June 26, 2008
From RQLWiki
If we put the PDF minutes out in a public place, we could just link it in. As it is, I pasted from PDF with manual format edits for wiki.
Note automatic generation of contents,
Minutes
Dear all,
In blue are my notes taken during the meeting. Anyone is welcome to comment or amend (for those who were present). In black is the original text send as support for the meeting.
Thanks and regards,
M.Verliac
Were attending today: Arthur Cheng Tom Daley Kevin Dodds Stewart Levin Michel Verliac Don White Were excused: David Cooper Cengiz Esmersoy William Goodway Lianje Huang Andreas Laake David Lumley Ron Masters Partha Routh Colin Sayers Yoham Shoham Kurt Strack Manik Talwani Sergio Zarantonello Jie Zhang
AGENDA:
1. Topic # 1: Sub Committee Modification:
Since April, we received 2 applications to join our CO2 Sub Committee:
Kevin Dodds proposed to welcome Professor Chris Liner from University of Houston. He is the Director of the Reservoir Quantification Laboratory (RQL) His history is Conoco, Western Geophysical, University of Tulsa, Editor of Geophysics, Saudi Aramco and now Professor at U of Houston. He is developing a program in CO2 with partnership with Texas A&M as part of his RQL.
Manik Talwani would like to propose Professor Peter Kelemen who is a professor at Columbia University Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. He has some very innovative ideas about CO2 sequestration. Unless the Sub Committee has any strong reason not to welcome these two specialists, we will ask Kevin and Manik to ask them to join us and to pass them the minutes and notes from our previous meetings. This will be our first discussion. The Sub Committee is glad to welcome both Pr. Chris Liner and Pr Peter Kelemen. Kevin and Manik will take contact with them to ensure that they receive all the notes from our previous meetings.
2. Topic #2: Project Update
2.1. Project # 1: Las Vegas Special Session - Update by M.Verliac
During our last meeting, we were in the middle of the process of soliciting and reviewing papers. Our Session was accepted on May 14th with 9 slots in a large room. I will update the Sub Committee with what is planned on this session. The Special Session has been accepted with the following agenda. A 9th slot will be a Q-A session. The session will probably be on Wednesday PM during the Las Vegas Convention. Abstract submission this year has been outstanding. Around 1200 abstracts were submitted when 800-850 is the average. This obliged us to make some drastic choices. We received 16 abstracts either by invitation either through the TPO normal submission process. We proposed to allocate one slot for a poster session allowing receiving 4 or 5 more presentations but it appeared not to be possible for logistics reasons. One paper could be moved to another session but we had to reject 7 papers.
Keynote talk
- Talk 1
Sally Benson Seismic monitoring of CO2 geo-sequestration: realistic
- Talk 2 capabilities and limitations
David Lumley Geophysical Monitoring in the IEA GHG Weyburn- Midale CO2 Monitoring and Storage Project
- Talk 3
Don White Thief Zone Identification through Seismic Monitoring Talk 4 of a CO2 Flood, Weyburn Field, Saskatchewan A. Araman Integration of Satellite Imaging of uplift with 3D seismic
- Talk 5 analysis of CO2 Movement at Krechba, Algeria
Sue Raikes Application of geophysical monitoring within the Otway
- Talk 6 Project S.E. Australia
Milovan Urosevic Integration of crosswell CASSM (Continuous active
- Talk 7 source seismic monitoring) and flow modeling for
imaging of a CO2 plume in a brine aquifer Tom Daley The effects of geomechanical deformation on seismic
- Talk 8 monitoring of CO2 sequestration
Verdon James
2.2. Project #2: 2009 Summer Research WS - Chairman David Lumley
In the past meeting, we discussed opportunities to have a location in Alaska or Canada what was seen as a good idea. The topics can be quite large and will need some coordination. We discussed ideas like having innovative sessions focused on coal or Reservoir Characterization among others. We thought that a maximum number of people would have to be 100. Another idea was to have the meeting on a cruise boat but this may be not really well perceived by some organisms or by the public. The main issue that we have presently is that the AAPG is pushing strongly to have a joint WS. Do we want a SEG summer WS AND a joint AAPG/ SEG/ SPE WS later in the year or just one multi-society 4 days meetings. The outcome will be very different, especially if we want to have publications for The Leading Edge. Number of attendants and SEG weight may become also an issue.
The steering committee is composed of 4 people (Lumley, Esmersoy, Zhang, Verliac) with David as chairman. We need more people.
David will probably not join us on Thursday (being in Australia). I will pass to the group any comment that I may received from him before Thursday. In the mean time, following a David's proposal we would like to hear from each of you what you would like to see by voting by email if you want:
1. Only one SEG Summer WS
2. Only one AAPG/SEG/other Summer WS
3. One dedicated SEG Summer WS AND a joint SEG/AAPG/(other) joint WS later in the year with a larger coverage of topics.
You can send your vote before next Thursday directly to David or myself and we will consolidate. At the time of the meeting, I had not received comments from the group at the exception of a few votes. Kevin Dodds also volunteered to join the Steering Committee. The discussion was mainly to evaluate if the WS should be joint or SEG only. The consensus is that the final decision belongs to the WS Steering committee Chairman, David Lumley. However, based on past experience, the following comments were expressed:
1. One society needs to take the lead for obvious logistics and financial reasons and for a proper coordination. This leader must also define the objective of the Ws and what we want to achieve.
2. Arthur proposed from his past experience of joint WS (SPE/SEG/AAPG) that the SEG takes the lead and ownership, organize and then invites others to submit papers in mixed sessions. Once our steering committee is formed, we then invite people from other entities to help finding good papers and to support build the technical content. The SEG being a leader should be a condition.
3. Lewin mentioned that we have 5 levels of involvement in joint Workshop and we could review and apply the guidelines.
4. Kevin stressed also that SEG must organize and THEN invite. People agree that Alaska or Canada could be the location. The maximum audience should be 100 what will be also another challenge in case of multiple society workshop.
2.3. Project # 3: CO2 Webpage - Update by Stewart Levin
This project was not discussed during our last meeting but after I was notified that Lewin that he got access to a Webpage and that we can start working on the content. Stewart informed us that the IT problem has been fixed and that we have an E-community for our discussions. Stewart will coordinate the access and we can start building the content that could be external links, documents for public access or private zone for the Sub Committee. Stewart will coordinate the access and the content. The group will have to submit idea and references as it will be possible to have a discussion zone for us.
2.4. Project # 4: Collaboration with Other Societies - By Yoham, Colin, Jie and myself
No special update was noticed. Lianje will chair a CO2 session at the next AGU convention in December in San Francisco. Nothing new except that Lianje session at the AGU was confirmed.
2.5. Project # 5: SEAM Project - Update by Arthur Chang
No special feedback was received from the SEAM group about our December proposal at the time of the meeting. There was no comments on the potential conflict of interest of having Arthur at the SEAM board and being a member of the CO2 SubCommittee. We had some discussion on technical points concerning the points that we would have to cover, like the fluid state, the geomechanical and Thermal issues, static versus dynamic. We agreed that he could be a good theme for a half day session at the summer workshop.
The SEAM BOD met early June and 3 options came out for Phase II:
1. Land acquisition
2. CO2 Storage modeling
3. 4D Seismic
A possibility would be also merge option 2 and 3 (Co2 Storage modeling with 4D seismic). Arthur proposed that a few members of our subcommittee draft a more detailed proposal that our initial one done late 2007 to defend the CO2 case. We could take the Phase 1 example as guidelines for this document (there is no formal format for such a proposal). We need to form a small group to work on and define what to model, what to do, what is known and unknown and why Phase 2 should choose the Co2 Storage modeling. The deadline could be late summer or early fall. The next SEAM BOD is in September but our final proposal should be ready for the Las Vegas meeting.
Ron and Kevin mentioned some concerns about how to integrate Thermodynamics and Geomechanics on top of Geophysics. Arthur mentioned that SEAM is a place to facilitate contacts and efforts between research and industry. Our group must decide what are the relevant problems to be addressed by a large scale industry effort.
The feedback and comments from the Sub Committee will be welcome. People willing to join this task force of putting on paper our project and requests should contact me. This group and his leader will be decided on a voluntary basis.
2.6. Project # 6: CO2 Special Issue on TLE in Feb 2010:
No remarks, except that there were some good papers in the May 2008 issue Nothing new
2.7. Project # 7: CO2 Special Issue on Geophysics:
No remarks - M.Verliac to contact the new Geophysics Editor Nothing new
2.8. Project # 8: Standards and Best Practices elaboration
K. Doods position is that it is not our job to force standards. Instead we should capture performances based best practices. We need to keep flexibility. It could be of interest to form a working group of 3 or 4 individuals who could work on this subject and report the result of their discussion to the Sub Committee. Ron Masters recommended to propose a suite of best technologies instead of forcing legislation. We need to draft and consolidate our discussion to reach an agreement. We may need to involve other disciplines like Geomechanics. Again the discussion on this topic was animated and constructive. Kevin started by reiterating that we need to look at existing projects and history in order to capture the best practices. We should NOT issue standards. Concerning the Website, we must be careful and look at the regulation. We are a non profitable association with attached status. To establish standards is not the role of SEG but there is no problem collecting experience. Tom mentioned the existence of the DOE protocols and their best practices.
Don said that the regulators want to have a plan for monitoring. We need to capture what has been done and what could be proposed.
2.9. Project # 9: Contribution to Practicing Geophysics
We have not received nor solicited any contribution yet. Ron mentioned that we could use the concept of Employee of the Month to give regular updates or inform on key milestones for ongoing projects. We need to engage more papers. Some people needed to be refreshed on Practicing Geophysics (a SEG magazine between Geophysics and The Leading Edge, promoting new technology experimentation) . I will send the existing documentation to people who will request it.
3. Topic #3: Proposal for a Project #10 With 3 sub projects
I would like to engage the sub Committee to feedback on the following idea. I think that Geophysics is involved in Co2 Storage at three different levels:
- Site Screening and Characterization
- Site Modelling and Simulation
- Site Monitoring
We could form 3 groups of a few individuals from the Sub Committee to think about each of this topic to determine where Geophysics is involved, what is existing, what is missing and what we need to develop for the future. It could be also a place to discuss about Best Practices and recommendations. It would act as a "think tank". Each group could evolve independently or sharing ideas and discussion. Meetings and proposals would be elaborated outside the Sub Committee but would report on progress during our regular meetings or 2 or 3 times in the year. We could also have a half day session on each of these topics at the Summer Workshop to report on our work but also to look for specific papers on this topics. The group on Site Modelling and Simulation could be or not related with the SEAM project. Again this is just an idea and anyone is welcome to comment on it by email or through the phone meeting. I think that if each group was composed of a minimum of 3 or 4 people, it could work. A formal document could potentially be posted on the Webpage by each group as a reference paper at the end of the process, maybe late 2009. It could also become a live document being updated regularly as sciences and technologies progress. What do you think ?
Tom proposed to merge the Modelling and Simulation aspect with the Monitoring. We lack feedback from the group before progressing further.
4. Topic #4: Any items proposed by the subcommittee members
Any proposal ? Kevin gave some feedback on the Network meeting. The next meeting will be in May 2009 in Japan. We must pay attention not to duplicate the work but to stay on close contact with this effort. Attached are the minutes from Kevin. Further to this as reading material for other business I have attached a summary of the joint network meeting, and some selected powerpoint slides from various ( monitoring ) presentations that will give you a flavour of the questions that the network are keen to pursue.
Note there is a good cross section of geophysicists amongst a broader group of other technologists and practitioners.
This network is not intended to be exclusive...only a place where issues common to the CCS topics of monitoring, well integrity and risk analysis gather to discuss issues. This is intended to highlight the group and issues addressed, I don't intend to speak too much to it. If interested I have more complete powerpoints which were summaries of discussions....I would advise however to look at the reports from the meetings to get a better idea of where people are at.
I am happy to anser any questions you may have , having read this material.
Minutes:
IEA R&D Program Joint Network meeting.
Background
IEA R&D program has generated three networks of CCS practitioners in Monitoring, Well Integrity and Risk, being the principle areas that regulators and industry practices need clarity on issues methodologies and technologies. The networks meet annually, and are open to anyone who has interest in attending and/or contributing. They are a mix of presentation and discussion sessions with summaries of meeting outcomes see:
http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/ for access
http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/networks/monitoring.htm for monitoring reports delegates only intended only to keep riff-raff out…so if you are not riff-raff then username: monitoring password: mmvsc
The meeting joint network meeting was held in New York from 11 – 13th June hosted US EPA and co-sponsored by EPRI and Oxand. The purpose of the meeting was to review the performance of the networks over the last three years, to identify options for collaboration across the networks and to identify priorities for the next three years. In that respect, it was different from previous network meetings which have focused on in-depth discussions of particular technology areas. It is anticipated that further combined network meetings may be held at 2 – 3 year intervals.
Participation
The meeting was the first combined meeting of the Well Integrity, Risk Assessment and Monitoring networks. There were 84 people registered, 22 industry, 11 service providers, 38 academic and 8 government / regulatory.
Meeting outline
- The meeting comprised a series of presentation sessions and breakouts over three
days
- The first day focused upon the status of the networks, cross-cutting issues and
options for collaboration
- The second day discussed a proposal to set up a new modeling network and then had
a breakout exercise looking at the steps involved in taking a CCS project from site selection through operation, site closure to return to the regulatory agency with a view to understanding any gaps in available data, understanding or technology.
- The final day comprised a review session by the individual networks of their priorities
for the next three years Key Messages
- The networks were considered to have been valuable and to have largely delivered
against their original objectives
- There is a relatively small overlap in the participants in the networks and as a
consequence, there has been relatively little attention paid to cross-cutting issues.
- The need to increase the focus on modeling was recognized but there is disagreement
on whether this would best be done through a new network or through one of the existing networks (probably Risk Assessment).
- The final day provided a useful picture of what the industry and academic communities
see as the priorities to be addressed over the next three years.
Slides selected by Kevin will be included as an attachment in the email.
I propose also to have the next meeting at the end of August. There is a SPE/AAPG/SEG WS in Galveston on August 26-27 that a few of us will attend. I would propose as date for your calendars Thursday August 28 in Houston (or Galveston ?) Optional dates for the next meeting are:
- Monday August 25 in Houston or Galveston
- Thursday August 28 in Houston
- Friday August 29 in Houston
Please, could you feedback on your preferred choice ? We would need a volunteer to host the meeting.
Best regards,
M.Verliac
