Search

Achieving a successful energy transition requires society to deploy as many technologies as possible, rather than relying on one single technology to be the ‘magic bullet’. However, there are characteristics that make this transition more challenging than previous transitions in terms of its scope. These challenges include the wide range of sustainable technologies involved and the time constraints. For this research the importance of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen technologies for the decarbonization process was analysed, including the main challenges that their large-scale implementation is facing from a subsurface perspective. The ongoing role that fossil fuels play, as well as how the hydrocarbon industry can facilitate the current transition, must also be considered. The common denominator in the analysis is the critical position of Earth sciences in discovering, characterizing, and sustainably utilizing subsurface resources. Geoscientists are essential for providing communication and cooperation between scientists and stakeholders who use, manage and preserve the subsurface. The success of CO2 and hydrogen storage, as part of the climate change mitigation strategies, and the eventual phase-out of fossil fuels ultimately depends on the sustainable development of the subsurface.

Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences - Geological Survey of Belgium, Brussels, Belgium (1);KULeuven - Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Division of Geology, Campus Arenberg, Leuven-Heverlee, Belgium (2) The societal development towards climate neutrality and the ambition for economic growth and well-being in Europe rely on mineral raw materials. Mineral occurrences can be seen as manifestations of specific geological processes that happened in the subsurface, or geomanifestations. Locating and better understanding mineral occurrences and deposits in Europe is crucial for future informed decision making on local resourcing. The GeoConnect³d project is developing a multi-scale structural framework in which geological maps and 3D models can be inserted and related to. In our novel approach, the structural framework reorganises geological information in terms of geological limits and geological units. Limits are defined as broadly planar structures that separate a given geological unit from its neighbouring units, e.g. faults (limits) that define a graben (unit), or an unconformity (limit) that defines a basin (unit). Geomanifestation data are then added to the structural framework model aiming to show where and how processes and structures may be linked. This approach was tested in Belgium, where a structural framework was created at different scales, from most detail at 1:250,000 to more generalised at 1:2,000,000. Mineral occurrence data from the Minerals4EU database were used to test the model. As an example, a spatial link between Pb-Zn deposits and structural framework elements is identifiable in the Herve-Vesdre and Landenne areas. Although the deposits are located within the Variscan orogenic front, deposition is post-Variscan and spatially associated with transverse NNW-SSE faults part of the Rhine graben network (Dejonghe, 1998). With a combination of database attributes and SKOS vocabulary, the information of deposition age and time of activity of faults displayed in the structural framework helps to quickly place these deposits in the context of the Lower Rhine embayment. Therefore, the structural framework can translate highly technical scientific knowledge by using an interactive tool that presents information in a more understandable way. We consider the outcomes of this test promising to fulfil one of the main goals of GeoConnect³d: preparing and disclosing geological information in a way it is more useful for stakeholders. We also consider this as the way forward towards pan-European integration and harmonisation of geological information, where the ultimate challenge is to correlate or otherwise link information from different geological domains and of different scales. This will be beneficial for the identification and better geological understanding of European mineral resources. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 731166. Reference: Dejonghe, L., 1998. Zinc-lead deposits in Belgium. Ore Geology Reviews 12, 329-354

Deep geothermal energy appears to be currently on the edge of a take-off in Belgium. However, the actual emergence of this technology is subject to developments in legislation and incentives from regional governments. Different risk/return expectations across stages of the investment continuum exist and the financial structures that are employed at each stage may require different types of public support. In this context, the ALPI project aims at developing a geological-economic model to calculate the impact of different policy instruments on development of the Belgian geothermal energy sector. Due to the lack of underground information describing the Campine Basin, economic methods are used to deal with these large geological uncertainties.

This report shows that accelerating deployment of CCS can enable CO2- EOR in the UKCS. Part of the CO2 that would otherwise need to go directly to dedicated storage in CCS projects can be used to drive CO2-EOR. That gives significant benefits to the wider UK economy - extending the producing life of the North Sea, reducing imports of oil, maintaining employment, developing new capability to drive exports, and additional direct and indirect taxation revenues. At a national level this synergy between CCS and CO2-EOR could provide the overall most cost effective way to accelerate this energy transition between 2018 and 2030, to meet Committee on Climate Change de- carbonisation pathways. This CO2-EOR route also achieves two desirable UK objectives. A business demand is created, which drives sequential construction of CO2 capture, which develops learning and reduces costs of CO2 supply, which enables cheaper low-carbon electricity. CCS by this route, with secure CO2 storage already proven, develops more rapidly to protect the onshore UK economy and industry from increasing carbon prices. This report shows that accelerating deployment of CCS can enable CO2- EOR in the UKCS. Part of the CO2 that would otherwise need to go directly to dedicated storage in CCS projects can be used to drive CO2-EOR. That gives significant benefits to the wider UK economy - extending the producing life of the North Sea, reducing imports of oil, maintaining employment, developing new capability to drive exports, and additional direct and indirect taxation revenues. At a national level this synergy between CCS and CO2-EOR could provide the overall most cost effective way to accelerate this energy transition between 2018 and 2030, to meet Committee on Climate Change de- carbonisation pathways. This CO2-EOR route also achieves two desirable UK objectives. A business demand is created, which drives sequential construction of CO2 capture, which develops learning and reduces costs of CO2 supply, which enables cheaper low-carbon electricity. CCS by this route, with secure CO2 storage already proven, develops more rapidly to protect the onshore UK economy and industry from increasing carbon prices.

CO2-EOR is a possible means to produce incremental oil from active oil fields. In the ongoing climate change debate, it is also welcomed as a business case for geological storage of CO2 (CO2 Capture and Storage, CCS). The possibility for applying this technology in the North Sea has been under discussion for several years, but the high cost and financial risk have hampered its deployment until today. Using the techno-economic simulator PSS IV, potential CO2-EOR projects can be evaluated in a realistic way, considering technological, policy-related, economic and geological uncertainties using Monte-Carlo calculations. For the current study, around 450 to 750 MC runs were performed (lower for the Cluster, and depending on the field and scenario), which is considered to produce results in sufficient detail for the current set-up. This number is mainly limited by computing performance. PSS IV includes a unique feature, in that it makes project evaluations considering incomplete information about the future. Next to its standard Monte-Carlo methodology, where stochastic parameter values are changed slightly every calculation, a second level of Monte-Carlo calculations and stochastic parameters are used for creating an outlook towards the future. This methodology is called “limited foresight”, which produces near- optimal investment decisions. This is considered more realistic compared to an optimisation model, where actions are taken based on a perfect forecast of the future. This methodology is combined with Real Options analysis, to include the value of having future project flexibility. CO2-EOR is a possible means to produce incremental oil from active oil fields. In the ongoing climate change debate, it is also welcomed as a business case for geological storage of CO2 (CO2 Capture and Storage, CCS). The possibility for applying this technology in the North Sea has been under discussion for several years, but the high cost and financial risk have hampered its deployment until today. Using the techno-economic simulator PSS IV, potential CO2-EOR projects can be evaluated in a realistic way, considering technological, policy-related, economic and geological uncertainties using Monte-Carlo calculations. For the current study, around 450 to 750 MC runs were performed (lower for the Cluster, and depending on the field and scenario), which is considered to produce results in sufficient detail for the current set-up. This number is mainly limited by computing performance. PSS IV includes a unique feature, in that it makes project evaluations considering incomplete information about the future. Next to its standard Monte-Carlo methodology, where stochastic parameter values are changed slightly every calculation, a second level of Monte-Carlo calculations and stochastic parameters are used for creating an outlook towards the future. This methodology is called “limited foresight”, which produces near- optimal investment decisions. This is considered more realistic compared to an optimisation model, where actions are taken based on a perfect forecast of the future. This methodology is combined with Real Options analysis, to include the value of having future project flexibility.