The Global CCS Institute hosted a workshop on 6 June 2013 in Calgary, Alberta, on the role of new bi-national storage standards in the deployment of CCS in Canada and the United States.

1. Standards Workshop
Calgary, Alberta
June 6, 2013
GLOBAL CCS INSTITUTE

2. Agenda
 Opening Remarks: Victor Der - Global CCS Institute
 Session 1: CSA Z741 Geological Storage of CO2
Jeff Walker - CSA Group
 Session 2: Impact of Z741 on Public Engagement and Safety
Jacqueline Sharp - Navius Research
 Session 3: Impact of Z741 0n Project Costs
Allan Greeves - Cenovus
 Session 4: Impact of Z741 on Mitigating Projects Risks
Rob Bioletti - Alberta Energy
 Session 5: Facilitated Discussion
Bob Page – University of Calgary, J-P Jepp – Shell Oil
Company, Rob Craig – ICO2N and participants
 Closing Remarks: Victor Der - Global CCS Institute

3. Process
 Speakers will give a 20 minute presentation. The balance of
the time is for Q&A and discussion
 There will be an extended open discussion at the end of the
day
 Vic Der will be the principal facilitator
 Ian Hayhow will be the rapporteur
 Chatham House rules apply
 We likely can be a bit flexible with the timelines

4. Workshop Objectives
The expected outcome for today is:
Identify the advantages and challenges to using standards for
CO2 storage projects
Storage Issues:
• How rigorous is the pre-screening process?
• Should there be a mechanism to recover pre-screening
costs?
• Who can/will do expert reviews?

5. Next Steps
• Draft summary report to be prepared by the Global CCS
Institute
• Circulate to participants for comment
• Publish on the Institute website
• Comments of the workshop please
• Thoughts for other workshop sessions

6. CSA Z741 Geological Storage of
Carbon Dioxide
Jeff Walker
GCCSI - The Role of Storage Standards in the
Deployment of CCS Workshop
June 6, 2013

7. Agenda
• About CSA Group
• About consensus standards
• Role of standards in CCS
• CSA Z741 Geological Storage of CO2
• Update on ISO standards
7

8. CSA Group
• Independent not-for profit Standards
Development, Product Certification and
Consumer Product Evaluation Organization
• Largest and most diversified Standards
Development Organization in Canada
• Neutral 3rd party
• One billion products worldwide bear a CSA
product safety mark
8

9. Standards Development
9
3,000
Standards and Codes
8,500
expert Committee Members
54
Program areas
40%
of standards are referenced in
government regulation
95%
of customers recommend
the use of CSA standards

10. Standards
What is a consensus standard?
A document designed to be used as a rule, guideline
or definition. It is a consensus-built, repeatable way of
doing something
Standards must fit the need
• Prescriptive based
• Objectives based
• Performance based
• Principles based
• Hybrids
10

11. Consensus
Consensus
General agreement, characterized by the absence of
sustained opposition to substantial issues by any
important part of the concerned interests and by a
process that involves seeking to take into account the
views of all parties concerned and to address any
conflicting arguments.
Consensus is not necessarily unanimity
CSA uses an accredited standards development
process to develop standards through
consensus
11

12. CSA’s Consensus Process
CSA does not write standards
Technical Committees write standards
CSA does not influence the technical content
12

13. • Organized to drive diverse stakeholders to consensus on
tough issues
• Accredited by the Standards Council of Canada
• Technical Committee - Balanced Matrix
– All interest groups have equal access
– Minority interest groups have a voice
13
CSA’s Consensus Process
Chair
Associate
Members
5 Year
Reviews
Public
Review
• Owners / Architects/
Regulators
• Suppliers/ Fabricators/
Contractors
• Consultants
Committee
• Owners
• Researchers
• Regulators
• Suppliers
• Fabricators
• Contractors
• Consultants

14. Role of Standards
Standards and Public Perception of CCS
• People are worried about geological storage
• Public opposition has caused cancelation of several
CCS projects
• Standards can provide assurances that CCS is safe
14

15. Role of Standards
Standards and Regulations
• Standards and regulations can work together
• Standards are voluntary
• Typically standards initiated by industry
• Demonstrate regulatory compliance
15

16. Role of Standards
Standards and Regulations
• Streamline the regulatory process
• Harmonize across jurisdictions
• Standards have a revision process
16

17. Role of Standards
Other Benefits
• Transfer of knowledge and experience
• Mainstream leading practices
• Financing CCS projects
• Acceptance by different interests
17

18. CSA Z741
CSA Z741 Geological Storage of CO2
• Bi-national USA – Canada
• IPAC CO2 provided support
• Publication in 2012
• CSA Z741 is not a “cookbook”
Promote environmentally safe and long-term
containment of carbon dioxide
18

19. CSA Z741
Scope
• Establishes requirements for the storage of CO2
• Recognizes projects are site specific
• Primarily applicable to saline aquifers and depleted
hydrocarbon reservoirs
• Does not preclude its application to EOR storage
19

20. CSA Z741
Scope
• CO2 storage during EOR is different
• Aspects can be used for EOR projects
• When storage is an incident of routine EOR
20

21. CSA Committee
21
User Interest Category Min Max Actual
General Interest 8 11 10
Government and/or Regulatory Authority 5 7 6
Owner/Operator/Producer 7 9 7
Supplier/Contractor/Consultant Interest 6 9 6
Balanced Matrix Approach to Consensus

22. Committee Organizations
22
Government/Regulators
– Energy Resources Conservation
Board of Alberta (ERCB)
– BC Oil and Gas Commission
– Ground Water Protection Council
– Alabama Dept. of Env Mgmt
– Mississippi Dept of Env Quality
– Alberta Energy
Owner/Operator/Producer
– SaskPower
– Southern Company
– Cenovus
– Denbury Resources
– Chevron
– Husky Energy
Supplier/Contractor/Consultant Interest
– DNV
– Schlumberger Carbon Services
– Advanced Resources International Inc
– Halliburton
– Golder Associates
– Baker Hughes
General Interest/Expertise
– University of Alberta
– Alberta Innovates-Technology Futures
– World Resources Institute (WRI)
– Global CCS Institute
– International Energy Agency
– PEW Center on Global Climate Change
– Princeton University

23. CSA Z741
Table of Contents
1 Scope
2 Reference publications
3 Definitions
4 Management systems
5 Site screening, selection, and characterization
6 Risk management
7 Well infrastructure development
8 Monitoring and verification
9 Closure
23

24. CSA Z741
Clause 4 Management systems
• Ensure that existing best practices are followed
• Promote improvement
• Clarify project operator roles and responsibilities
• Detail principles; internal, external; HSE
• Lay out communication requirements
24

25. CSA Z741
Clause 5 Site screening, selection, and characterization
• Site screening advice
• Criteria for site selection
• Requirements and recommendations for
characterizations
• Modeling parameters and outcomes
25

26. CSA Z741
Clause 6 Risk management
• Consistent with ISO 31000 Risk management
26

27. CSA Z741
Clause 7 Well infrastructure development
• CO2 specific requirements and references
– Materials
– Design
– Construction
– Corrosion control
– O&M
27

28. CSA Z741
Clause 8 Monitoring and verification
• Flexible and adapt to changes in conditions and phases
• Not technology based
• M&V objectives
• Designing an M&V program
28

29. CSA Z741
Clause 9 Closure
• Closure plan
• Qualification process requirements
• Preparing for decommissioning
29

30. International Standards
CCS crosses international borders
• Expertise is international
• Project operators are transnational
• Harmonization has benefits
National differences must be
acknowledged
30

31. ISO and CCS
New CCS ISO TC 265
• Chaired by Canada (Sandra Locke)
• Secretary Canada, twinned with China
Standardization of design, construction,
operation, and environmental planning and
management, risk management,
quantification, monitoring and verification,
and related activities in the field of carbon
dioxide capture, transportation, and
geological storage (CCS).
31

32. TC265 Participation
Participating Countries
Australia Malaysia
Canada Netherlands
China Norway
France South Africa
Germany Spain
Italy Switzerland
Japan United Kingdom
Korea United States
10 other observer nations
32

33. TC 265 Structure
33
CCS TC
Capture
Group
Transportation
Group Storage
Group
Cross-Cutting
Group
Quant. & Verif.
Group

34. Summary
34
• There are challenges to implementing CCS
• CSA Z741 can help
• alleviate public concerns about safety
• facilitate compliance with the regulatory process
• streamline approvals
• mainstream leading practices
• CSA Z741 on CO2 storage is available for use
• ISO is embarking upon international standards

35. 35
Email - jeff.walker@csagroup.org

36. The Impact of Z741 on Public
Engagement and Safety
Jacqueline Sharp
Managing Partner, Navius Research Inc.

37. Presentation Overview
• Z741 and Public Engagement
• Z741 and Safety
• Impact of Z741 on Public Engagement and Safety
• Group Discussion Questions

38. Z741 and Public Engagement

39. Who is the “Public”?
• Stakeholders: individuals, groups, companies or
organisations that believe their interests could be
affected by a project and wish to participate in or
have their interests represented in project
decisions.
• ‘Public’ stakeholders: general public, local
community, NGOs
•Other key stakeholders: government/ regulators,
experts, employees, shareholders, suppliers,
customers. Some crossover to ‘public’.
Public stakeholders grant or withhold social license to operate.

40. What is ‘engagement’?
Engagement goes beyond informing and consulting.
PlanningNSW, 2003

41. Why does public engagement matter?
• Business case: reduce risk of project delays or
cancellations due to opposition
• Approvals: satisfy or exceed regulatory
requirements
• Project improvements: benefit from different
viewpoints, challenged to address critical issues
• Reputational benefits
Effective public engagement is a key risk mitigation tool.

42. Z741 and public engagement
Principles:
• “Operate in an open and transparent fashion...
to build public understanding, trust, and
credibility”
• Develop and implement a local stakeholder
advisory strategy
• Report on major milestones or unplanned
events
“Identify project stakeholders early in the storage project life
cycle and engage them during all phases of the project”

43. Z741 and public engagement cont.
Public Communications:
• Include a trained designated media liaison and a
designated individual to answer public questions
• Involve the community in development of the
outreach and engagement strategy
• Communicate about the project early and often
• Use public meetings, notices, and updates, site
visits, potentially a local newsletter, social media
• Communications should clearly share scientific,
technical, and economic information, and focus on
project issues and local benefits/concerns

44. Z741 and public engagement cont.
Communications continued:
“The operator should engage the public in
decision-making around aspects of the project
where possible so that it addresses their
concerns and meets local needs”

45. Z741 and public engagement cont.
• The ‘human culture’ context should be considered
• Stakeholder interests should be considered, and
their needs met to the extent practicable
• Stakeholder views should be appropriately
considered when defining the elements of concern,
identifying criteria, and evaluating risk
• Risk communication program should address
rationale for site selection, risk management plans,
response to unexpected events, stakeholder
concerns/questions
The Risk Management process should include stakeholder
consultation and communication.

46. Z741 and Safety

47. Safety Risks Associated with CCS
• Safety risk is a function of likelihood of
occurrence and severity of consequences
• The greatest consequences are associated with
exposure of the public or workers to high
concentrations of CO2. due to leakage or an
accident
• The likelihood of these events occurring is very
low
The actual safety risks associated with CCS are low.

48. Z741 and Safety
• “Ensure the integrity of all facilities which
includes preventing leakage”
• “Develop and put in place an emergency
response plan and team”
• “Provide the appropriate resources to
continually improve health, safety, and
environmental protection”
“Ensure that health, safety, and environmental protection
for workers and local communities are the project’s
highest priorities”

49. Z741 and Safety cont.
Very detailed standards for:
• Site characterization and assessment
• Risk assessment and mitigation
• Well materials and construction
• Operation & Maintenance and Monitoring &
Verification plans designed to protect health,
safety, and the environment
Virtually every section of Z741 includes requirements and
recommendations to prevent leakage and ensure safety

50. Impact of Z741 on Stakeholder
Engagement and Safety

51. Impact of Z741: Key Points
• Safety sections are quite detailed and
prescriptive; public engagement sections are
general and focus on principles
• Key is how Z741 affects perceived safety risks
• Public engagement sections may not provide
sufficient guidance

52. Impact of Z741 on Safety
Safety:
• Z741 should ensure implementation of best
practices and further minimize safety risks
• Perceived safety risk is the real issue
• Public tends to focus only on severity of
consequences, on which they can have
misperceptions

53. Impact of Z741 on Perceived Safety
• The extent to which Z741 impacts perceived
safety will depend on trust in CSA process and
standard versus government regulations.
• Successfully explaining probability of occurrence
and addressing misperceptions about
consequences requires risk communication
• Z741 identifies objectives for risk
communication but not how to conduct effective
risk communication

54. Risk Communication Best Practices
• Use language appropriate for the audience ()
• Be open and honest ()
• Put risks in context public understands
• Where possible, partner with trusted
messengers
• Acknowledge knowledge gaps and identify
plans to address them
• Make extensive project information available

55. Impact of Z741 on Public Engagement
• Engage early and often ()
• Use a variety of communication/engagement mechanisms ()
• Meaningfully involve stakeholders in project decisions ()
Specifics
• Conduct social site characterization at the project outset to
identify stakeholders, concerns, misperceptions
• Start engagement even before site characterization
• Develop and implement processes to obtain and incorporate
stakeholder feedback
Public engagement principles generally reflect best
practices but do not provide detail on implementation.

56. Standards, Public Engagement, and Safety
• Are the standards achievable?
• Are the standards sufficient?
• Are the standards detailed enough? Should
they be more prescriptive about public
engagement and risk communication?
• Are the standards applicable worldwide?
Group discussion questions:

57. www.NaviusResearch.com
Questions?
Navius Research Inc. Vancouver | Toronto

58. CSA Z741-12 – Geological Storage
of CO2:
Impact on Project Costs
Allan Greeves
Manager, Weyburn
Cenovus Energy Inc.
Global CCS Institute Workshop | Calgary, AB | June 6, 2013

59. Disclaimer
This document contains forward-looking information prepared and provided for the
sole purpose of facilitating public consultation in respect of regulatory applications
and is not intended to be, and should not be, relied upon for the purpose of making
investment decisions, including without limitation, to purchase, hold or sell any
securities of Cenovus Energy Inc. Additional information regarding Cenovus Energy Inc.
is available at www.cenovus.com.

60. Impact of standards on project costs
• How can we set guidelines to
ensure effective standards that
are not overly prescriptive,
causing unnecessary costs (Capex,
Opex, MMV)?
• Can standards in fact lower the
life-cycle costs of a project?
• To what extent have projects been
used as guideposts or adoption
from other projects such as in the
oil and gas industry?

61. Impacts of standards on project costs
• Impetus for standard development
– 1.1 (a) “This Standard establishes requirements and
recommendations for the geological storage of carbon
dioxide. The purpose of these requirements is to
promote environmentally safe and long-term
containment of carbon dioxide in a way that
minimizes risks to the environment and human
health.” 1
– Standards provides operators, regulators and the
public with knowledge sharing, careful considerations
applicable with the storage of CO2, and provides
guidance for project planning
1. CSA 741-12 Geological storage of carbon dioxide, October 2012, Pg 1.

62. CSA Z741-12 Geological Storage of CO2
Storage project life cycle
Post-injection period
Entity Site
screening
and selection
period
Site
characterization
period
Design and
development
period
Operational
period
Closure
period
Post closure
period (not
included in
the Standard)
(Private)
operator
Regulatory
authority
Designated
authority
Limits of the Standard
Iterative
process
Injection
starts
Cessation of
injection
Source: CSA Z741-12 Geological storage of carbon dioxide, October 2012, Pg 2

63. Application of standards
• CSA Z741-12 was created by a diverse team of experts
– Oil & gas E&P companies
– Oil & gas service companies
– Environmental NGO’s
– University researchers
– Research organizations
– Regulators
– Environmental service companies
– The technical committee worked hard to find the balance between
prescriptiveness and flexibility to incorporate site specific conditions

64. Applying standards
• A proponent is considering its options for reducing
its carbon footprint
– Is geological storage an option?
– Where to begin?
• Standards provide guidance as to the expectations
and considerations necessary for a successful
project:
– Reduce cycle time to understanding the potential scope
of the project
– Provide guidance on the expertize necessary to evaluate
the project

65. Continuous improvement
Continuous improvement is a key
component of CSA Z741-12
• Recognition of ever improving
technology
• Recognition of ever changing
expectations
• Opportunity to reduce costs
with increased industry
knowledge
• Opportunity to reduce costs
with increased site specific
knowledge
Plan Execute
ReviewImprove

66. Project life cycle – stage gate cost profileSiteScreening
SiteSelection
Site
Characterization
Time
CumulativeCost
Monitoring & verification

67. Site screening, selection &
characterization
Site screening Cost considerations
• Storage capacity
• Potential injection capability
• Seal (above & below) the storage unit
• Seismic or tectonic stability
• Faulting / fracturing
• Over-pressured systems
• Hydrodynamic system
• Number of wells already penetrating
the seals / storage unit
• Primarily an ‘office’ assessment
• Utilizes readily available data &
information
• May not require the acquisition of new
data
• May require additional consulting
expertise to conduct the review
• Iterative process – may need to
evaluate several potential storage units

68. Site screening, selection &
characterization
Site selection Cost considerations
• Builds upon site screening information and
analysis
• Further refines understanding of capacity,
injectivity, storage security (seal integrity
due to faulting, existing wells, etc)
• Explores other requirements like pore space
ownership, other subsurface activities,
surface considerations (lakes, rivers,
population centres, land use, etc)
• Continue to use existing data & information
• Review of core from existing wells,
petrophysical well log analysis, simple
models to assess injectivity, pressure /
hydrodynamic studies
• Review of mineral land tenure records
• Review of surface culture and future land
use including restrictions due to
environmental or heritage concerns

69. Site screening, selection &
characterization
Site characterization & assessment Cost considerations
Detailed assessment of:
• Geology & hydrogeology of the storage unit
• Characterization of confining strata
• Primary seal
• Secondary barriers to CO2 leakage
• Baseline geochemistry
• Baseline geomechanics
• Well characterization
At this stage new data may be required
including:
• Seismic data (2D & possibly 3D)
• May include the drilling of an exploration or
pilot well for:
• Core & core analysis of storage unit
and seal(s)
• petrophysical & cased hole logging
• DST & well test data (pressure,
injectivity, existing pore fluid analysis)
• Lab studies of fluid compatibility (CO2 with
rock, pore fluids)
• Lab assessment of rock strength properties,
thermal properties, rock deposition &
mineralization characteristics

70. Site screening, selection &
characterization
Modeling for site characterization Cost considerations
Integration of the acquired data will allow the
construction of:
• Geological static model - areal extent,
stratigraphy, lithology / facies, structure, porosity /
permeability distribution, pore saturations, pressure
/ geothermal regime, initial stress regime
• Flow modeling – assess storage capacity, injectivity,
pressure and plume distribution & movement, fate of
displaced water
• Geochemical modeling – chemical reactions
between injected CO2 and storage unit rock & fluids,
mineral trapping
• Geomechanical modeling – strength of the
primary seal, fault reactivation, potential for induced
seismicity, impact on well integrity
• Integration of existing and captured data into
these various models will require skilled
expertise in various geology, geophysics and
engineering
• Modeling requires calibration to known
behavior (history matching)
• Modeling will allow for scenario analysis of
areas of uncertainty
• Modeling will have an impact on the time
allocated to assess the potential site
• Modeling will help inform the proponent as
well as the regulator and public of the
subsurface impact of the storage project
• Modeling will be an iterative effort,
incorporating new data as it becomes available
(piloting, development)

71. Well infrastructure development
• Well construction includes the design &
execution for the creation of:
– Wellbore
– Internal well completion,
– Surface wellhead
– Abandonment of infrastructure at the end of the
project

72. Wellbore design – what makes a well CO2 compliant?
• Number of casing strings required
– Groundwater protection
– Protection of porous zones above storage unit
– Potential lost circulation zones
• Designing to expected service conditions:
– Is the CO2 stream dehydrated?
– Does the stream contain excessive impurities (NOx,
SOx, H2S, O2)?
– Pressure
– Temperature
• Anticipated injection rates
– Hole/casing diameter appropriate for the injection
string and packer assembly required
• Core, DST, logging requirements
• Monitoring

73. Wellbore design – drilling to make a well CO2 compliant
Drill & Case
• Typical oil and gas well design includes
3 casing strings: conductor, surface
casing & production (long-string)
• Only the long-string is in contact with
the CO2 storage unit
• CSA Z741 requires the casing across the
storage unit be made of corrosion
material like chrome or stainless steel
• CSA Z741 refers to various API
specifications for cementing but also
expects cement design to offer
additional chemical resistance to CO2
degradation to apply latest technologies

74. Wellbore design – what makes a well CO2 compliant?
Drill & Case (other considerations)
• High standard of care / QA/QC
– Drilling mud system
– Attention to casing centralization
particularly over storage unit, primary
seal and secondary seal
– Cement blend preparation and
placement (compatible water, additive
concentrations, over displacement, etc)
• What kind of monitoring is required?
– Monitoring well vs injection well
– Piloting well vs development well
– Accessibility required for time lapsed
evaluation
– Integrity concerns balanced against
accessibility, monitoring equipment

75. Drilling a CO2 compliant wellbore
Vertical Well Drilling Costs
Consulting & Supervision Logging, Coring, Mud Gas
Surface Casing & Cement Production Casing & Cement
Drilling Rig & Support Mud Systems & Disposal
Other Services
• Approximately 1/3 of the cost
of drilling a well is for casing
and cement left in the hole
• Remainder of the costs are for
drilling and evaluation of the
well

76. Wellbore design – what makes a well CO2 compliant?
Well completion
• Designing to expected service
conditions:
• Is the CO2 stream dehydrated?
• Does the stream contain excessive
impurities (NOx, SOx, H2S, O2)?
• Pressure
• Temperature
• Anticipated injection rates
• Annulus inhibited fluid type
• Cement & casing integrity logging
requirements
• Monitoring requirements

77. Materials selection
• Upgraded materials like this
packer element may be
required to avoid adverse
effects due to CO2

78. Impact of service conditions
• This coiled tubing was recovered
from an injection well converted
from straight CO2 injection to a
water-alternating-gas (WAG)
injection configuration
• Drehydrated CO2
• Non-coated tubulars
• Coiled tubing string was in place
for ~12 years with little corrosion
with exception of this point
midway down the well

79. Wellbore design – what makes a wellhead CO2 compliant?
Wellhead design
• Designing to expected service
conditions:
• Is the CO2 stream dehydrated?
• Does the stream contain excessive
impurities (NOx, SOx, H2S, O2)?
• Pressure
• Temperature
• Anticipated injection rates
• Monitoring requirements
• Accessibility requirements to the
wellbore
• Flow / ESD control

80. Designing surface piping
CO2 compatible seals in
surface piping:
• CO2 does behave differently
than oil & gas industry fluids
• Sometimes it takes a ‘low
tech’ way of
troubleshooting for
performance improvement

81. Monitoring & verification
Monitoring & verification Cost considerations
“Measurement and surveillance activities necessary to
provide and assurance of the integrity of CO2 storage”2:
• Used at all stages of development – begins with baseline
data right through to the closure of the project
• Provide evidence that CO2 placement is secure
• Allows for comparisons between predicted and
actual conditions
• various data points and perspectives from seismic, to
injection wells and observation wells
• models updated with actual performance data allow
for performance improvement and confidence in
ultimate fate of CO2
• Support quantification efforts
• Is not just one method of monitoring
• Is a suite of site specific approaches to compare to
baseline
• Will require additional project expenditures for:
• Seismic
• Observation wells
• Specialty hardware in injection wells
• Pressure, temperature, flow, composition
monitoring equipment / tools
• Data capture instrumentation and analysis (ie:
SCADA)
• Repeated capture over time
• Updated over time as necessary
• Expanded over time as necessary
2. CSA 741-12 Geological storage of carbon dioxide, October 2012, Pg 55.

82. Closure
Closure Cost considerations
“purpose… is to provide guidance to and establish
predictability for project operators and regulatory
authorities of..
a) Sufficient understanding of storage site’s
characteristics
b) Low residual risk
c) Adequate well integrity” 3
• Includes incorporation of learning’s throughout the
project life
• Development infrastructure in place and its
condition
• Monitoring & verification results
• Integration of project performance data into
dynamic models
• Updated risk management plan
• Includes the abandonment of storage infrastructure
wells and facilities
• Will likely be done in a staged approach to monitor
for well integrity and containment effectiveness
• Will take some time (year’s) to provide confidence for
risk management plan
• Need to continue monitoring efforts
• Need to retain experts who will update
dynamic models
• End result will ‘qualify’ project for potential hand off
to designated authority
3. CSA 741-12 Geological storage of carbon dioxide, October 2012, Pg 60

83. Summary
• By providing guidance and expectations
standards can lower the life-cycle costs
of a project
– Improve project understanding with
baseline work and monitoring
– Application of best practices for
development design and quality
– Integrate risk assessment with
monitoring & verification to identify
specific areas of concern
• Learning’s from the oil & gas industry
are directly applicable
– Complementary skills
– Complementary resources and
equipment
• End result is a project with maximum
benefit with effectively managed risks

84. • Special thanks to:
– Canadian Standards Association
– Cenovus Energy Inc.
Questions?

85. Session 4
Will Z741 Mitigate Project Risks?
The Role of Storage Standards in the
Deployment of CCS
Rob Bioletti, P.Eng.
Director, CCS Policy
Government of Alberta
June 6, 2013

86. Reasons for
Standardization
86

87. Climate Change Mitigation
• No one technology can stabilize greenhouse
gas emissions alone.
• A combination of several climate mitigation
technologies is needed for robust climate
change.
• Standards will aid in the widespread
deployment of CCS.
87

88. Knowledge Sharing and
Innovation
• Standards will aid in the transfer of
knowledge between jurisdictions.
• Standards need not be prescriptive.
• Organizational structure can aid in separating
well defined versus emerging activities.
88

89. Public Perception of CCS
• Public opposition has caused cancelation of
several CCS projects throughout the world.
• Standards can help provide assurances that
CCS is safe.
89

90. CSA Z741
How this Standard Can
Mitigate CCS Project Risks
90

91. Site Screening, Selection, and
Characterization - Section 5
Site screening and selection will identify
prospective CO2 storage sites that have met the
following criteria:
• Sufficient Capacity;
• Sufficient Injectivity; and
• Effective Retention.
91

92. Risk Management – Section 6
Effective risk management should:
• Demonstrate achievement of objectives;
• Improve performance relative to elements of
concern;
• Support strategic planning;
• Develop robust project and change management
processes;
• Help decision makers make informed and
prioritized choices;
• Account for uncertainty; and
• Recognize stakeholder intentions.
92

93. Well Infrastructure Development
- Section 7
Outline criteria needing to be met in order to
best mitigate risk (CO2 leaks, infrastructure
problems, etc.) such criteria include:
• Materials;
• Design;
• Construction;
• Corrosion Control; and
• Operation and Maintenance.
93

94. Monitoring and Verification
– Section 8
The monitoring and verification standard will be
flexible and adaptable to changes in storage and
injection conditions, the criteria the standards
will address the following concerns:
• Health,
• Safety,
• Environmental Risks; and
• Storage Performance
94

95. Risks for CCS Projects
95

96. Risk Profile for a CO2 Storage Site
Source: Benson 2007

97. Examples of Other Risk Elements
• Environmental
– Natural environment
– Health and safety
– Legal and regulatory environment
• Economic
– Project financing
– Competition with other resources
• Social
– Public support
– Politics
97

98. Risk Management Process
98
Source: CSA-Z741-12

99. 99
Group Activity!
Question:
Which risk element is the most important
to address for CCS projects?
Tool: Simplified Decision Matrix
Assessing the relative importance of alternatives

100. Steps
1. Brainstorm up to 5 risk elements
- Environmental (e.g. operational, safety, regulatory)
- Economic (e.g. financing, resource competition)
- Social (e.g. public support, reputation, politics)
2. Assign weights to each element
- Stakeholder views:
Petroleum engineer, policy analyst, farmer, professor, activist, etc
- Scale of 1 to 3 (1 = low importance, 3 = high importance)
- Group must agree on the weight!
3. Score each risk by stakeholder perspective
- Scale of 1 to 5 (1 = low importance, 5 = high importance)
4. Multiply stakeholder scores by weight
5. Total all scores to find “winner”
6. If there is disagreement, re-visit weights or scores
100

101. Example Decision Matrix
101
Stakeholder Score (1-5)
Industry Government Public Academic
3 (x1) = 3 1 (x1) = 1 2 (x1) = 2
Total
5+3+1+2
= 11
5 (x1) = 5
4 (x2) = 8
4 (x3) = 12
2 (x1) = 2
Weight
(1-3)
1
2
3
1
Risk
Element
Financing
Public
Support
Safety
Etc.
Etc.
Brainstorm Agree Assess

102. Discussion
1. What were the results? Did one clear
winner emerge?
2. How did stakeholder views help or
hinder the decisions?
3. Should certain risk elements have
more focus?
4. How can CSA Z741 help mitigate
these risks? Are there areas for
improvement?
102

103. Thank You
Rob Bioletti, P.Eng.
+1 780 644 3204
Rob.Bioletti@gov.ab.ca
www.energy.alberta.ca