CO2 Sequestration

Summary of Research Workshop
“CO2 Storage in Coals”

Tuesday, 21 June 2005
Brisbane, Queensland
July 2005
CO2CRC Report No: RPT05-0028
Australian School of Petroleum
Advanced Resources
International
Summary of Research Workshop
“CO2 Storage in Coals”
Brisbane, Queensland
July 2005
CO2CRC Report No: RPT05-0028
Australian School of Petroleum
Advanced Resources International

Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC)
GPO Box 463
Level 3, 24 Marcus Clarke Street
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Phone: +61 2 6200 3366
Fax: +61 2 6230 0448
Email: pjcook@co2crc.com.au
Web: www.co2crc.com.au
Reference: Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, 2005. Summary of Research
Workshop: “CO2 Storage in Coals”; Tuesday, 21 June 2005; Brisbane, Queensland. Cooperative Research
Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies / Advanced Resources International. CO2CRC Report Number
RPT05-0028, 86pp.
© CO2CRC 2005
Unless otherwise specified, the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC)
retains copyright over this publication through its commercial arm, Innovative Carbon Technologies Pty
Ltd. You must not reproduce, distribute, publish, copy, transfer or commercially exploit any information
contained in this publication that would be an infringement of any copyright, patent, trademark, design or
other intellectual property right.
Requests and inquiries concerning copyright should be addressed to the Communication Manager, CO2CRC,
GPO Box 463, CANBERRA, ACT, 2601. Telephone: +61 2 6200 3366.
ii
PREFACE
The extent to which coals might provide opportunities for the long term storage of CO2 in coals has been
debated for some time. Proponents claim it represents an important storage option for greenhouse gas
mitigation. Others claim that there are major technical challenges and that at best it represents a very modest
storage option. In Australia, researchers have a variety of views and with this in mind it was decided to bring
researchers together from institutions throughout Australia to examine the issue of storage in coals from an
Australian perspective. It is timely to do this now because the issue of carbon dioxide capture and storage is
receiving much attention from the community. Coupled with this, there is an enhanced level of interest in the
coal bed methane resources of Eastern Australia. The possibility that these two issues might come together
in a mutually beneficial manner was seen as a potential outcome.
I believe the meeting was extremely valuable and this Report attests to that. It provides a basis for more
focused and more effective collaborative research in an important and rapidly evolving area of greenhouse
science.
The openness of the researchers was a key component of that success. Particular thanks to Vello Kuuskraa
for his key role in attending the meeting at short notice and bringing an international dimension. Thanks also
to Ross McKinnon for being an excellent facilitator, using his unique blend of skills! John Gale of the IEA
GHG program is thanked for making information available to the meeting. Lee Anne Shepherd of CO2CRC
helped to compile this report.
Peter J. Cook CBE FTSE

Chief Executive CO2CRC
Canberra July 2005
iii
Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Major Observations ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Workshop................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Introductory Remarks. ......................................................................................................................... 2
2. Presentations of Expertise, Capabilities and Specific Interests by Australia’s R&D Organisations. .. 2
3. Outside Perspectives on CO Storage in Coals ................................................................................... 4

2
A. CO2 Sequestration in Coal Seams ............................................................................................... 4
B. CO2 Storage in Coal Seams: An IEA GHG Perspective ............................................................ 5
C. Storage in Coals: An IPCC Perspective. ................................................................................. 5
4. Identification of R&D Gaps, Uncertainities and Future Action .......................................................... 5

A. Resource identification and Quantification................................................................................. 5
B. Storage Engineering and Economics. ......................................................................................... 6
C. CO2 Interaction with Coals ......................................................................................................... 6
Appendicies.................................................................................................................................................... 7
Attachment A Agenda and List Of Attendees .......................................................................................... 9
Agenda: CO2 Storage In Coals ........................................................................................................ 9
Attendees: CO2 Storage In Coals ................................................................................................... 10
Attachment B. Introductory Remarks, Ross Mckinnon ........................................................................ 11

Attachment C. University Of Queensland ............................................................................................. 15
Attachment D. Queensland Department Of Natural Resources ........................................................... 19
Attachment E. CSIRO ........................................................................................................................... 21
Attachment F. CCSD ............................................................................................................................. 31
Attachment G. CO2CRC ....................................................................................................................... 43
Attachment H. Advanced Resources International................................................................................ 51
Attachment I. IEA GHG ........................................................................................................................ 75
Attachment J. IPCC Perspective........................................................................................................... 83
Attachment K. Notes ............................................................................................................................. 88
iv
Background
This report provides a summary of the discussion and findings from the Research Workshop on “CO2
Storage in Coals” held in Brisbane, Qld on 21 June 2005. The Workshop was attended by approximately
25 researchers with Ross McKinnon serving as the workshop facilitator. The agenda for the workshop, the
participant invitation letter and the list of invitees are attached to this report as Attachment A. The workshop
was organized by the CO2CRC and led by Peter J. Cook.
Major Observations
The Research Workshop on “CO2 Storage in Coals” met the expectations set forth at the start of the workshop.
It provided a most efficient venue for identifying the significant volume of research work underway on CO2
storage in Australian coals. It incorporated information from overseas research and field pilots for furthering
the understanding of the promise and problems of storing CO2 in coals. And, it set forth a clear set of priority
R&D needs, in response to agreed on gaps in knowledge and for resolution of uncertainties for storing CO2
in Australian coals.
In addition, the Research Workshop helped crystalise a series of common, understandings, as follows:
1. Storage of CO2 in coals is technically feasible and represents an important “niche option” for managing
CO2 emissions in Australia. While differences exist as to the size of this “niche option”, the proposed
R&D work identified by the Research Workshop will help clarify and quantify this issue.
2. A close technical relationship exists between CBM operations and CO2 storage in coals. The initial
production of methane and water is essential for establishing CO2 storage capacity in costs. Continued
production of methane (and water), as part of a coordinated ECBM and CO2 storage effort, is required
to preclude pressure buildup in the coal reservoir that would limit CO2 storage and injectivity.
3. A close economic relationship exists between CBM field development and CO2 storage in coals. The
CO2 storage in coals effort can take advantage of the previously drilled CBM production wells and
convert these, at a fraction of the original drilling and completion costs, to CO2 injection wells; thus
greatly reducing overall costs. For example, converting 500 CBM wells for CO2 injection (in a 1,000
well CBM field) could accommodate the CO2 emissions from 2,500 MW of coal fired power emitting
13 to 15 million metric tons of CO2 per year.
4. A large group of stakeholders are (or should be) involved in addressing the issue of CO2 storage
in coals. These stakeholders include: coal mining companies, power companies, CBM production
companies, technical service companies, governments and the community. Delivering scientifically
accurate and consistent information to each of these stakeholder groups will be a major challenge.
New risk assessment methodologies may need to be developed to communicate the risks and risk
mitigation actions to the environmental community and to the general public.
5. As in CBM production, the injection and storage of CO2 in coals will need to incorporate water
production, water use and water resource conservation concerns. New, lower cost water treatment
technologies, such as reverse osmosis and ion exchange, combined with deep injection of residues,
may help make the produced water suitable for a variety of agricultural and animal uses.
6. A significant number of high priority R&D topics need to be undertaken for better understanding the
CO2 storage potential in Queensland, New South Wales and other Australian coal basins. Rigorously
designed field tests, linked to laboratory work and reservoir modeling, will help accelerate building
the knowledge base essential for effective CO2 storage in Australian coals.
1
Summary of Workshop
1. Introductory Remarks.
After opening remarks by Peter Cook, the Research Workshop facilitator, Ross McKinnon, initiated the
Workshop by introducing three topics: (i) a perspective on the current understanding of the potential for
storing CO2 in Australian coals; (ii) his expectations for the Research Workshop; and (iii) how this Research
Workshop might contribute to the COAL 21 Action Plan.
Current Perspective on CO2 Storage in Australian Coals. There is considerable interest in Australia
for storing CO2 in geologic formations, particularly in saline formations. However, there is still only
a limited understanding of the potential that the coals of Australia have for storing CO2. In addition,
there is a broad range of views as to the size, attractiveness and economic feasibility of this geologic
CO2 storage option. (Additional information on the CO2 sequestration potential of Australia’s coal
basins is available from research work by GEODISC (Bradshaw, et al, 2004) and CO2CRC (Langford,
et al, 2005, in progress).
Expectations for the Research Workshop. The expectations for today’s workshop are as follows: (i)
provide a review of the R&D work currently underway in Australia on CO2 storage in coals; (ii)
identify what we currently know (or believe we know) on the potential for storing CO2 in Queensland
(and other) coal basins; (iii) highlight key areas of uncertainty and “unknowns”; (iv) gain perspective
on what is underway outside of Australia on this topic; and (v) begin to set forth recommendations for
future action, based on clearly identified goals and for resolution of the key uncertainties surrounding
CO2 storage in Australian coals.
Contribution to COAL 21 Action Plan. The COAL 21 Action Plan provides projections for
CO2 emissions under a “business as usual” case, as well as for a series of alternative policy and
technology progress cases. It calls for R&D on CO2 emission reduction technology through 2012 and
implementation of CO2 emission reduction actions through 2030. An independent review of COAL 21
is being performed by IEA/CCC with a draft report due in mid-July. Today’s Research Workshop on
“CO2 Storage in Coals,” as well as the future interviews by the workshop participants, could contribute
toward a more comprehensive overview of the opportunity for storing CO2 in coals as discussed in the
report.
Attachment B provides the introductory presentation provided by Ross McKinnon at the Research
Workshop.
2. Presentations of Expertise, Capabilities and Specific

Interests by Australia’s R&D Organisations.
A number of the Australian R&D organizations performing work on CO2 storage in coals provided slide
presentations of their current and proposed work as well as their perspectives on future research needs in this
area.
This Summary Report provides a very brief overview of the presentations made by each organization. The
full presentations are provided as attachments to this Summary Report.
2
A. University of Queensland (UQ).
Victor Rudolph of UQ provided a concise summary of “Why Sequester CO2 in Coal?” The reasons
provided were: (i) large storage capacity; (ii) low risk; (iii) low cost; and (iv) numerous favorably
located sites.
The presentation included a summary of the key UQ research project leaders and staff, project
supporters, major experimental facilities and the four major areas of R&D activity underway at UQ,
namely: injection and extraction dynamics; storage and sequestration; coal basin mechanics; and
reservoir modeling.
In addition, Paul Massarotto provided an overview of his perceptions on “Gaps in Knowledge --
CO2 Geosequestration in Coal.” The primary gaps identified were three: full up-to-date resource
identification; storage risks and potential; and, physical and chemical changes to coal from contact
with CO2.
Attachment C provides copies of the presentations provided by Victor Rudolph and Paul Massarotto
at the Research Workshop.
B. Queensland Department of National Resources

John Draper, Geoscience Manager in the Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and
Energy, provided a summary of their work on mapping the coal deposits, coal seam methane projects,
power stations and infrastructure in Queensland. He stated that the role of the Department was to
“help, not hinder” the storage of CO2 in coals. This could involve “in kind” support for selected
projects and support towards policies and legislative actions for CO2 storage in coals. The key areas
of concern identified for storage of CO2 in Queensland coals include: (i) “alienating” the mineable
coals for future development; (ii) assuring compatibility of CO2 storage in coals with water issues; (iii)
maintaining sufficient information for safely drilling through coals toward deeper objectives; and (iv)
assuring compatibility of CO2 storage in coals with future in situ coal gasification.
Attachment D provides the material submitted by John Draper of the Queensland Department of
Natural Resources at the Research Workshop.
C. CSIRO
John Carras of CSIRO provided a summary of his organisation’s capabilities and interests in CO2
storage in coals. CSIRO is currently involved in four key areas of research that address the feasibility
of CO2 storage in Australian coals, namely: (i) interaction of coal with supercritical CO2; (ii) coal
swelling and CO2 injection/flow capacity; (iii) improved reservoir modeling; and (iv) study of natural
analogs (i.e. high CO2 containing coals in the Sydney Basin).
John Carras also presented the future CSIRO R&D program that involves: (i) completion of the on-
going feasibility study of CO2 storage in coals in 2006; and (ii) a proposed three year field pilot
program of CO2 storage in coals (with industrial partners) from 2007 through 2009.
Attachment E provides the material submitted by John Carras of CSIRO at the Research Workshop.
D. Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development (CCSD)

Lila Gurba presented the work underway at CCSD that relates to CO2 storage in coals, with a
particular emphasis on environmental and sustainability issues. The primary theme presented was that
“geological sequestration of CO2 by coal seams is a potential solution but a large number of technical
and non-technical issues need to be addressed.” These issues include: (i) potential environmental
impacts; (ii) potential “sterilization” of future coal resources; (iii) regulations and policies; and (iv)
public awareness.
Lila Gurba also provided a summary of the research capabilities and on-going projects in CO2 storage
by the University of New South Wales.
Attachment F provides the materials submitted by Lila Gurba of the CCSD at the Research
Workshop.
3
E. CO2CRC
Andy Rigg, Deputy CEO and Storage Program Manager of CO2CRC, presented the organisation’s
research on CO2 storage in coals. After providing a comprehensive overview of the ongoing research
and the specific expertise of CO2CRC, the presentation set forth a series of important issues related to
CO2 storage in Australian coals. These included: (i) access to the coal resources for CO2 storage; (ii)
permeability of accessible (deep) coals; (iii) need for improved drilling and simulation technology to
increase CO2 injectivity; (iv) further understanding the CO2 storage in coals process and the CO2/CH4
interchange process; and (v) assuring safe and secure long-term containment of the injected CO2.
The presentation set forth the research work by CO2CRC in response to these issues, particularly the
series of experimental (core flooding based) studies and the extensive analytic program involving
reservoir simulation.
Attachment G provides the material submitted by Andy Rigg of the CO2CRC at the Research
Workshop.
3. Outside Perspectives on CO2 Storage in Coals

Three more general presentations provided an “outside of Australia” perspective on the potential for storing
CO2 in coals, are set forth below.
A. CO2 Sequestration in Coal Seams

Allison Unit CO2/ECBM Field Pilot and Reservoir Modeling Study. Vello Kuuskraa of Advanced
Resources International, a USA based geology, engineering and economics technical services
company with a specialization in coalbed methane and CO2 sequestration, provided a presentation
on the work currently underway in the USA on CO2 storage in coals. The presentation provided an
overview of current activities in enhanced coalbed methane recovery (ECBM) and storage of CO2 in
coals, particularly on the joint DOE/NETL and industry funded Coal-Seq Project being conducted by
Advanced Resources.
The presentation then provided an update on the six year long project involving injection of CO2 into
coals at the Allison Unit of the San Juan Basin (USA). The presentation addressed the performance
of the project, the reservoir modeling of CO2 storage and methane displacement, and the overall
economic feasibility of the ECBM project. The Allison ECBM/CO2 storage in coals project injected
and stored 280,000 tonnes of CO2 at a rate of about 50,000 tonnes per year, with a peak sustained rate
of 200 to 300 tonnes per day. Additional CBM recovery was 1.6 Bcf, 17% of original gas in-place in
the confined pattern area. At a $4.00 per MMBtu gas price, approximately $3.00 per MMBtu at the
wellhead, the Allison Unit ECBM project was highly profitable.
The final portion of the presentation addressed the question of CO2 injectivity at the Allison Unit
and the implications of specific reservoir properties and well completed strategies on achieving
acceptable rates of CO2 injection into these moderately swelling coals. The analysis showed that well
stimulation and use of horizontal CO2 injection wells could significantly increase CO2 injectivity in
lower permeability coals.
Attachment H provides the presentation materials provided by Vello Kuuskraa of Advanced Resources
4
B. CO2 Storage in Coal Seams: An IEA GHG Perspective
Andy Rigg of CO2CRC provided the presentation prepared by John Gale of the IEA/GHG Program
on CO2 Storage in Coals. The primary findings set forth in this presentation were: (i) there is interest
in developing CO2/ECMB in some countries, motivated by demands for natural gas; (ii) while global
CO2 storage capacities in coal are low, there could be niche opportunities in some countries, namely
Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan and the USA, and (iii) while problems exist with coal swelling
around injection wells which reduces permeability, well stimulation can help overcome this.
The presentation also provided an update of the field projects in the USA (Allison Unit), in Poland
(RECOPOL), and in Japan (Hokkaido).
Attachment I provides the presentation materials of the IEA GHG Program provided by John Gale and
presented by Andy Rigg at the Research Workshop.
C. Storage in Coals: An IPCC Perspective.

Peter Cook of CO2CRC provided a presentation of the perspective on CO2 storage in coals included
in the draft IPCC report. The report recognizes that only a limited number of CO2 storage in coal field
projects have been conducted, essentially all involving ECBM. The report also identifies series of
technical issues that need to be addressed for CO2 storage in coals to be a viable, broadscale option
for sequestering CO2. These include: coal swelling, coal plasticization, supercritical injection of CO2,
and volumetric CO2 storage in various rank coals.
Attachment J provided the presentation materials on the IPCC perspective as provided by Peter Cook
4. Identification of R&D Gaps, Uncertainities and

Future Action
After a review of the technical issues and concerns raised by the various presentations, the Research Workshop
participants organized into three “break-out” sessions. The purpose of these “break-out” sessions were to
identify, in depth, the R&D needs in three key areas related to CO2 storage in coals, namely:
A. Resource identification and quantification

B. Storage engineering and economics; and
C. CO2 interaction with coals.
A. Resource identification and Quantification.

This first “break-out” session, chaired by John Draper of the Qld Department of Natural Resources, set forth
the following topics for further R&D:
1. Building a readily usable database on “accessible” and suitable coals for CO2 storage. This would
involve: preparing maps of coal depth, particularly for unmineable coals; building a GIS system for
linking the favorable “CO2 in coal” storage sites with CO2 sources and available infrastructure; and,
identifying any competing interest (e.g. in-situ coal gasification) with CO2 storage. The first step
would be to compile the known information, next identify the gaps, and then acquire information to
fill the gaps. It was stated that considerable public domain information exists, particularly from past
drilling and data gathering by the Department.
5
2. Providing information and topical reports on a series of other resource base issues, including: high ash
coals, brown/lignite coals, and organic rich shales. It was also suggested that stress tensor (magnitude
and direction) information and maps be prepared to assist in identifying higher and lower permeability
portions of deep coal basins.
3. Using a multi-disciplinary team to conduct the resource identification and quantification work. Because
of the many geologic, reservoirs engineering and operating/economic issues involved in storing CO2 in
coals, it was suggested that each of the key disciplines be included in the team conducting the resource
assessment work.
B. Storage Engineering and Economics.

This second “break-out” session, chaired by Paul Massarroto of the University of Queensland, set forth the
following topics for further R&D:
1. Examining engineering and economic solutions for overcoming CO2 injectivity problems in lower
rank, lower permeability coals with an emphasis on near-wellbore permeability enhancement and use
of horizontal wells.
2. Developing a full understanding of the synergistic relationship between CBM/ECBM activity and CO2
storage in coals. This would help gain cost savings for CO2 injection wells and would also address the
beneficial role of first producing water and methane for developing CO2 storage space in coals.
3. Coordinating efforts for long term storage of CO2 in coals with ongoing work on methanogens, as part
of a long term “closed-loop” energy and climate change strategy.
4. Incorporating the “lessons learned” from other technology areas (e.g. wind power, flue gas
desulphurization) that show the impacts of innovation, technology progress, and the “learning curve”
on reducing costs.
5. Developing guidelines for selecting optimum, as well as minimum, acceptable sites for storing CO2 in
coals.
6. Launching a series of field pilots and technology trials (e.g. alternative well designs and injection
methods) for storing CO2 in coals.
C. CO2 Interaction with Coals

This third “break-out” session, chaired by Sue Golding of the University of Queensland, set forth the following
topics for further R&D:
1. CO2 Storage Capacity. This research topic would include work on isotherms, porosity measurements,
and the role of low organic, (“bony coal”) portions of the rock sequence.
2. CO2 Injectivity. Of particular importance is determining how pressure, temperature and stress affect
the swelling behavior, permeability, diffusivity and relative permeability of different rank and masceral
composition coals. This work should be conducted to reflect the actual in-situ conditions of the coal
seams being studied.
3. CO2 – Coal – Water Interactions. A number of R&D topics were suggested in this area including:
understanding the geochemical behavior (mineral dissolution and precipitation, mobilization of
metals, etc); and defining the physical behavior, particularly the effects of CO2 on plasticity of coals
(at normal reservoir temperatures) and on the strength of coal. Further examination of natural, higher
CO2 containing coals could provide a valuable set of long-term data on these interactive effects, not
possible to pursue in a laboratory setting.
4. Role of Geology. The final areas recommended for further investigation were high ash coals, high
organic rich shale intervals inter-bedded with coals, and the total coal system for improving CO2
storage and injectivity in coals.
6
Appendicies
7
Attachment A
Agenda and List Of Attendees
Agenda: CO2 Storage In Coals

Mineral Resources Council
Level 13, 133 Mary Street, Brisbane Qld
9.00 – 5.00 p.m.
09:00 Welcome and introduction Peter Cook

09:15 Purpose of meeting and anticipated outcomes Ross McKinnon
09:45 Brief statements from each group on areas of expertise, capabilities
and specific interests in the meeting:
University of Queensland 15 mins
Qld Dept of Natural Resources & Mines 10 mins
CSIRO 15 mins
CCSD 10 mins
CO2CRC 15 mins
Coffee
10:45 Overseas lessons in CO2 storage in coals. Experience with Storage Vello Kuuskra, ARI US
in Coals and Implications for Australia
11:15 IEA and CO2 storage in Coals Andy Rigg
11:30 1130 IPCC and CO2 storage in coals Peter Cook
11:45 WHAT IS THE CO2 STORAGE POTENTIAL OF COALS IN
QUEENSLAND AND NSW?
12:30 Lunch
13:15 Continued
15:00 Areas of agreement
15:30 Gaps in knowledge
16:00 Resolution of uncertainties
16:30 Conclusions and future actions
17:00 Close
9
Attendees: CO2 Storage In Coals
First Name Email Organisation

Mark Bennetts markb@qrc.org.au ACARP
John Carras John.carras@csiro.au CSIRO
Luke Connell Luke.connell@csiro.au CSIRO
Peter Cook pjcook@co2crc.com.au CO2CRC
Peter Crosdale peter.crosdale@energyrc.com.au Consultant
John Draper John.Draper@nrm.qld.gov.au QLD DPI
Greg Duffy Greg.duffy@csiro.au CSIRO
Joan Esterle Joan.Esterle@csiro.au UQ
Mohinudeen Faiz Mohinudeen.Faiz@csiro.au CSIRO
Sue Golding Sue.golding@earth.uq.edu.au UQ
Lila Gurba Lila.Gurba@ccsd.biz CCSD
Vello Kuuskraa vkuuskraa@adv-res.com ARI - USA
Rob Langford rlangford@co2crc.com.au GA/CO2CRC
Cliff Mallett Cliff.Mallett@csiro.au CSIRO
Paul Massarroto paul.massarotto@uni.qld.au UQ
Ross McKinnon rossm@hypermax.net.au Consultant
Lincoln Patterson lincoln.paterson@csiro.au CSIRO/CO2CRC
Andy Rigg arigg@co2crc.com.au CO2CRC
Victor Rudolph victorr@cheque.uq.edu.au UQ
Hemarta Sarma hsarma@co2crc.com.au ASP/CO2CRC
Rahul Shrivastava rshrivastava@co2crc.com.au ASP/CO2CRC
Ray Slater ray.slater@nrm.qld.gov.au QLD DPI
Kelly Thambimuthu kelly.thambimuthu@csiro.au CSIRO
Philippa Uwins puwins@co2crc.com.au CO2CRC
Louis Wibberley louis.wibberley@csiro.au CSIRO
10
Attachment B
Introductory Remarks, Ross Mckinnon
11
CO2 Storage in Coals
Meeting 21/06/2005
Annual emissions from coal without COAL21 measures
Annual emissions from coal

with COAL21 measures Outcome depends
on proportion of
grid with CCS
Annual Emissions
RD&D Phase and Commence and then

deployment accelerate deployment
of best available of new technology (including
technology: CO2 capture and storage)
Address emissions
from existing plants
2003 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

PHASE ONE PHASE TWO
Overview
¾Context of COAL21 National Action Plan

¾Next ~ 10 year’s achievements essential
¾Ensure pilot/demonstration projects are
identified and implemented
¾Projects are supported by appropriate and
adequate R&D programs
¾Resources allocated are relevant and
maximise efficiency/minimise overlap
Today’s workshop & R&D Review

¾ Today’s workshop is separate from, but highly
relevant to, the COAL21 R&D Review
¾ Independent review through COAL21

¾ Review conducted by IEACCC
¾ Large number of research and industry groups
participating
¾ The Program
– Survey via questionnaire & direct remote contact follow up
– Direct face to face interviews
– Draft report
– COAL21 workshop
¾ COAL21 consideration of report outcomes and
recommendations
CO2 Storage in Coal
¾Technology experience overseas
¾“Coals aren’t Coals”
¾Research effort base in Australia
¾Different perceptions of “success” factor
¾Different potential for suitable deep saline
formations
¾Essential to establish/agree on
– potential for coal seam storage as it applies to
NSW and QLD in particular
– relevant research agenda
Purpose of Meeting
¾ Aim is not to “pick winners”, solve funding concerns or
“second guess” independently established agenda
¾ Aim is to ensure most clear and effective identification

of CO2 storage potential in coal – specifically in NSW
and QLD – and R&D niche that Australia can play
¾ There’s much to build upon internationally and in Australia

¾ COAL21 R&D Review aimed to clarify and confirm current
plans or providing basis for modification of all R&D effort
¾ Outcome of this meeting to provide a considered report on
CO2 storage in coal as an important input to COAL21
review assessment
Attachment C
University Of Queensland
15
Why coal?
Large storage capacity1
eg Stevens et al (1998) 11Gt CO2
CH4 up to 140Gt CO2
Arrow up to 25Gt CO2
Low risk adsorbed rather than contained
Low cost2 close 2nd to EOR
Well located many CBM projects in place or planned
1 based on 2:1 CO2/CH4 replacement

2 eg CH4 at $100/1000m3 ($2-50/GJ); CO2 at $10/1000m3 ($5/t); CO2
sequestration credit at $20/1000m3 gives:
1000m3 ECBM: $140 income and $20 outlay
People and activities

Project Leaders Project supporters
• Victor Rudolph Stanwell

• Paul Massarotto Origin
• Sue Golding BHP
• Suresh Bhatia ACARP
ISGS
Research Staff
• Dr Dean Biddle – TTSCP operation; technical design & support

• John Gralton - MEng student; experimental ternary relative permeability, TTSCP
• Dr Rama Iyer – HP-CO2; geochemical reactions and mineral analysis
• Dr Qing Ma - water/coal/gas interactions
• Dr Jun-Seok Bae- experimental HP sorption research
• Yohanes Kourniwan- PhD Student; sorption modelling
• Dr Geoff Wang - computer modelling of CBM & ECBM processes
• Dr Fu Yang - micropore modelling
• Xiaorong Wei – PhD student; diffusion modelling
Cash expenditures ~ $800kpa

UQld Major activity areas
Focus, Expertise & Capability
Injection & extraction dynamics
Stress & permeability evolution
Major experimental facilities Fracture mechanics & stimulation
Injection gas optimization
4D dynamic permeability apparatus (TTSCP)
HP multicomponent soprtion apparatus (Rubotherm) Storage & sequestration
HP large gravimetric apparatus Hydrological interactions
Counter-diffusion apparatus Predictive characterization
Sorption, kinetics, thermodynamics
SA, Pororsimetry, pycnometry (Micrometrics, Quanta)
3D microtomography (Skyscan)
Long-term HP exposure/extraction apparatus Coal basin mechanics
Spatial variability analysis
PVT apparatus (Gromix)
geochemical & geophysical behavior
Thermal-mechanical analyser (Setaram) Hydrological impacts
Geochemistry, petrology laboratory
Isotope analysis
Reservoir modeling
Optical, electron microscopy (Philips, JEOL) Multiphase multiscale flow
Spectrometric & x-ray diffraction analysis (Siroquant) Competitive sorption
Molecular modeling Geomechanical behavior
Attachment D
Queensland Department Of Natural Resources
19
Attachment E
CSIRO
21
CSIRO Project on
CO2 Storage in Coal
Click to edit Master subtitle style

June 2005
Why CO2 storage in coal? www.csiro.au
Total storage density as a function of depth

(Ennis-King & Paterson, 2001)
• Storage density in coal

significantly greater than
?? aquifers at shallow
depths
• These are best,
maximum results
• Presence of water in the
pore space will lower
both
CO2 critical pressure (7.28 MPa, temperature 31°C)

CSIRO research program
www.csiro.au
Interaction of coal with supercritical CO2
– Adsorption, desorption, kinetics

– Diffusivity, permeability
Reservoir behaviour of CO2 in Geology and geochemistry

coal of CO2 in coal bearing
– Potential injection rates, well basins
design – Long term fate of
– Prediction of reservoir integrity injected CO2
/ reservoir simulation – Natural analogue study
The work program www.csiro.au
Overall objective
Determine the feasibility of the option of CO2 storage in coals for Australia
Phases in work program
Phase 1 - Feasibility studies based on natural analogues, laboratory and modelling work
• What are the likely injection rates
• what are the well designs that maximise injectivity
• What is the CO2 capacity
• for key target coals and depths
• Long term fate of CO2 injected in coal
• migration pathways, trapping mechanisms and reservoir integrity
• Economic analyses
• well numbers/operational costs
• Feasibility of microbial conversion of CO2 and coal to methane
Phase 2 - Pilot study involving industry stakeholders
Phase 3 - Scale-up to commercial trial
Funded through CSIRO and the Energy Transformed Flagship

• ~10 EFT + operating per year for two years
High pressure adsorption apparatus www.csiro.au
• Uses gravimetric technique

• High level of reproducibility
• Deviation from Langmuir at HP
• Studying the effect of gas
composition, temperature,
moisture, rank
100
Absolute Adsorption (kg/t)
80
60 Hunter Valley 1
South Coast NSW
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20
P (MPa)
Coal swelling / flow parameters www.csiro.au
• Coal swelling
¾ Equipment operational to 15 MPa
2.0
Volume Increase (%)
1.5
Bayswater
1.0 Moura
Metropolitan
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Pressure (MPa)
• Tri-axial cell
¾ for coal permeability, strength, and
swelling under stress with gas
content/composition including
supercritical CO2
Improved reservoir modelling www.csiro.au
Simulation of sequestration/enhanced coal bed methane

2500
CO2 injection
2000 • At high pressures
existing adsorption
isotherms are
Gas rate, m /day
1500
inaccurate
3
Methane production • Improved isotherms

1000
developed and
Adsorption models
Extended
ELM langmuir
implemented in SIMED
500
Ideal
IAS adsorbed solution reservoir simulator
2D
2DEOS
equation of state
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time, day
Example of Reservoir Behaviour www.csiro.au
1.0 Free gas composition

Weighted Gas Phase Composition
Fully Saturated Region: Fully Saturated Region:

water
0.8 Carbon Dioxide Methane

Methane
Transition
Adsorption
(Fraction)
0.6 Region
Region
Carbon
Dioxide
0.4
Methane
0.2
0.0
25
Adsorbed gas
Carbon
20 Dioxide
Adsorbed Gas Content
(std m3/tonne)
15
Methane
10
Initial Methane
Content
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance from Injector (m)
CO2 injection well

Natural Analogue Study in the Sydney
Basin www.csiro.au
Time (Ma)
Permian coals with high naturally -1.0

250 200 150 100 50 0
Permian Triassic Jurassic Cretaceous Tertiary

sequestered juvenile CO2 -0.5
Sea level
0
Depth sub-sea (km)

0.5
Strong geological controls on the 1.0
CO2 concentrations 1.5
2.0
CO2 0.5
0.6 CO2
0.7
ISO-Ro
CO2
0.8
Missing section
Wianamatta Gp
Mittagong Fm
2.5
Excellent natural laboratory for 1.0
1.3
Hawkesbury SS
Narrabeen Gp
3.0
this kind of study Illawarra Coal Measures
Shoalhaven Gp
MFf006-04
Long term fate of injected CO2

including fracture mineralisation
and effects on permeability
Rank potential sites for a pilot

projects in Sydney Basin and
criteria for other Basins
CO2 source- migration model www.csiro.au
Woronora Igneous Province

Sydney Basin
International collaborations www.csiro.au
Participation in US DoE/NETL inter-laboratory comparison of

adsorption isotherms
Calibration of our systems / techniques against other
laboratories
Alberta Research Council Trials
Single well pilots
CSIRO a partner
RECOPOL project
EU Framework project started November 2001 in Upper
Silesian Coal Basin, Poland
CSIRO a project partner making a technical contribution
• well test design, reservoir engineering, fault activation and fracture
stimulation studies
• reservoir simulator SIMED the selected project simulator
Outcomes
• need to use techniques to maximise injectivity
• high injection rates possible (e.g. propped fracture stimulation
increased injectivity by 2 orders of magnitude)
Outputs to date www.csiro.au
Measurements of CO2 adsorption at high pressure

Novel adsorption isotherms reservoir simulation at high
pressure
Measurements of coal swelling with gas adsorption
New apparatus for coal permeability, strength and
swelling under constrained conditions
Measurements of diffusivity at high pressures
Applicability of lab tests to in-situ geological situations
Possible migration pathways, solubility effects, influence
of geological structure and entrapment
CSIRO Future Program www.csiro.au
2005/2006 - Feasibility study completed

desktop/laboratory feasibility investigations complete
optimal design of sequestration operation
geological criteria for optimal CO2 storage
initial risk assessment
From 2006/2007 - Three year pilot program

with industrial partners (consortium)
Year One
• site selection and project planning
Year Two
• site works & characterisation, detailed reservoir engineering
Year Three
• CO2 injection and CH4 recovery operations
• scale-up, market feasibility, risk assessment
What would pilot study cost? www.csiro.au
Costs -CSIRO previous experience

• Cavity completion trial - ~$3 million for five well layout
• Coalbed methane trial - ~$1 million for four well layout
• Pilot proposal – 5 wells, flue gas injection in coal - $5 million
($2.3 compressor plant)
Recopol project
• EU funding $A5.5 million for extensive work program
Pilot study costs

well costs ~$50k for 500m deep well
CO2 cost is the unknown
~$1 million – single well injection, followed by production
~$4 million – five wells
Conferences, publications & reports www.csiro.au
Technology Roadmap for CO2 Sequestration in Coal Seams, ACARP Project C11023, December 2004
Factors controlling CO2 adsorption in Australian coals, GHGT-7, Vancouver (Sep 04).
CO2 adsorption by Australian coals under supercritical conditions, 21st Int. Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Osaka
(2004).
Sorption of carbon dioxide by Australian coals at supercritical pressures, To be presented at 22nd Int. Pittsburgh
Coal Conference, Pittsburgh (2005).
An inter-laboratory comparison of CO2 isotherms measured on Argonne premium coal samples, Energy&Fuels (Jul
04)
Coal Seq I, II, III - invitation only US DoE funded workshops
US DOE/NETL Sequestration Conference (May 2004)
Improved dual porosity modelling Parts I & II, in review for Transport in Porous Media
Reservoir simulation of CO2 sequestration using improved adsorption algorithms, To be presented at International
Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa (May 05)
CO2 sequestration in deep coals: improved reservoir modeling, adsorption characterization and coal swelling studies,
Recopol Workshop, Mar (05)
CO2 Sequestration in Coal: Review of Multi-component Gas Adsorption Modelling, CPR Report 04-045
CO2 Sequestration in Coal: Review and Preliminary Modelling, CPR Report 04-046
Fundamental studies on the interaction of CO2 with coal for CO2 sequestration, CET Report ET/RIR676
Fundamental studies on the interaction of CO2 with coal for CO2 sequestration, CET Report ET/RIR746
Microbial Influences on coal gas reservoirs – Bac-Min Conference, Bendigo, November 2004.
Microbial activity in Australian coal seam gas reservoirs - Coalbed Methane: Back to the Basics of Coal Geology,
Canmore, Canada, March, 2005
Natural analogue study of CO2 sequestration in the Southern Sydney Basin, CPR Report 05-013
Summary www.csiro.au
Coal seams potentially provide large volumes for CO2

storage and should be considered as part of the total
storage available - particularly with regard to
geographical distribution of storage sites
Potential reservoir sizes for coal storage (and ECBM)
need to be firmed up
Pilot and demonstration studies for storage in coal are
required to assess their long term viability
CSIRO has laboratory, field and modeling expertise
which is being brought to bear on the issues associated
with storage in coals
Attachment F
CCSD
31
Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in
Sustainable Development
A joint venture Government, coal producers, generators

and researchers
The thrust of CCSD research is the improvement of

ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC and SOCIAL
performance (Triple Bottom Line) from the
utilisation of coal in the energy mix.
Resources of nearly AUS$61 million over its initial

seven-year period (2001-2008)
CCSD Research Themes
Informing Strategic Program 1 ESE Assessment

Decisions
Program 4 Future Scenarios and
Technologies
Program 3 Transitional Power

Generation
Understanding
Coal Performance
Program 5 Ironmaking
Program 2 Current Power

Improving Generation
Environmental
Performance Program 6 Waste and
By-products
Time of implementation of the outcomes
2000 2020
Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development
Program 4 Future Scenarios and Technologies
Assessment and evaluation of the

economic, social and environmental
performance of future energy and
storage technologies
Assessment of Australia’s coal resource security issues
“Towards zero emission”
Oxy-PF IGCC
PF
CO2 source
CO2 Capture and storage

Geological sequestration of CO2 by coal

seams is a potential solution but a
large number of technical and non-
technical issues need to be addressed
“Quantifying Potential of Australian Coal Seams for CO2 Sequestration’ by L. Gurba and
Peter Crosdale given at the 2nd Japan-Australia Coal Research Workshop, held in
November 2002 in Tokyo.
Some of the issues in CO2 sequestration:
• the potential environmental impact
• the potential sterilisation of future coal resources

(for mining or underground gasification);
• regulations and policies
• public awareness
Some of the issues in CO2 sequestration:
• the potential environmental impact
• the potential sterilisation of future coal resources

(for mining or underground gasification);
• Technical
• regulations and policies – Large coal resources
required
• public awareness – Permeability
– Storage capacity
– Coal quality (ash, coal
type)
1. A paper “Quantifying Potential of Australian Coal Seams for CO2 Sequestration’

by Lila Gurba and Peter Crosdale given at the 2nd Japan-Australia Coal Research
Workshop, held in November 2002 in Tokyo.
2. CCSD in collaboration with CO2CRC jointly sponsored Dr Peter Crosdale to
participate in the Coal Seq II Forum held in March 2003 in Washington. He
wrote an excellent report on technical and non-technical issues related to CO2
storage into coal seams. This report was highly regarded by CCSD stakeholders.
3. In August 2003, CCSD organized the first GHG Seminar (including invited papers
from CO2CRC) in order to:
o Introduce GHG mitigation options and the role they could play in making deep reductions
in CO2 emissions;
o Identify the unique technical and non-technical issues associated with CO2 capture and
storage;
o Foster an understanding of the current state-of the art in the various technical areas, as
well as existing technology barriers;
o Establish an awareness of the various activities taking place on the topic throughout the
world;
o At this seminar, the paper on World activities, R&D and uncertainties in relation to
CO2 sequestration into unmineable coal seams was given by Peter Crosdale and
Lila Gurba.
4. P. Crosdale and L. Gurba are chairing the ICCP (International Committee for Coal
and Organic Petrology) Working Group on CBM/CO2 storage.
• Regulations and Policy

• Environmental, Social and Economic risk
• Real storage capacity unknown,
• Limitations: land restrictions, industrial
area, geological conditions
• How the physical and chemical
properties of individual coals affect their
suitability for CO2 storage
UNSW Capabilities in CO2 Storage
Optical and electron microscopy of coal and non-coal strata

Well-equipped optical microscopy laboratories, with facilities for reflectance
measurement, maceral analysis and photomicroscopy of coals, as well
as thin-section studies of non-coal rock types;
Complementary facilities for mineralogical analysis, using low-temperature
ashing for coal and quantitative XRD techniques for evaluation of
mineralogy in coal and non-coal materials;
Electron microscopes and electron microprobe facilities, with facilities for
chemical analysis of maceral components as well as evaluating
composition and modes of occurrence of minerals in coal and non-coal
strata;
Experience with application to gas drainage from coal seams, through
identification of microscopic features that may affect gas drainage and
gas injection processes.
Current and recently-completed projects:
• Geological factors affecting the in-situ permeability of coal seams during CBM
production (PhD study, Xingjing Wang)
• Factors affecting seam gas distribution in the Hunter Coalfield, NSW (BSc
Honours project, Bob Craig)
• Structural features of the Wyong CBM prospect (BSc Honours project, Ian
Corkin)
• Influence of mineralogy on petrophysical properties of petroleum reservoir beds
(MSc study, Glecy Calleja)
• Automated mineral mapping of coal core (ACARP project, Joan Esterle,
Stephen Fraser, Colin Ward)
• Gas drainability efficiency improvement (ACARP project, Andrew Gurba, Lila
Gurba, Colin Ward)
• In-situ chemical characterisation of microscopic components in Australian coals
(ARC project, Colin Ward and others)
• Relation between coalification processes and coal bed methane occurrence
(ARC project, Lila Gurba, Carl Weber, Colin Ward)
Chemical laboratories and field facilities for groundwater studies

• Well-equipped chemical laboratories, with ICP-MS, ICP-OES, XRF and other
facilities for analysis of major and trace elements [and also organic species] in
water, rocks and similar materials;
• Mobile laboratory facilities for on-site sampling and analysis of groundwater,
including HCO3 and unstable trace elements in the field;
• Comprehensive hydrogeochemical modelling software, with extensive
experience in evaluating water-rock interactions in a wide range of Australian
environments. Capability for modelling hydrogeochemical reactions during
water-gas-rock interaction in subsurface strata using speciation and mass
balance methods;
• Wide experience in more general groundwater studies, including projects
involving water-rock interactions with CO2-rich groundwaters and associated
mineral precipitation. Application of stable and radioactive isotopes in
evaluation of chemical processes and sources of carbon in groundwater
systems
Current and recently completed projects

• Two recently completed PhD projects have dealt with sodium-
bicarbonate rich groundwaters in the central-west NSW.
– A hydrogeochemical study in the Namoi River catchment, dealing with
chemical processes in the fractured aquifer system on the eastern
margin of the Great Artesian Basin. Chemical composition of
groundwaters showed that CO2 is utilised in the aquatic system
producing bicarbonate rich groundwaters (Wendy McLean,
Hydrogeochemical evolution and variability in a stressed alluvial
aquifer system: Lower Namoi River catchment, NSW. PhD thesis,
UNSW, 2003).
– The other project dealt with the origin of CO2 in fractured aquifer
systems at Ballimore near Dubbo, where carbon dioxide of magmatic
origin has produced bicarbonate-rich groundwaters. Carbon dioxide
effervesces from these waters as they discharge from boreholes.
Hydrogeochemical modelling was applied to evaluate the chemical
processes in the aquifer system during water-rock interaction (Shane
Schofield, The geology, hydrogeology and hydrogeochemistry of the
Ballimore region, central NSW. PhD thesis, UNSW, 1999).
UN Capabilities in CO2 Storage
Current project (Prof Raj Gupta)

Determination of the effect of supercritical CO2
adsorption in coal samples on coal structure
The samples will be exposed to supercritical CO2
using the Supercritical Fluid Extractor available
at the University. Its impact on coal structure
will be assessed as a function of coal rank and
exposure time.
TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES WITH CO2 Storage INTO

UNMINEABLE COAL SEAMS
– 1. CO2 Sources
– 2. CO2 Interactions with Coal
– 3. Laboratory Testing
– 4. Reservoir Modelling and Characterisation
– 5. CO2 Injection Issues
– 6. Sterilization of Coal Resources
“Quantifying Potential of Australian Coal Seams for CO2 Sequestration’ by L. Gurba and Peter Crosdale given at the
2nd Japan-Australia Coal Research Workshop, held in November 2002 in Tokyo.
Coal is important to Australia

Coal in Australia
Coal will play a role in Sustainable Future
– The most widely used source in the
electricity generation
– Significant economic benefit
CO2
is the key
sustainability driver
Large coal resources
Australia’s electricity depends on coal

Cooperative Research Centre for
Coal in Sustainable Development
Generators Producers Research

Coal in Sustainable Development
www.ccsd.biz
Queensland - Prospects for CCT
Queensland – Opportunities
– Environmental advantage
– The Bowen Basin (Permian)
– Coking export commodity
– Walloon Coal Measures – high
volatile
NSW - Opportunities
The major coal resources are located in

the Sydney-Gunnedah Basin;
Minor coal resources are located in the
Gloucester and Oaklands Basins
Coal is important to Australia
Coal in Australia Electricity transmission networks
Large coal resources Australia’s electricity

depends on coal
Attachment G
CO2CRC
43
CO2CRC
Research in CO2 Storage in Coals
Andy Rigg
Deputy CEO, Storage Program Manager
CO2CRC
Research Workshop “CO2 Storage in Coals”, 21st June, 2005, Brisbane
Outline
• CO2CRC
• Background Research
• CO2CRC Expertise
• Issues
• CO2 storage potential of Queensland and NSW
2
PROGRAM 1: STORING CO2
PROGRAM MANAGER: Andy Rigg
1.1 Technologies for Assessing Sites for CO2 Storage
Project Leader: Dr J Bradshaw, Geoscience Australia
1.2 Reservoir/Seal Characterisation and Stratigraphy
Project Leader: A/Prof S Lang, ASP
1.3 Geomechanics and Petrophysics
Project Leader: Prof R Hillis, ASP
1.4 Geochemistry
Project Leader: Dr P Tingate, ASP
1.5 Short and Long-Term Reservoir Modelling
Project Leader: Dr L Paterson, CSIRO
1.6 Monitoring and Verification
Project Leader: K Dodds, CSIRO
1.7 Enhanced Petroleum Recovery
Project Leader: Prof H Sarma, ASP
1.8 CO2 Storage in Suitable Coals
Project Leader: TBA
1.9 Risk Assessment for Capture and Storage Systems
Project Leader: A Rigg, CO2CRC
CO2CRC Sponsor Companies and Researchers
4
CO2CRC
• Member IEA-GHG Australian Consortium
• Co-contributor with CSIRO-Energy Technology to ARI
coordinated COALSEQ project in US
– 3 year collaboration project (2005-2008)
– Looking specifically at coal seam storage/ ECBM
– DOE, Shell, JCoal supporting
• Originally had ECBMR as part of project on Enhanced
Petroleum Recovery (EOR, EGR etc)
• Meeting with researchers (Geoscience Australia, CSIRO,
Solid Fuel, NSW-DPI) July 2004
– Need for longer term project
– Greater degree of collaboration
– Identify gaps, remove overlaps
CO2CRC Expertise
• Site-specific geological, geophysical
characterisation (Geoscience Australia, CO2CRC,
ASP, consultants)
• Monitoring, geophysical (CSIRO, Curtin),
geochemical (ASP, ANU, ARC)
• Economics (UNSW)
• Deep biological processes (Whistler Research)
• Risk Assessment (CO2CRC, URS, GNS)
• Reservoir engineering, CO2/coal behaviour (ASP)
• Geomechanics (ASP)
6
ASP Skill Base/Capabilities/Resources
Manpower Infrastructure
• Prof. Hemanta Sarma • Complete suite of CMG Simulators including

(Simulation, Experiments) the compositional simulator GEM capable of
simulating CBM production (License usage
• Rahul Shrivastava is limited only to research and teaching.)
(PG Student currently engaged in the
ECBMR project with SGL. Main
emphasis is on simulation) • Fully automated high-pressure high-
temperature Dual Coreflood System for liquid
• Research Associate and gas floods (May be used for coal
(Expected in July, 2005. Simulation, swelling/shrinkage and permeability
Experiments)
estimations)
• Gas Chromatographic and mass

spectrometric analyses.
• Expected soon: porosimeter and

permeameter.
Fully Automated High-Pressure High-Temperature

Dual Coreflood System for Liquid and Gas Floods
Control Unit/Panel
Automation & Temp-
Temp-Controlled Oven
Data Acquisition
Oven Temp Control
8
System Controls and Read-
Read-Outs Dual Core Holders & Injectants @T & P in Oven
High Precision Quizix Pumps & Fluid Recovery Real-

Real-time Data Acquisition & Automated Control
Intended Research Areas

• Reservoir Simulation • Experimental Studies
– Reservoir model construction from – Determination of absolute,
static data from a given Basin directional and relative
– Tuning of the model to history permeabilities of coal by performing
match the dynamic data core flooding experiments using N2
– Use of tuned model to simulate CO2 and CO2
injection for sequestration and – Using the core flooding experiments
ECBMR to determine the extent of matrix
– Comparing the results between pure shrinkage and permeability
CO2 injection and flue gas injection reduction during multi-component
gas injection
– Sensitivity analysis to determine the
dominant factors – Evaluation of precipitate formation
during CO2 injection by analysis of
formation water
10
Issues
• Access; mining depth limits increasing, resource
sterilisation
• Permeability of accessible coals; likely to be low (<20mD),
low injectivity, need greater kH
– Drilling technology; horizontal, multi-lateral
– Fraccing; assistance if controlled, risks with
containment of fractures, horizontal and vertical, near
well-bore effects, well-bore integrity with cements and
tubulars
• Understanding processes; especially coal-CO2-CH4
– Coal swelling, migration of fines
• Containment
– Effective capture of methane
– Effective containment of CO2
• Pilot projects; very mixed results
11
What is the CO2 Storage Potential of Coals

in Queensland and NSW?
• Like any resource
– When?
– What cost? Offsets?
– What technology?
• Assumptions
– Next 15 years, free CO2,limited transportation, i.e. lowest cost
curves for coal storage
• Then there may be niche opportunities for some ECBM and coal
seam storage
• BUT
– Measured in Mtpa not hundreds
– Suggest 120-150 Mtpa storage potential in Australia in saline
formation and depleted oil and gas fields
– Suggest 0-5-10% range
– Therefore 0-6-15Mtpa range, heavily skewed to the low side
12
Attachment H
Advanced Resources International
51
CO2 SEQUESTRATION IN COAL SEAMS
Allison Unit CO2/ECBM:
Field Pilot and Reservoir Modeling Study
Presented to:
CO2 STORAGE IN COALS
Presented by:
Vello A. Kuuskraa, President, vkuuskraa@adv-res.com
Scott R. Reeves, Exec. Vice President,
sreeves@adv-res-hou.com
Advanced Resources International, Inc.
Arlington, VA USA
June 2005
Brisbane, Australia
JAF02425.PPT 1 Advanced Resources International
Acknowledgements
• Work funded by U.S. DOE/NETL (Carbon

Sequestration Program)
– Coal-Seq Project
– Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-00NT40924
– Charlie Byrer – Project Manager
• Field data provided by Burlington Resources

Presentation Outline
1. Overview of CO2
Sequestration in Coals
2. San Juan Basin, Allison Unit
ECBM Pilot
3. ECBM and CO2 Storage
4. Open Discussion
1. Overview of CO2
Sequestration in Coals
• Coal-Seq Project Objectives

• Critical Issues
• Current Activity

Coal-Seq Project Objectives
• Participate In and Evaluate Performance of
CO2/N2-ECBM Projects (Allison & Tiffany)
• Examine Critical CO2 Sequestration Reservoir
Mechanisms
• Demonstrate ECBM Reservoir Simulation
Models
• Develop Economic Screening Model
• Identify Geologic Settings Favorable for CO2
Sequestration
• Assess CO2 Storage Potential for U.S.
Coalseams
• Disseminate Results (www.coal-seq.com)
Critical ECBM/CO2
Sequestration Issues
1. Is sequestration of CO2 in deep, unmineable

coals technically feasible?
2. How severely does CO2 injection in coals
swell the coal and reduce permeability?
3. What are the favorable geological settings
for ECBM and CO2 sequestration?
4. How much of the costs of CO2 sequestration
are “covered” by a combined ECBM and CO2
sequestration project?

ECBM/CO2 Sequestration
in Coals Activity
1. The largest scale, most comprehensive field test of ECBM and
CO2 sequestration in coals is the Allison Unit pilot in the San
Juan Basin.
2. Small-scale ECBM efforts have been conducted in Canada and
Poland.
3. Significant size ECBM field pilots are underway by Consol in
the Appalachian Basin and by Suncor in Canada.
4. Numerous ECBM and CO2 sequestration field pilots are
planned as part of the recently funded Phase 2 of the Regional
Carbon Sequestration Partnerships:
• 6 field tests
• 2 reservoir studies
2. San Juan Basin, Allison Unit

ECBM Pilot
• Geologic and Reservoir Setting

• Project Performance
• Reservoir Simulation
• Economics
Field History/Status - Allison
• Allison Unit CBM field on primary production since
1989.
• CO2 injection commenced in 1995 (four injection
wells, 16 production wells).
• Production enhancement (recavitation, line pressure
reduction, well reconfigurations) implemented with
CO2 injection.
• 3 million cfd (6.4 Bcf) of CO2 injected from 1995
through 2001.
• Operator currently evaluating “long-term” effects of
ECBM.
Location of Allison Unit,

San Juan Basin
LA PLATA CO. ARCHULETA
Durango Pagosa
Springs
Florida River
Plant
N2
Pi
Tiffany Unit San Juan

pe
lin
Basin Outline
e
F
COLORADO A
I
NEW MEXICO R
W
A Dulce
Y
Allison Unit
Aztec
Farmington
Bloomfield

Injector Well Configurations
2-7/8 inch production tubing

(internally lined with fiberglass)
Corrosion
Well Head Flow Meter Inhibitor
5-1/2 inch production casing
Heating Unit
Packer
Yellow Coal
CO2 Supply
Blue Coal
Purple Coal
Packer Fluid Power System Pressure

Reservoir Control/SCADA Regulator
7-7/8 inch hole to total depth
Producer Well Configurations
9-5/8 inch surface casing
2-3/8 inch production tubing
7 inch production casing
Liner hanger
Sucker rods
Yellow Coal
Rod pump
Blue Coal
5-1/2 inch pre-perforated

liner (not cemented)
Purple Coal
6-1/2 inch hole to total depth

Basic Coal Reservoir Data
Property Value
Average Depth to Top Coal 3,100 feet

Coal Rank High Vol, A (Ro, 1.3)
Average Total Net Thickness 43 feet (3 intervals)
Yellow - 22 ft
Blue - 10 ft
Purple - 11 ft
Initial Pressure 1,650 psi
Temperature 120º F
Producing History
2,000,000 4,000
16 producers, 4 injectors, 1 POW Peak @ 57 MMcfd

1,800,000
Line pressures reduced, wells 3,500
1,600,000
recavitated, wells reconfigured
3,000
1,400,000 Injection resumed
2,500
Individual Well Gas Rate, Mcf/d
1,200,000 Injection suspended,

five wells reopened
1,000,000 2,000
Rates, Mcf/mo
Five wells shutin during

800,000 initial injection period
1,500
600,000 Gas Rate, Mcf/mo

CO2 Injection Rate, Mcf/mo 1,000
400,000 Well Gas Rate, Mcf/d
500
200,000
3 1/2 Mcfd
0 0
Jul-92
Jul-97
Jul-98
Jul-93
Jul-94
Jul-95
Jul-96
Jul-99
Jul-00
Jul-01
Jul-91
Jul-89
Jul-90
Jan-00
Jan-95
Jan-96
Jan-97
Jan-98
Jan-01
Jan-93
Jan-94
Jan-99
Jan-91
Jan-92
Jan-89
Jan-90
Date

Example Well
160000
160,000 1000
Gas, Mcf/mo 900

140000
140,000
Csg Press, psi Wellreconfigured,
Well reconfigured,pump
pump
Csg Press, psi 800
installed(3/99)
installed (3/99)
120000
120,000 Line Press, psi
700
Line Press, psi
100000
100,000
CO2
CO2injection
injectioncommenced
commenced Line pressures
Line pressures 600
reduced Onsite
Pressure
reduced
reduced
compression
Rate
80000
80,000 Onsite compression 500
installed
Recavitate(5/95)
Recavitate (5/95) installed
400
60000
60,000
300
40000
40,000
200
20000
20,000
100
0 0
Jul-98
Jul-95
Jul-97
Jul-93
Jul-94
Jul-96
Jul-92
Jan-93
Jan-94
Jan-95
Jan-97
Jan-98
Jan-96
Jan-99
Jul-00
Jul-89
Jul-90
Jul-91
Jul-99
Jan-90
Jan-92
Jan-00
Jan-89
Jan-91
Jan-01
Date
Data Available for Model

“Raw” Data
• Gas production • Isotherms (2 samples each from 3 wells)
• Water production (limited) • Reservoir pressure (POW#2)
• Recent casing pressures • PTA – May 2000 - 8 prod wells
• Gas composition • CO2 injection data
• Coal depths/thicknesses • Surface CO2 injection pressures
• Completion/Restimulation info • PTA – August 2001 – 4 inj wells
“Inferred” Data
• Relative permeability • Skin, delta-skin due to recavitation
• Porosity • Bottomhole injection pressures
• Pore-volume compressibility
• Permeability exponent

CH4 & CO2 Isotherms
Methane Carbon Dioxide

450 700
400
600
Carbon Dioxide Content, scf/ton

Methane Content, scf/ton
350
500
300
250 400
200
300
150
Yellow Yellow
200
Blue Blue
100
Purple Purple
100
50
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Pressure, psi Pressure, psi
Permeability Map
61
13438000
104
111
13436000 120 106 112 101
13434000
146
114
130
13432000 142
115
POW #2
13430000 108 131 141 113
140
13428000 102
132 143 120
105
13426000
121
119 118
13424000
122
13422000
62
900000 902000 904000 906000 908000 910000 912000 914000 916000 918000

Model Grid – Map View
Butt cleat
Face No-flow
cleat boundaries
• 16 producers
•4 injectors N
•1 POW
• 33 x 32 x 3
143
• 3168 gridlocks
(2646 active)
Actual vs. Simulated Gas Rate
Actual
Simulated

Actual vs. Simulated Well Performance, Well #113
Gas Rate Water Rate
Bottomhole Pressure Gas Composition
Restim
Methane Content at End of Forecast Period

Actual/Forecast Results
Incremental Total CO2 CO2 CO2/CH4 Ratio

Recovery Injection Production
Case (Bcf) (Bcf) (Bcf) Gross Net
W/CO2
injection 1.6 6.4 1.2 4.0 3.2
Incremental CBM recovery limited by CO2 injection volumes.

INJECTIVITY IS KEY!
Incremental Recovery by Quadrant
Recovery (% OGIP)
Quadrant w/o CO2 w/ CO2 Incremental
North 77% 94% 17%
West 77% 95% 18%
South 77% 95% 18%

Net CO2/CH4 Ratio vs. Time
Injection
Suspended
4
3.5
Injection
Stopped
3
Net CO2/CH4 Ratio
2.5
1.5
Rate Acceleration “Catch-up” Period
1
Injection
0.5 Resumed
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Months after Initial Injection
Incremental Gas Rates
200,000
150,000
100,000
Gas Rate, Mcf/Mo
50,000
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-50,000
-100,000
Month
Total Gas Produced Total CH4 Produced Total CO2 Produced Injected Gas

Actual/Modeling Results
• History-match achieved; overall quality

very good, challenge was to match
injectivity / permeability decline.
• CO2 injection improved methane
recovery from 77% to 95% of OGIP (in
3 quadrants of central 5-spot area).
• Ratio of injected CO2 to produced CH4
of 4:1 gross (including recycled CO2)
and 3:1 net with 280,000 metric tons of
CO2 “sequestrated”.
• Clear evidence of injectivity reduction
with CO2 injection.
Case for CO2 Sequestration
Methane Depletion CO2 Sequestration Period

and ECBM Period
Field on
Production Proposed Stop
of Injection
(Pr = 0.75 Pi)
Begin Initial CO2
Injection Pilot
End of Actual End of

History Forecast
Begin Aggressive Period
CO2 Injection
• Recovers 10 Bcf of incremental methane.

• Sequesters 10 million tons of CO2.

Allison Economics Sensitive to Timing
JAF2005032.XLS
$18
$4.00/Mcf $4.00/Mcf, Inj x 4
$16
Net Present Value, $ millions
$14
$12
$10
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
Jan-95
-$2 May-96 Sep-97 Feb-99 Jun-00 Nov-01 Mar-03 Aug-04 Dec-05
-$4
Date
Economic Performance
Assumptions
• Capex: 36 mi pipeline (allocated @ 25%), distribution lines, 4 new injection
wells) total $2.6 million
• Opex: $1,000/mo per well
• CO2 Cost: $0.30/Mcf ($5.19/ton)
• Gas Processing: $0.25/Mcf
• NRI and Production Taxes: 87.5% and 8%
• Discount Rate: 12%
• Gas Price: $4.00/MMBTU
Results Actual Injection Rate 4x Actual Injection Rate

Net Present Value* $2 million (@12%) $16 million (@12%)
Rate of Return 45% 149%
Breakeven CO2 Cost $0.91/Mcf ($15.65/ton) $1.10/Mcf ($18.92/ton)
*At peak NPV (year 6)

Summary
• First long-term CO2 injection in coalseams

documented and analyzed.
• Performance consistent with current theoretical
understanding.
• Incremental methane recovery 17% OGIP (1.6
Bcf) achieved at gross CO2/methane ratio of 4:1
and net ratio of 3.2:1.
Summary (cont’d)
• With today’s gas prices, the Allison Unit ECBM pilot is

economically attractive.
• Some critical issues identified:
– Injectivity (permeability) behavior
– Multi-component isotherm behavior
• Pilots not optimized; substantial room for improvement:
– Well placement/sweep efficiency
– CO2 Injectivity (stimulation, horizontal/multi-lateral wells)

3. ECBM and CO2 Storage
• Injectivity At Allison Unit

• Favorable Settings for
ECBM/CO2 Storage
Injectivity Loss (and Rebound) at Allison

Well #143 Permeability versus Distance @ 3501 days
Well 142
60000 2500
180
2300
50000
160
2100
140
Permeability (mD)
1900
40000 120
Pressure
1700
CO2, Mcf/mo
100
Rate
30000 1500
BHP, psi 80
1300
60 Perm vs. distance profile
20000
1100
40 yields a reduction in
10000
900
20 injectivity by half.
700
0
0 500 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Ju 5
Ju 6
Ju 7
Ju 8
Ju 9
Ju 0
O 5
A 6
O 6
A 7
O 7
A 8
O 8
A 9
O 9
A 0
O 0
Ja 5
Ja 6
Ja 7
Ja 8
Ja 9
0
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-0
l- 9
l- 9
l- 9
l- 9
l- 9
l- 0
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-0
Distance (feet)
n-
n-
n-
n-
n-
pr
pr
pr
pr
pr
pr
ct
ct
ct
ct
ct
ct
A
Date
East Direction West Direction North Direction South Direction
Water Saturation versus Time @ Injection Wells
1
0.9 Gas saturation (krg) 250
Start
CH4
0.8 maximized prior to perm
200
rebound.
Permeability, md
0.7
Water Saturation
Depletion
0.6 150
0.5
0.4
100
Continued
CO2
Displace w/ CO2
0.3 Injection
50
0.2
0.1 0
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Pressure, psi
Time (days)
Well 140 Well 141 Well 142 Well 143

Typical Injection Pressure History
60000 2500
2300
50000
2100
1900
40000
Pressure
1700
Rate
30000 1500
CO2, Mcf/mo
BHP, psi 1300
20000
1100
900
10000
700
0 500
Jan-89
Jul-89
Jan-90
Jul-90
Jan-91
Jul-91
Jan-92
Jul-92
Jan-93
Jul-93
Jan-94
Jul-94
Jan-95
Jul-95
Jan-96
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Jan-98
Jul-98
Jan-99
Jul-99
Jan-00
Jul-00
Date
Permeability Changes with Net Stress, Gas

Concentration, and Sorptive Capacity
Matrix Shrinkage Pressure Dependence
250
200 Methane
Permeability, md
Initial
150
100
Sorption Capacity Carbon Dioxide

50
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Pressure, psi
Pi = 1600 psi Cm = 1 x 10-6 psi

ki = 100 md Ck = 1.0
I = 0.25% n =3
Cp= 200 x 10-6 psi-1 Advanced Resources International
JAF02425.PPT 36
Coal Seam Settings Favorable to ECBM
and CO2 Sequestration
The four key variables for establishing a favorable geologic

setting for ECBM and CO2 sequestration are:
1. Coal depth (to assure CO2 is injected into unmineable coals)

2. Coal thickness and gas content (to assure sufficient resource)
3. Coal permeability
4. Coal rank
Considerable analyses already exists on the role of coal

depth, thickness and gas content on CBM and, by extrapolation,
on ECBM.
This presentation will look at newly prepared analytical
information on the role of coal permeability and rank on ECBM.
Coal Seam Settings Favorable to ECBM

and CO2 Sequestration (cont’d)
To examine the role of coal permeability (including swelling due
to CO2 injection), and coal rank (including the CO2/CH4 ratio), we
used the Allison Unit reservoir data to examine a series of cases:
1. Permeability - - 100, 10, 1 md

2. Coal Rank - - High, Medium, Low
3. Well Configuration - - Slightly damaged (+3), and slightly stimulated
(-3) vertical wells; horizontal well
In each case CO2 injection was started after the Unit had
produced on primary production for 10 years, having recovered
5.2 Bcf with 1.5 Bcf of remaining primary reserves (medium coal
rank case).
CO2 injection is continued until significant CO2 breakthrough
or for 30 years.
Case 1. Medium Rank Coal
(CO2/CH4 Ratio of 2:1)
CO2 Injection Net CO2

Permeability Well ECBM Sequestered Years
100 md Vertical, +3 1.2 Bcf 8.7 Bcf 40
(6.7 Bcf)* Vertical, -3 1.3 Bcf 10.0 Bcf 32
Horizontal 1.3 Bcf 10.6 Bcf 19
1 md - - - -
*Primary recovery
Case 2. High Rank Coal

Horizontal - - -
Horizontal - - -
(0.1 Mcf)* Vertical, -3 0.6 Bcf 1.4 Bcf 40
*Primary recovery
Case 3. Low Rank Coal

100 md Vertical, +3 - - 40
(2.5 Bcf)* Vertical, -3 - - 40
*Primary recovery
4. Open Discussion

Attachment I
IEA GHG
75
CO2 Storage in Coal Seams
An IEA GHG Perspective
John Gale
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
www.ieagreen.org.uk

• IEA GHG reviewed the global technical
potential and costs for CO2-ECBM in 1998
• Study based on initial results from Allison pilot in
San Juan Basin
• Limited to unminable bituminous coals
• Global storage capacity of up 150 Gt CO2
• Of which it was considered that only 7Gt CO2
was cost effective (net storage cost was <$0/t
CO2)
www.ieagreen.org.uk
• Economic assessment based on gas price of
£2/GJ
• Taking current gas prices could double this to
15 Gt CO2
• However global storage capacity in coal seams
much lower than for other storage options
• Deep saline aquifers – 1 000 to 10 000 Gt CO2
• Hydrocarbon fields – 920 Gt CO2
www.ieagreen.org.uk

• Whilst global storage capacities are low there
could be niche opportunities is some countries
• Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, USA.
• Interest in developing CO2-ECBM in some
countries driven by:
• Political/market demand for natural gas
• Energy security
www.ieagreen.org.uk
IPCC SRCCS
• CO2 storage in coal seams covered in SRCCS
but not as extensively as other storage options
• Reason was that technology was considered to
be much further from market place
• Requires extensive further development
• While other storage options now being
demonstrated at commercial scales
www.ieagreen.org.uk
IPCC SRCCS, cont’d

• IPCC estimates for technical storage potential
were 60 to 200 Gt CO2 globally
• Bituminous coals only
• Economic potential was estimated to be 3 to 25
Gt CO2
• Based on current global CBM production data
• Numbers agree with IEA GHG estimates
• Note estimates were developed separately
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Technical Status
• One pilot scale trial completed to date in San
Juan Basin USA
• High permeability coal basin (40 mDarcy) with
commercial CBM production
• Results from pilot confirmed enhanced
methane recovery could be achieved
• Economics were marginal
• Operator has not proceeded with extended trial
across whole field
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Technical Status
• Outside USA
• Two single well injection tests completed in
Canada and China
• Coals 3 and 13 mDarcy respectively
• Results promising
• Larger scale tests planned
• Two multiple well tests underway
• RECOPOL in Poland
• Hokkaido project in Japan
www.ieagreen.org.uk
RECOPOL Results
• Bituminous coal, permeability 1-3 mDarcy
• Continuous injection finally established in last month of
project
• Problems with coal swelling around injector reducing
injection efficiency
• Overcome by well stimulation – fracking with sand to
keep cleats open
• Early breakthrough of CO2 observed at producer
• Now being modelled to explain result
www.ieagreen.org.uk
HOKKAIDO Results
• Bituminous coal, permeability <1 mDarcy
• Injection problems encountered
• Thought to be due to blocked perforations in
well although increased water production
observed
• Unsure why coal swelling has been ruled out?
• Reperforating injection well
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Summary of Technical Status
• Results to date are inconclusive
• Definite problem with swelling around injection
well which reduces permeability
• Well stimulation will overcome this
• Fracture needs to be contained within coal
seam to prevent leakage
• Horizontal drilling could be used but expensive
• None of projects has monitored injected CO2
www.ieagreen.org.uk
Conclusions
• Global storage capacity estimates in coal seams are
much lower than for other options
• Could be niche opportunities
• Technical maturity is currently behind other storage
options
• Other options already being demonstrated at
commercial scale
• More extensive trials are needed to confirm suitability of
this technology
• No work to date to monitor fate of injected CO2 and
address safety concerns for this storage option
• Bank of data now building for other storage options
www.ieagreen.org.uk
82
Attachment J
IPCC Perspective
83
Storage in coals
An IPCC perspective
Dr Peter Cook
Chief Executive
Greenhouse Gas Technologies
(CO2CRC)
Brisbane, 21st June 2005
A number of IPCC sourced diagrams used in the presentation could
not be provided in this record because of an IPCC embargo until late
Sept 2005
CO2 storage options

CO2 storage projects ( IPCC)
Storage in Coals (IPCC)

Limited number of projects with CO2- ECBM
• Yubari 10t/day total 200t (2004)
• Fenn Big Valley 50t/day total 200t (1998)
• Recopol 1t/day total 10t (2003)
• Qinshui 30t/day total 150t (2003)
• CSEMP (Alberta) 50t/day total 10000t (proposed)
Compare this to Sleipner ( 3000t/day), Weyburn (3-5000 t/day), In

Salah (3-4000t/day), Gorgon (10,000t/day) and totals of many
millions of tonnes, or Frio (177t/day), Ketsin (100t/day) Teapot
Dome(170t/day) and Otway (160t/day) and totals of 10-100,000t
• Volumetric ratio of adsorbable CO2:CH4 ranges from as low as 1
for mature coals (e.g. anthracite) to 10 or more for younger coals
(e.g. lignite)
• The process of CO2 trapping in coals for P&T above the critical
point is not well understood.
• CO2 is a plasticizer for coal which transforms coal from a glassy
brittle structure to a rubbery plastic structure, with the transition
temperature dependant on the maturity of the coal, macerals etc
• Coal plasticization adversely affects permeability
• Coal swells as CO2 is adsorbed, which reduces permeability and
injectivity by orders of magnitude

• CO2 injected into coal seams enhances CBM recovery, with the
potential to increase the amount of methane produced by 90%
compared with conventional recovery of only 50% by pressure
depletion alone
• Only tried at commercial scale in Allison Project
• Shallow coals (less than 500m) have perm of millidarcy’s, but
deep coals ( 1500m+) are ~microdarcy’s, with most CBM
producing wells less than 1000m
• If coal never mined or depressurized, then CO2 storage is for geol
time, but disturbance likely to void any storage. Therefore the
future fate of the coal seam is key determinant of suitability for
storage
• Conflicts between storage and mining likely for shallow coals
( less than 1000m)
What is known about the storage capacity of different
types of storage formations?
After IPCC
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Storage Formation Storage Mechanism Potential Capacity
(Gt CO2)
Saline Reservoir Closed trap from 1,000 – 10,000?

buoyant fluids
Hydrodynamic/Solution
Depleted Field Oil/EOR 900 – 1,200
Gas/EGR
Coal Coal Bed Methane 3 - 200
Adsorption
Attachment K
Workshop Notes
83
Notes arising from the research workshop on
CO2 storage in coals 21 June 2005, Brisbane
Chair and facilitator – Ross McKinnon

Scribe and convenor – Peter Cook
Workshop 1
• Competing claims of ECBM & storage? Compatibility?
• Permeability
• Rank
• What is an unmineable coal?
• Don’t have resource assessment information – essential need
• The geology of the coal system needs consideration
• Synergies with operating CBM? (some CBM precedes mining)
• Alienation issues –sterilisation can pre-empt storage

• Some coals more ‘suitable’ than others because they are unlikely
to be economic
Workshop 2 ( permeability)
• Structure issues
• The lower the perm the better the storage
• Reservoir perm versus well bore perm
• Stressed versus unstressed perm
• Regional scale info – is it useful?
• Extrapolating from the lab to the field
• Structural issues eg Bowen tensional settings
• Matrix shrinkage may increase permeability
Workshop-after lunch 3
• Strategic
• Tactical
• Underlying science
Alternatively
• 1 Resource identification & quantification
• 2 Storage engineering and economics
• 3 CO2 interactions with coal
Other points
Storage capacity in coals is underestimated
Community uncertainties with coal storage?
Can inject into low permeability coals (Recopol), but is the rate adequate for the
scale of the issue
Pilot projects, can be done at a range of scales, but need field situation
Field versus lab
Workshop-after lunch 4
• Australian coal properties do not pre empt CBM or storage
• Volumetrics must be borne in mind
1 Resource identification & quantification

• Access to data
• First level identification
– Prepare maps for depth ranges below mining
– apply infrastructure/ source parameters (GIS)
– List characteristics of identified areas
– Examine competing interests ( gasification)
– Compile known info
– Identify gaps and acquire
• Other issues
– High ash coals
– Brown coals
– Oil shales / lignites
• Resourcing work
– Multidisciplinary team
2 Storage engineering and economics
• Matching Economics with Eng Solutions: esp physical conditions
• Understand technical challenges: eg high rank coals, net storage issues eg closed
loop v open loop
• Competing uses vs synergistic uses of coal seams: CH4 extraction vs higher CO2;
HP injection; regional use of seam vs single-industry use
• Let Engineering drive technical solutions & innovation & costs down; field pilot
trials, drilling, completion, stimulation
• Further R&D: eg methanogenesis ( long term), wellbore stimulation (short term),
• strategy for Picking Optimum Sites: Perm of +3mD; Clear structures (CBM fields);
Coal rank & stressed swelling in-situ
• Well bore injection ( perm enhancement )
• Cost optimisation & engineering wellbores (eg horiz wells )
• 1% leakage per 1000yrs?
• Being close to CO2 source
• Surface monitoring esp methane (inc leakage from wells): background monitoring
3 CO2 interactions with coal

• STORAGE CAPACITY- How do we measure and define this
– Isotherms (how to do this), sorption capacity, adsorption, absorption,
competitive adsorption, porosity ( standard isotherm is too low)
– A major issue
– Esp In situ properties
• INJECTIVITY (P,T, t)
– Permeability, relative permeability, swelling behaviour, diffusivity
(easy!) esp in situ properties
• COAL-CO2 – water INTERACTIONS
– Geochemical behaviour (mineral matter dissolution/precipitation,
mobilisation of metals and hydrocarbons)
– Physical behaviour (plasticization) inc coal strength
– Biological interactions
– More natural analogues/ more experiments
• IMPACT OF COAL GEOLOGY ON ABOVE
– Coal systems; shale storage capacity; high ash coals may be good
Other comments 1
• Realistically will need say 500 reconditioned injection wells ( ex CBM) for
a 2500mw power station(s)
• If inject in coal then must have production of CBM otherwise have
problems with pressure build up
• Have a different model to saline formations, and must take a holistic
approach to coal storage
• Water a major issue, but if storage done as part of a CBM then can
incorporate water usage into the scheme
• Coal as a regional seal should be borne in mind
• Stress maps are important – not available for all areas, but important
influence on CBM
• Stakeholders include CBM, oil, gas, coal, energy companies as well as
govt, community
• Sterilisation still an issue
Other comments 2
• What is the storage potential of Qld and NSW etc
• 2 orders of magnitude more?
• Serious doubts because of structure , heterogeneity in
permeability, scale of feasibility, water
• Complete integration of storage and CBM
• With CBM it may be OK to use flue gases
• Need devel of risk assessment methodologies

CO2 Sequestration

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CO2 Sequestration

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Summary of Research Workshop

“CO2 Storage in Coals”

Australian School of Petroleum

Australian School of Petroleum

Advanced Resources International

Peter J. Cook CBE FTSE

Major Observations ...................................................................................................................................... 1

3. Outside Perspectives on CO Storage in Coals ................................................................................... 4

4. Identiﬁcation of R&D Gaps, Uncertainities and Future Action .......................................................... 5

Attachment B. Introductory Remarks, Ross Mckinnon ........................................................................ 11

2. Presentations of Expertise, Capabilities and Specific

B. Queensland Department of National Resources

D. Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development (CCSD)

3. Outside Perspectives on CO2 Storage in Coals

A. CO2 Sequestration in Coal Seams

C. Storage in Coals: An IPCC Perspective.

4. Identification of R&D Gaps, Uncertainities and

A. Resource identiﬁcation and quantiﬁcation

A. Resource identiﬁcation and Quantiﬁcation.

B. Storage Engineering and Economics.

C. CO2 Interaction with Coals

Agenda: CO2 Storage In Coals

09:00 Welcome and introduction Peter Cook

University of Queensland 15 mins

Qld Dept of Natural Resources & Mines 10 mins

First Name Email Organisation

Annual emissions from coal without COAL21 measures

Annual emissions from coal

RD&D Phase and Commence and then

2003 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

¾Context of COAL21 National Action Plan

Today’s workshop & R&D Review

¾ Independent review through COAL21

¾ Aim is to ensure most clear and effective identification

¾ There’s much to build upon internationally and in Australia

Low cost2 close 2nd to EOR

Well located many CBM projects in place or planned

1 based on 2:1 CO2/CH4 replacement

People and activities

• Victor Rudolph Stanwell

• Dr Dean Biddle – TTSCP operation; technical design & support

Cash expenditures ~ $800kpa

Click to edit Master subtitle style

Why CO2 storage in coal? www.csiro.au

Total storage density as a function of depth

• Storage density in coal

CO2 critical pressure (7.28 MPa, temperature 31°C)

Interaction of coal with supercritical CO2

– Adsorption, desorption, kinetics

Reservoir behaviour of CO2 in Geology and geochemistry

The work program www.csiro.au

 Funded through CSIRO and the Energy Transformed Flagship

• Uses gravimetric technique

Coal swelling / flow parameters www.csiro.au

Simulation of sequestration/enhanced coal bed methane

Methane production • Improved isotherms

Example of Reservoir Behaviour www.csiro.au

1.0 Free gas composition

Fully Saturated Region: Fully Saturated Region:

0.8 Carbon Dioxide Methane

CO2 injection well

 Permian coals with high naturally -1.0

Permian Triassic Jurassic Cretaceous Tertiary

Depth sub-sea (km)

Funded through CSIRO and the Energy Transformed Flagship

Permian coals with high naturally -1.0

Strong geological controls on the 1.0

Long term fate of injected CO2

Rank potential sites for a pilot

Participation in US DoE/NETL inter-laboratory comparison of

Measurements of CO2 adsorption at high pressure

2005/2006 - Feasibility study completed

From 2006/2007 - Three year pilot program

Costs -CSIRO previous experience

Pilot study costs

Coal seams potentially provide large volumes for CO2