2Stored rate. The rates are shown in the table below.
2. A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over time. A simple model was built in Eclipse (flat structure and average properties). CO2 will be injected in the gas phase initially as the
reservoir pressure is expected to be too low for dense phase injection. A reasonable pressure drop from well to formation is expected to range from 150psi to 650psi. Both cases were tested and the corresponding injectivity per well is
0.03MT/year and 0.13MT/year. The modelling indicates that the injectivity threshold of 1MT/year per well might not be achieved for this site.
Containment Costs
The traps consist of a series of tilted fault blocks separated by major normal faults trending E-W. Some of the faults act as permeability barriers and divide some of the pools into individual compartments. However, other faults in the north of the field are Site Reference: 5 Site Description Viking gas fields
permeable and the individual fault blocks are connected forming a stair of connected pools. Water Depth
Capacity: 310 20
(m)
Geocontainment Risk Comparative Ultimate
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Viking Sandstone to identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the Viking field storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault Concept Cost (£m) Description
leakage of the sequestered CO2.
The traps consist of a series of tilted fault blocks separated by major normal faults trending E-W. Some of the faults act as permeability barriers dividing the field into 11 individual compartments many with different GWCs. The Fields are overlain by
Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
Zechstein salt and anhydrites which vary in thickness from 182 – 1372m (600 to 4500ft1) . This forms an excellent and continuous seal. Above the Zechstein is a further 305m (1000ft) of Lower Bunter shale followed by 210- 245m (700-800ft) of Bunter Appraisal Cost: £0m £0m
Interpretation
Sandstone (a potential secondary storage reservoir) which is overlain by over 610m (2000ft) of Triassic shales and Halites1.
Development Well Cost: £216.1m £648.1m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 11. This is the same as that calculated in WP3 selection criteria.
Engineering Risk PM & Eng: £29m £65m 10% of Facilities Costs
The engineering containment risk is moderate to high, with 73 wells considered at risk of leakage. 27 wells were plugged and abandoned, most of which were before 1986, representing the highest risk. The 100yr probability of a leakage on the field is 0.12, Decommissioning: £102.5m £252.4m £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea well
which is a concern, and with a high well density factor of 1.54 wells/km2, this results in a high containment risk assessment score of 0.18. Subtotal £637.4m £1615m
Contingency £127.5m £323m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
Well Design Total: £1112.7m £2717.4m
£/T CO2 11.13 9.06
The generic well design is discussed in the supporting document ‘Storage *These costs are not the full cost of storage as they omit MMV, security instruments, handover to DECC and profit.
Site Due Diligence Summary’. It is likely that this well design can be
achieved in the Viking fields, although there are concerns over the ability
to drill new wells in the depleted gas field, particularly at a high angle, due
to wellbore stability issues. This may limit the achievable deviation in the
reservoir section. Current producing wells are primarily deviated wells,
although 2 horizontals have been drilled in the late 90’s.
As the Viking field is a conglomerate of smaller fields, achieving access to

all of these from a single drill centre (assumed to be an unmanned Site 5 – 141.035 - Viking Gas Field - SNS
platform) would be technically challenging. This is more likely to result in
the adoption of a subsea development solution.
Site Summary
Due to the shallow water depth (20 to 25m), wells can be drilled by a low Capacity (Due Diligence): 310 MT UKCS Block: 49/12a, 49/16, 19/17
cost class 1 Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Platform well costs are assumed to be Unit Designation: Depleted gas Beachhead: Barmston
£43.0M per well, including a contingency cost for managing CO2 phase Formation: Leman sandstone Water Depth: 25 m
change, resulting in a 5 well development cost of £216M.
Containment Unit: Zechstein Gp Reservoir Depth: 2,438 m TVDSS (8,000 ft)
Availability/COP: 2020 Region: SNS
Commercial Issues
Client The Energy Technologies Institute Title D06: Prospect Summary Sheets – Site 5 Date of Issue 7th August 2015
Viking is a depleted gas field operated by ConocoPhillips. Viking A ceased
production in 1993. Other Viking fields are due to cease production in
2017. Disclaimer:
References
1. Riches, H. (2003) “The Viking Field, Blocks 49/12a, 49/16, 49/17, UK North Sea”. GLUYAS, J. G. & HICHENS, H. M. (eds) 2003. United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields,
Commemorative Millennium Volume. Geological Society, London, Memoir, 20, 871–880.
2. Michele Bentham (2006) “An assessment of carbon sequestration potential in the UK – Southern North Sea case study” Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and
British Geological Survey
3. “Capturing carbon, tackling climate change: A vision for a CCS cluster in the South East” E.ON UK plc
Site 6 – 266.001 – Hewett Gas Field (Hewett Sst) – SNS
266.001 Hewett Gas Field – Bunter Shale Fm., Sherwood Axis generated Top Hewett Sst depth map (ft)
SST Group
Barque
Bunter
B Bunter Closure 9
Closur
e3
A’
Edge of 3D
Bunter seismic
A
Contours
Closur extrapolated
B’
in this area
e9
Hewitt
CO2Stored (© Energy Technologies Image source: courtesy of CDA through an open licence agreement Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015
Institute)
Hewett Field: Strike and Dip seismic lines from PGS MegaSurvey
A A’ B B’
Axis generated Hewett Sst Isochore (ft), generated from

well data (48/28b-2 , 48/30-7, 52/5a-A11, 52/05-2&3)
Data
The field is covered by 3D seismic from

the PGS SNS MegaSurvey and is of good
quality.
Well data is available for the Hewett field

from CDA. E&A well data has been
downloaded. Data ranges from 1966 to
2008. A review of well logs show
washouts in some shale sections – existing
wells are poor quality2.
Hewett Sst
Hewett Sst

Yarborough (1991) “The Hewett Field, Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015
Blocks 48/28-29-30, 52/4a-5a, UK
North Sea”, In Abbotts, I. L. (ed.), 1991,
United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25
Years Commemorative Volume,
Geological Society Memoir No. 14, pp. Dip Line Strike Line
433-442.
Top Triassic Top Zechstein Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence
Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology,
Top Bunter Sandstone Top Rotliegendes 2015.
Top Bunter Shale Near Top Carboniferous

Key Risk Summary
Hewett Gas
Capacity Injectivity
Field Engineered Containment Geo Containment
(MT) (mDm) Capacity Development Concept
Lower Bunter
The calculated storage capacity is 312MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of 244MT. CO2 volumes cf ETI Scenarios
/sq.km risk risk The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 29MT/yr by 2030 into the SNS via Barmston. It is possible that the first
Selection 243.5 20,500 0.34 n/a n/a 11 The due diligence involves a recalculation of the capacity equivalent to the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at February 2015. In 17Mt/yr could be stored at 5/42. On the basis of this Scenario, additional SNS storage would be needed by 2027
Criteria and need to be capable of storing 12Mt/yr by 2030.
addition, the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at COP was estimated and the capacity calculated at this time to confirm the full
Due Diligence 312 35,641 0.43 0.11 0.048 11 capacity estimate. The COP date for Hewett Sandstone is 2020 in the supplied Woodmac data.
Build out potential
Hewett is within build-out reach of Viking (310MT) and Bunter Closure 9 (1977MT). The Barque depleted gas field
Hewett Sandstone produces a dry gas with small traces of condensate and no water production. DECC reports no gas and water injection (91MT) is on the likely pipeline route from Barmston. These all represent potential regional growth opportunities.
volume. All produced fluids were accounted for in the material balance calculation to check potential storage capacity.
A new Normally Unmanned Installation (NUI) comprising a jacket and topsides with 5 deviated wells each injecting
Capacity Calculation Current gas rates are low, ~370 ksm3/d (13 mmscf/d). Assuming this rate is maintained until COP, the additional storage capacity
1MT/yr; totalling 100MT over 20 years. CO2 would be delivered via a 20” 238 km pipeline from Barmston with
associated with this production is 2.5MT (~0.8%).
10MT/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the beach with the NUI providing its own power and controls.
Gas Production 72220 MCM Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors.
The produced volumes and conversion to mass storage potential are shown in the Capacity Calculation table .
Condensate Production 0.313 MCM
Net Reservoir Volume Produced 516 MCM The site has a theoretical storage capacity of ~312MT. In addition Site 9, Bunter Sandstone (288MT) is at the same
Storage Capacity @COP 312 MT location. The ultimate development is therefore considered to be a combined development with both horizons
and a total theoretical capacity of 600MT.
NB Volumes refer to production volumes at February 2015.
A new development comprising 6 new NUI platforms each with 5 wells injecting a total of 30Mt/yr; totalling
600MT over 20 years. CO2 would be delivered via a 30” 208km pipeline from Barmston with a 35Mt/yr capacity.
Power generation and controls relay will be provided from a single primary NUI. Platforms are connected by 10km
Injectivity Validation infield pipelines and umbilical's.
Injectivity
Depositional Gross Perm Kh The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case reservoir data from
Zone NTG Porosity
Environment Thickness [m] [mD] [mDm] CO2Stored. For the Hewett sandstone this was calculated as 20,500 mDm.
Hewett Sst Alluvial sandstones 26 0.96 0.22 1428 35,641 Field data and published literature have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir properties which have then been used to
validate the permeability thickness and expected injectivity. Costs
The Hewett sandstone (lower Bunter) is composed of alluvial plain sandstones of the Lower Triassic1. The Hewett sandstones have a Site Reference: 6 Site Description Hewett gas field
depth to crest of 1,227m TVDSS with excellent net to gross, porosity and permeability. The reservoir properties are detailed in the Water Depth
Containment Validation Capacity: 312 20
Injectivity Validation table. (m)
Geo Containment Georisk The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 35,641 mDm. This is 42% more than the estimate based on the Development Development
Risk code Fault Characterisation Seal Characterisation Factor CO2stored data. The reservoir properties have been obtained for an RDS study for E.ON conducted in March 2010 (publicly available Tonnes Injected (MT) 100 600 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
Throw Fault Seal Seal 20113) and have a higher NTG and permeability than the published 2003 values1. The permeability thickness is moderate and based on Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
& Fault Verical Fracture Pressure Chemical Degradati reservoir quality the initial CO2 injectivity is expected to be excellent. Interpretation
Density Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity on Development Well Cost: £128.7m £771.7m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
Hewett gas field As an additional check, a dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over time. A simple Facilities Cost: £301.3m £620.3m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
266.001
(Hewett Sst) 2 3 3 1 1 1 11 model was built in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2 will be injected in the gas phase initially as the reservoir pressure is expected to be too low PM & Eng: £30.2m £62.1m 10% of Facilities Costs
2 3 3 1 1 1 11 for dense phase injection. A DP (well–formation pressure) range of 150psi to 650psi was tested and the corresponding injectivity per well Decommissioning: £105.4m £335.1m £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea well
is 0.5MT/year and 2.0 MT/year. The modelling confirms that the injectivity threshold of 1MT/year per well can be achieved for this site at
Subtotal £565.4m £1789m
Medium= DP of 300 psi.
Low=1 2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored Contingency £113.1m £357.8m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
1 no additional data to qc, values taken from CO2Stored OPEX (20years) £361.6m £744.3m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
Total: £1040m £2891m
£/T CO2 10.40 4.82
Containment
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Hewett sandstone to identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the Hewett storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault leakage of the
sequestered CO2.
Field data and published literature were reviewed to establish the effectiveness of trap and seal. Lower Bunter Hewett sandstones are sealed by Bunter floodplane shales 1. Below the Hewett sands is a thick evaporate and carbonate Zechstein sequence1.
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 11, this is the same as previous calculated factor in WP3 based on CO2Stored data. The factor is higher than for the Hewett Field Bunter Sandstone as the Hewett sandstone is thinner and completely offset by faults along the
NE margin of the field.
Engineering Risk
The engineering containment risk is low to moderate, with 52 wells in the field. 10 wells were plugged and abandoned before 1986, representing the highest assessed risk. Total storage target leakage risk is 0.11 and the well density factor is 0.43 wells/km2, resulting
in a low to moderate leakage risk assessment score of 0.048.
Commercial Issues
Hewett is a depleted gas field. COP is expected to be 2016.
Site 6 – 266.001 – Hewett Gas Field (Hewett Sst) - SNS

Well Design Site Summary
Capacity (Due Diligence): 312 MT UKCS Block: 48/29, 48/30, 52/05
Summary’. It is likely that this well design can be achieved in the Hewett, although there are Unit Designation: Depleted Gas Beachhead: Barmston
concerns over the ability to drill new wells in the depleted gas field, particularly at a high angle,
Formation: Water Depth:
due to wellbore stability issues. This may limit the achievable deviation in the reservoir section. Lower Bunter Hewett Sst 20 m
Current producing wells are primarily low angle wells, although some horizontals have been
drilled. Containment Unit: Rot Halite Reservoir Depth: 1152 m TVDSS (3780 ft)
Due to the shallow water depth (20m), wells can be drilled by a low cost class 1 Jack-Up Drilling
Unit. Platform well costs are assumed to be £26M per well, including a contingency cost for
managing CO2 phase change, resulting in a 5 well development cost of £128.6M. Client The Energy Technologies Institute Title D06: Prospect Summary Sheets Date of Issue 7th August 2015
Disclaimer:
1. Cooke-Yarborough (1991) “The Hewett Field, Blocks 48/28-29-30, 52/4a-5a, UK North Sea”, In Gluyas, J. G & Hichens, H. M.(eds), 2003, United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 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
25 Years Commemorative Volume, Geological Society Memoir No. 20, pp. 731-739.
2. IEAGHG Report (2013) “UK FEED Studies 2011 – A summary”. Report 2013/2012. http://www.sacccs.org.za/wp-content/uploads/members2013/2013-
12%20UK%20FEED%20Studies%202011%20%20A%20Summary.pdf
3. RDS (2011) “Chapter 7: Technical Design - Wells and Storage”
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20111209170139/https:/www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/ccs/demo_prog/feed/e_on_feed_/storage/storage.aspx
Development Concept
139.016 Bunter Closure 36 – Bunter SST Fm., Bacton Axis generated Top Bunter Sst depth map (ft tvdss)
Group CO2 volumes cf ETI Scenarios
A’ The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 29MT/yr by 2030 into the SNS via Barmston. It is possible that the first
Over lying Schooner field (Carboniferous sst producer). Schooner:
Carboniferous 17Mt/yr could be stored at 5/42. On the basis of this Scenario, additional SNS storage would be needed by 2027
Gas Field and need to be capable of storing 12Mt/yr by 2030.
Build out potential

Bunter Closure 36 is a potential build out location for other sites, such as 5/42 and Bunter Closure 40. It is possible
that closure 40 could be an extension to this site.

B A new Normally Unmanned Installation (NUI) comprising a jacket and topsides with 5 deviated wells each injecting
B’ 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT over 20 years. CO2 would be delivered via a 20” 86km pipeline extension from 5/42 with
Bunter 10MT/yr capacity, assuming that sufficient ullage exists in the 5/42 pipeline. Facilities will be controlled from the
beach or 5/42 with the NUI providing its own power and controls. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and
Closure distributed temperature sensors.
36
A new development comprising 2 new NUI platforms each with 6 wells injecting a total of 12Mt/yr; totalling
13.1 km 240MT over 20 years. CO2 would be delivered via a 20” 86km pipeline from 5/42 assuming that sufficient ullage
A
exists in the 5/42 pipeline. Power generation and controls relay will be provided from a single primary NUI or
Major offshore areas covered by Image source: courtesy of CDA through an open licence agreement Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015
from 5/42. Platforms are connected by 10km infield pipelines and umbilical's.
Institute)
Axis generated Bunter Sst Isochore (ft), generated from well data
(44/26-1 ,-3 and 44/27-1)
Schooner:
Carboniferous
Gas Field
Lithology
• Shale
• Chalk
• Dolomite
• Halite
• Sandstone
Image source: modified from Cooke-Yarborough (1991)

“The Hewett Field, Blocks 48/28-29-30, 52/4a-5a, UK North
Sea”, In Abbotts, I. L. (ed.), 1991, United Kingdom Oil and
Gas Fields, 25 Years Commemorative Volume, Geological
Society Memoir No. 14, pp. 433-442.
Ci: 20ft
Key Risk Summary Well correlation section across the Bunter 36 site showing the
Bunter Sandstone zonation and dominant lithofacies.
Bunter Capacity Injectivity Flattened on Top Bunter Sandstone
Engineered Containment Geo Containment
Closure 36 (MT) (mDm)
/sq.km risk risk Bunter Closure 36: Strike and Dip seismic lines from PGS MegaSurvey
Selection 232 11,051 0.24 n/a n/a 6
Criteria A A’ B B’
Due Diligence 252 57,475 0.14 0.024 0.003 6
Data
Bunter Closure 36 is covered by the 3D seismic from the SNS

Capacity Calculation PGS MegaSurvey. The data quality is good. Well ties confirm
the time interpretations.
Pore Theoretical
[m] [MMm3] [Tonnes/ m3] Utilisation3 All wells target the deeper Carboniferous sands. Digital log
[MMm3] [MT]
data and composite logs are available for some wells on the
220 13137 0.95 0.2 0.85 0.12 2496 252 CDA website. There is limited core coverage from the Bunter
NB. 1: Analogue site data from 5/42 (Ref 1) 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored. interval in 1 well.
No engineering data available for aquifer sands. Analogue

Injectivity Validation data and correlations will be used.

Zone NTG2 Porosity1
Bunter Sst Fluvial/ Lacustrine 220 0.95 0.2 271 56639
NB. 1: Analogue site data from 5/42 (Ref 1) 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored.
Geo Containment
Fault
Bunter Closure 36 139.016 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Top Chalk Top Bunter Sandstone Top Rotliegendes Sandstone
Top Triassic Top Zechstein Near Top Carboniferous
Capacity
Costs
The calculated storage capacity is 252MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of 232MT. These are in agreement. Whilst there are uncertainties associated with the inputs to the capacity calculation, there is a high degree of confidence in the
storage capacity which has been calculated. Whilst faulting within the Bunter can develop due to post depositional halokenisis, compartmentalisation due to faulting is not thought to be a risk for this storage site, and the volume should be well connected. Site
Description
Injectivity Water Depth
Capacity: 252 75
(m)
The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Bunter Closure 36 this was calculated as 11,051 mDm. The permeability thickness calculated during the Comparative Ultimate
validation process is 56,639 mDm. This is considerably higher than the estimate based on the CO2stored data, and is due to a difference in the assumed average permeability. Development Development
Tonnes Injected
100 240 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
CO2Stored assumes an average permeability of 50mD. This is very low when compared to nearby SNS analogue Bunter Sandstones reservoirs. The Hewett Gas Field has average permeabilites in excess of 500 mD. The nearby 42/25d-3 (5/42 Storage Site), (MT)
with a published permeability of 271mD, is used as an analogue for this storage site. Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
Interpretation
With no permeability data available for the Bunter Sandstone at the storage site, permeability, its regional lateral variation and heterogeneity remain an uncertainty. Bunter Sandstone reservoir quality at this depth and initial CO2 injectivity within the SNS Development Well
£123.1m £295.4m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
is considered to be good. Neither reservoir quality nor injectivity are considered to be a high risk. Cost:
An additional injectivity check was carried out as part of the due diligence. A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over time. A simple model was built in Eclipse (flat structure and average reservoir PM & Eng: £16.5m £24.9m 10% of Facilities Costs
properties). CO2 will be injected in critical or dense phase as the reservoir pressure is not expected to be depleted in the saline aquifer. An injection pressure of 2800 psi is required to achieve the injectivity threshold of 1MT/year per well, which is below £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea
the estimated minimum fracture pressure of 3312 psi at the well depth of 4550 ft tvdss. Decommissioning: £71.3m £130.2m
well
Containment
Contingency £88.4m £153m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
Georisk
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Bunter Sandstone to identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault leakage of the Total: £727.9m £1215.9m
sequestered CO2. £/T CO2 7.28 5.07
The site is a simple 4-way dip closure. The Bunter sandstone reservoir is overlain by 1000ft of Triassic halites, anhyrites and claystones forming an excellent cap rock that is continuous and not penetrated by faulting. Above the Triassic is an additional 20ft *These costs are not the full cost of storage as they omit MMV, security instruments, handover to DECC and profit.
of Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous claystone. Overlying the Lower Cretaceous is approximately 1000ft of Upper Cretaceous Chalk which is a potential reservoir, with 200ft of Tertiary and recent sediments on top which may only have a limited seal capacity.
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 6, this is the same as the previously calculated factor in WP3 based on CO2Stored data.
Engineering Risk
The engineering containment risk is low, with 15 wells in total. Five wells were plugged and abandoned, only 1 of which was before 1986, representing the highest risk. The 100yr probability of a leakage on the field is a low 0.03, and the well density factor
is 0.2 wells/km2, resulting in a low containment risk assessment score of 0.006.
Well Design
The generic well design is discussed in the supporting document ‘Storage Site 7 – 139.016 – Bunter Closure 36 - SNS
Site Due Diligence Summary’. It is likely that this well design can be
achieved in the Bunter 36.
Site Summary
Due to the moderate water depth (75m), wells will need to be drilled by a Capacity (Due Diligence): 252 MT UKCS Block: Quad 44; Blocks 26, 27
class 2 (heavy duty) Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Platform well costs are assumed Saline Aquifer Barmston
Unit Designation: Beachhead:
to be £25M per well, resulting in a 5 well development cost of £123.1M.
Formation: Bunter Sandstone Water Depth: 75 m
Containment Unit: Rot Halite Member Reservoir Depth: 840 m TVDSS (2750 ft)
Commercial Issues
Bunter C36 is in the vicinity of the Schooner depleted gas field. COP on Disclaimer:
Schooner is 2021. Development of C36 should take place after COP on 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
Schooner to minimise any operational interaction. 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

References
1. Furnival, S, Humber Area CCS – 5/42 Storage Site Power Point Presentation
Site 8 – 133.001 – Bruce Gas Condensate Field – CNS
Development Concept

The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 11MT/yr by 2030 into the CNS via St Fergus. 1MT goes to Goldeneye. 10MT/yr of additional storage may be
required by 2030.
= load to petrel
Build out potential
Build out could be at the Grid aquifer or Harding. The site is also suitable as a centre for build out for EOR.

A new subsea development in the vicinity of Bruce with 5 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT over 20 years. CO2 will be delivered
through the re-use of MGS 30” pipeline from St Fergus with 35MT/yr capacity, and a new 20” 148km pipeline extension to Bruce. Power and controls will
be supplied from an existing neighbouring platform. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors.

A new subsea development comprising of 2 subsea manifolds with a total of 9 wells each injecting a total of 10Mt/yr; totalling 180MT over 20 years. CO2
would be delivered via CO2 will be delivered through the re-use of MGS 30” pipeline from St Fergus with 35MT/yr capacity, and a new 20” 148km
pipeline extension to Bruce. Power and controls will be supplied from an existing neighbouring platform.

CO2Stored (© Energy Technologies Image source: courtesy of CDA through an open licence agreement
Institute)
Bruce: Strike line from PGS MegaSurvey
B B’
Axis generated Beryl Sands Isochore (ft), generated from
Axis generated Near Top Middle Jurassic depth map (ft tvdss) well data (9/09a-8, 9/09a-11, 9/09b-10 & 9/09b-12)
B’
A’
B
A
Strike Line
Image source: modified from Evans D,
Graham C, Armour A, Bathurst P, The
Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement.
Millennium Atlas, The Geological Society of
Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
London 2003
Near Top Grid Sst
Key Risk Summary
Capacity Near Base Tertiary Near Top Middle Jurassic
Capacit The calculated storage capacity is 188MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of
Bruce Gas Injectivity 211.2MT. These are in reasonable agreement.
y Engineered Containment Geo Containment
Condensate (mDm) For the Bruce gas field, the due diligence involves a recalculation of the capacity equivalent to
(MT) Bruce: Dip line from PGS Mega Survey
the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at February 2015. In addition, the net reservoir
volume of fluids removed at COP was estimated and the capacity calculated at this time to
/sq.km risk risk
confirm the full capacity estimate. The COP date for Bruce gas field in the supplied Woodmac
Selection 211 36,540 n/a n/a n/a 8.0 data is 2023. A A’
Criteria
Due Diligence 188 20,416 0.38 0.06 0.02 8.0 Bruce is a gas condensate field with a condensate gas ratio of 0.0003 sm3/sm3 (54.2
bbl/mmscf), and some water production. Water and gas have been injected into the field for
pressure support. All produced and injected fluids were accounted for in the material balance
calculation to check potential storage capacity.
Current gas rates are ~2300Ksm3/d (~81mmscf/d) and condensate rates are ~385sm3/d
(~2400bbls/d). The estimated uplift in storage capacity between February 2015 and end 2023
Capacity Calculation (COP) is 7MT (~4%).
Gas Production 85134 MCM The produced volumes and conversion to mass storage potential are shown in the Capacity
Condensate Production 25.9 MCM Calculation table .
Gas Injected 1.58 MCM
Water Injected 14.6 MCM
Water Production 2.5 MCM Injectivity
Net Reservoir Volume Produced 242 MCM
Storage capacity 188 MT The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the
NB. Volumes refer to production volumes at February 2015. mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Bruce Condensate Field this was calculated as 36,540
mDm.
Field data and published literature1 have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir properties
which have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected injectivity.
The field comprises moderate-high net to gross, excellent to moderate quality deep –shallow water and
Dip Line
Injectivity Validation estuarine sandstones of the Beryl Group Formation1. The reservoir has been subdivided into five zones,
which show variation in reservoir quality. The full stratigraphy is not always fully present in the three
Depositional Gross Perm Kh main field blocks1. A summary of the reservoir properties are summarised in the Injectivity Validation
Zone NTG Porosity
Environment Thickness [m] [mD] [mDm] table.
Upper Sand Deeper water shelf 100 0.5 13.5 85 4,250 Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
A Sand Storm/Sheet Sands 70 0.75 15 90 4,725 A coal barrier up to 15m thick separates the B and C sands, however, this only creates a permeability Near Top Lower Cretaceous
barrier vertically in the Western Flank, and where absent the B and C boundary is indistinguishable1. A Near Top Grid Sst
B Sand Estuarine SST 50 0.95 17 95 4,513
thin muddy interval exists between B and A sands, with a sharp “flooding event” boundary present Near Top Palaeocene Base Cretaceous Unconformity
C Sand Estuarine SST 55 0.8 16 90 3,960
between the A sands and Upper Sands1.
Nansen Shallow Marine SST 40 0.95 16 80 3,040 The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 20,416 mDm. This is approx. 44% Near Base Tertiary Near Top Middle Jurassic
All Zones 315 0.74 15.50 88 20,416 lower than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. Average properties have been used for the
thickness, NTG, Porosity and permeability for each zone. The permeability thickness however is still
high and based on reservoir quality the initial CO2 injectivity is expected to be good.
Geo Containment Risk code Fault Characterisation Seal Characterisation Georisk Factor Data
Fault Costs
Throw & Verical Fracture Pressure Seal Chemical Seal Seismic Data quality and coverage
Density Fault Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity Degradation Bruce condensate field is entirely covered by the 3D CNS PGS seismic MegaSurvey. The data
Site
Bruce Gas Condensate Field 133.001 2 2 1 1 1 1 8 quality acceptable, however seismic resolution at reservoir level is poor in areas. The well ties
Site Reference: 8 Description Bruce Gas Condensate Field
2 2 1 1 1 1 8 confirm the time interpretation.
Water Depth
Well Data quality and coverage Capacity: 188 (m) 116.4
Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored Comparative Ultimate
Digital log data available from CDA. Log coverage and quality variable. Limited core data
1 no additional data to qc, values taken from CO2Stored Concept Cost (£m) Development Development Description
coverage.
Tonnes Injected
(MT) 100 180 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
Appraisal Cost: £0m £0m Interpretation
Containment Development Well
Cost: £410.7m £739.2m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Bruce Condensate field to identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the Bruce Condensate storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or Facilities Cost: £38.1m £236.8m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
fault leakage of the sequestered CO2. PM & Eng: £3.9m £23.7m 10% of Facilities Costs
Field data and published literature11were reviewed to establish the effectiveness of trap and seal. Depth to crest of the reservoir is 3320 m TVDSS (10900ft) with three main reservoir blocks (Western Flank, Central Panel and Eastern High) with the western £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per
edge listric fault a significant control on the field1. Cross-cutting faults of various orientations are present over the field. A sufficient seal is present that CO2 is not expected to leak out of the field which is already proven. Decommissioning: £49.6m £131.2m subsea well
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 8 is the same as the previous calculated factor in WP3 based on CO2Stored data. Subtotal £502m £1130.8m
Engineering Risk
The engineering containment risk is low to moderate, with 74 wells in total, and only 34 considered to be at risk of leakage. 14 wells were plugged and abandoned, 8 of which was before 1986, representing the highest risk. The 100yr probability of a leakage
on the field is a low 0.06, and the well density factor is 0.38 wells/km2, resulting in a moderate risk assessment score of 0.02. Total: £648m £1641.1m
£/T CO2 6.48 9.12
Well Design Site 8 – 133.001 – Bruce Gas Condensate Field - CNS

The generic well design is discussed in the supporting document Site Summary
‘Storage Site Due Diligence Summary’. It is likely that this well
design can be achieved in the Bruce condensate field. However, Capacity (Due Diligence): 188 MT UKCS Block: 9/9
as the reservoir is relatively deep, the sail angle of the well may Unit Designation: Gas Condensate Beachhead: St Fergus
be modified (reduced from 60deg), as the resulting step out
may be significantly more than is required. Note that the well Formation: Water Depth:
Beryl Group Sands 116.4 m
costing assumes a reduced step out, limiting hole length to
5,650m. Heather & Kimmeridge Shales
Containment Unit: Reservoir Depth: 3320 m TVDSS (10900ft)
Due to the deep water depth (116m), the wells have been Availability/COP: 2023 Region: CNS
costed on the basis of drilling by a Semi-Submersible Drilling
Unit. Subsea well costs are assumed to be £82M per well, Client The Energy Technologies Institute Title D06: Prospect Summary Sheets Date of Issue 7th August 2015
resulting in a 5 well development cost of £410.6M.
Disclaimer:
References Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project

1. Beckly, A., Dodd, C., and Los, A. (1993) “The Bruce Field” Petroleum Geology of Northwest Europe: Proceedings of the 4th Conference (ed. J. R. Parker). Petroleum
Geology '86 Ltd., The Geological Society, London, pp. 1453-1463.
Site 9 – 303.001 – Hewett Gas Field (Bunter) – SNS
266.001 Hewett Gas Field – Bunter Shale Fm., Sherwood SST Group
Development Concept
Barque
The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 29MT/yr by 2030 into the SNS via Barmston. It is possible that the first 17Mt/yr could be stored at 5/42. On the basis of this Scenario,
Bunter additional SNS storage would be needed by 2027 and need to be capable of storing 12Mt/yr by 2030.
Closure 3 Build out potential

Hewett is within build-out reach of Viking (310MT) and Bunter Closure 9 (1977MT). The Barque depleted gas field (91MT) is on the likely pipeline route from Barmston. These all
represent potential regional growth opportunities.

A new Normally Unmanned Installation (NUI) comprising a jacket and topsides with 5 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT over 20 years. CO2 will be delivered
via a 20” 212km pipeline from Barmston with 10MT/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the beach with the NUI providing its own power and controls. Monitoring will
include downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors.
Bunter Site growth potential; theoretical Ultimate Development Concept

The site has a theoretical storage capacity of ~288MT. In addition Site 6, Bunter Shale (312MT) is at the same location. The ultimate development is therefore considered to be a
Closure combined development with both horizons and a total theoretical capacity of 600MT.
9
A new development comprising 6 new NUI platforms each with 5 wells injecting a total of 30Mt/yr; totalling 600MT over 20 years. CO2 would be delivered via a 30” 208km
pipeline from Barmston with a 35Mt/yr capacity. Power generation and controls relay will be provided from a single primary NUI. Platforms are connected by 10km infield
pipelines and umbilical's.
Hewitt
Institute)
Axis generated Bunter Sandstone Isochore (ft),

generated from well data (48/28b-2 , 48/30-7, 52/5a-
A11, 52/05-2&3)
Axis generated Top Bunter Sst depth map (ft tvdss) Data
The field is covered by 3D seismic from the PGS SNS

MegaSurvey and is of good quality.
Well data available for the Hewett field from CDA.
E&A well data has been downloaded. A review of well
B logs show washouts in some shale sections – existing
wells are poor quality 2.
Bunter Closure 9
A’
Edge of 3D
seismic
Contours
extrapolated in A
this area
B’
Ci: 50ft
Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015 Hewett Field: Strike and Dip seismic lines from PGS MegaSurvey
Ci: 200ft
Yarborough (1991) “The Hewett Field, Blocks A A’ B B’
48/28-29-30, 52/4a-5a, UK North Sea”, In
Abbotts, I. L. (ed.), 1991, United Kingdom Oil
and Gas Fields, 25 Years Commemorative
Volume, Geological Society Memoir No. 14,
pp. 433-442.
Key Risk Summary Capacity
The calculated storage capacity is 288MT compared to the reported capacity in

Hewett Capacity Injectivity CO2Stored of 205MT.
Gas Field (MT) (mDm)
For the Hewett Bunter Sandstone field, the due diligence involves a recalculation of
Wells Leakage Containment the capacity equivalent to the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at February
/sq.km risk risk 2015. In addition, the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at COP was estimated
Selection 205 82,749 0.34 n/a n/a 8 and the capacity calculated at this time to confirm the full capacity estimate. The
Criteria COP date for Hewett Bunter Sandstone in the supplied Woodmac data is 2020.
Due 288 33,712 0.43 0.09 0.04 10
Hewett Bunter Sandstone produces a dry gas with small amount of condensate and
Diligence
no water production. DECC reports no gas and water injection volume. All
produced fluids were accounted for in the material balance calculation to check
potential storage capacity.
Gas Production 46071 MCM Current gas rates are low, 235Ksm3/d (8.3mmscf/d) at this stage of the field’s
producing life (see below), resulting in 2.5MT (<0.9%) uplift in storage capacity
between February 2015 and end 2020 (COP).
Storage Capacity 288 MT The produced volumes and conversion to mass storage potential are shown in the
NB. Volumes refer to production volumes at February 2015. table. Dip Line Strike Line
Top Triassic Top Zechstein
Top Bunter Sandstone Top Rotliegendes
Depositional Gross Perm Kh Near Top Carboniferous
Zone NTG Porosity
Injectivity
Upper Bunter Alluvial plain SSTs 146 0.94 0.2 245.64 33,712
The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Hewett Field Upper Bunter sandstone this was calculated as
82,749mDm.
The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 33,712 mDm. This is 69% less than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. The reservoir properties have been obtained from an RDS study for E.ON
conducted in March 2010 (publicly available Ref 3). The permeability thickness is still relatively high and similar to the underlying Hewett sandstone (lower Bunter) kh, and based on reservoir quality the initial CO2 injectivity
Geo Containment Risk code Fault Characterisation Seal Characterisation Georisk Factor is expected to be excellent.
Fault
Throw & Verical Fracture Pressure Seal Chemical Seal Field data and published literature have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir properties which have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected injectivity.
The Upper Bunter sandstone field is composed of fluvial channel and sheetflood sandstones of the Lower Triassic. The Upper Bunter sandstones have a depth to crest at 792m TVDSS with excellent net to gross, porosity and
Hewett gas field (Bunter) 303.001 2 2 1 1 1 1 8 permeability’s. A summary of the reservoir properties are detailed in the Injectivity Validation table.
2 2 3 1 1 1 10
A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over time. A simple model was built in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2 will be injected in the gas phase initially as the reservoir
Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored pressure is expected to be too low for dense phase injection. A DP (well–formation pressure) range of 150psi to 650psi was tested and the corresponding injectivity per well is 0.17MT/year and 0.8MT/year. The modelling
1 no additional data to qc, values taken from CO2Stored confirms that the injectivity threshold of 1MT/year per well can only be achieved for a DP of 800 psi or more.
Containment
Costs
Site Reference: 9 Site Description Hewett gas field (Bunter)
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Bunter Sandstone to identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the Hewett storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault leakage of the Water Depth
sequestered CO2. Capacity: 288 30
(m)
Field data and published literature were reviewed to establish the effectiveness of trap and seal. Upper Bunter sandstones are sealed by the 2000ft of Triassic shales, salt and anhydrite. Below the Bunter sandstone is the Bunter shales and Hewett sandstone 1. Concept Cost (£m) Description
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 10, this is higher than previous calculated factor in WP3 based on CO2Stored data as faults are seen to extend above 800m. The factor is lower than for the Hewett Field Hewett Sandstone as the Hewett sandstone is
thinner and completely offset by faults along the NE margin of the field. Appraisal Cost: £0m £0m
Interpretation
Development Well Cost: £114.1m £684.5m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
Engineering Risk
The engineering containment risk is moderate, with 52 wells considered at risk of leakage. 12 wells were plugged and abandoned, 10 of which were before 1986, representing the highest risk. Total storage target leakage risk is 0.08 and the well density factor is PM & Eng: £29.8m £68m 10% of Facilities Costs
0.43 wells/km2, resulting in a moderate leakage risk assessment score of 0.04. Decommissioning: £104.4m £349.9m £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea well
Total: £1011.9m £2953.1m
£/T CO2 10.12 4.92
Well Design
The generic well design is discussed in the supporting document

‘Storage Site Due Diligence Summary’. It is likely that this well
design can be achieved in the Hewett, although there are
concerns over the ability to drill new wells in the depleted gas
field, particularly at a high angle, due to wellbore stability issues.
This may limit the achievable deviation in the reservoir section.
Current producing wells are primarily low angle wells, although
some horizontals have been drilled.
Due to the shallow water depth (30m), wells can be drilled by a Site 9 – 303.001 - Hewett Gas Field (Bunter) - SNS
low cost class 1 Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Platform well costs are
assumed to be £23M per well, including a contingency cost for
managing CO2 phase change, resulting in a 5 well development Site Summary
cost of £114.1M. Capacity (Due Diligence): 288 MT UKCS Block: 48/29
Unit Designation: Depleted Gas Beachhead: Barmston
Bunter Sandstone 30 m
Containment Unit: Rot Halite Member Reservoir Depth: 792 m TVDSS (2600 ft)
Commercial Issues 2016
Availability/COP: Region: SNS
Hewett is a depleted gas field. COP is expected to be 2016.
References Disclaimer:
1. Cooke-Yarborough (1991) “The Hewett Field, Blocks 48/28-29-30, 52/4a-5a, UK North Sea”, In Abbotts, I. L. (ed.), 1991, United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years 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
Commemorative Volume, Geological Society Memoir No. 14, pp. 433-442. 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
2. IEAGHG Report (2013) “UK FEED Studies 2011 – A summary”. Report 2013/2012. http://www.sacccs.org.za/wp-content/uploads/members2013/2013- 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.
12%20UK%20FEED%20Studies%202011%20%20A%20Summary.pdf
3. RDS (2011) “Chapter 7: Technical Design - Wells and Storage” Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20111209170139/https:/www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/ccs/demo_prog/feed/e_on_feed_/storage/stora
ge.aspx
Site 10 – 248.004 – North Morecambe Gas Field – EIS
Development Concept

The ETI Balanced Scenario shows 5MT/y into the EIS by 2030, with initial injection circa 2026. N Morecambe does not become available until 2026. (Concentrated and EOR scenarios show no CO2
being stored in the EIS before 2030)
North Build out potential

Build out of CO2 storage would be facilitated by the nearby S Morecambe field and Hamilton Fields
Morecambe
South Comparative Development Concept
A new Normally Unmanned Installation (NUI) comprising a jacket and topsides with 5 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT over 20 years. CO2 will be delivered via a 92km long 20”
Morecambe pipeline from Point of Ayr with 10MT/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the beach with the NUI providing its own power and controls. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and
distributed temperature sensors.

Lennox
A new subsea development comprising of 2 subsea manifolds with a total of 9 wells each injecting a total of 10Mt/yr; totalling 180MT over 20 years. CO2 will be delivered via a 92km long 20” pipeline
Hamilton (Oil and from Point of Ayr with 10MT/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the beach with the NUI providing its own power and controls. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed
temperature sensors.
Gas)
Institute)
SW NE NW SE
A A’ B B’
AXIS Depth Structure Map: North Morecambe Field:

Top Sherwood Sst Fm (ft tvd)
B
A’
FWL 3925ft tvd
B’

Image source: modified from Yaliz, A. and Taylor, North Morecambe Field
P The Hamilton and Hamilton North Gas Fields,
North Morecambe Field
Block 110/13a, East Irish Sea United Kingdom
Oil and Gas Fields Commemorative Millennium
Volume, The Geological Society of London 2003
Key
Rossal Halite
Image source: Seismic data provided by CDA under open licence agreement . Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015. Top Ormskirk Sst Fm
Top St Bees Fm
Key Risk Summary
North
Capacity Injectivity Data Capacity
Morecambe Engineered Containment Geo Containment
(MT) (mDm) The calculated storage capacity is 186.5MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of 175.3MT. These are in reasonable agreement.
Gas Field
Wells Leakage Containment There are several different
/sq.km risk risk vintages of 2D and 3D seismic For the North Morecambe field, the due diligence involves a recalculation of the capacity equivalent to the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at February 2015. In addition, the net reservoir volume of fluids removed
Selection 175.3 109,728 0.58 n/a n/a 10 survey covering North Morecambe at COP was estimated and the capacity calculated at this time to confirm the full capacity estimate. The COP date for North Morecambe in the supplied Woodmac data is 2026.
Criteria (P50) field. Current WP4 evaluation is
Due Diligence 186.5 44,559 0.12 0.01 0.001 12 based on 2D seismic interpretation North Morecambe produces a dry gas with condensate and small volumes of water production. DECC reports no gas and water injection volume. All produced fluids were accounted for in the material balance calculation
with data downloaded from CDA. to check potential storage capacity.
The 3D seismic data was not
available at the time but data is Current gas rates are low, ~460Ksm3/d (~16.1mmscf/d) at this stage of the field’s producing life (see below). If this rate is maintained until COP the uplift in storage capacity is estimated to be 4MT (2%).
released and is available from
operator (at a cost). Injectivity
Capacity Calculation Data available in CDA in image
format but digital log (LAS) and The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the North Morecambe Field this was calculated as 109,728 mDm.
Gas Production 33373 MCM core data is not available. Field data and published literature have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir properties which have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected injectivity.
Condensate Production 0.49 MCM The field comprises high average net to gross, low-moderate quality dune and stacked fluvial sandstones of the Sherwood Sandstone (Ormskirk and St. Bees Fm.). The reservoir is subdivided by the illite free and illite
affected layers in the Ormskirk. The St. Bees Formation below contains only illite affected reservoir. A summary of the reservoir properties are summarised in the Injectivity Validation table.
Water Production 0.016 MCM
Net Reservoir Volume Produced 234 MCM The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 44,599 mDm. This is 59% lower than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. Split of the Ormskirk gross thickness (244m), between illite free (61%)
Storage capacity at COP 186.5 MT and illite affected (39%), zones calculated from development wells in the North Morecambe field, where ‘Top Ormskirk’ and ‘Top Platy Illite’ well log picks are available. Available well log data does not cover the entire St.
NB. Volumes refer to production volumes at February 2015.
Bees formation (wells down to TD); therefore the NTG of this formation is uncertain. Reservoir quality is extremely variable due to the presence of illite. The average porosity and permeability values for the illite free and
illite affected zones are taken from the core analysis data of well 110/2a-8. Earlier wells did not have this zone split and only have core analysis over the entire Ormskirk zone. Significantly lower permeability for the illite
affected zones compared to the CO2stored data (90 md Mid) pulls down the Kh.
Injectivity Validation Field reservoir can be divided into two diagenetic zones, an uppermost illite-free zone and a lower illite-affected zone. The top of the illitized zone forms a tilted surface which marks a palaeo hydrocarbon-water contact.
Platy illite reduces the permeability by two or three orders of magnitude in the lower illite affected zone of the reservoir. Carbonate and evaporate cements reduce porosity but have little effect on the permeability.
Highest porosities are preserved near the crest and cement abundance increases down flank 1 .
Zone NTG Porosity
Environment Thickness [m] [mD] [mDm] Additional Injectivity Checks
Illite Free Aeolian/ fluvial 149 0.92 0.12 126.7 17338
Illite Affected Aeolian/ Fluvial 95 0.74 0.12 9.1 636 Two additional injectivity checks were carried out as part of the due diligence.
St Bees (Illite Affected) Stacked braided fluvial 975 0.74 0.12 9.1 6521
All Zones 1219 0.76 0.12 48.3 44,599 1. The initial production performance per well was converted to an equivalent CO2 injection rate to gain some confidence that that the 1MT/year/well target could be met.
Early life production data from the 10 production wells is available on the DECC website. CO2 injection at the initial field pressure mostly meets the injectivity requirement per well. At low (current) field pressures, the
injectivity is much smaller due to CO2 being in the gas phase. A much larger difference between well and formation pressure would be required to meet the required Final production pressure is based on depletion of
approximately 10% of initial pressure.
2. A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over time. A simple model was built in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2 will be injected in the gas phase initially as the reservoir
Containment Validation pressure is expected to be too low for dense phase injection. A DP (well–formation pressure) range of 150psi to 650psi was tested and the corresponding injectivity per well is 0.01MT/year and 0.03MT/year. The required
DP cannot be determined accurately with this simple model but the results indicate that the injectivity cannot be achieved with a reasonable DP for this site.
Fault
North Morecambe gas field 248.004 3 2 1 1 1 2 10
3 2 3 1 1 2 12 Costs
Well Design Site
Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored Site Reference: 10 North Morecambe gas field
Description
The generic well design is discussed in the supporting document ‘Storage Water Depth
Site Due Diligence Summary’. However, the North Morecambe injection Capacity: 186.5 25
(m)
wells may depart from the generic design due to the shallow reservoir depth. Comparative Ultimate
This suggests that, with restricted build angle and kick-off point, the well may Concept Cost (£m) Description
Containment not reach horizontal in the target reservoir. Current producing wells include
some high angle wells targeting the illite affected lower reservoir. Further Tonnes Injected (MT) 100 180 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
detailed well design work is required, and the Hamilton target should not be Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Sherwood Sandstone to identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out Appraisal Cost: £0m £0m
discounted on this basis at this stage. Of further concern is the ability to drill Interpretation
of the storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault leakage of the sequestered CO2. new wells in the depleted gas field, particularly at a high angle, due to Development Well
Field data and published literature were reviewed to establish the effectiveness of trap and seal. Depth to crest of the reservoir is 900 m1. Field is fault closed on three sides and wellbore stability issues. This may limit the achievable deviation in the £112.8m £203m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
Cost:
dip-closed to the northwest1. Small scale in-field faults are mapped at Top Sherwood level by the operator. The Ormskirk sandstone reservoir is overlain by 900m (2950ft) of reservoir section.
Mercia mudstones and halites forming an excellent cap rock that is continuous and not broken by faulting 1,2. CO2 is not expected to leak through the top seal which has already
Due to the shallow water depth (25m), platform wells can be drilled by a low PM & Eng: £15.7m £21.1m 10% of Facilities Costs
trapped North Morecambe gas over geological time, or via reservoir level faults.
cost class 1 Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Platform well costs are assumed to be £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 12. This has increased from 10 (calculated in WP3). The increase is due to the Fault vertical extent factor being increased from 1 to 3 (as Decommissioning: £69.1m £108.8m
£23M per well, including a contingency cost for managing CO2 phase well
the faults extend above 800m and possibly to the seabed). change, resulting in a 5 well development cost of £112.8M. Subtotal £353.7m £543.7m
North Morecambe contains high levels of CO2 (approx 6%), and due to the
Engineering Risk corrosive effects a new pipeline had to be installed. The CO2 is removed Contingency £70.8m £108.8m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
during processing on the North Morecambe terminal 1. Therefore, the OPEX (20years) £187.5m £253.1m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
The engineering containment risk is relatively low, with only 14 wells in the field and only 3 considered at risk of leakage (other wells are suspended or still producing and are infrastructure is already sufficient to cope with the corrosive effects Total: £611.9m £905.4m
assumed to be abandoned at COP, which being after 2025, is expected to result in a negligible leak risk). The three at risk wells were plugged and abandoned in the 70’s, expected whilst injecting CO2 £/T CO2 6.12 5.03
representing the highest risk. Total storage target leakage risk is 0.01 and the well density factor is 0.12 wells/km2, resulting in an acceptable leakage risk assessment score of
0.001.
Commercial Issues
Centrica hold the Petroleum Licence for North

Site 10 – 248.004 – North Morecambe Gas Field – EIS
Morecambe (but without CO2 storage rights). Centrica
hold 100% of the licence. Seismic and well log data Site Summary
available. Production data may be available from Centrica. 110/02
Capacity (Due Diligence): 186.5 MT UKCS Block:
Current oil and gas activity has precluded any other local
activity, such as offshore wind. Centrica have previously Unit Designation: Depleted Gas Beachhead: Point of Ayr
done a study into CO2 storage for North Morecambe. COP Formation: Water Depth:
Ormskirk Sandstone FM 25 m
is 2026.
Containment Unit: Preesall Halite Formation Reservoir Depth: 900 m TVDSS (2950 ft)
Availability/COP: 2026 Region: EIS
Disclaimer:
References 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
1. Cowan, G. and Boycott-Brown, T. The North Morecambe Field, Block 110/2a, East Irish Sea United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields Commemorative Millennium Volume,
The Geological Society of London 200
Site 11 – 336.000 – Grid Sandstone Member – CNS
210 211
Grid Sandstone
2 3
Southern Part
8 9
Grid Sandstone Captain
Northern Part
13 14 15 16
Grid Sandstone
Central Part
19 20 21 22

CO2Stored (© Energy Technologies Image source: courtesy of Google Earth
Institute)
Grid Sst Site: Strike line from PGS MegaSurvey

Axis generated Top Grid Sst Isochore (ft), A A’
Axis generated Top Grid generated from well data (3/15-9a,
Sst depth map (ft tvdss) 9/14b-7, 9/27a-4 & 15/27-10)
A’
B’
A C’
Image source: Original interpretation from Axis
Well Technology, 2015 Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015
Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Strike Line
Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Image source: modified from Wills, J. M.,
The Forties Field, Block 21/10, 22/6a, UK Top Grid Sst
North Sea. BP Exploration, Fig 2
Base Grid Sst
Near Top Palaeocene
Key Risk Summary
Capacity
Grid Sst Site: Dip line 1 from PGS MegaSurvey Grid Sst Site: Dip line 2 from PGS MegaSurvey
Grid Capacit
Injectivity C C’
Sandstone y Engineered Containment Geo Containment The calculated storage capacity is 1825MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored B B’
(mDm)
Member (MT) of 175MT. The area (and therefor the volume) reported in CO2Stored appears to be wrong by
Wells Leakage Containment a factor of 10. The correct area is 16106 km2.
/sq.km risk risk
Selection 175 612,500 1.96 n/a n/a 8 GRV for the grid sandstone is calculated as polygon area x average thickness.
Criteria
Due Diligence 1825 253,500 0.22 0.99 0.22 13
Injectivity
The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated
using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Grid Sandstone Aquifer this was
Capacity Calculation calculated as 612,500 mDm.
Pore Theoretical Field data and published literature1 have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir
Thickness2 GRV Porosity CO2 Density3 Pore Space
NTG2 Volume Capacity properties which have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected
[m] [MMm3]
1
[Tonnes/ m3] Utilisation3 Top Grid Sst
Dip Line
[MMm3] [MT] injectivity. Top Grid Sst Dip Line Base Grid Sst
2,415,96
The aquifer comprises high net to gross, excellent to moderate quality3,5 remobilised6 Base Grid Sst Near Top Palaeocene
sandstones of the Grid Sandstone Member. The sandstone can be divided into two units – Near Top Palaeocene
150 0 0.65 0.325 0.65 0.006 510372 1825 Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
the Caran and Brodie sandstones6. A summary of the reservoir properties are summarised in
NB. 1: Analogue field 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored the Injectivity Validation table.
Development Concept
The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 253,500 mDm,
significantly lower than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. CO2Stored assumes a
thicker gross thickness than that seen at the well data in the store area. Permeability is also The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 11MT/yr by 2030 into the CNS via St Fergus. 1MT goes to Goldeneye.
Injectivity Validation lower compared to published data on fields which hold Grid Sandstone time equivalent 10MT/yr of additional storage may be required by 2030.
sands. The permeability thickness however is still high and based on reservoir quality the
Depositional Gross Perm Kh initial CO2 injectivity is expected to be excellent. Build out potential
Zone NTG Porosity Grid is the most Northerly aquifer considered as part of the Select inventory. Build out could be at Bruce or
Environment Thickness [m] [mD] [mDm] A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions
and over time. A simple model was built in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2 will be injected in Harding. The site is also suitable as a centre for build out for EOR.
Shallow & Deep Water deposits
Grid Remobilised Sandstones 150 0.65 0.325 2600 253,500 critical or dense phase as the reservoir pressure is expected to be high in saline aquifer. An
injection pressure of 1700 psi achieves injectivity well above the threshold of 1MT/year per A new subsea development in the vicinity of Miller with 5 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT
well, without exceeding the min fracture pressure of 2184 psi at the well depth. over 20 years. CO2 will be delivered through the re-use of MGS 30” pipeline from St Fergus with 35MT/yr
capacity. Power and controls will be supplied from an existing neighbouring platform. Monitoring will include
downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors.
Containment Validation Site growth potential; theoretical Ultimate Development Concept

Data The site has a theoretical storage capacity of ~1825MT; The capacity is constrained to 1000MT for this prospect
evaluation stage.
Approximately 90% of Grid Sandstone is covered by the 3D seismic from the PGS MegaSurvey. Data
Fault A new subsea development, consisting of 10 drill centres each with 5 wells injecting a total of 50Mt/yr; totalling
Throw & Verical Fracture Pressure Seal Chemical Seal coverage in the north western part of the site is not as extensive as it is to the south west, making
it difficult to completely map the stratigraphic closure to the west in areas. The data quality is 1000MT over 20 years. CO2 will be delivered via re-use MGS 36” pipeline from St Fergus with 50MT/yr capacity.
Density Fault Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity Degradation Power and controls will be supplied from an existing neighbouring platform or a dedicated facility. Subsea
Grid Sandstone Member 336 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 generally good. The well ties confirm the time interpretation.
centres are connected by 10km infield pipelines.
A significant number of wells cover this vast area. Certain wells from fields have been selected in
3 2 1 1 2 3 13
the southern part and downloaded from CDA. Exploration wells outside of producing fields in the
centre and northern coverage of the Grid Sandstone have also been downloaded. Wells 9/23b-26
Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored and 22/02-11 provide a well time for the Grid Sandstone member.
1 no additional data to qc, values taken from CO2Stored No engineering data available for aquifer sands. Analogue data and correlations will be used. Costs
Site Reference: 11 Site Description Grid Sandstone Member
Water Depth
Capacity: 1825 90
Containment (m)
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Grid saline aquifer storage site to identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault leakage Development Development
of the sequestered CO2. Tonnes Injected (MT) 100 1000 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
The site is a large extensive turbidite system with a combined stratigraphic closure to the west and structural closure to the east. Depositional factors influence sand body thickness, geometry & orientation. Eocene silty shales and claystones of the Horda Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
Appraisal Cost: £68m
Mudstone group form a thick overlying seal2. £68m Interpretation
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 13, this is higher than previous calculated factor in WP3 based on CO2Stored data. No faults in this aquifer had been previously identified in CO2Stored, however a review of the PGS CNS MegaSurvey identified Development Well
£125.8m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
extensive polygonal faulting within the Grid Sandstone. Also the western pinchout limit is not always covered by seismic along its entire length. Cost: £1257.8m
Engineering Risk PM & Eng: £3.9m £48.4m 10% of Facilities Costs
Decommissioning: £49.6m £521m £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea well
The engineering containment risk is very high, with 3,580 wells in total, and 3,540 considered to be at risk of leakage. 2,052 wells were plugged and abandoned, 502 of which were before 1986, representing the highest risk. The 100yr probability of a leakage Subtotal £285.1m £2379m
on the field is a near certain 0.99. However, the well density factor is a low 0.22 wells/km2. The resulting risk assessment score of 0.21 remains high. The area covered by the Grid Sandstone Member is a massive 16,000km2 in a very productive area of the Contingency £57.1m £475.8m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
North Sea, hence the large number of existing wells. However, due to its size, there are also large areas where well density is relatively low. Should the Grid Sandstone member be considered further, the location of injection wells and the plume migration
path should be considered in order to significantly lower the risk of leakage. This would likely limit the overall area considered for storage.
Total: £387.8m £3435.3m
£/T CO2 3.88 3.44
Commercial Issues
The Grid aquifer covers a significant area of the Central and Northern N Sea. For the
development concept above it is assumed that the development is centred in the Miller area, to
benefit from the re-use of the Miller pipeline. Although petroleum activity has ceased in this
field, we understand the petroleum licences are still held by the relevant oil companies (BP,
Shell, Conoco). Acquisition of the MGS pipeline would be required for this development
scenario. Site 11 – 336.000 – Grid Sandstone Member - CNS
Site Summary
Well Design Capacity (Due Diligence): 1825 MT UKCS Block: 16/7 vicinity
Unit Designation: Saline Aquifer Beachhead: St Fergus
Summary’. It is likely that this well design can be achieved in the Grid Sandstone Member at its Eocene Grid Sandstone Mbr 90m
deeper points, but may be challenging in shallower depths (the reservoir is extensive and depths
vary considerably). Containment Unit: Horda Formation Reservoir Depth: 908 m TVDSS (2981 ft)
Due to the moderate water depth (120m), wells have been assumed to be drilled by a class 2 Availability/COP: n/a Region: CNS
(Heavy Duty) Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Subsea well costs are assumed to be £25M per well, resulting
in a 5 well development cost of £125.8M. Client The Energy Technologies Institute Title D06: Prospect Summary Sheets Date of Issue 7th August 2015
References Project Title DECC Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project Classification Client Confidential Version V00
1. B. Kilhams Godfrey S, Hartley A, Huuse, M. An integrated 3D seismic, petrophysical and analogue core study of the Mid-Eocene Grid channel complex in the greater
Disclaimer:
Nelson Field area, UK Central North Sea. EAGE 2011
2. Millenium Atlas – Petroleum geology of the Central and Northern North Sea. Geological Society of London 2003 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
3. Weisenburn, T and Hague, P Time lapse seismic in Gannet A: One more lead firmly integrated. The Leading Edge January 2005 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
4. Mudge, D. & Bujak, J. (1996) An integrated stratigraphy for the Paleocene and Eocene of the North Sea. From Correlation of the Early Paleogene in Northwest
Europe. Geological Society Special Publication No. 1010, pp91-113 1996
5. Robertson, Jenna (2013) Overpressure and Lateral Drainage in the Palaeogene Strata of the CentralNorth Sea, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at
Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9452/
Site 12 – 361.000 – Mey 1 – CNS
361.000 Mey 1 – Mey SST Mbr., Lista Fm., Axis generated Near Top Palaeocene depth map (ft)
Montrose Group
A’
MEY 1
B’
Forties 5 CO2Stored outline Ci: 250ft

Major offshore areas covered by Mey 1 CO2Stored outline
CO2Stored (© Energy Technologies Image source: courtesy of CDA through an open licence agreement Image source: courtesy of Google Earth
Institute) Maureen 1 CO2Stored outline
Random Dip seismic lines across the Maureen 1 and Mey 1 saline aquifers
A A’
Axis generated Palaeocene Isochore (ft) Axis generated Near Base Tertiary depth map (ft) 30/06-4
B B
Forties 5 CO2Stored outline

A’ A’ Forties 5 CO2Stored outline
Mey 1 CO2Stored outline Mey 1 CO2Stored outline
A Maureen 1 CO2Stored outline Maureen 1 CO2Stored outline
A
B’ B’
Mey Member
Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Ci: 200ft Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Ci: 250ft
Well Technology, 2015 Well Technology, 2015
Data
Approximately 98% of Mey 1 aquifer sandstone is covered by the 3D seismic by the CNS PGS MegaSurvey. The data quality is generally good. The well ties confirm the time
interpretation, however the Top Mey sandstone member has not been mapped.
The Forties Field, Block 21/10, 22/6a, UK A significant amount of wells cover this area and a range of digital and non-digital data are available. Offset porosity/permeability data may not be readily available for the aquifer
North Sea. BP Exploration, Fig 2 Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
section of the Mey Sand.
No engineering data is available for aquifer sands. Analogue data and correlations will be used
Near Base Tertiary Near Top Middle Jurassic
Key Risk Summary
Near Top Lower Cretaceous Near Top Permian
Mey 1 Aquifer Engineered Containment Geo Containment
(MT) (mDm)
Wells Leakage Containment Capacity
Random Strike seismic line along the Maureen 1 and Mey 1 saline aquifers
/sq.km risk risk
Selection 174 48,906 0.12 n/a n/a 13 The calculated storage capacity is 22MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of
Criteria 138MT. The drop in capacity is related to a thinner net thickness (driven by low NTG) in the
Due Diligence 22 1,125 0.07 0.45 0.033 13
wells within the Mey 1 area when compared to what has been reported in CO2Stored. B B’
The Mey 1 store is at the southern end of the sand depositional system resulting in thinner
sands and a big reduction in the NTG. Sands become thin and there is a far greater proportion
of non-net siltstones and claystones than is seen in the equivalent intervals to the North.
Reservoir sand presence and thickness is highly variable across the area, there is a high
Capacity Calculation degree of uncertainty with the storage capacity that has been calculated.
Pore Theoretical
[MMm3] [MT] Injectivity
15 102,692 0.34 0.26 0.59 0.006 6675 22
NB. 1: Analogue field 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the
mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Mey 1 this was calculated as 48,096 mDm.
The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 1,125 mDm. This is much
Injectivity Validation lower than the Kh calculated using the CO2Stored data. This is largely caused by the lower average
permeability and thickness that has been assumed, although the assumed lower average NTG also
contributes Mey Member
Zone NTG2 Porosity1
No permeability data is available for Mey Sands at the storage site, permeability, its regional lateral
Mey Turbidite 45 0.25 0.26 100 1,125 variation and heterogeneity remain a big uncertainty.
NB. 1: Analogue field 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored Reservoir properties for hydrocarbon field analogues have excellent reservoir quality with Darcy
sands in the Balmoral and Macculloch fields. However permeabilities within the aquifer sands of
several Palaeocene analogue reservoirs (Maureen, Moira) are known to be lower1.
Thin bedded turbidites, as are seen at the southern end of the Mey system, also show poorer
porosity/ perm eabilitycharacteristics than the more massive, thickly bedded sands to the North.
Containment Validation Published permeability versus depth for Paleocene reservoirs also suggests values of less than
100mD at the depths for this store2. Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Geo Containment Georisk
Based on these observations an average permeability of 100 mD has been assumed. Near Top Palaeocene Base Cretaceous Unconformity
Risk code Fault Characterisation Seal Characterisation Factor
Throw & Fault Seal Seal An injection pressure of 2150 psi achieves the threshold of 1MT/year per well, but exceeds the
Fault Verical Fracture Pressure Chemical Degradatio assumed minimum fracture pressure of 1941 psi (based on a frac gradient of 0.726 psi/ft).
Density Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity n There is some evidence from published literature that the Mey may be over pressured by up to
Near Top Lower Cretaceous Near Top Permian
Mey 1 361 3 3 2 1 2 2 13 2000 psi at the southern end. A sensitivity was run and an injection pressure of 3900 psi is required
3 3 2 1 2 2 13 to achieve the threshold injectivity per well. However this again exceeds the calculated fracture
pressure.
There is uncertainty associated with the assumed minimum fracture pressure, however achieving
the required injectivity below the min fracture pressure, is identified as a risk.
Costs
Containment
Development Concept Site Reference: 12 Site Description Mey 1
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Mey 1 saline aquifer storage site to identify Water Depth
CO2 volumes cf ETI Scenarios Capacity: 22 70
secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the storage complex, in the unlikely event of (m)
The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 11MT/yr by 2030 into the CNS via St Fergus. 1MT goes to Goldeneye. 10MT/yr of
a seal or fault leakage of the sequestered CO2. Comparative Ultimate
additional storage may be required by 2030. Concept Cost (£m) Description
The primary seal for the Mey Sands are the intra-formation shales of the Palaeocene Lista Formation. However Build out potential Tonnes Injected (MT) 20 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
hydrocarbons within Paleocene reservoirs normally occur in the highest reservoir unit in any well, from which it can be The Mey aquifer is close to the Maureen aquifer which could act as a build out option. Both of these sites could be build out for Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
the Forties aquifer. Appraisal Cost: £82m
deduced that Palaeocene shales do not generally form reliable seals. There is therefore a high risk of migration into Interpretation
overlying Palaeocene sands which are also present over this region. Development Well Cost: £40.1m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 13, the same as previously calculated factor in WP3 based on CO2Stored A new subsea development consisting of a single well injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 20MT over 20 years. CO2 will be delivered via Facilities Cost: £378.8m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
data. a new 322 km pipeline from St Fergus. Power and controls will be supplied from an existing neighbouring platform. Monitoring PM & Eng: £37.9m 10% of Facilities Costs
will include downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors. Decommissioning: £102.7m £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea well
Engineering Risk Subtotal £641.4m
The site has a theoretical storage capacity of ~22MT. Contingency £128.3m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
The engineering containment risk is moderate to high, with 376 wells in total, and 194 abandoned wells considered to
The site has no additional growth potential OPEX (20years) £454.5m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
be at risk of leakage, 38 of which were before 1986. The 100yr probability of a leakage on the field is a moderately
Total: £1224.1m
high 0.45 and the well density factor is 0.07 wells/km2, resulting in a moderate risk assessment score of 0.033.
However, localised well density is such that injection sites and CO2 plume pathways need to be carefully selected to £/T CO2 61.20
avoid producing fields. Should a smaller section of the Mey 1 be considered, this risk review should be revisited. *These costs are not the full cost of storage as they omit MMV, security instruments, handover to DECC and profit.
Commercial Issues
Site 12 – 361.000 – Mey 1 - CNS
The Mey aquifer could be developed from within a wide area in upper Block 30. As such,
although most of this area is licensed for petroleum, it is not expected that petroleum license Site Summary
interaction will limit development potential. Capacity (Due Diligence): 22 MT UKCS Block: 30/6 vicinity
Heidmal Member 70 m
Containment Unit: Horda Formation Reservoir Depth: 2805 TVDSS (9200 ft)
Well Design
Availability/COP: n/a Region: CNS
Summary’. It is likely that this well design can be achieved in the Mey 1. Client The Energy Technologies Institute Title D06: Prospect Summary Sheets Date of Issue 7th August 2015
Due to the moderate water depth (80m), wells have been assumed to be drilled by a class 2 Project Title DECC Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project Classification Client Confidential Version V00
(Heavy Duty) Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Subsea well costs are assumed to be £40M per well, resulting
in a 5 well development cost of £200M.) Disclaimer:

1. Ahmadi, Z. M., Sawyers, M., Kenyon-Roberts, S., Stanworth, C. W., Kugler, K.A., Kristensen, J. and Fugelli, E. M. G. 2003. Palaeocene. In: Evans, D., Graham,
2. C., Armour, A. and Bathurst, P. (eds) The Millennium Atlas: petroleum geology of the Central and Northern North Sea. The Geological Society London, p. 235-259
Site 13 – 366.000 – Maureen 1 – CNS
366.000 Maureen 1 – Maureen Fm., Montrose Group Axis generated Near Top Palaeocene depth map (ft)
MAUREEN 1 A’
B’
Forties 5 CO2Stored outline Ci: 250ft

CO2Stored (© Energy Technologies Image source: courtesy of Google Earth Mey 1 CO2Stored outline
Institute)
Axis generated Palaeocene Isochore (ft)

Random Dip seismic lines across the Maureen 1 and Mey 1 saline aquifers
Axis generated Near Base Tertiary depth map (ft)
A A’
B B 30/06-4
Forties 5 CO2Stored outline

A’ Forties 5 CO2Stored outline A’
Mey 1 CO2Stored outline Mey 1 CO2Stored outline
Maureen 1 CO2Stored outline A Maureen 1 CO2Stored outline

A
B’ B’
Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Ci: 250ft Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Ci: 200ft Maureen Formation
Well Technology, 2015 Well Technology, 2015
Data
Approximately 98% of Maureen 1 aquifer sandstone is covered by the 3D seismic by the CNS PGS MegaSurvey. The data quality is generally good. The well ties confirm the time
interpretation, however the top Maureen sandstone member had not been mapped.
The Forties Field, Block 21/10, 22/6a, UK A significant amount of wells cover this area and a range of digital and non-digital data are available. Offset porosity/permeability data may not be readily available for the aquifer
North Sea. BP Exploration, Fig 2 section of the Maureen Sand.
No engineering data available for aquifer sands. Analogue data and correlations will be used.

Key Risk Summary
Maureen 1 Capacity Injectivity Near Top Lower Cretaceous Near Top Permian
Aquifer (MT) (mDm)
/sq.km risk risk Capacity
Selection 162 10,978 0.12 n/a n/a 15
Criteria The calculated storage capacity is 101MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of 138MT.
The drop in capacity is related to a thinner net thickness (driven by low NTG) in the wells within the
Due Diligence 101 2,550 0.08 0.6 0.05 14
Maureen 1 area when compared to what has been reported in CO2Stored. Random Strike seismic line along the Maureen 1 and Mey 1 saline aquifers
The Maureen 1 store is at the southern end of the Maureen sand depositional system resulting in
B B’
thinner sands and a big reduction in the NTG seen within the Maureen Formation. There is a far
greater proportion of non-net siltstones and claystones than is seen in the Northern Maureen
Formation intervals.
Capacity Calculation Reservoir sand presence and thickness is highly variable across the area, there is a high degree of
uncertainty with the storage capacity that has been calculated.
GRV Pore Theoretical
Thickness2 Porosity CO2 Density3 Pore Space
[MMm3 NTG2 1
Volume Capacity
[m] [Tonnes/ m3] Utilisation3
] [MMm3] [MT]
75 267,475 0.34 0.25 0.78 0.006 22735 101 Injectivity
NB. 1: Analogue field 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored

The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the
mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Maureen 1 this was calculated as 10,978 mDm.
The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 2,550 mDm. This is approx. 75%
lower than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. This is largely caused by the lower average
Injectivity Validation permeability that has been assumed, although the assumed lower average NTG also contributes.
Depositional Gross Porosity Perm1 Kh No permeability data is available for Maureen Sands at the storage site, permeability, its regional
Zone NTG2 Maureen Formation
Environment Thickness2 [m] 1 [mD] [mDm] lateral variation and heterogeneity remain a big uncertainty.
Maureen S. fan/ turbidite 75 0.34 0.25 100 2,550
Reservoir properties for the Maureen Field are excellent with permeabilities up to 1500 mD, but it is a
NB. 1: Analogue field 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored significant distance to the North and approximately 500m shallower. Permabilities within the
Maureen Field aquifer are much reduced, generally less than 100mD1.
Published permeability versus depth for Paleocene reservoirs also suggests values of less than 100mD
at the depths for this store2.
Based on these observations an average permeability of 100 mD has been assumed.
Containment Validation A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
time. A simple model was built in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2 will be injected in critical or dense
Geo Containment Georisk
phase as the reservoir pressure is expected to be high in the saline aquifer.
Risk code Fault Characterisation Seal Characterisation Factor Near Base Tertiary Near Top Middle Jurassic
An injection pressure of 6300 psi does achieve the threshold of 1MT/year per well, but exceeds the
Throw & Fault Seal Seal
Fault Verical Fracture Pressure Chemical Degradatio assumed minimum fracture pressure of 5917 psi (based on a frac gradient of 0.726 psi/ft). Near Top Lower Cretaceous Near Top Permian
Density Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity n There is some evidence from published literature that the Maureen may be over pressured by up to
Maureen 1 366 3 3 3 1 3 2 15 2000 psi at the southern end. A sensitivity was run and an injection pressure of 7917 psi achieves an
injection of 1.01MT/year per well but is well above the calculated min fracture pressure.
3 3 2 1 3 2 14
There is uncertainty associated with the assumed minimum fracture pressure, however achieving the
required injectivity is identified as a risk.
Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored Costs
Site
Site Reference: 13 Maureen 1
Description
Water Depth
Capacity: 101 80
Containment (m)
Development Concept Comparative Ultimate
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Maureen 1 saline aquifer storage site to Development Development
identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the storage complex, in the unlikely CO2 volumes cf ETI Scenarios
Tonnes Injected (MT) 100 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 11MT/yr by 2030 into the CNS via St Fergus. 1MT goes to Goldeneye. 10MT/yr of
event of a seal or fault leakage of the sequestered CO2. Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
additional storage may be required by 2030 Appraisal Cost: £76m
The primary seal for the Maureen Sands are shales of the overlying Palaeocene Lista Formation. However Interpretation
hydrocarbons within the Paleocene normally occur in the highest reservoir unit in any well from which it can be Build out potential Development Well
deduced that Palaeocene shales do not generally form reliable seals. There is therefore a high risk of migration into The Mey aquifer is close to the Maureen aquifer which could act as a build out option. Both of these sites could be build out for £172.1m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
Cost:
the overlying Palaeocene Mey and Forties sands which are also present over this region. the Forties aquifer Facilities Cost: £317.5m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 14 which is lower than the previous calculated factor in WP3 based on
Comparative Development Concept PM & Eng: £31.8m 10% of Facilities Costs
CO2Stored data. A review of the PGS CNS mega-survey could find no faults extending upwards to shallower than
A new subsea development with 5 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT over 20 years. CO2 will be delivered Decommissioning: £119.4m £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea well
800m.
via a new 20” 255 km pipeline from St Fergus with 10MT/yr capacity. Power and controls will be supplied from an existing Subtotal £716.6m
neighbouring platform. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors. Contingency £143.4m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
Engineering Risk
Site growth potential; theoretical Ultimate Development Concept OPEX (20years) £380.9m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
The engineering containment risk is moderate to high, with 518 wells in total, and 300 abandoned wells considered to The site has a theoretical storage capacity of ~101MT. Total: £1240.8m
be at risk of leakage. 53 of these abandonments were before 1986, representing the highest risk. The 100yr The site has no additional growth potential £/T CO2 12.41
probability of a leakage on the field is a high 0.6, and the well density factor is 0.08 wells/km2, resulting in a moderate *These costs are not the full cost of storage as they omit MMV, security instruments, handover to DECC and profit.
risk assessment score of 0.05. However, localised well density is such that injection sites and CO2 plume pathways
need to be carefully selected to avoid producing fields. Should a smaller section of the Maureen 1 be considered, this
risk review should be revisited.
Site 13 – 366.000 – Maureen 1 - CNS

Site Summary
Well Design
Capacity (Due Diligence): 101 MT UKCS Block: 30/1 vicinity
The generic well design is discussed in the supporting document ‘Storage Site Due Diligence Unit Designation: Saline Aquifer Beachhead: St Fergus
Summary’. It is likely that this well design can be achieved in the Maureen 1. Formation: Water Depth:
Maureen 80 m
Due to the moderate water depth (80m), wells have been assumed as drilled by a class 2 (Heavy
Duty) Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Subsea well costs are assumed to be £34M per well, resulting in a 5 Containment Unit: Mey Sandstone Mbr Reservoir Depth: 2835 m TVDSS (9300 ft)
well development cost of £172M. CNS
Availability/COP: n/a Region:
Disclaimer:
1. Cutts, P. L. (1991) The Maureen Field, Block 16/29a, UK North Sea United Kingdome Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years Commemorative Volume, Geological Society
Memoir No. 14, pp 347-352 Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project
2. Ahmadi, Z. M., Sawyers, M., Kenyon-Roberts, S., Stanworth, C. W., Kugler, K.A., Kristensen, J. and Fugelli, E. M. G. 2003. Palaeocene. In: Evans, D., Graham, C.,
Armour, A. and Bathurst, P. (eds) The Millennium Atlas: petroleum geology of the Central and Northern North Sea. The Geological Society London, p. 235-259
Site 14 – 218.000 - Captain Aquifer – CNS
Captain Aquifer “pan-handle”
Axis generated Near Top Captain Sandstone depth map (ft) Development Concept

A The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 11MT/yr by 2030 into the CNS via St Fergus. 1MT goes to Goldeneye.
10MT/yr of additional storage may be required by 2030.
Build out potential

Blake The site could build out to Captain oilfield and Coracle aquifer. Also, the Captain aquifer, being relatively close
Field to shore, could be built out to Bruce, Harding, Grid aquifer. It also represents a suitable site for build out to
Atlantic EOR.
Captain
Field
Field Comparative Development Concept
B’ Goldeneye A new subsea development, in the vicinity of Atlantic and Cromarty, with 3 deviated wells each injecting
Field 1MT/yr; totalling 49MT over 20 years. CO2 will be delivered via the re-use the Atlantic and Cromarty 16”
pipeline from St Fergus with 6MT/yr capacity. Power and controls will be supplied from an existing
Cromarty A’ neighbouring platform. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors.
Field B
Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015 The site has no additional growth potential
CO2Stored Captain Aquifer Captain Aquifer “pan-handle”

Major offshore areas covered by outline polygon outline polygon
CO2Stored (© Energy Technologies Ci: 200ft
Institute)
NW Blake Cromarty Atlantic Goldeneye SE

STRATIGRAPHY LITHOLOGY
Random seismic line across the Captain Fairway
QUATERNARY
B B’
DORNOCH/ SELE
TERTIARY
LISTA FM
MEY SST
MAUREEN FM
UPPER CRETACEOUS
EKOFISK FM
CHALK GROUP
TOR FM
HERRING FM
PLENUS MARL FM
HIDRA FM
RODBY FM Primary Caprock

CARRACK FM
LOWER CRETACEOUS
CROMER KNOLL GROUP
UPPER CAPTAIN SANDSTONE

MID CAPTAIN SHALE Primary Store
LOWER CAPTAIN SANDSTONE
VALHALL FM
CORACLE SST
PUNT SST
Atlantic
UPPER JURASSIC
KIMMERIDGE CLAY
Field
HUMBER GROUP
BURNS SAND MEMBER

FORMATION
Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original
Fairway Correlation
Near Base Tertiary
Image source: modified from Pinnock, S. J.,
Clitheroe, A. R. J., and Rose, P. T. S, The Captain Near Top Captain Sandstone
Field, Block 13/22a, UK North Sea, Geological
Society, London, Memoirs 2003, v20; p431-441
Base Cretaceous Unconformity
Key Risk Summary Data Random seismic line along the Captain Fairway
Captain Capacity Injectivity
Engineered Containment Geo Containment Captain aquifer is only partially A A’
Saline Aquifer (MT) (mDm) covered by the 3D CNS PGS seismic
Wells Leakage Containment MegaSurvey (approximately 60%).
/sq.km risk risk
3D Seismic covers main areas of
Selection 156 430,010 0.09 n/a n/a 12 interest including fairway. The data
Criteria quality is variable due the large area
Due Diligence 49* 103,700 0.07 0.27 0.018 14 of the aquifer encompassing several
different merged 3D surveys.
Degradation of seismic data quality
below the Chalk renders imaging of
*Note that capacity is likely to be greater than this value, see Ref 4 the Captain sandstone poor in
areas. The well ties confirm the
time interpretation.
Pore Theoretical Digital log data is available from
Thickness2 GRV CO2 Density3 Pore Space CDA but coverage and quality are
[m] [MMm3] [Tonnes/ m3] Utilisation3 variable. There is particularly dense
[MMm3] [MT] coverage over the Captain field.
Captain
62 53713 0.95 0.31 0.56 0.006 15818 49 Field
Cromarty
NB. 1: Analogue field data and literature 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored
Blake Field
Field
Atlantic
Injectivity Validation Field

Zone NTG Porosity Goldeneye
Field
Captain Sands/ Kopervik Turbidite 61 0.85 0.31 2000 103,700
Image source: TAKEN FROM PGS AGMT
Containment Validation Near Base Tertiary
A
Geo Containment Risk code Fault Characterisation
Fault Seal Characterisation Georisk Factor Near Top Captain Sandstone
Density Fault Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity Degradation Base Cretaceous Unconformity
Captain_013_17 218 1 1 2 3 3 2 12
Near Top Permian
3 2 1 3 3 2 14

A’
Capacity
The calculated storage capacity is 49MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of 156MT. The due diligence capacity has only been calculated for the southern ‘pan-handle’ area, which has been extended to include the Kopervik fairway as far south Time Slice through the Captain Fairway
east as Goldeneye (the capacity excludes the Captain Field and areas to the North and South of the field). A significant part of the C02 Stored Captain area polygon is not covered by 3D seismic.
The full Kopervik fairway is believed to be in hydraulic communication and compartmentalisation is not thought to be a risk.
Costs
Injectivity
The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Captain aquifer this was calculated as 430,010 mDm. Site Reference: 14 Site Description Captain_013_17
Field data and published literature have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir properties which have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected injectivity. Water Depth
Capacity: 49 95
The aquifer comprises Kopervik sands with a range of net to gross from 75-95% and excellent quality mass-flow sandstones of Early Cretaceous age. A summary of the reservoir properties are summarised in the Injectivity Validation table. (m)
The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 103,700 mDm. This is significantly lower than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. CO2Stored assumes NTG and Permeability similar to Captain field. Over the larger Kopervik fairway, Development Development
NTG ranges between 75 and 95% 3. The permeability over Captain is high with an average 7,000mD, however at Blake, this average drops to 1,500-20005. The SCCS 4 have conducted a study over this aquifer area with a lower permeability of 2000mD. Tonnes Injected (MT) 49 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
The permeability thickness however is still high and based on reservoir quality the initial CO2 injectivity is expected to be excellent. Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
Appraisal Cost: £0m
Interpretation
A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over time. A simple model was built in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2 will be injected in critical or dense phase as the reservoir pressure is expected to be high in saline Development Well Cost: £84.3m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
aquifer. The injectivity threshold of 1MT/year per well can be achieved with an injection pressure of 3450 psi, well below the fracture pressure of 5700 psi. Facilities Cost: £38.1m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
Containment PM & Eng: £3.9m 10% of Facilities Costs
Decommissioning: £33.6m £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea well
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Captain saline aquifer storage site to identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault Subtotal £159.6m
leakage of the sequestered CO2. The primary seal for the Captain sands is provided by the thin Sola/ Rodby mudstones directly overlying. These also provide the top seal for the Captain Field. In the overburden there are four possible units identified which Contingency £32m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
could restrict the migration of the CO2 plume to the seabed should it egress from the Captain reservoir storage site. These are: Nordland Group, Dornoch Mudstone Unit, Lista Formation Mudstones, Plenus Marl & Hidra Formations. OPEX (20years) £45.7m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
Total: £237.1m
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 14, this is higher than previous calculated factor in WP3 based on CO2Stored data. No faults in this aquifer had been previously identified in CO2Stored, however a review of the PGS CNS MegaSurvey identified several
£/T CO2 4.84
faults.
Engineering Risk
The engineering containment risk is moderate, with 74 abandoned wells, in the pan-handle area considered, at risk of leakage. 5 wells were abandoned before 1986, representing the highest risk. The 100yr probability of a leakage on the field is moderate to
high at 0.22, but the well density factor is 0.08 wells/km2, resulting in a moderate risk assessment score of 0.018. Careful selection of injection site and CO2 plume pathway is required in order to avoid the high well density locations.
Well Design
The generic well design is discussed in the supporting document ‘Storage

Site Due Diligence Summary’. Due to the varying target depth, achieving this Site 14 – 218.000 – Captain Aquifer - CNS
well design may be a challenge in the shallower areas of the Captain Aquifer.
Targeting the deeper zones may be necessary.
Site Summary
Due to the deep water depth (95m), wells have conservatively been Capacity (Due Diligence): 49 MT UKCS Block:
13/23, 24, 29, 30 . 14/26, 27, 29.
20/1,2,3,4
assumed to be drilled by Semi-Submersible Drilling Unit. Subsea well costs Saline Aquifer St Fergus
Unit Designation: Beachhead:
are assumed to be £28M per well, resulting in a 5 well development cost of
£140.4M. Formation: Captain Sandstone Water Depth: 95 m
Mbr., Wick SST Fm.
Commercial Issues Containment Unit: Hidra Formation Reservoir Depth: 1,190 m TVDSS (3904 ft)
Availability/COP: n/a Region: CNS
The Captain aquifer could be developed from a range of sites. The
development scenario outlined above suggests the vicinity of the Atlantic
Field, in order to enable re-use of the Atlantic and Cromarty pipeline. The
A&C fields have ceased production but are still licensed to BG and Hess.
Disclaimer:
References 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
1. Element Energy Ltd. (2014) “Scotland and Central North Sea CCS Hub Study” Revised Final Report 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
2. SCCS (2011) “Progressing Scotland’s CO2 storage opportunities” 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.
3. Law, A et al. (2000) “The Kopervik fairway, Moray Firth, UK. Petroleum Geoscience” Vol. 6 , pp. 265-274
4. Jin, M., Mackay E., Quinn M., Hitchen K. & Akhurst M., 2012. “Evaluation of the CO2 Storage Capacity of Captain Sandstone Formation” SPE154539 Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project
5. Du, K,E., et al., (2000) “Optimising the Developments of Blake Field under Tough Economic and Environmental Conditions” International Oil and Gas conference and Exhibition
in China
Site 19 – 248.002 - Hamilton – EIS
Data Development Concept
A 3D seismic survey acquired in 1992 has been released and can be CO2 volumes cf ETI Scenarios
The ETI Balanced Scenario shows 5MT/y into the EIS by 2030, with initial injection circa
requested via the owner ENI. Current WP4 evaluation based on 2D 2026. Hamilton has capacity for this rate and volume for ~20 years. (Concentrated and
seismic interpretation with data downloaded from CDA. EOR scenarios show no CO2 being stored in the EIS before 2030).
Build out potential

Where available, log data has been downloaded from CDA. Log data Build out of CO2 storage would be facilitated by the nearby Morecambe fields, (N & S
together have a capacity of 1042MT) which are expected to reach COP by 2028.
is only available in Lis format. These logs have been converted to
LAS files via Schlumberger Log Data Toolbox and loaded to Petrel. Comparative Development Concept
A new Normally Unmanned Installation (NUI) comprising a jacket and topsides with 5
Missing digital log data is available to purchase from IHS. Well deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT over 20 years. CO2 will be
reports and log images are also available for most wells and have delivered via a 48km, 20” pipeline from Point of Ayr with 10MT/yr capacity. Facilities will
be controlled from the beach with the NUI providing its own power and controls.
Hamilton been downloaded from CDA. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors.

Production data was made available from DECC on a field level. Well The site has a theoretical storage capacity of ~130MT.
data is available up to 1999. Production data per well is required to
There is little or no additional site growth potential beyond the development concept
progress this site to a more detailed modelling study. The data outlined above. For completeness the Ultimate Development Concept costed is identical
needs to be sourced from the Operator. In addition, current to the Comparative Development Concept with the additional of a further well injecting a
further 1MT/yr to deliver nearer to the 130MT theoretical storage capacity over the
Image source: courtesy of CDA through an open licence agreement reservoir pressure data is required for any further modelling work. 20years.
Major offshore areas covered by CO2Stored (©

3.3km
Energy Technologies Institute)
B’
Hamilton Field:
Top Ormskirk Sst Fm (ft tvdss)
A
Primary
Seal
Primary
Store
B GWC
2910ft A’
tvd
Lithology
• Shale
• Mudstone
• Halite
• Sandstone
Figure 4 Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015
South to North Well correlation section
Image source: modified from Yaliz, A. and Taylor, P The (Logs shown: Vshale, Facies, PHIE and Sw)
Hamilton and Hamilton North Gas Fields, Block 110/13a, East
Irish Sea United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields Commemorative Raw log data (Gamma Ray, Density, Neutron and Sonic) were used during the well correlation. Where digital data were not available (110/13-4 and 110/13-H4) scanned composite log data were used to
Millennium Volume, The Geological Society of London 2003 confirm the correlation and well tops. B’
Raw data and composite logs are not shown to comply with CDA licensing restrictions A A’ B
Capacity
The calculated storage capacity is 130MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of 120MT. These are in reasonable agreement.
For the Hamilton field, the due diligence involves a recalculation of the capacity equivalent to the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at February 2015. In addition, the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at COP was estimated and the capacity
calculated at this time to confirm the full capacity estimate. There is no reference to a COP date for Hamilton in the literature or the supplied Woodmac data (as COP is expected before 2020). An estimate of end 2017 was made to determine impact of
future production in capacity potential.
Hamilton produces a dry gas with traces of water and condensate production. DECC reports a small gas injection volume. All produced and injected fluids were accounted for in the material balance calculation to check potential storage capacity.
Current gas rates are relatively low at this stage of the field’s producing life. Assuming production continues at this rate until COP, the uplift in storage capacity is small, ~0.1%.
The produced volumes and conversion to mass storage potential are shown in the Capacity Calculation table.
Injectivity
The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Hamilton Field this was calculated as 175,517 mDm.
The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 133,570 mDm. This is approx. 25% lower than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. CO2Stored assumes a thicker gross thickness than that seen at the well data on the field.
The permeability thickness however is still high and based on reservoir quality the initial CO2 injectivity is expected to be excellent.
Field data and published literature1 have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir properties which have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected injectivity.
The field comprises high net to gross, excellent to moderate quality aeolian and fluvial sandstones of the Ormskirk Formation1. No field wide permeability barriers or baffles exist and there is little lateral variation in reservoir quality. The reservoir has
been subdivided into three zones which do show some variation in reservoir quality1. A summary of the reservoir properties are summarised in the Injectivity Validation table.
Hamilton Field
Key Risk Summary Hamilton Field

Additional Injectivity Checks
Hamilton Gas Capacity Injectivity Two additional injectivity checks were carried out as part of the due diligence.
Field (MT) (mDm)
1. The initial production performance per well was converted to an equivalent CO2 injection rate to gain some confidence that that
/sq.km risk risk
Selection 120 175,715 0.47 n/a n/a 11 the 1MT/year/well target could be met.
Criteria (P50) Early life production data from the 4 production wells is available on the DECC website. CO2 injection at the initial field pressure
Due Diligence 130* 133,570 0.48 0.17 0.008 13
meets the injectivity requirement per well. At low (current) field pressures, the injectivity is much smaller due to CO2 being in the
* Based on DCA forecast gas phase. A much larger difference between well and formation pressure would be required to meet the required injection rates.
Gas Production 18127 MCM 2. A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over time. A simple model was built
Condensate Production 0.33 MCM in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2 will be injected in the gas phase initially as the reservoir pressure is expected to be too low for dense
phase injection. A DP (well–formation pressure) range of 150psi to 650psi was tested and the corresponding injectivity per well is
Gas Injection 88.6 MCM
0.7MT/year and 2.7MT/year. The required DP cannot be determined accurately with this simple model but the results indicate that
Net Reservoir Volume Produced 168.4 MCM
Storage capacity 130 MT the injectivity can be achieved with a reasonable DP for this site. Image source: 2D seismic lines downloaded from CDA, . Original interpretation from
Key Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Rossal Halite
Injectivity Validation Top Ormskirk Sst Fm
Containment Top Collyhurst Sst Fm
Zone NTG2 Porosity1
Environment Thickness1 [m] [mD] [mDm] Georisk
Zone I Aeolian 52 0.94 0.186 2100 102,286 An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Hamilton field to identify secondary
Zone II Fluvial 55 0.75 0.112 320 13,168 containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the Hamilton storage complex, in the unlikely event
Zone III Aeolian/ Fluvial 55 0.98 0.178 370 19,894
of a seal or fault leakage of the sequestered CO2.
Costs
All Zones 162 0.89 0.16 930 133,570
Site Reference: 19 Site Description Hamilton gas field
NB. Ref 1; Average taken from CDA Well logs (110/13-1; 110/13-3; 110/13-4). Water Depth
Field data and published literature1 were reviewed to establish the effectiveness of trap and seal. Depth to crest of Capacity: 130 25
(m)
Containment Validation the reservoir is 701 m (2300ft tvdss), with a simple horst block and dip closure trap1. Minor east-west and north –
Concept Cost (£m)
Description
south faulting is present 1. All faults within field have sand to sand contact and do not provide barrier to gas flow1. Development Development
Although difficult to see on the currently available 2D seismic lines, a published seismic image from the 3D seismic
volume shows faults extending possibly up to the seabed. However, the Mercia Mudstone Group (>700m thick shale Appraisal Cost: £0m £0m
Interpretation
and halite) provides an effective overburden seal to the Hamilton field1. CO2 is not expected to leak through the top Development Well Cost: £102.3m £122.7m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
Mercia seal which has already trapped Hamilton gas over geological time, or via reservoir level faults. The underlying Facilities Cost: £114.1m £114.1m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
PM & Eng: £11.5m £11.5m 10% of Facilities Costs
St Bees Sst Fm. does provide the Hamilton field with an additional zone containing gas, with the Manchester Marl
Decommissioning: £58.6m £62.6m £10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea well
Fm. below this (>150m thick1).
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 13, this is higher than the previous calculated factor which was 11. This is OPEX (20years) £136.9m £136.9m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
due to the Fault vertical extent being increased from 1 to 3 (as the faults extend above 800m). Total: £480.4m £509.7m
£/T CO2 4.80 4.25
Engineering Risk *These costs are not the full cost of storage as they omit MMV, security instruments, handover to DECC and profit.
The engineering containment risk is relatively low, with only 7 wells considered at risk of leakage. Two wells were
plugged and abandoned in 1990, representing the highest risk. Total storage target leakage risk is 0.017 and the well
density factor is 0.48 wells/km2, resulting in a low leakage risk assessment score of 0.008.
Well Design
The generic well design is discussed in the supporting document ‘Storage

Site 19 – 248.002 - Hamilton - EIS
Site Due Diligence Summary’. However, the Hamilton injection wells may
depart from the generic design due to the shallow reservoir depth. This Site Summary
suggests that, with restricted build angle and kick-off point, the well may Capacity (Due Diligence): 130 MT UKCS Block: 110/13a
not reach horizontal in the target reservoir. Current producing wells Unit Designation: Gas Field Beachhead: Point of Ayr
include horizontals, but may not have the restricted build angles assumed
Formation: Triassic Ormskirk Water Depth:
here for large completions. Further detailed well design work is required, 25 m
Sandstone
and the Hamilton target should not be discounted on this basis at this
stage. Of further concern is the ability to drill new wells in the depleted gas Containment Unit: Mercia Mudstone Gp Reservoir Depth: 701 m TVD (2300 ft)
field, particularly at a high angle, due to wellbore stability issues. This may Availability/COP: End 2017 Region: EIS
limit the achievable deviation in the reservoir section.
Due to the shallow water depth (25m), wells can be drilled by a low cost Project Title DECC Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project Classification Client Confidential Version V00
class 1 Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Platform well costs are assumed to be £20M
Disclaimer:
per well, including a contingency cost for managing CO2 phase change,
resulting in a 5 well development cost of £102.2M. 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
References
1. Yaliz, A. and Taylor, P (2003) “The Hamilton and Hamilton North Gas Fields, Block 110/13a, East Irish Sea” United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields Commemorative Millennium Volume, The Geological
Society of London 2003.
2. Karen Kirk, 2006 “Potential for storage of carbon dioxide in the rocks beneath the East Irish Sea” Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Working Paper 100
Site 20 – 141.002 - Barque – SNS
Development Concept

The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 29MT/yr by 2030 into the SNS via Barmston. It is possible that the first 17Mt/yr could be stored at 5/42. On the basis of this Scenario, additional SNS storage
would be needed by 2027 and need to be capable of storing 12Mt/yr by 2030.
Barque Build out potential

Barque is in the centre of the SNS and build out potential is possible to Hewett, Viking and Bunter Closures 9, 3 and 5 although none are nearby.

A new Normally Unmanned Installation (NUI) comprising a jacket and topsides with 5 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 91MT over 20 years. CO2 will be delivered via a 20” 157km
pipeline from Barmston with 10MT/yr capacity. Facilities will be controlled from the beach with the NUI providing its own power and controls. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and
distributed temperature sensors.

The site has no additional growth potential
8.2km
Institute)
TOP SEAL: Axis generated Zechstein Isochore (ft) (depth

Axis generated Top Rotliegendes depth map (ft tvdss) converted with a constant velocity of 15387 ft/sec)
Capacity
B B
The calculated storage capacity is 91MT, 29MT less than the capacity calculated in CO2Stored.
A’
A’
For the Barque field, the due diligence involves a recalculation of the capacity equivalent to the net reservoir volume of
fluids removed at February 2015. In addition, the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at COP was estimated and the
capacity calculated at this time to confirm the full capacity estimate.
Barque produces a dry gas with traces of water and relatively low condensate production. All produced fluids were
accounted for in the material balance calculation to check potential storage capacity.
The field is currently producing at ~1400Ksm3/d (~49mmscf/d) and the COP estimate from Woodmac is end 2028. The
remaining production was estimated using DCA to be ~5.6BM3, equivalent to 19% of the URR. This results in a 17.5MT
A (~24%) uplift in storage capacity between February 2015 and end 2028 (COP).
A
B’ B’
Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015 Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015
Ci: 250ft Ci: 250ft
Barque Strike and Dip seismic lines from PGS MegaSurvey

Image source: modified from Cooke-Yarborough
(1991) “The Hewett Field, Blocks 48/28-29-30,
52/4a-5a, UK North Sea”, In Abbotts, I. L. (ed.), 1991, A A’ B B’
United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years
Commemorative Volume, Geological Society
Memoir No. 14, pp. 433-442.
Key Risk Summary

Barque Gas Capacity Injectivity Data
Field (MT) (mDm) The Barque Gas Field is covered by the 3D seismic from the SNS PGS
Wells Leakage Containment MegaSurvey. The data quality is generally good, however there are
/sq.km risk risk reservoir imaging problems due to ray bending particularly in the areas of
Selection 120 11,430 0.63 n/a n/a 9 heavy Triassic/Jurassic faulting. The data quality is not good enough to pick
Criteria the base Rotliegendes reservoir, however well control shows that the
Due Diligence 91 2,559 0.29 0.07 0.02 9 Rotliegendes thickness to be between 700 and 800ft. The well ties confirm
the time interpretation.
Capacity Calculation Well data are available for the Barque field from CDA. E&A well data has
been downloaded.
Storage Capacity to COP 91 MT
Dip Line Strike Line

Depositional Gross Perm Kh Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Zone NTG Porosity
Environment Thickness [m] [mD] [mDm] Top Triassic Top Rotliegendes Sandstone
A Sabkha 108 0.76 0.1 0.1 8
Top Bunter Sandstone Near Top Carboniferous
B Aeolian Dunes 57 0.86 0.175 50 2,464
C Interbedded Aeolian 43 0.505 0.111 0.1 2
Top Zechstein
All Zones 208 0.73 0.13 16.7 2,559 Injectivity
Containment Validation The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Barque Field this was calculated as 11,430 mDm.
Field data and published literature have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir properties which have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected injectivity.
The field comprises high net to gross, low-moderate quality dune and interdune sandstones of the Lower Permian Leman sandstone Fm, which have been affected by illite diagenesis. Sandstone can be subdivided into three Leman zones – A, B and C. cause
Geo Containment
Baffle to flow between Zones A and B. Muddy sabkha layers. A summary of the reservoir properties are summarised in the Injectivity Validation table.
Fault The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 2,559mDm. This is approximately 78% lower than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. Permeability average for zone B is not mentioned explicitly in the published literature (tens
of mD) 1, 2, therefore the mid value from CO2stored is used. Sarginson (2003) specifies a lower than 0.1mD average for Zones A and C – much lower than the mid case permeabilities assumed were used in the Co2stored calculation. Indications are that
injectivity could be an issue.
Barque gas field 141.002 3 2 1 1 1 1 9
3 2 1 1 1 1 9 Additional Injectivity Checks
Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored Two additional injectivity checks were carried out as part of the due diligence.
1. The initial production performance per well was converted to an equivalent CO2 injection rate to gain some confidence that that the 1MT/year/well target could be met.
Early life production data from the production wells is available on the DECC website. The initial production rate was converted to a CO2 injection equivalent rate at the initial field pressure and at an estimated final reservoir pressure at COP (10% of initial
pressure) for 10 of the wells. The calculated injectivities are shown in the report. Injectivity does not meet the 1MT/year threshold for any of the wells at the initial pressure and is reduced significantly due to phase change at the lower pressure.
2. The field produces due to presence of natural fractures and the matrix permeability average is less than 1mD. In the west of the field the fractures are cemented due to diagenesis, compartmentalising the reservoir. Production is more difficult in that
Containment
area. A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over time. A simple model was built in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2 will be injected in the gas phase initially as the reservoir pressure is expected to be too
low for dense phase injection. A DP (well–formation pressure) range of 150psi to 650psi was tested and the corresponding injectivity per well is 0.03MT/year and 0.1MT/year. The modelling confirms that the injectivity threshold of 1MT/year per well
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Barque field to identify secondary containment horizons
cannot be achieved for this site.
and potential migration pathways out of the Barque storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault leakage of the
sequestered CO2.
Costs
Field data and published literature were reviewed to establish the effectiveness of trap and seal. Depth to crest of the reservoir is
2134 m (7000ft tvdss). Dip closure with anticlinal rollover against fault forms the trap, with the field developed in conjunction with Site
Site Reference: 20 Barque gas field
the Clipper field to the South-East1, 3. The Barque field has three compartments due to faulting1. NNW trending faults are mapped Description
and some of these are believed to form barriers to fluid flow. Fault compartments within the field, where the throw does not offset Water Depth
Capacity: 91 10
the sandstone completely, are believed to result from cataclasis and mineralization along fault zones1. The major boundary fault is (m)
Well Design Comparative Ultimate
clearly recognised as sealing where the Rotliegend is juxtaposed against the Zechstein. The Rotliegendes sandstone reservoir is Concept Cost (£m) Description
overlain by 152 – 1219m (500 to 4000ft) of Zechstein halites and anhyrites forming an excellent cap rock that is continuous and not Development Development
The generic well design is discussed in the supporting document ‘Storage Site Due Diligence Summary’. Tonnes Injected (MT) 91 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
broken by faulting1, 3. Overlying the Zechstein is 304m (1000ft) of Bunter shale with an under-burden of Carboniferous coal
However, the Barque injection wells may depart from the generic design due to the poor injectivity. This Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
measures1. CO2 is not expected to leak through the top Zechstein seal which has already trapped Barque gas over geological time, Appraisal Cost: £0m
suggests that long horizontal sections (>150m) may be required to reach injection targets. Alternatively, a Interpretation
or via reservoir level faults.
higher well stock than the 5 wells assumed may be required. Hydraulic stimulation may result in acceptable Development Well
injection rates, but the additional cost and containment risk make this option unattractive. Of further concern £202.9m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 9. This is the same as that calculated in WP3 selection criteria. Cost:
is the ability to drill new wells in the depleted gas field, particularly at a high angle, due to wellbore stability
Facilities Cost: £230m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
issues. This may limit the achievable deviation in the reservoir section.
Engineering Risk PM & Eng: £23m 10% of Facilities Costs
Due to the shallow water depth (30m), wells can be drilled by a low cost class 1 Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Platform
The engineering containment risk is low, with 47 wells in the field and 23 considered at risk of leakage (other wells are suspended or Subtotal £543.3m
well costs are assumed to be £41M per well, including a contingency cost for managing CO2 phase change,
still producing and are assumed to be abandoned at COP, which being after 2025, is expected to result in a negligible leak risk). 9 Contingency £108.7m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
resulting in a 5 well development cost of £202.8M.
wells were plugged and abandoned before 1986, representing the highest assessed risk. The total storage target leakage probability
OPEX (20years) £276m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
is 0.07 and the well density factor is 0.29 wells/km2, resulting in a low leakage risk assessment score of 0.02.
Total: £927.9m
£/T CO2 10.20
Commercial Issues
Barque is a gas field in production operated by Shell, with a COP of
2028. Site 20 – 141.002 - Barque - SNS
Site Summary
Capacity (Due Diligence): 91 MT UKCS Block: 48/13
Unit Designation: Depleted Gas Beachhead: Barmston
Leman SST (Rotliegend)
Containment Unit: Haupt Anhydrite Reservoir Depth: 2133 m TVDSS (7,000 ft)
Availability/COP: 2028 Region: SNS
Disclaimer:
1. Farmer, R.T. and Hillier, A.P. (1991) “The Barque Field, Blocks 48/13a, 48/14, UK North Sea”, Geological Society, London, Memoirs 1991; v. 14; p. 395-400. 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
2. Holloway, S., Vincent, C.J. and Kirk, K.L. (2006) “INDUSTRIAL CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS AND CARBON DIOXIDE STORAGE POTENTIAL IN THE UK” BGS Report No. COAL
R308 DTI/Pub urn 06/2027.
3. Sarginson, M. J. (2003) “The Barque Field, Blocks 48/13a, 48/14, UK North Sea”, United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, Commemorative Millennium Volume”. Geological
Society, London, Memoir, 20, p.663-670
Site 24 – 218.001 - Captain Oil Field – CNS
Development Concept

The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 11MT/yr by 2030 into the CNS via St Fergus. 1MT goes to Goldeneye. 10MT/yr of additional storage may be required by 2030.
Captain Field
Build out potential
The Captain oilfield could be built out to the Coracle aquifer or the Captain aquifer. Also, being relatively close to shore, it could be built out to Bruce, Harding, Grid aquifer. It also
represents a suitable site for build out to EOR.

A new subsea development in the vicinity of the Captain oilfield with 5 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 96MT over 20 years. CO2 will be delivered via a new 101 km 20”
pipeline from St Fergus with 10MT/yr capacity. Power and controls will be supplied from an existing neighbouring platform. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed

The site has no additional growth potential.
Institute)
Axis generated Near Top Captain Sandstone depth map (ft)

Capacity
The calculated storage capacity is 95.8MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of 96.5MT.
A
For the Captain oil field, the due diligence involves a recalculation of the capacity equivalent to the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at February
2015. In addition, the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at COP was estimated and the capacity was calculated at this time to confirm the full
capacity estimate. The COP date for Captain oil field in the supplied Woodmac data is 2029.
Captain oil field produces oil with associate gas and water production. DECC reports water injection volume in field. All produced and injected fluids were
accounted for in the material balance calculation to check potential storage capacity.
B Current oil rates are ~3000sm3/d (~19,000bbls/d). An uplift in storage capacity between February 2015 and end 2029 (COP) is forecast is estimated to be
B’
27.4MT (~40%).
A’
Image source: modified from Pinnock, S. J.,

Clitheroe, A. R. J., and Rose, P. T. S, The Captain
Field, Block 13/22a, UK North Sea, Geological
Society, London, Memoirs 2003, v20; p431-441
Captain Field seismic lines from PGS MegaSurvey
Key Risk Summary A
13/22a-6
A’ B B’
Captain Oil Capacity Injectivity Data

Field (MT) (mDm)
Wells Leakage Containment Captain Oil Field is covered by the 3D CNS PGS seismic MegaSurvey. The data quality is
/sq.km risk risk acceptable. The well ties confirm the time interpretation.
Selection 96.5 630,000 n/a n/a n/a 8
Criteria Well Data quality and coverage – Digital wireline and MWD/LWD logs are available for
some of the Captain Field wells.
Due Diligence 95.8 997,500 2.75 0.22 0.62 9
Captain Field
Captain Field
Oil Production 45.4 MCM Injectivity
Gas Production 1645 MCM The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated
Water Production 147.6 MCM using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Captain Field this was calculated
Water Injection 99 MCM as 630,000 mDm.
Field data and published literature1 have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir
properties which have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected
Storage Capacity @COP 95.8 MT Near Base Tertiary Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original
injectivity.
NB.. Volumes refer to production volumes at February 2015. interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
The field comprises high net to gross and excellent quality turbidite sandstones of the
Near Top Captain Sandstone
Valhall/Wick Sandstone Formation1. The reservoir has been subdivided into Upper and
Lower Captain which show significant variation in reservoir quality over the entire field 1. Base Cretaceous Unconformity
Permeability barriers exist in the Lower Captain sands in the form of thin fine grained
horizons, which act as pressure baffles during production. The reservoir properties are
Injectivity Validation summarised in the Injectivity Validation table.
Depositional
Gross Perm Kh
Zone NTG Porosity
Thickness [m] [mD] [mDm]
Environment Injectivity cont’d
Upper Captain 66 0.95 0.31 7000 438,900
Turbidite The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 997,500 mDm. This is approx. 50% higher than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. The gross thickness is an average from a selection of well logs obtained from CDA. Unable to confirm separate
Lower Captain 84 0.95 0.31 7000 558,600 reservoir properties at this stage for the individual zones, therefore further study would be necessary to establish NTG, porosity and permeability from the available well data. The permeability thickness is very high and based on overall reservoir quality the initial CO2
All Zones 150 0.95 0.31 7000 997,500 injectivity is expected to be excellent.
The initial production performance per well was converted to an equivalent CO2 injection rate to gain some confidence that that the 1MT/year/well target could be met.
Combination of long horizontal wells and high permeability used during production give the potential for high injectivity. The in situ oil viscosity is at least 47 cP (S.J Pinnock & A. R .J Clitheroe quote a range of 47 -150 cP). This is about 4 orders of magnitude higher than
dense phase CO2. Oil production rates of more than 2,000 m3/day recorded in several wells. This suggests relatively easy injection in terms of well performance.
Production data used was from 10 of the early wells (odd numbers C3-C21) all of them suggest that huge amounts (often over 1 million tonne/day) could be injected per well using an injection pressure equivalent to the early life production drawdown. Injectivity so good as
to swamp any errors in the calculations.
Developed with 17 horizontal wells 3500-8000 ft in length. This provides spatial coverage thought the reservoirs. Individual well production rates between 5000 and 20000 BPD gross liquids. Ref - S.J Pinnock & A. R .J Clitheroe 2003.
There is a high degree of confidence that the injectivity rates can be achieved.
Containment Validation Costs

Site
Site Reference: 24 Captain Oil Field
Description
Geo Containment
Water Depth
Containment Georisk
Capacity: 95.8
(m)
105.46
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Captain field to identify secondary containment horizons and
Risk code Fault Characterisation Seal Characterisation Factor potential migration pathways out of the Captain storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault leakage of the sequestered CO2. Comparative Ultimate
Throw & Fault Seal Seal Concept Cost (£m) Description
Fault Verical Fracture Pressure Chemical Degradatio Tonnes Injected (MT) 95.8 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
Density Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity n Field data and published literature 1 , 2 were reviewed to establish the effectiveness of trap and seal. Depth to crest of the reservoir is 823
m (2700ft tvdss), with a structural and dip-closed stratigraphic trap in two closures – Main and Eastern 1. Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition &
Captain Oil Field 218.001 2 2 1 1 1 1 8 Appraisal Cost: £0m
The Sola/Rodby Shale, with overlying Chalk Group, provides an effective overburden seal to the Captain field 2. CO2 is not expected to leak Interpretation
3 2 1 1 1 1 9 Development Well
through the top seal, which is already proven. The Upper Captain Sandstone has very different GOCs in the Main and Eastern Closures,
indicating a robust stratigraphic seal between the reservoir compartments2 . The Lower Aptian Shales sit below the Lower Captain sands. Cost:
Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored The Georisk factor has been calculated as 9, which is slightly higher than previous calculated factor in WP3 based on CO2Stored data. A Facilities Cost: £158.3m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
1 no additional data to qc, values taken from CO2Stored review of the PGS CNS mega-survey has identified a higher density of faults. PM & Eng: £15.9m 10% of Facilities Costs
£10m per NUI, £4m per dry well, £8m per subsea
Decommissioning: £79.6m
well
Subtotal £394m
Contingency £78.8m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
OPEX (20years) £189.9m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
Engineering Risk
Total: £662.7m
£/T CO2 6.92
The engineering containment risk is moderate to high, with 202 wells in total, and 114 abandoned wells considered being at risk of leakage. Only 1 well was plugged and abandoned before 1986, representing the highest risk. The 100yr probability of a leakage on the
field is a moderate 0.22, but the well density factor is 2.75 wells/km2, resulting in a high risk assessment score of 0.62.
Well Design
Summary’. Due to the relatively shallow depth, achieving this well design may be a challenge
in the Captain Oil Field. There are a large number of existing highly deviated and horizontal
Site 24 – 218.001 - Captain Oil Field - CNS
wells in the field, but build angles may be higher if the completion is smaller than that
proposed for the CO2 storage. With such a large density of horizontal wells, well collision Site Summary
could be considered a risk in this target. 95.8 MT 13/22
Capacity (Due Diligence): UKCS Block:
Due to the deeper water depth (105m), wells have been conservatively assumed as being Unit Designation: Oil and Gas Beachhead: St Fergus
drilled by Semi-Submersible Drilling Unit. Subsea well costs are assumed to be £28M per well, Captain Sandstone
resulting in a 5 well development cost of £140.4M. Mbr., Wick SST Fm.
Containment Unit: Hidra Formation Reservoir Depth: 823 m TVDSS (2700 ft)
Availability/COP: 2029 Region: CNS
Commercial Issues Client The Energy Technologies Institute Title D06: Prospect Summary Sheets Date of Issue 7th August 2015
The Captain Oilfield is operated by Chevron and has a COP date of 2029. It is therefore only
available very late to be considered as build out for CO2 storage. Disclaimer:
References
1. The Millennium Atlas: Petroleum Geology of the Central and Northern North Sea. Evans, D. Graham, C, Armour A, and Bathurst, P. London, The Geological Society of London.
2. S.J Pinnock & A. R .J Clitheroe. The Captain Field, Block 13/22a, UK North Sea. Geological Society, London, Memoirs 2003, v.20; p431-441.
Development Concept

The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 29MT/yr by 2030 into the SNS via Barmston. It is possible that the first 17Mt/yr could be stored at 5/42. On the basis of this Scenario, additional
SNS storage would be needed by 2027 and need to be capable of storing 12Mt/yr by 2030.
Kilmar Trent Build out potential

Bunter Closure 40 is a potential build out location for 5/42. Build out from this site could be to Bunter Closure 36.
Closure 40
A new Normally Unmanned Installation (NUI) comprising a jacket and topsides with 5 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 100MT over 20 years. CO2 will be delivered via a
20” 40km pipeline extension from 5/42 with10MT/yr capacity, assuming that sufficient ullage exists in the 5/42 pipeline. Facilities will be controlled from the beach or 5/42 with the
NUI providing its own power and controls. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed temperature sensors.

13 km The site has no additional growth potential.

Institute) Image source: courtesy of CDA through an open licence agreement
Axis generated Bunter Sst Isochore (ft), generated

from well data (43/23-1 ,-2 and -3)
Axis generated Top Bunter Sst depth map (ft tvdss)
B Data
B
Approximately 80% of Bunter Closure 40 is covered by the 3D seismic from the
SNS PGS MegaSurvey. The data quality is generally good. The well ties confirm the
Kilmar: time interpretation.
Kilmar: Carboniferous A’
A’ There is a gap in coverage to the west and the horizon gridding has been allowed
Carboniferous Gas Field
Gas Field Trent: to extrapolate through this gap. There is a spec 3D seismic volume available and a
Trent:
Carboniferous small volume of data could be purchased to fill the gap.
Carboniferous
Gas Field
Gas Field
The single well (43/23-3) penetrating the structure, and two nearby offset wells
A are available in CDA with limited digital log data. No core data available.
Edge of 3D
seismic A
Contours No engineering data available for aquifer sands. Analogue data and correlations
extrapolated B’ will be used.
in this area B’
Ci: 100ft Ci: 100ft
Closing Contour: 5700 ftss
Image source: modified from Cooke-Yarborough
(1991) “The Hewett Field, Blocks 48/28-29-30,
52/4a-5a, UK North Sea”, In Abbotts, I. L. (ed.),
1991, United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, 25 Years
Commemorative Volume, Geological Society
Memoir No. 14, pp. 433-442.
Capacity Bunter Closure 40: Strike and Dip seismic lines from PGS MegaSurvey
A A’ B B’
The calculated storage capacity is 100MT compared to the reported capacity in
Key Risk Summary CO2Stored of 84MT. These are in broad agreement; the increase in the calculated
capacity is due to a higher average porosity being assumed based on offset Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement.
analogue field data. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Bunter Capacity Injectivity
Closure 40 (MT) (mDm)
Whilst there are uncertainties associated with the inputs to the capacity
calculation, there is a high degree of confidence in the storage capacity which has
/sq.km risk risk
been calculated.
Selection 84 22,673 0.02 n/a n/a 6
Criteria
Whilst faulting within the Bunter can develop due to post depositional
Due Diligence 100 49,864 0.02 0.002 0.00004 6
halokenisis, compartmentalisation due to faulting is not thought to be a risk for
this storage site, and the volume should be well connected.
Injectivity
The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value
Capacity Calculation calculated using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Bunter
Closure 40 this was calculated as 22,673 mDm.
Pore Theoretical The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 49,864
NTG2 Porosity1 Volume Capacity mDm. This is considerably higher than the estimate based on the CO2stored data,
[MMm3] [MT] and is due to a difference in the assumed average permeability.
230 6952 0.8 0.2 0.79 0.11 1112 100
CO2Stored assumes an average permeability of 100mD. This is very low when
NB. 1: Analogue site data from 5/42 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored compared to nearby SNS analogue Bunter Sst reservoirs. The Hewett Gas Field
has average permeabilites in excess of 500 mD. The nearby 42/25d-3 (5/42
Storage Site), with a published permeability of 271mD, is used as an analogue for
this storage site.
With no permeability data available for the Bunter Sst at the storage site,
permeability, its regional lateral variation and heterogeneity remain an
uncertainty. Bunter Sst reservoir quality at this depth and initial CO2 injectivity Dip Line Strike Line
Injectivity Validation within the SNS is considered to be good. Neither reservoir quality nor injectivity Top Triassic
Top Chalk Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement.
are considered to be a high risk. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Depositional Gross Perm1 Kh Top Bunter Sandstone
Zone NTG2 Porosity1 Base Chalk
A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial Top Zechstein
Bunter Sst Fluvial/ Lacustrine 230 0.8 0.2 271 49864 conditions and over time. A simple model was built in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2
will be injected in critical or dense phase as the reservoir pressure is expected to
NB. 1: Analogue site data from 5/42 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored be high in saline aquifer. Injection pressure of 3600 psi is required to achieve the
injectivity threshold of 1MT/year per well, which is below the minimum fracture
pressure of 4077psi at the well depth.
Costs
Site
Description
Geo Containment Risk code Fault Characterisation Seal Characterisation Georisk Factor Well Design
Water Depth
Fault Capacity: 100 30
Throw & Verical Fracture Pressure Seal Chemical Seal The generic well design is discussed in the (m)
Density Fault Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity Degradation supporting document ‘Storage Site Due Comparative Ultimate
Bunter Closure 40 139.002 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Diligence Summary’. Development Development
1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Tonnes Injected (MT) 100 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
It is likely that this well design can be
achieved in the Bunter 40. Appraisal Cost: £64m
Due to the relatively shallow water depth Interpretation
(50m), wells can be drilled by a low cost class Development Well
1 no additional data to qc, values taken from CO2Stored £118.9m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
1 Jack-Up Drilling Unit. Platform well costs are Cost:
assumed to be £24M per well, resulting in a 5 Facilities Cost: £99.2m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
well development cost of £118.9M.
PM & Eng: £10m 10% of Facilities Costs
Decommissioning: £54.8m
well
Containment
Subtotal £346.8m
An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Bunter Sandstone to identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the Contingency £69.4m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
storage complex, in the unlikely event of a seal or fault leakage of the sequestered CO2. OPEX (20years) £119.1m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
Total: £535.2m
The site is a simple 4-way dip closure. The Bunter sandstone reservoir is overlain by 2000ft of Triassic halites, anhyrites and claystones forming an excellent cap rock that is continuous £/T CO2 5.35
and not penetrated by faulting. Above the Triassic is an additional 1300ft of Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous claystone. Overlying the Lower Cretaceous is approximately 1100 ft of Upper
Cretaceous Chalk which is a potential reservoir, with 300-400ft of Tertiary and recent sediments on top which may only have a limited seal capacity.
The Georisk factor has been calculated as 6, this is the same as the previously calculated factor in WP3 based on CO2Stored data.
Engineering Risk
The engineering containment risk is very low, with only one well drilled and at risk of leaking. This well was plugged and abandoned in 1994. The 100yr probability of a leakage on the
field is a low 0.002, and the well density factor is 0.02 wells/km2, resulting in a very low containment risk assessment score of 0.0004.
Commercial Issues
Site 26 – 139.020 – Bunter Closure 40 - SNS
Bunter closure 40 is in the vicinity of 43/23 which is currently unlicensed for Site Summary
oil and gas activity Capacity (Due Diligence): 100 MT UKCS Block: Quad 43; Blocks 23, 24
Formation: Triassic Bunter Water Depth: 30 m

Sandstone
Containment Unit: Rot Halite Member Reservoir Depth: 1550 m TVDSS (5,085 ft)
Disclaimer:
1. Michele Bentham (2006) “An assessment of carbon sequestration potential in the UK – Southern North Sea case study” Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research and British Geological Survey Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project
2. Heinemann, N., Wilkinson, M., Pickup, G.E., Haszeldine, R.S. and Cutler, N.A. (2011) “Co2 storage in the offshore UK Bunter Sandstone
Formation”, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 6 (2012), 210-219.
Site 27 – 217.000 - Coracle – CNS
217.000 Coracle Closure 012 20 – Coracle SST Mbr.,
Wick SST Fm., Cromer Knoll Group
Development Concept

The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 11MT/yr by 2030 into the CNS via St Fergus. 1MT goes to Goldeneye. 10MT/yr of additional storage may be required by 2030
Build out potential

The Coracle aquifer, could be built out to Captain. Also, being relatively close to shore, could be built out to Bruce, Harding, Grid aquifer. It also represents a suitable site for build out to EOR.
Coracle Comparative Development Concept
012 20 A new subsea development in the vicinity of Atlantic and Cromarty, with 2 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 35MT over 20 years. CO2 delivered via re-use of the Atlantic and Cromarty
16” pipeline from St Fergus with 6MT/yr capacity. Power and controls will be supplied from an existing neighbouring platform. Monitoring will include downhole pressure and distributed


Institute)
Area covered by 3D
Data Random Strike seismic line along the Coracle Saline Aquifer
Axis generated Near Top Lower Cretaceous depth map (ft) Approximately one third of the C C’
storage site is covered by 3D seismic
available in the PGS MegaSurvey.
Degradation of data quality below
C chalk renders the seismic mapping
of the Lower Cretaceous and
Jurassic less reliable2. Coracle sands
A’ are represented by weak,
discontinues seismic events within
A the Lower Cretaceous section. Coracle Sst?
B Interpreting top and base sandstone
is difficult and the full extent of the Coracle Sst
stratigraphic pinch-out/seal will is

B’ uncertain due to limited data
coverage. The well ties confirm the Captain
time interpretations. Field
C’ Digital log data is available from CDA
for several of the wells across the
area.
Coracle CO2Stored outline Ci: 100ft
No engineering data available for
3D seismic coverage within the Coracle CO2Stored outline (649 sq km)
aquifer sands. Analogue data and
correlations used. Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Image source: modified from Pinnock, S. J., Clitheroe, A.
R. J., and Rose, P. T. S, The Captain Field, Block 13/22a, UK
Near Base Tertiary Base Cretaceous Unconformity
North Sea, Geological Society, London, Memoirs 2003,
v20; p431-441 Near Top Captain Sandstone Near Top Permian
Random Dip seismic lines across the Coracle Saline Aquifer

Random Strike seismic line along the Coracle Fairway Time slice at 1300msec through Coracle Saline Aquifer area A’ B B’
A
C C’
A’
A Coracle Sst
B
B’
C’
Coracle CO2Stored outline
Near Base Tertiary 3D seismic coverage within the Coracle CO2Stored outline (649 sq km) Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS under Licence Agreement. Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015.
Near Top Captain Sandstone Near Base Tertiary Base Cretaceous Unconformity
Base Cretaceous Unconformity Near Top Captain Sandstone Near Top Middle Jurassic
Near Top Permian
Key Risk Summary
Coracle Engineered Containment Geo Containment Capacity
(MT) (mDm)
/sq.km risk risk Seismic is not available over the full Coracle Sand polygon area, and a top structure map for the full area therefore cannot be generated. Due Diligence of the GRV is based on a simple area vs thickness, where the thickness is taken from wells and the area covered
Selection 81 378,585 0.13 n/a n/a 11 by seismic is used.
Criteria
Due Diligence 35 280,038 0.1 0.21 0.021 13 The calculated storage capacity is 35MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of 83MT. This is due to the greatly reduced area used, due to incomplete seismic availability.
Thickness and NTG vary greatly across the Coracle Sands, both capacity and connectivity have high range of uncertainty associated with them.
Injectivity
Capacity Calculation The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Coracle Aquifer this was calculated as 378,585 mDm.
Field data and published literature have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir properties which have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected injectivity.
The Coracle reservoir comprises moderate net to gross and excellent quality channelised deepwater sandstones of the Wick Sandstone Member. The reservoir properties are summarised in the Injectivity Validation table.
Pore Theoretical
NTG2 Porosity1 Volume Capacity The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process is 280,038 mDm. This is approximately 25% lower than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. CO2Stored assumes a thinner gross thickness but a higher average NTG. Well 12/25-2 provides a
[MMm3] [MT] porosity2 and NTG average – however, this well sits outside the polygon. Permeability is also a mean taken from the DECC relinquishment report for Block 13/22d2.
124 81716 0.5 0.27 0.58 0.006 11032 35 The permeability thickness is very high and based on reservoir quality the initial CO2 injectivity is expected to be excellent.
NB. 1: DECC relinquishment reports 2: Estimated from CDA composite logs 3: CO2Stored A dynamic model was constructed to test the injectivity performance, at initial conditions and over time. A simple model was built in Eclipse (flat structure). CO2 will be injected in critical or dense phase as the reservoir pressure is expected to be high in a saline
aquifer. An injection pressure of 1850 psi achieves an injectivity of 2.48 MT/year per well. This is below the calculated minimum fracture pressure of 2632 psi at the top of the reservoir.
Injectivity Validation Containment Costs

Gross Site Reference: 27 Site Description Coracle_012_20
Depositional Perm Kh An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Coracle saline aquifer storage site to
Zone Thickness NTG Porosity
Environment [mD] [mDm] identify secondary containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the storage complex, in the Capacity: 35 Water Depth (m) 99
[m] unlikely event of a seal or fault leakage of the sequestered CO2. Comparative Ultimate
Coracle Channelised 124 0.50 0.27 4500 280,038 Concept Cost (£m) Description
deepwater The Upper Cretaceous Chalk Group provides the ultimate, low risk, top seal for Lower Cretaceous sands. However Tonnes Injected (MT) 35 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
the individual sand intervals of the Coracle further down the section rely on high risk intra-formational mudstones Appraisal Cost: £74m Appraisal Wells + Seismic Data Acquisition & Interpretation
to separate them from the overlying Captain Sands. Development Well Cost: £54.1m Drilling & Completion Costs of wells.
Facilities Cost: £158.3m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
Containment Validation The Georisk factor has been calculated as 13 which is higher than previous calculated factor in WP3 based on
PM & Eng: £15.9m 10% of Facilities Costs
CO2Stored data. No faults in this aquifer had been previously identified in CO2Stored, however a review of the PGS
Geo Containment CNS mega-survey identified several faults.
Georisk Subtotal £357.7m
Engineering Risk Contingency £71.6m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
Throw & Fault Seal Seal
OPEX (20years) £189.9m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
Fault Verical Fracture Pressure Chemical Degradatio
Density Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity n The engineering containment risk is moderate, with 224 wells in total, and 134 abandoned wells considered to be at Total: £619m
Coracle_012_20 217 1 1 2 2 3 2 11 risk of leakage. Six wells were abandoned before 1986, representing the highest risk. The 100yr probability of a £/T CO2 17.69
leakage on the field is moderate at 0.25, but the well density factor is 0.09 wells/km2, resulting in a moderate risk *These costs are not the full cost of storage as they omit MMV, security instruments, handover to DECC and profit.
2 2 2 2 3 2 13
assessment score of 0.022.

Well Design
Site 17 – 217.000 - Coracle - CNS
Due to the deep water depth (98m), wells have conservatively been assumed to be drilled Site Summary
by Semi-Submersible Drilling Unit. Subsea well costs are assumed to be £27M per well,
Capacity (Due Diligence): 35 MT UKCS Block: Quadrant 13
resulting in a 5 well development cost of £135M
Formation: Coracle Sandstones Water Depth: 99 m
Lower Cretaceous
Containment Unit: Hidra Formation Reservoir Depth: 1066 m TVDSS (3500 ft)
Commercial Issues Availability/COP: n/a Region: CNS
As with other aquifers the exact development location is flexible. Therefore site access is Client The Energy Technologies Institute Title D06: Prospect Summary Sheets Date of Issue 7th August 2015
unlikely to be an issue. Project Title DECC Strategic UK CCS Storage Appraisal Project Classification Client Confidential Version V00
Disclaimer:

1. S.J Pinnock & A. R .J Clitheroe The Captain Field, Block 13/22a, UK North Sea. Geological Society, London, Memoirs 2003, v.20; p431-441.
2. Relinquishment Report, License P1403, Block 13/22d, Chevron North Sea Limited, Korean National Oil Company
Site 28 – 252.001 - Harding Central Oil Field – CNS
Development Concept

The ETI Concentrated Scenario shows 11MT/yr by 2030 into the CNS via St Fergus. 1MT goes to Goldeneye. 10MT/yr of additional storage may be required by 2030
Build out potential

Build out could be at the Grid aquifer or Bruce. The site is also suitable as a centre for build out for EOR.

A new subsea development in the vicinity of Harding, with 4 deviated wells each injecting 1MT/yr; totalling 80MT over 20 years. CO2 delivered via the re-use MGS 30” pipeline from St Fergus with
35MT/yr capacity combined with a new 20” 78km pipeline extension to Harding. Power and controls will be supplied from an existing neighbouring platform. Monitoring will include downhole
Central wells pressure and distributed temperature sensors.
23b-7,11,13,15,26,26z
Data
Harding Field area is entirely covered by good quality 3D seismic data provided by the CNS PGS seismic MegaSurvey.
Harding Central Digital log data is available for several of the wells across the area.
Institute)
Harding Oil Field: Strike and Dip seismic lines from PGS MegaSurvey)
A A’
A’ BB B’
Axis generated Balder Sst Isochore, generated
Axis generated Top Balder Sst depth map (ft tvdss) from well data (9/23b-7, -11 and -26)
B’
A
A’
125
B
Ci:50ft Ci:25ft
Image source: modified from Wills, J. M., The Forties

Field, Block 21/10, 22/6a, UK North Sea. BP
Exploration, Fig 2

Top Balder Sst
Image source: Seismic data provided by PGS
Key Risk Summary under Licence Agreement. Original
Base Balder Sst
Capacity
Harding The calculated storage capacity is 84.8MT compared to the reported capacity in CO2Stored of 76.2MT. They are in reasonable agreement.
Central Oil Engineered Containment Geo Containment For the Harding Central oil field, the due diligence involves a recalculation of the capacity equivalent to the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at
(MT) (mDm) February 2015. In addition, the net reservoir volume of fluids removed at COP was estimated and the capacity calculated at this time to confirm the
Field
full capacity estimate. The COP date for Harding Central field in the supplied Woodmac data is 2025.
/sq.km risk risk Harding Central field produces oil with associate gas and water production. Pressure support has been achieved with water and gas injection. All
Selection 76.2 723,900 18.4 n/a n/a 8 produced and injected fluids were accounted for in the material balance calculation to check potential storage capacity.
Criteria Current oil rates are ~1900sm3/d (~12000bbls/d). The production estimate between February 2015 and end 2025 (COP) equates to an uplift in
storage capacity of 6MT (~8%).
Due Diligence 84.8 703,534 17.2 0.17 2.86 9
Harding Central is a well-connected, high NTG sand. There are not expected to be any issues related to compartmentalisation. Confidence in the
storage capacity is high.
Injectivity
Oil Production 42.5 MCM The selection criteria used for injectivity is the permeability thickness (Kh) value calculated using the mid case reservoir data from CO2Stored. For the Harding Field this was calculated as 723,900 mDm.
Gas Production 3262 MCM Field data and published literature1 have been reviewed in order to confirm the reservoir properties which have then been used to validate the permeability thickness and expected injectivity.
Water Production 100.2 MCM The Harding field is split by multiple accumulations: North, Central and South. The CO2 storage assessment concentrates only on the Central reservoir. Two reservoir zones are identified which vary in net to gross, but have excellent quality mass flow and remobilised sandstones of the
Water Injection 27.5 MCM Eocene Balder Formation1. No field wide permeability barriers or baffles exist horizontally or vertically, with communication to the upper injected sandstones confirmed by pressure data (Ref1). The reservoir properties are summarised in the table.
Gas Injection 991 MCM
The permeability thickness calculated during the validation process for the primary, massive sandstone reservoir interval is 703,534mDm This is approx. 3% lower than the estimate based on the CO2stored data. Log data from CDA has a larger gross thickness, than the mid case used in
Net Reservoir Volume Produced 115 MCM the CO2storage calculation, and is representative of the average thickness quoted in published literature1. NTG, porosity and permeability for the Upper Sandy Unit is taken from the average values quoted by Beckly et al. (2003), whereas the Massive Sand derives average core data
Storage Capacity at COP 84.7 MT from well 9/23b-11. Well 9/23b-26 provided an approximate NTG for the Upper Sandy Unit.
NB.. Volumes refer to production volumes at February 2015. The permeability thickness is very high and based on reservoir quality and the initial CO2 injectivity is expected to be excellent.
The initial production performance per well was converted to an equivalent CO2 injection rate to gain some confidence that the 1MT/year/well target could be met. The rates are shown in the table below. All wells exceed the target rate.
Heavy oil gives very high potential injectivity due to high in situ oil viscosity. Very high injectivity supported by high permeability value (see above). Note that in reality wells will not be able to deliver this amount of CO2 to the sandface.
Costs
Zone NTG Porosity Site
Environment Thickness [m] [mD] [mDm] Site Reference: 28 Harding Central oil field
Description
Upper Sandy Unit Remobilised injected SST 7 0.32 0.35 10000 23,520
Water Depth
Massive Sand Eocene Balder mass flow 113 0.99 0.33 6300 703,534 Capacity: 84.8 110
(m)
All Zones 120 0.95 0.34 8150 929,296 Comparative Ultimate
Tonnes Injected (MT) 80 Total Stored CO2 for proposed scheme
Containment Validation Appraisal Cost: £0m
Interpretation
Containment
Development Well
Geo An overburden assessment has been conducted above and adjacent to the Central Harding field to identify secondary Cost:
Containment containment horizons and potential migration pathways out of the Harding storage complex, in the unlikely event of a Facilities Cost: £38.1m Landfall, Pipeline, NUI, Templates, ties-Ins,
Georisk seal or fault leakage of the sequestered CO2. PM & Eng: £3.9m 10% of Facilities Costs
Throw & Fault Seal Seal Field data and published literature were reviewed to establish the effectiveness of trap and seal. Depth to crest of the Decommissioning: £41.6m
Fault Verical Fracture Pressure Chemical Degradatio well
reservoir is ~1548m (5080ft), with stratigraphic and structural trap – compactional drape to the west1 . The T60 interval
Density Seal Extent Capacity Reactivity n above the Upper Sandy Unit provides an effective overburden seal to the Harding field1 . CO2 is not expected to leak Subtotal £253.5m
Harding Central oil through the top Mercia seal which has already trapped Harding hydrocarbons over geological time. Contingency £50.7m 20% of Development & Facilities Costs
252.001
field 2 2 1 1 1 1 8 OPEX (20years) £45.7m OPEX Cost for 20 years (6% of facilities costs)
2 2 1 1 1 2 9 There is however significant risk associated with containment between the different Harding area fields (Harding Total: £349.8m
Central/ North, Gryphon and Maclure). Due to the sand injectite nature of the reservoir sands, connectivity is extremely £/T CO2 4.37
Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored complex and often sub-seismic resolution. It is however known that several of the Harding and Gryphon accumulations *These costs are not the full cost of storage as they omit MMV, security instruments, handover to DECC and profit.
1 no additional data to qc, values taken from CO2Stored show connection through the gas cap. This is not captured in the georisk factor as defined in CO2Stored.
Engineering Risk
The engineering containment risk is high for the Harding Field Complex, with 95 wells in total, and 86 considered to be at risk of leakage. 65 wells were plugged and abandoned, but only 1 of which was before 1986, representing the highest risk. The 100yr
probability of a leakage on the field is a moderate 0.17, but the well density factor is very high at 17.2 wells/km2, resulting in a very high risk assessment score of 2.86.
Well Design
Summary’. It is likely that this well design can be achieved in the Harding Central Oilfield.
Site 28 – 252.001 - Harding Central Oil Field - CNS
Due to the deep water depth (107m), wells will need to be drilled by Semi-Submersible
Drilling Unit. Subsea well costs are assumed to be £43M per well, resulting in a 5 well
Site Summary
development cost of £212.7M.
Capacity (Due Diligence): 84.8 MT UKCS Block: 9/23
Unit Designation: Oil Beachhead: St Fergus
Formation: Eocene Balder Water Depth: 110 m

Formation
Containment Unit: Horda Formation Reservoir Depth: 1548 m TVDSS (5080 ft)
Commercial Issues Availability/COP: 2025 Region: CNS
The COP date for Harding is currently 2025. Harding is operated under Petroleum Licence Client The Energy Technologies Institute Title D06: Prospect Summary Sheets Date of Issue 7th August 2015
P478 by Taqa.
Disclaimer:

1. Beckly, A. J., Nash, T., Pollard, R. Bruce, C. Freeman, P and Page, G. (2003) “The Harding Field, Block 9/23b”, United Kingdom Oil and Gas Fields, Commemorative Millennium
Volume. Geological Society, London Memoir 20, 283-290

CCS CC1026 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCS CC1026 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CCS CC1026 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Programme Area: Carbon Capture and Storage

Project: DECC Storage Appraisal

Title: Prospect Summary Sheets

A’ The calculated storage capacity is 1977MT compared to the reported capacity

Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015

Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored

156 WEST BRAE

Site 2 – 372.000 – Forties 5 – CNS

140 JACKY MACCULLOCH BLADON

1°15'E 1°20'E 1°25'E 1°30'E 1°35'E 1°40'E 1°45'E 1°50'E MONAN

CLAPHAM TEAL SOUTH GANNET G

130 MARNOCK-SKUA (oil)

Major offshore areas covered by 125

CO2Stored (© Energy Technologies 126

Axis generated Near Top Palaeocene depth map (ft)

Data Development Concept Axis generated Palaeocene Isochore (ft)

area to North (22/4b-6) interpretation, however for WP4 the top B’

Secondary Seal B MUNRO

data are available.

Site growth potential; theoretical Ultimate Development Concept MILLOM

for aquifer sands. Analogue data and prospect evaluation stage.

Secondary Store correlations will be used. Some data may CALDER

Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015

HELVELLYN WEST SOLE

Maureen 1 CO2Stored outline

Maureen 1 CO2Stored outline

Image source: modified from Wills,

GUINEVERE SKIFF VIKING C VIKING D

J. M., The Forties Field, Block 21/10, WAVENEY

22/6a, UK North Sea. BP Exploration,

DURANGO INDEFATIGABLE SOUTH WEST

CAMELOT NORTH EAST

CAMELOT CENTRAL SOUTH

Near Top Middle Jurassic Near Top Lower Cretaceous

Key Risk Summary 97

Due Diligence 1,021 22,871 0.14 0.98 0.14 16 86

and analysis of data. C’

The generic well design is discussed in the supporting

Commercial Issues Sele Fm Shale

CO2 volumes cf ETI Scenarios

South Comparative Development Concept

Site growth potential; theoretical Ultimate Development Concept

Data is available in CDA but digital log and

Image source: Original interpretation from Axis Well Technology, 2015

Low=1 Medium=2 High=3 2 values in CO2Stored

Build out potential

Comparative Development Concept

Site growth potential; theoretical Ultimate Development Concept

Capacity Injectivity Top Triassic Top Rotliegendes

Site 4 – 227.007 – Bunter Closure 3 - SNS

Formation: Triassic Bunter Sandstone Water Depth: 40 m

Comparative Development Concept

Secondary Store Zone D – Fluvial

Key Risk Summary

As the Viking field is a conglomerate of smaller fields, achieving access to

Axis generated Hewett Sst Isochore (ft), generated from

The field is covered by 3D seismic from

Well data is available for the Hewett field

Image source: modified from Cooke-