1
00:00:00,210 --> 00:00:05,550
Hello again, everyone, and welcome to another edition of Oxford Net zero Climate in the Balance.

2
00:00:05,550 --> 00:00:10,230
Our series of conversations running throughout the term here at Hillary at Oxford in

3
00:00:10,230 --> 00:00:15,480
which we talk about getting to net zero emissions in order to end global warming.

4
00:00:15,480 --> 00:00:20,610
This week, we're discussing putting carbon back into geological storage.

5
00:00:20,610 --> 00:00:26,220
You may have noticed that the title for this week was on the website between a rock and a wet place.

6
00:00:26,220 --> 00:00:29,130
One of the best titles we've got for this series so far.

7
00:00:29,130 --> 00:00:37,200
But we realised actually, as we developed this session as a group that we've got plenty of material to work with in terms of rocks and water.

8
00:00:37,200 --> 00:00:40,680
So we've decided to focus on rocks this week, actually.

9
00:00:40,680 --> 00:00:49,800
And Professor Ross Rikabi will cover the wet place, the Ocean, in a special bonus week with colleagues at the end of this net zero series.

10
00:00:49,800 --> 00:00:54,690
So just to give you a heads up, for those of you who've been with us for a long run or just joining us,

11
00:00:54,690 --> 00:00:58,710
we have three more conversations remaining this term. Next week, we've got.

12
00:00:58,710 --> 00:01:04,980
Net zero for local communities and we have the race to zero by cities, businesses and investors.

13
00:01:04,980 --> 00:01:14,940
And then our final bonus extra session on storing carbon in the oceans, which will be on the 22nd of March, all on Mondays at one p.m. U.K. time.

14
00:01:14,940 --> 00:01:21,360
So for those of you who don't know me, I'm Steve Smith, executive director of the Oxford Net Zero Initiative.

15
00:01:21,360 --> 00:01:25,530
And with me today, I'm delighted to discuss CO2 and rocks.

16
00:01:25,530 --> 00:01:35,040
We have Professor Mike Kendal. Professor Joe Cartwright and Dr Tom Cataldie, all from the Department of Earth Sciences here at Oxford.

17
00:01:35,040 --> 00:01:41,430
So Mike Kendal is a professor of geophysics and has applied his interest in seismology, in fact.

18
00:01:41,430 --> 00:01:47,070
I think we have three seismology experts here with us today. But Mike's particular interest,

19
00:01:47,070 --> 00:01:51,180
a very wide covering fundamental science on the workings of the inner earth and

20
00:01:51,180 --> 00:01:56,340
continental movements through to applications in understanding geothermal energy,

21
00:01:56,340 --> 00:02:01,740
fracking and most relevant to this session, subsurface CO2 storage.

22
00:02:01,740 --> 00:02:09,770
He's worked on some of the largest CO2 storage projects across the world and was recently elected a fellow of the Royal Society to.

23
00:02:09,770 --> 00:02:15,120
And Professor Joe Cartwright is Professor of Earth Sciences and uses seismology and

24
00:02:15,120 --> 00:02:19,740
other methods to understand the various processes at work in geological basins,

25
00:02:19,740 --> 00:02:24,390
which, if I understand as a non geologist, depressions in the earth which collect sediments.

26
00:02:24,390 --> 00:02:32,700
Is that is that right? I'm saying not a CEX. Ask it. So these are particularly relevant both in the formation of reservoirs of oil and gas,

27
00:02:32,700 --> 00:02:40,200
but also as potential sites for taking me carbon dioxide that we emit through burning most things, putting it back in the ground.

28
00:02:40,200 --> 00:02:44,370
And Joe has worked for a time previously in oil and gas exploration itself.

29
00:02:44,370 --> 00:02:50,970
So has real understanding and knowledge of how these skills work practically and in a business setting.

30
00:02:50,970 --> 00:02:58,590
And then finally, Ben, certainly not least, Dr Tom Cataldie is a post-doctoral researcher studying injection induced seismicity.

31
00:02:58,590 --> 00:03:02,880
In other words, that the earthquakes, which are generally small but can be large,

32
00:03:02,880 --> 00:03:07,850
that are caused by pumping various things into the ground, including CO2 or other liquids.

33
00:03:07,850 --> 00:03:08,490
And critically,

34
00:03:08,490 --> 00:03:16,590
he is seeking to understand the mechanisms at play that caused the seismicity and how we can better forecast them and perhaps avoid them.

35
00:03:16,590 --> 00:03:22,210
So Tom studied physics at Bristol before gaining his PHC last year in geology at Bristol and then

36
00:03:22,210 --> 00:03:28,650
subsequently joined Oxford and has experienced advising the UK government's oil and Gas Authority,

37
00:03:28,650 --> 00:03:33,150
particularly on the famous or perhaps infamous fracking project near Blackpool may

38
00:03:33,150 --> 00:03:38,180
have heard of to understand what caused the seismicity in that particular case.

39
00:03:38,180 --> 00:03:43,190
So with that line-up in mind and before we get going. We'd love it as usual,

40
00:03:43,190 --> 00:03:51,080
if you could ask your questions and we will do our best to to address those after our three speakers have had a chance to to start the conversation.

41
00:03:51,080 --> 00:03:55,910
So in order to ask a question, you need to be viewing on crowd cast rather than YouTube.

42
00:03:55,910 --> 00:04:02,990
And hopefully they're on track cast. You can see the green. Ask a question or ask a question button at the bottom right of the screen.

43
00:04:02,990 --> 00:04:09,620
And in there, you can type in your question or you can vote up those questions already written that you like the look of.

44
00:04:09,620 --> 00:04:14,540
So without further ado, I think, Mike, let's start with you.

45
00:04:14,540 --> 00:04:19,580
So just to set the scene, we've heard a lot in previous conversations in this series,

46
00:04:19,580 --> 00:04:25,400
putting carbon back into the ground as permanently as possible is likely to play

47
00:04:25,400 --> 00:04:30,130
a really important role in getting us nationally and globally to net zero,

48
00:04:30,130 --> 00:04:38,090
both for dealing with some of the hard to treat emissions at source, particularly things such as a manufacturing of iron, steel and cement,

49
00:04:38,090 --> 00:04:42,560
and maybe a few other sources that are difficult to come up with zero carbon alternatives,

50
00:04:42,560 --> 00:04:49,310
but also for taking some carbon dioxide back out of the air, so-called carbon dioxide removal or negative emissions.

51
00:04:49,310 --> 00:04:53,690
I was just looking at the scenarios by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

52
00:04:53,690 --> 00:04:58,460
for keeping us globally to around one and a half degrees global temperature rise.

53
00:04:58,460 --> 00:05:04,940
And they predict that carbon capture and storage is going to need to be in the range of hundreds of billions

54
00:05:04,940 --> 00:05:10,070
of tons to maybe even a trillion tons over the course of the 21st century from now to twenty one hundred.

55
00:05:10,070 --> 00:05:15,380
That's 10 to 20 times the level of all global emissions annually at the moment.

56
00:05:15,380 --> 00:05:19,940
So clearly, this is a big issue, something we should be thinking carefully about.

57
00:05:19,940 --> 00:05:30,400
What can you tell us, Mike? OK. Thank you for the introduction, Steve, and it's a pleasure to be speaking as part of this series to you.

58
00:05:30,400 --> 00:05:36,750
We're going to talk a little bit about the returning carbon back to the earth.

59
00:05:36,750 --> 00:05:43,240
As we know, the exchange of carbon between the geologic solid earth, the biosphere,

60
00:05:43,240 --> 00:05:47,410
the hydrosphere, the atmosphere is common in the earth and it's done routinely.

61
00:05:47,410 --> 00:05:55,060
But as we all know, humans have knocked this out of kilter and we need to accelerate the return of carbon back to the earth.

62
00:05:55,060 --> 00:06:00,880
And this can be done through a number of ways. And we're to describe this in this talk.

63
00:06:00,880 --> 00:06:07,790
So I'm going to start things off with the a bit of an introduction and go through sort of the need.

64
00:06:07,790 --> 00:06:16,720
My colleague Joe is going to talk about the successes we've had and how how it can be done in a worldwide sense.

65
00:06:16,720 --> 00:06:22,060
And then finally, my colleague Tom is going to talk about some of the challenges.

66
00:06:22,060 --> 00:06:28,540
These challenges are opportunities. They're surmountable. But they are challenges that we need to be aware of.

67
00:06:28,540 --> 00:06:38,870
Right. Right from the onset. So Steve said this this idea of this need for CO2 capture utilisation and storage or CCD,

68
00:06:38,870 --> 00:06:46,390
US has been around for a while and it's part of any scenario to actually achieve net zero.

69
00:06:46,390 --> 00:06:55,930
And most of you're probably familiar with these mitigation wedges based on this early, early work by Parklawn Sokolow.

70
00:06:55,930 --> 00:06:59,350
And there's a number of different ways of presenting this.

71
00:06:59,350 --> 00:07:10,260
But in this this slide, it's quite simple in that we can reduce CO2 emissions using things like renewables, nuclear, better energy efficiency.

72
00:07:10,260 --> 00:07:15,310
But in any scenario, there is some court, some element of carbon capture and storage.

73
00:07:15,310 --> 00:07:20,620
And so the real take home message is that there is no single silver bullet.

74
00:07:20,620 --> 00:07:30,790
And number of these things have to be operate in concert with each other and says, yes, this is an essential ingredient in it.

75
00:07:30,790 --> 00:07:36,730
And it's a bit of a daunting task. It's a doable task, but we have to be aware of the scale of what we're looking at.

76
00:07:36,730 --> 00:07:45,000
So this slide on the left here, it shows CO2 capture and storage in megatons per year.

77
00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:46,180
And we're on the left here.

78
00:07:46,180 --> 00:07:57,430
And in 2020, get my mouth here really at the beginning of this this operation and the different colours are CO2 capture by industry.

79
00:07:57,430 --> 00:08:06,490
So coal power, bioenergy or Becs, iron and steel, cement, gas, power, chemicals, gas processing, refining, pulp and paper.

80
00:08:06,490 --> 00:08:15,190
So a whole range of of industries that are emitting high emitters of CO2, we need to capture that CO2 and do something with it.

81
00:08:15,190 --> 00:08:20,590
And you can see the scale of what's required to get towards net zero at 2050.

82
00:08:20,590 --> 00:08:31,570
This slide on the right of the left, most infographics shows this broken down by, oh, ECD versus Nano ECD countries.

83
00:08:31,570 --> 00:08:39,010
You can see as we move forward, this has to more and more involve the entire earth, not just the countries.

84
00:08:39,010 --> 00:08:44,560
The graph on the on the right, again, shows the scale of what we're looking at in 2020.

85
00:08:44,560 --> 00:08:49,450
We've captured 40 megatons per year. That's what we're capturing.

86
00:08:49,450 --> 00:08:53,410
And by 2050, we have to be at these tours of magnitude higher.

87
00:08:53,410 --> 00:08:59,830
And the amount of capturing and again, the different symbols and colours here show the wide range of industries.

88
00:08:59,830 --> 00:09:04,920
And one of these. Shown on here is is actually direct air capture and storage.

89
00:09:04,920 --> 00:09:11,590
As as Tim Kruger talked to. This is his seminar a few few weeks ago.

90
00:09:11,590 --> 00:09:15,280
And this just illustrates this again. These are a bit difficult to read.

91
00:09:15,280 --> 00:09:16,750
The small fingers on the left here.

92
00:09:16,750 --> 00:09:25,960
But essentially, these are different types of industry from natural gas processing, fertiliser production, all the way up to cement production.

93
00:09:25,960 --> 00:09:29,890
And you can see back here in the 70s, really,

94
00:09:29,890 --> 00:09:37,000
CO2 capture is being used primarily by the oil and gas industry for processing and even enhanced oil recovery.

95
00:09:37,000 --> 00:09:46,940
And as we move forward from 2020, we have to we have to cover a lot more industries in this than this quest.

96
00:09:46,940 --> 00:09:53,180
So what are we looking at? Really, quite simply. So there's this sort of four stages really.

97
00:09:53,180 --> 00:09:57,920
We have to, first of all, capture the CO2 and that's not really what we're going to talk about so much.

98
00:09:57,920 --> 00:10:08,270
This this can be captured from biomass or fossil fuel powered power stations, industrial facilities, or even directly capture from the air.

99
00:10:08,270 --> 00:10:16,050
Then when you've got that CO2, what do you do with it? Well, it can be used as feedstock in services and other industries.

100
00:10:16,050 --> 00:10:19,730
More we're interested in what are talking about is actually transporting it to a

101
00:10:19,730 --> 00:10:24,770
spot where we're going to sequester it in the subsurface or on the right here.

102
00:10:24,770 --> 00:10:33,020
The transport can be, if we're lucky, it's a short distance, but sometimes we have to pipe the CO2 or ship it or send it by road and rail.

103
00:10:33,020 --> 00:10:39,260
And this challenge is there. And then when we start to sequester or store it and injected underground,

104
00:10:39,260 --> 00:10:45,800
we can put it into a range of areas, salines, formations, depleted oil and gas fields.

105
00:10:45,800 --> 00:10:50,660
The oil industry for some time now is used that CO2 to enhance oil recovery.

106
00:10:50,660 --> 00:11:01,340
So basically to make once you've got an existing oil and gas field to make it more efficient, it can be injected into coal beds to produce methane.

107
00:11:01,340 --> 00:11:05,780
And it also can be injected into other rock formations to react with the rock.

108
00:11:05,780 --> 00:11:14,720
And what we're primarily going to talk about in this today is really these talk to injecting into sideline formations and depleted oil and gas fields.

109
00:11:14,720 --> 00:11:19,400
So here's here's a graphics. This can be done a graphical description of that.

110
00:11:19,400 --> 00:11:26,240
This can be done offshore. So, for example, an offshore rig could be producing natural gas.

111
00:11:26,240 --> 00:11:36,050
That's rich in CO2. The CO2 get extracted from it and then it can get injected back into depleted oilfields or saline aquifers.

112
00:11:36,050 --> 00:11:44,150
Same process can be done on land. And as I said, it can also be injected into shallower coal formations where we don't mind the coal,

113
00:11:44,150 --> 00:11:51,970
but we take the methane out as the coal reacts with the CO2.

114
00:11:51,970 --> 00:11:56,080
Here's an example. This is the world's first commercial CCW project.

115
00:11:56,080 --> 00:12:09,400
It's called Aqua Store and it's based in southern Saskatchewan. In Canada, a the SS Powers Boundary Dam power plant is shown here on the right.

116
00:12:09,400 --> 00:12:13,690
The CO2 it is is captured. It's a coal power plant.

117
00:12:13,690 --> 00:12:16,270
And the CO2 it produces is captured.

118
00:12:16,270 --> 00:12:24,910
And then it's piped along this red line a few kilometres away to a field, a wellhead where it's injected deep into the earth.

119
00:12:24,910 --> 00:12:26,020
And if you look on the left,

120
00:12:26,020 --> 00:12:35,530
you can see the stratigraphy of the formations that the the pass through en route to where the CO2 is finally sequestered.

121
00:12:35,530 --> 00:12:41,770
So it's looking at depths of three kilometres, going through numerous different stratigraphic formations,

122
00:12:41,770 --> 00:12:48,940
saline aquifers, existing oil, gas reservoirs. And these these reservoirs have existed for hundreds and billions of years.

123
00:12:48,940 --> 00:12:57,940
So we expect the CO2 to stay secure in this this very, very deep reservoir where it's injected.

124
00:12:57,940 --> 00:13:08,750
One of the interesting aspects of this and one of the challenges really in CCF is that today there's not been that much CO2,

125
00:13:08,750 --> 00:13:13,240
but it's been very successfully injected, but not the volumes of not being.

126
00:13:13,240 --> 00:13:20,180
But they really wanted and that's because CO2 is such a valuable resource for other other industries.

127
00:13:20,180 --> 00:13:28,840
They gain one of the economic challenges. So how do how do we ensure that the CO2 is trapped in geologic formations?

128
00:13:28,840 --> 00:13:35,170
Well, first of all, it's not we breathe out CO2 and it's very light.

129
00:13:35,170 --> 00:13:41,710
And in a gas form. But we inject it deep in the earth in what's called a supercritical state.

130
00:13:41,710 --> 00:13:50,470
So it's like a liquid and it can flow through that formation, finding gaps, nooks and crannies to store itself.

131
00:13:50,470 --> 00:13:57,280
It's important to recognise that we're not injecting this CO2 into large swimming pool like storage cabins,

132
00:13:57,280 --> 00:14:01,630
rejecting into rocks that are a bit like dense sponges.

133
00:14:01,630 --> 00:14:07,720
And they're both permeable Permian permeable and porous. And they hold can hold a lot of fluids.

134
00:14:07,720 --> 00:14:11,770
So we need, first of all, some sort of trapping mechanism.

135
00:14:11,770 --> 00:14:17,770
And these are well known for for water reservoirs, saline aquifers, oil and gas reservoirs.

136
00:14:17,770 --> 00:14:24,250
You need a good porous storage rock and then you need an impermeable, impermeable capping rock.

137
00:14:24,250 --> 00:14:33,430
And this could be brought about by structural highs or it could be due to the juxtaposition of one type of geology against the other.

138
00:14:33,430 --> 00:14:45,220
For example, across the fault that we get what are called residual trapping mechanisms as the as the CO2 moves through these formations,

139
00:14:45,220 --> 00:14:54,700
the rock matrix. Some of it gets just trapped behind. We get solubility trapping where the CO2 reacts with the fluids as it moves through.

140
00:14:54,700 --> 00:15:00,600
And then finally, we can get mineral trapping where the CO2 actually reacts with the rock itself.

141
00:15:00,600 --> 00:15:05,200
And so it's important to remember, actually, that there are lots of natural CO2 reservoirs.

142
00:15:05,200 --> 00:15:15,360
The Earth has produced through its time the very large reservoirs of CO2, which historically have been drilled for use in an industry.

143
00:15:15,360 --> 00:15:20,820
So so once we get it back into the Earth, we expect it to stay there.

144
00:15:20,820 --> 00:15:25,700
So the key ingredients to secure a CO2 storage, first of all, we need to have enough space.

145
00:15:25,700 --> 00:15:32,700
And Joe is going to talk a little bit about that. We need to, Veltz, inject the CO2 into the reservoir as a suitable injection rates.

146
00:15:32,700 --> 00:15:38,250
And Tom, Tom's going to discuss a bit of that. We want to store it securely.

147
00:15:38,250 --> 00:15:44,670
We want to make sure it doesn't breach the containment reservoir that it's in.

148
00:15:44,670 --> 00:15:50,430
And we want to be at a depth where we're injecting in supercritical state and territory to do this properly.

149
00:15:50,430 --> 00:16:00,890
It requires us to model what's going to happen, monitor and then verify that it's there and not just immediately, but for for for many years forward.

150
00:16:00,890 --> 00:16:05,570
That's that's a lot of what our research is on as these these aspects.

151
00:16:05,570 --> 00:16:13,470
So I'll just show you an example where this has worked quite well. This is the Wayburn Mitel CCW project here.

152
00:16:13,470 --> 00:16:22,410
CO2 is to gain in southern Saskatchewan and Canada. CO2 came from a coal gasification plant in Beulah, North Dakota.

153
00:16:22,410 --> 00:16:28,590
And it was piped over 200 kilometres across the US Canada border to Wayburn.

154
00:16:28,590 --> 00:16:34,200
And it was injected to a depth of nearly three kilometres in the Wayburn Mitel field.

155
00:16:34,200 --> 00:16:39,690
This is an old oil and gas field that's been in production since the late 1950s,

156
00:16:39,690 --> 00:16:47,770
had nearly 44 million tons of CO2 has been stored since this project started.

157
00:16:47,770 --> 00:16:54,000
This is equivalent to emissions from a half a million cars per year.

158
00:16:54,000 --> 00:16:59,880
Another side is in Algeria. This is the solid Kretschmer Field.

159
00:16:59,880 --> 00:17:05,640
This is the third largest gas field in Algeria, which is a very large oil and gas producing country.

160
00:17:05,640 --> 00:17:15,240
And here this gas is very rich in CO2. So the CO2 is captured and then injected into the water leg of the formation here.

161
00:17:15,240 --> 00:17:19,260
It wasn't quite as smooth as as the waiver model example.

162
00:17:19,260 --> 00:17:28,230
Those issues with permeability and connexion between the water and the gas like and see CO2 injection in this field is stopped.

163
00:17:28,230 --> 00:17:33,360
But still four million tons of CO2 have been stored in this reservoir.

164
00:17:33,360 --> 00:17:39,960
Here's a map of current the current state of affairs in terms of carbon capture and storage.

165
00:17:39,960 --> 00:17:48,840
Red commercial CCW facilities in operation. Are construction blue or those development pinker ones where operations have been

166
00:17:48,840 --> 00:17:53,680
suspended because of economic and political factors heavily influenced this.

167
00:17:53,680 --> 00:17:57,960
A few years ago, we saw a bit of a downturn in CCE activities.

168
00:17:57,960 --> 00:18:04,650
Fortunately, things are picking up. Boy, you can see from this map is really dominated by North America,

169
00:18:04,650 --> 00:18:10,140
Western Europe to some extent, Eastern Asia, a bit of Australia and the Middle East.

170
00:18:10,140 --> 00:18:22,530
But really, as I said in the introduction, we need this to start CCF, CPS operations across the world, actually, in terms of European projects.

171
00:18:22,530 --> 00:18:28,680
One of the most high profile ones right now is on the right here, the the Norwegian Northern Lights Project,

172
00:18:28,680 --> 00:18:37,890
which is the consortium of joint industry project that will inject CO2 into a field in the North Sea.

173
00:18:37,890 --> 00:18:44,580
And this will take CO2 from a whole range of sources around this region in the UK.

174
00:18:44,580 --> 00:18:47,670
The UK government has been investing very heavily in projects.

175
00:18:47,670 --> 00:18:54,660
One is the net zero side where this will be the world's first zero carbon industrial hub.

176
00:18:54,660 --> 00:19:00,570
By 2030, the CO2 will be captured from a range of industries, including hydrogen production,

177
00:19:00,570 --> 00:19:10,350
and then piped off shore either to as far as the Northern Lights site, but also to the endurance site, which I haven't accurately put where that is.

178
00:19:10,350 --> 00:19:18,060
But that's roughly where it is. The endurance site where I'll be injected and the subsurface in this area.

179
00:19:18,060 --> 00:19:28,650
Some of the projects that we're involved with here in Oxford, for example, are are funded through accelerating CBS U.S. Technology ACTC programme.

180
00:19:28,650 --> 00:19:35,250
One is called Digimon, which is looking at new digital monitoring solutions for CO2 storage sites.

181
00:19:35,250 --> 00:19:45,090
And one that's under consideration right now is Consortium, a collaboration of countries around the North Sea looking at the effects of stress,

182
00:19:45,090 --> 00:19:51,900
history and GM mechanics to reduce risk in these sort of in any of these storage sites.

183
00:19:51,900 --> 00:19:57,600
So at this stage, just, you know, the take home message is basically to prove proof of concepts have been established.

184
00:19:57,600 --> 00:20:07,380
And what's really need is an urgent need to scale things up. And we also urgently need to start diversifying industrial complication, for example,

185
00:20:07,380 --> 00:20:13,920
you know, addressing the use of coking coal in mining as a good example.

186
00:20:13,920 --> 00:20:17,310
We feel that we need to collaborate with the oil and gas industry.

187
00:20:17,310 --> 00:20:25,560
They have the experience, the knowledge and the technology to to to do this on a commercial scale.

188
00:20:25,560 --> 00:20:33,750
And upfront research and development is really required just to make sure that we know dearest things as much as possible.

189
00:20:33,750 --> 00:20:42,420
So that I'm going to hand over to Joe Cartwright, who's going to talk about the next the next section.

190
00:20:42,420 --> 00:20:49,650
Thanks, Mike. So as as Mike mentioned in his introduction, there are two principal options at the moment.

191
00:20:49,650 --> 00:20:55,010
There are others, but we are focussing on these two.

192
00:20:55,010 --> 00:21:00,570
So line aquifer's on the left, graphic and depleted oil and gas fields on the right.

193
00:21:00,570 --> 00:21:04,140
So little bit of simple geology for you.

194
00:21:04,140 --> 00:21:14,040
The salen aquifers different from the depleted oil and gas fields in as much as it hasn't had oil or gas produced from that aquifer,

195
00:21:14,040 --> 00:21:19,260
aquifer and reservoir, a sort of synonyms for the purposes of this talk.

196
00:21:19,260 --> 00:21:26,730
And reservoirs, aquifers are porous rocks, as Mike said, with the additional property that they have good permeability,

197
00:21:26,730 --> 00:21:31,650
the ability of fluids to flow through them in the right kind of timescales.

198
00:21:31,650 --> 00:21:36,750
You also need to have rEU good Caprock, as Mike has mentioned.

199
00:21:36,750 --> 00:21:41,970
So the main difference then between the left and the right hand cross sections looking

200
00:21:41,970 --> 00:21:46,710
down there is the depth at which we're injecting in the depleted oil and gas fields.

201
00:21:46,710 --> 00:21:52,200
It tends to be deeper in that particular example from southern France, onshore southern France.

202
00:21:52,200 --> 00:22:00,570
The oil and gas field was in a highly faulted region, very structurally deformed, and was at a depth of 4000 metres.

203
00:22:00,570 --> 00:22:08,910
Whereas on the left, your schematic there gives a typical shallow, say, an aquifer at a depth of about a thousand metres.

204
00:22:08,910 --> 00:22:14,310
And what you need then is the right geological context, proximity to the emitters.

205
00:22:14,310 --> 00:22:17,610
You need loads of data to characterise your site.

206
00:22:17,610 --> 00:22:25,830
And it's helpful if you've already got a lot of hardware in place, existing wells, pipelines, other infrastructure.

207
00:22:25,830 --> 00:22:31,320
Those will all be factored into the the final validity of viability of a project.

208
00:22:31,320 --> 00:22:34,020
Next one, please. My.

209
00:22:34,020 --> 00:22:43,410
So just to be clear about what porosity is and permeability, these are the two main requirements for a reservoir, for a storage site.

210
00:22:43,410 --> 00:22:48,300
And that picture on the left is a picture of some sand grains in a sandstone.

211
00:22:48,300 --> 00:22:54,090
So that would be a typical ethology in a reservoir. And the grains are typically about a millimetre in diameter.

212
00:22:54,090 --> 00:23:00,510
And the image on the right is a thin section. So that's a slice through the rock that's viewed under a microscope.

213
00:23:00,510 --> 00:23:04,800
The grains are white, quite rounded, elliptical in shape.

214
00:23:04,800 --> 00:23:11,760
And the blue is the poor space. And that is void space through which the CO2 will flow.

215
00:23:11,760 --> 00:23:23,100
But it will have to displace water as it does. It's typically this void space, 30 percent to down to 10 in the target range of one to three.

216
00:23:23,100 --> 00:23:30,570
The void space decreases downwards. So the shallower ones, shallower sites have better pore space.

217
00:23:30,570 --> 00:23:39,210
The deeper ones, lower pore space, which also is a factor to be weighed up in choosing which kind of target depth to aim for.

218
00:23:39,210 --> 00:23:43,770
And importantly, the void geometry defines the permeability.

219
00:23:43,770 --> 00:23:53,610
So it's the ability of the fluids to flow through these tiny little nooks and crannies which controls the ability to get the CO2 into the formation.

220
00:23:53,610 --> 00:23:57,550
And I can illustrate that on the next slide.

221
00:23:57,550 --> 00:24:07,900
With a couple of images from current research, this is an area of active research to define the physical properties of potential storage reservoirs,

222
00:24:07,900 --> 00:24:16,930
we can use X-ray tomography on our reservoir samples if we are able to access them from pre-existing boreholes.

223
00:24:16,930 --> 00:24:21,910
And that allows a stand to compute the poor space and how it interconnects.

224
00:24:21,910 --> 00:24:31,380
So A is a picture of the Tomáš gram of the grains and B is an image computer reconstructed image of the poor space and bottom right.

225
00:24:31,380 --> 00:24:35,530
You can see the fluid flow path through a typical sandstone reservoir.

226
00:24:35,530 --> 00:24:43,240
The ball's there being the grains of sand. And then those arrows, curvilinear arrows, are the the fluid flowing through that.

227
00:24:43,240 --> 00:24:54,370
So with these kinds of computer assisted techniques, we can predict a great deal about the reservoir performance under a CO2 injection experiment.

228
00:24:54,370 --> 00:25:02,070
And that's exactly what people are doing. Next one, please. So depleted oil and gas fields.

229
00:25:02,070 --> 00:25:08,190
Well, as the term suggests, they are sites of former oil or gas exploitation.

230
00:25:08,190 --> 00:25:14,340
There will be plenty of boreholes. There will be an awful lot of data because oil and gas fields require a lot of investment.

231
00:25:14,340 --> 00:25:19,560
So huge amounts of data is is acquired prior to drilling those.

232
00:25:19,560 --> 00:25:26,700
And that sort of database is essential to really characterise a site underground to dispose of CO2.

233
00:25:26,700 --> 00:25:31,470
So you can take that box, you'll have loads of data. It'll be close to pipelines.

234
00:25:31,470 --> 00:25:33,600
There'll be infrastructure in place.

235
00:25:33,600 --> 00:25:43,350
And these huge databases of wells, core and seismic, will reassure folks that we've characterised the reservoir and its geological context.

236
00:25:43,350 --> 00:25:46,590
In addition, though, you also get production history.

237
00:25:46,590 --> 00:25:53,880
We know how the reservoir will have behaved over the lifespan of the field, which may well have been 30 to 40 years.

238
00:25:53,880 --> 00:25:56,790
And that gives added input into models.

239
00:25:56,790 --> 00:26:06,350
Predicting how it will behave on the CO2 injection gives a really firm constraint on the likely injectivity history.

240
00:26:06,350 --> 00:26:10,700
On the slight negative side, these oil and gas fields are often deep.

241
00:26:10,700 --> 00:26:16,730
They're structurally deformed. They have higher in situ formation pressures.

242
00:26:16,730 --> 00:26:21,950
And they may well be faults, as in this example from southern Australia.

243
00:26:21,950 --> 00:26:27,950
They will also have lower porosity and permeability and therefore lower storage capacity.

244
00:26:27,950 --> 00:26:34,250
So all these factors need to be weighed up when choosing what type of geological option to go for.

245
00:26:34,250 --> 00:26:40,040
Incidentally, this one was onshore in the state of Victoria and South Australia,

246
00:26:40,040 --> 00:26:47,060
and there was a great deal of collaboration between all the stakeholders and the company responsible for disposing of this CO2.

247
00:26:47,060 --> 00:26:52,070
So it was as much a success from a stakeholder involvement,

248
00:26:52,070 --> 00:26:58,400
from a transparency point of view as it was from a technical point of view, but relatively small amounts.

249
00:26:58,400 --> 00:27:05,240
Only tens of thousands of kilotons were stored in the period during which this project was in operation.

250
00:27:05,240 --> 00:27:15,690
Next one, please. So very briefly, a global look here at some very large numbers view these are millions of tons.

251
00:27:15,690 --> 00:27:21,420
And this is the calculated storage capacity for depleted oil and gas fields.

252
00:27:21,420 --> 00:27:30,240
But scale that up by at least an order of magnitude, if not to, for the storage capacity in shallow salines, aquifers.

253
00:27:30,240 --> 00:27:41,980
On the next slide, you'll see. The calculated storage capacity for sale on aquifers in the conterminous United States,

254
00:27:41,980 --> 00:27:47,680
the 48 states, and you can see that the total number there is about 100 gigatons.

255
00:27:47,680 --> 00:27:57,250
Thinking back to the requirement to store a trillion tonnes, then the US can potentially store a really serious fraction of that.

256
00:27:57,250 --> 00:28:02,050
So huge amounts of geological investigation has gone into calculating these numbers.

257
00:28:02,050 --> 00:28:07,330
But the ability to do so has largely benefited from the fact that there's been a huge

258
00:28:07,330 --> 00:28:13,540
amount of oil and gas exploration in these very same areas over the last century,

259
00:28:13,540 --> 00:28:25,850
actually in the United States. Next one, please. So back in our own backyard here off of the North Sea bass and off the east coast of the U.K.,

260
00:28:25,850 --> 00:28:33,980
huge number of potential storage sites documented by the BGA s of a variety of types,

261
00:28:33,980 --> 00:28:39,230
both the depleted fields and the sideline aquifers in the different symbols there.

262
00:28:39,230 --> 00:28:44,030
And with the ability to store thousands and thousands of megatons.

263
00:28:44,030 --> 00:28:52,520
So the shallow sale on aquifers in particular give us great optimism for our capabilities of storing serious quantities.

264
00:28:52,520 --> 00:29:03,910
Next slide. And if we look at the North Sea, it out also has one of the longest running, if not the long,

265
00:29:03,910 --> 00:29:08,590
longest running project, CO2 injection project, which is the slight in a field.

266
00:29:08,590 --> 00:29:12,080
So I'll spend a few minutes talking about that.

267
00:29:12,080 --> 00:29:22,000
It's stored at a depth of about 800 to 1000 metres in a sandstone reservoir, which is deposited over a huge area of the central North Sea.

268
00:29:22,000 --> 00:29:26,470
And it's stored around about 20 megatons at the moment.

269
00:29:26,470 --> 00:29:32,940
And about one million tonnes per annum. Next slide, please.

270
00:29:32,940 --> 00:29:42,160
And that's the kind of graphic showing exactly what's envisaged here in this sort of operation from a platform, a pre-existing oil and gas platform.

271
00:29:42,160 --> 00:29:48,820
One of the boreholes has gone down and injected CO2 targeted that you'd see the formation where

272
00:29:48,820 --> 00:29:55,990
you can see the plume in those little blue cylinders feeding the layers of the reservoir in red.

273
00:29:55,990 --> 00:30:04,000
And that plume has been expanding and has been monitored over the last 20, 20 years or so at about one megatons per annum.

274
00:30:04,000 --> 00:30:08,410
So this has huge storage capacity. It's geologically young and very simple.

275
00:30:08,410 --> 00:30:10,930
So it has predictable behaviour.

276
00:30:10,930 --> 00:30:18,640
And the shallow means that there's relatively low injection pressures, which reduces the risk of anything going wrong on injection.

277
00:30:18,640 --> 00:30:21,980
And there are very few faults around this particular neck of the woods.

278
00:30:21,980 --> 00:30:27,220
So that's another added advantage. Next one, please.

279
00:30:27,220 --> 00:30:31,130
And this is a geological cross section of that reservoir that you'd see your

280
00:30:31,130 --> 00:30:36,360
Issan sitting at about 800 metres depth in the centre of that cross section.

281
00:30:36,360 --> 00:30:38,790
The panels about 100 kilometres across.

282
00:30:38,790 --> 00:30:46,010
So straightaway you can see from those boreholes which calibrate the position of that reservoir and give us his properties.

283
00:30:46,010 --> 00:30:52,950
You can see it's a laterally extensive reservoir, which is a big plus for shallow sailin aquifers.

284
00:30:52,950 --> 00:31:00,150
They're generally really large in their aerial extent and therefore large in their storage capacity.

285
00:31:00,150 --> 00:31:09,590
Next one, please. And another essential ingredient to make this work is, of course, data availability.

286
00:31:09,590 --> 00:31:18,890
It will be really, really difficult to mount CO2 injection into the subsurface unless you have a huge amount of seismic data.

287
00:31:18,890 --> 00:31:29,180
And this image here is one such seismic profile from the area of the slightness field showing the CO2 plume on the bottom right of that image.

288
00:31:29,180 --> 00:31:38,870
And just in case you've not encountered one of these seismic profile is like having a a scan through the Earth equivalent to a sort of a C.T. scan.

289
00:31:38,870 --> 00:31:47,390
And we're able to record the geological layering. And you can see geological features, including the very bright reflections.

290
00:31:47,390 --> 00:31:54,140
Those are those bright colours in the bottom right, which are a manifestation of the actual injected CO2.

291
00:31:54,140 --> 00:31:57,050
So you are physically using the seismic data.

292
00:31:57,050 --> 00:32:05,180
We can plot the best site to locate the injection wells and we can eliminate the risk or mitigate the risk,

293
00:32:05,180 --> 00:32:14,720
reduce the risk of any of the CO2 leaking by increasing our geological knowledge of the overburden rocks and documenting all of the features.

294
00:32:14,720 --> 00:32:18,620
And those some of those are labelled there in that image.

295
00:32:18,620 --> 00:32:27,680
And furthermore, we can repeat the seismic experiment every few years and monitor precisely how the CO2 is moving in the subsurface.

296
00:32:27,680 --> 00:32:33,020
And on the next slide, you can see exactly that.

297
00:32:33,020 --> 00:32:39,530
So those are repeat seismic images taken from the slightness injection site through time,

298
00:32:39,530 --> 00:32:46,520
through the history of the project, showing in the bottom image, the vertical cross section through the injection.

299
00:32:46,520 --> 00:32:55,490
And you can see how that changes year on year. And that's the CO2 plume migrating, ascending, spreading laterally.

300
00:32:55,490 --> 00:33:02,990
And that's capture very graphically in the image at the top, which shows in a map form the expansion of the plume.

301
00:33:02,990 --> 00:33:08,150
And those colours represent the intensity of the CO2 injected.

302
00:33:08,150 --> 00:33:15,050
So the seismic capability allows us to monitor really rather precisely how the CO2 is moving.

303
00:33:15,050 --> 00:33:25,100
In addition to preconditioning the optimal place for risking the site appropriately and within regulatory boundary conditions.

304
00:33:25,100 --> 00:33:32,300
Next one, please. And I should say that in reflecting back on the availability of data, really,

305
00:33:32,300 --> 00:33:37,400
the oil industry has invested huge amounts because it's a commercial enterprise.

306
00:33:37,400 --> 00:33:45,650
But then the CO2 injection industry to follow will benefit from legacy data, which amounts to trillions of dollars in value.

307
00:33:45,650 --> 00:33:53,000
So I think we start from a very strong position about knowing our subsurface and geological knowledge.

308
00:33:53,000 --> 00:34:01,190
As I show you, hope, hopefully, as I've shown you, is absolutely vital for characterising both the reservoir and the seal.

309
00:34:01,190 --> 00:34:09,620
But I'm sure that Tom will expand much more on some of these topics and also point out some of the pitfalls, because we have to be aware of those.

310
00:34:09,620 --> 00:34:13,930
So over to you, Tom. Thanks.

311
00:34:13,930 --> 00:34:25,090
Thanks. Yeah. So, yeah, we are going to be discussing the risks and the challenges as mikes of grew up and as Mike and Joe really nicely teed up,

312
00:34:25,090 --> 00:34:31,210
what I'm going to discuss here. So next slide.

313
00:34:31,210 --> 00:34:34,780
So I'm going to be discussing make many just five points pretty much.

314
00:34:34,780 --> 00:34:38,470
And and like I said, making Joseph touched on these.

315
00:34:38,470 --> 00:34:43,180
So we're going to wear the injectivity defamer, those in just a second. The induced seismicity.

316
00:34:43,180 --> 00:34:49,390
So the earthquakes, you may generate that small tremors, maybe the leakage risk.

317
00:34:49,390 --> 00:34:55,990
How to monitor these sites in it? A little more detail. But I you sort of summarising how much monitoring it does take.

318
00:34:55,990 --> 00:35:02,330
And then it's of roughly touching on the costs and scaling up as well. So next slide.

319
00:35:02,330 --> 00:35:09,200
So first off, this injectivity following on from what Joe was talking about in terms of the porosity and permeability of the formations.

320
00:35:09,200 --> 00:35:15,530
Injectivity is simply how much Ray and volumes. Can you actually inject into the reservoir?

321
00:35:15,530 --> 00:35:20,780
Once you've Gerrold the well and once you've characterised everything. So is this in this schematic on the right.

322
00:35:20,780 --> 00:35:24,760
Is this little animation saying I wish. Can you actually supply.

323
00:35:24,760 --> 00:35:32,090
And that actually as Mike sort of touched one in a necklace store and other sites that you delivered to the C.A.T.,

324
00:35:32,090 --> 00:35:35,920
you can be a real pinch point that you actually see.

325
00:35:35,920 --> 00:35:39,860
It was very difficult to acquire due to the just the demand for it from enhanced

326
00:35:39,860 --> 00:35:44,690
or recovery than other things that can affect the reservoir performance.

327
00:35:44,690 --> 00:35:45,330
The injectivity,

328
00:35:45,330 --> 00:35:54,980
which says the reservoir performance about these these things are going on in this in the reservoir as you're trying to actually put the CO2 in place.

329
00:35:54,980 --> 00:35:59,690
Some examples area from slightness. The initial injection rates are actually 10 percent of that.

330
00:35:59,690 --> 00:36:06,680
What they wanted to say or any on the order of a few hundred kilotons is peaceful megaton per year due to sand intruding into the well.

331
00:36:06,680 --> 00:36:13,280
So the sand screens, as a result of putting CO2 into the reservoir, are reacting to that CO2.

332
00:36:13,280 --> 00:36:20,270
And then in Suva, another North Sea NBCC rays were the geological barriers.

333
00:36:20,270 --> 00:36:25,370
The pressure was building up. The CO2 was migrating through the rock and then hitting a geological barrier.

334
00:36:25,370 --> 00:36:28,970
And the reservoir was more compartmentalised than they originally imagined.

335
00:36:28,970 --> 00:36:34,520
And that led to pressure differences that they had to then adapt and work around.

336
00:36:34,520 --> 00:36:38,360
But it's still limited. The injectivity and like Joe said,

337
00:36:38,360 --> 00:36:47,300
is this poor scale behaviour of the way the chemical reactions can occur between the CO2 and the rock and the reservoir rock itself,

338
00:36:47,300 --> 00:36:50,960
which can limit the permeability or change the permeability throughout the injection.

339
00:36:50,960 --> 00:36:58,130
One of these is so precipitation, like so precipitating in the formation itself as a result of the CO2 near the well.

340
00:36:58,130 --> 00:37:04,160
Thermal effects can also change the permeability as well as a result of your pumping cold CO2 into a relatively

341
00:37:04,160 --> 00:37:11,780
warm reservoir that can fracture the rock and cause contraction and that can change the how much you can inject.

342
00:37:11,780 --> 00:37:16,400
So all of these are tiny, dependent problems which affect the reservoir pressure.

343
00:37:16,400 --> 00:37:22,700
So you can see on that thing you have this bottom hole pressure. PVH and these things change with time and the amount that you can inject.

344
00:37:22,700 --> 00:37:28,010
And you have to constantly monitor these things in response and look at the response of the reservoir.

345
00:37:28,010 --> 00:37:33,020
So next slide. Moving on to induce those mistakes.

346
00:37:33,020 --> 00:37:39,140
This is their full activation or so of putting fluid into the ground, putting the CO2 into the ground.

347
00:37:39,140 --> 00:37:43,790
And so within the reservoirs of near where you're actually putting all of that CO2 in place,

348
00:37:43,790 --> 00:37:52,400
you're increasing the pressure by putting more fluid in and that can cause Foltz to be reactivated or actually meeting that increased pressure.

349
00:37:52,400 --> 00:37:59,060
But a more distant go, you're increasing that reservoir of pressure that can actually act to inflate a functionally the reservoir.

350
00:37:59,060 --> 00:38:05,660
And that the rocks of the reservoir pushing against the surrounding rocks can induce what's called a poor or elastic effect,

351
00:38:05,660 --> 00:38:10,670
where the stress change in the reservoir is propagating further outside of the reservoir.

352
00:38:10,670 --> 00:38:18,410
And that can also activate folks as well. But when you actually inject any kind of fluid into the subsurface, you get some amount of seismicity.

353
00:38:18,410 --> 00:38:23,810
And most of the time this is quite small. You can cannot be felt on the surface called micro seismic events.

354
00:38:23,810 --> 00:38:29,230
That cannot be felt. It usually acts as quite helpful diagnostic to look at where fluids and propagating or

355
00:38:29,230 --> 00:38:33,350
where fractures are moving and things like fractures are opening and things like that.

356
00:38:33,350 --> 00:38:39,620
Well, see, when the event starts then fell and he said become larger. That can inhibit many operations as it has in the past.

357
00:38:39,620 --> 00:38:45,570
And so one example on the right is a can store the gas storage projects on the off the coast of Spain.

358
00:38:45,570 --> 00:38:48,260
It's around 20 kilometres offshore. You see the macro.

359
00:38:48,260 --> 00:38:53,250
This is a seismic has it not been in in a region which it doesn't have a lot of seismic has if they if you will,

360
00:38:53,250 --> 00:38:56,790
put this gas storage product here and only a few weeks,

361
00:38:56,790 --> 00:39:02,660
tens and tens of days into the injection programme, they start to get larger and larger seismic events above two,

362
00:39:02,660 --> 00:39:07,460
which is two, is roughly where you can start to feel events on the surface to three.

363
00:39:07,460 --> 00:39:11,660
And then and then it would go out to four and a half. These were widely felt across these towns.

364
00:39:11,660 --> 00:39:20,360
Next to the site. And that was that put an end to the project and as a result of this full activation as they were storing gas.

365
00:39:20,360 --> 00:39:27,880
And another example is, as Steve mentioned, the beginning is the Blackpool hydraulic fracturing in press.

366
00:39:27,880 --> 00:39:32,220
The new road in it last year even put a stop to the hydraulic fracturing operations there.

367
00:39:32,220 --> 00:39:38,990
And now and now, the government has imposed a moratorium on drilling fracturing as a result of the seismicity concerns.

368
00:39:38,990 --> 00:39:43,850
So clearly, full activation is a big risk to social social licence.

369
00:39:43,850 --> 00:39:47,930
You want people to support the project you want. You want people to understand why you're doing it.

370
00:39:47,930 --> 00:39:55,940
And you want people to be not disturbed by it. And for information can also be a big risk to the wellbore integrity.

371
00:39:55,940 --> 00:40:03,110
So it is a result of folks slipping. You can do stress changes which may cause the well to be damaged.

372
00:40:03,110 --> 00:40:09,980
And we obviously want to make sure we're keeping the well in perfect condition and to inject CO2 as safely as possible.

373
00:40:09,980 --> 00:40:13,340
And another risk is from this induced seismicity cases.

374
00:40:13,340 --> 00:40:21,260
If a fault passes through that structural seal that we've discussed for the last in the last you talk some and it's reactivated,

375
00:40:21,260 --> 00:40:30,660
it can potentially act as a hydraulic conduit. It can allow fluid to flow through it and then potentially be a risk to reservoir integrity.

376
00:40:30,660 --> 00:40:40,830
So next light. So this as I move it, going onto that potential leakage risk.

377
00:40:40,830 --> 00:40:47,240
You can have this seal rupture where fluids are able to pass through that structure as CEOs throws a few things.

378
00:40:47,240 --> 00:40:56,310
So full activation, as I just said, the development of fractures and in is natural fractures may exist in that structure will seal.

379
00:40:56,310 --> 00:41:02,220
Again, natural fractures that may result in that structure of a seal.

380
00:41:02,220 --> 00:41:10,170
But then ah then ah. So activate it in a sense by by the introduction of CO2 and then allow fluid to flow for them.

381
00:41:10,170 --> 00:41:18,000
Or potentially then that compartmentalisation like a set of Snover earlier, that unexpected reservoir pressures that can then lead to see a rupture.

382
00:41:18,000 --> 00:41:26,040
So this is the results of this may lead to deep brines or CO2 breaching that storage complex that you want.

383
00:41:26,040 --> 00:41:31,800
And then in the worst case scenario, I see that up and reaching the sea floor. So these are these deep brines.

384
00:41:31,800 --> 00:41:38,160
These contain heavy metals. And the CO2 itself, you know, would induce if they did reach the sea floor,

385
00:41:38,160 --> 00:41:44,370
rapid changes in fairly localised changes in water, salinity, acidity and temperature.

386
00:41:44,370 --> 00:41:48,120
So that would naturally affect any life that was around then.

387
00:41:48,120 --> 00:41:52,650
And we can see the endurance side here, this blue dot on this map of the North Sea.

388
00:41:52,650 --> 00:41:59,580
This is a water that met the bathymetry. And you can see it in the water depth in this location is in your eyes or 50 metres deep.

389
00:41:59,580 --> 00:42:02,040
And so with this with these shallow waters,

390
00:42:02,040 --> 00:42:09,330
which are would you have life in them if the result of a leak could potentially be could affect a wider area,

391
00:42:09,330 --> 00:42:13,580
as well as sort of the mixing of the oceans in this area?

392
00:42:13,580 --> 00:42:20,650
And really, the whilst experiments are being done and research being done on the effect of CO2 on a CO2 leak,

393
00:42:20,650 --> 00:42:27,030
these effects aren't wholly understood and how they would actually affect a wider system if if a leak did occur.

394
00:42:27,030 --> 00:42:34,640
How it affect the whole of the areas is not widely understood. So next slide.

395
00:42:34,640 --> 00:42:37,280
And so that kind of brings me on to the to the monitoring challenge.

396
00:42:37,280 --> 00:42:41,510
So if we've got inducers Misty and there's this leakage risk and, you know, how do we how do we detect that?

397
00:42:41,510 --> 00:42:45,280
How do we how do we gather? And as Joe is mentioned and Mike mentioned,

398
00:42:45,280 --> 00:42:52,340
the this GMAC GM mechanical modelling prior to any injection occurring is it is a vast undertaking in itself.

399
00:42:52,340 --> 00:42:56,420
And as Joe mentioned, we've got a lot of data that is going to constrain these models.

400
00:42:56,420 --> 00:43:01,820
But you as you continually inject as you start to inject and as you continue to collect more and more data,

401
00:43:01,820 --> 00:43:08,870
you have to update these models perpetually to update our understanding of how the reservoir is reacting to any kind of injection.

402
00:43:08,870 --> 00:43:14,990
And there are many methods used to do that. So microseismic monitoring, say, looking for small earthquakes to track,

403
00:43:14,990 --> 00:43:19,630
like I said, track the fluid migration or Foat reactivation or anything like that.

404
00:43:19,630 --> 00:43:24,260
Now, fibre optic sensing, so you fibre optic cables are down the well itself,

405
00:43:24,260 --> 00:43:29,300
which can measure strain in the well and as well and as much and temperature as well.

406
00:43:29,300 --> 00:43:39,310
You have these seismic imaging, these reflexion seismic images that Joe mentioned which can look at plume growth and and identify faults,

407
00:43:39,310 --> 00:43:41,330
pre-existing faults prior to operations,

408
00:43:41,330 --> 00:43:48,890
your gravity measurements, which can also track the plane and actually measure tiny adjustments in gravity and see where the plume is going.

409
00:43:48,890 --> 00:43:52,580
And then looking at the geochemistry, the surface water in the flowback geochemistry is.

410
00:43:52,580 --> 00:43:59,330
And then you say that final part I just discussed that in the leakage, we're actually detecting CO2 on the seafloor itself.

411
00:43:59,330 --> 00:44:08,900
And these are also summarise risks of cost benefit plot. But generally, employing a lot of these techniques is a very, very large of,

412
00:44:08,900 --> 00:44:13,210
you know, tens of kilometres square areas is expensive and is and is difficult.

413
00:44:13,210 --> 00:44:21,170
It's technically challenging. And so if we're going to upscale this to hundreds of thousands of reservoirs around the world,

414
00:44:21,170 --> 00:44:24,930
we need to work out what techniques give us the biggest bang for our buck.

415
00:44:24,930 --> 00:44:29,870
What what what do we need to get to a fuller good understanding as we as we require

416
00:44:29,870 --> 00:44:35,450
to ensure reservoir integrity and ensure that we know where the fluid is going?

417
00:44:35,450 --> 00:44:37,730
They waste money, innocence.

418
00:44:37,730 --> 00:44:45,470
And obviously, if we do collect all of this data is very large volumes that they are their own needs to be integrated into one consistent picture.

419
00:44:45,470 --> 00:44:50,300
And that's a tap that is a technical challenge to just have all of that data and try and integrate into what?

420
00:44:50,300 --> 00:44:54,760
Into a single into a single picture. So next.

421
00:44:54,760 --> 00:44:59,870
Q So leaving on just from that point is you can say that this is an expensive task to monitor,

422
00:44:59,870 --> 00:45:07,040
but roughly what kind of scaling up is required for geologic see CO2 storage and how much would that cost?

423
00:45:07,040 --> 00:45:14,960
So we have a global CO2 emissions around around 35 gigatons per year or something like that and put it in the U.K. context,

424
00:45:14,960 --> 00:45:20,240
US 350 megatons per year, approximately. And as Jay mentioned,

425
00:45:20,240 --> 00:45:29,270
a slight married's of successful projects like Wayburn successful injection rate would be something on the order of above one megaton per year.

426
00:45:29,270 --> 00:45:38,030
And so if you just rough back of the envelope calculation, here it is, you need thousands of projects globally to offset all CO2 emissions.

427
00:45:38,030 --> 00:45:41,980
So obviously, that's not that's not a solution. This is not a silver bullet.

428
00:45:41,980 --> 00:45:46,730
To Endou emission and then Endou emissions.

429
00:45:46,730 --> 00:45:49,730
But it needs to be combined with an overall reduction in emissions.

430
00:45:49,730 --> 00:45:54,500
We need to be a much more efficient society and much less polluting society, General.

431
00:45:54,500 --> 00:46:01,850
But this can help offset that. That last part. And then so and to put it back into context is most of our film,

432
00:46:01,850 --> 00:46:11,300
the costs that the endurance site off the coast of the homicide area is around one gigatons of storage,

433
00:46:11,300 --> 00:46:15,260
crusty's around gigaton, probably a bit less than that.

434
00:46:15,260 --> 00:46:21,080
And the cost of CCW as it as it currently stands, is of current estimates are between so 50 to 80 dollars per ton.

435
00:46:21,080 --> 00:46:28,210
That's the entire process of capturing it. Transporting it and then storing it will be around 50 tons per ton.

436
00:46:28,210 --> 00:46:35,000
So, you know, we're talking billions of dollars for the overall project. Millions of dollars per year for each individual project.

437
00:46:35,000 --> 00:46:40,100
And if you then scale up for even more projects to be, you know, naturally even larger, much larger sums.

438
00:46:40,100 --> 00:46:47,220
But consider and just put this in context, the capital investment in offshore oil and gas is something on the order of 30 billion dollars per year.

439
00:46:47,220 --> 00:46:53,000
And so, you know, these aren't massively different scales of spending. So just final slide.

440
00:46:53,000 --> 00:46:59,690
So I think just to end on a really hope on a hopeful note, I've sort of summarised all of the columns to Joe's prove his innocence.

441
00:46:59,690 --> 00:47:06,840
But really, if you go through each of these points, there's a lot there's a lot that we do know and there's a lot of ways that we can solve it.

442
00:47:06,840 --> 00:47:10,910
So for the injectivity, we've learnt a lot from these previous CCE projects,

443
00:47:10,910 --> 00:47:16,400
as well as Orefield management and one hundred and decades and decades of GM mechanics and data

444
00:47:16,400 --> 00:47:21,040
that we have on oil and gas fields and the way rocks behave at depth and how to pump fluid,

445
00:47:21,040 --> 00:47:26,870
how to extract or eject fluids into them. So we have that data and only do so as we see point.

446
00:47:26,870 --> 00:47:32,420
We can identify it through monitoring and modern techniques of forecasting and mitigation.

447
00:47:32,420 --> 00:47:34,760
Practises are being developed and so are possible.

448
00:47:34,760 --> 00:47:41,780
We know that we can work out ways to avoid activating faults and what we can do is try and get around that on the leakage side.

449
00:47:41,780 --> 00:47:47,630
There are many monitoring tools available as well. Those are being developed currently as well by numerous groups and actually

450
00:47:47,630 --> 00:47:52,010
understanding the full effects of the leak on them on the on an eco system.

451
00:47:52,010 --> 00:47:57,110
Because right now they suggest they're quite localised, but the full effects need to be further understood.

452
00:47:57,110 --> 00:48:02,210
But those can be understood through the research. And that's that's ongoing on the monitoring side.

453
00:48:02,210 --> 00:48:07,580
We can streamline that. We can find out what is the most cost effective approach through research as well.

454
00:48:07,580 --> 00:48:12,260
That's what w what we do. Alex food is that our group does in a sense.

455
00:48:12,260 --> 00:48:14,180
And this these big data volumes,

456
00:48:14,180 --> 00:48:19,760
this integrated approach can be helped with modern processing techniques such as machine learning and things like that.

457
00:48:19,760 --> 00:48:25,340
And like I said, the similar risk cost in scale is very similar to that of oil and gas investment and with incentives.

458
00:48:25,340 --> 00:48:31,070
This is an achievable problem. And with the correct with the scaling up the wind patterns,

459
00:48:31,070 --> 00:48:40,310
we are sure that economies of scale will kick in and this thing will get cheaper as you try to as it as this gets developed and used around the world.

460
00:48:40,310 --> 00:48:46,970
So that's that's us. Thank you, Mike and Tom and Joe.

461
00:48:46,970 --> 00:48:50,840
That's fantastic. Let's go to questions now.

462
00:48:50,840 --> 00:48:55,820
I've certainly learnt a lot. I've I've heard a lot of discussion about the urgency of scaling up.

463
00:48:55,820 --> 00:49:02,540
And there are a lot of uncertainties. But it was really interesting to see just a wealth of data that's already out there on carbon storage.

464
00:49:02,540 --> 00:49:09,920
And that I think, Tom, you led us quite nicely to was the most popular question, actually, from Rosalind Ken.

465
00:49:09,920 --> 00:49:14,030
Thank you, Rosalind. Can carbon sequestration be done in time?

466
00:49:14,030 --> 00:49:17,960
I think you indicated that, you know, by some metrics at least,

467
00:49:17,960 --> 00:49:23,540
we're talking about scaling up an industry to the Scott, that to the size of the current oil and gas industry,

468
00:49:23,540 --> 00:49:30,280
essentially from from something that exists but is currently much smaller scale, you know, within just a few short decades.

469
00:49:30,280 --> 00:49:33,590
So. Mike, Joe and Tom,

470
00:49:33,590 --> 00:49:42,770
do you have particular views on whether whether that is genuinely achievable or what was the critical thing to be done if it is to be achieved?

471
00:49:42,770 --> 00:49:47,080
I mean, it's a very good question. I think it is.

472
00:49:47,080 --> 00:49:55,130
It is imminently achievable. I mean, we've done. I mean, Tim Krueger's talking use the analogy of the vaccine.

473
00:49:55,130 --> 00:50:02,450
Very successfully. And we have incredibly quickly. And I think if there's a you know, there's clearly a need for this.

474
00:50:02,450 --> 00:50:07,040
So and I think technologically there's an ability.

475
00:50:07,040 --> 00:50:16,560
So I am confident we can do it if we put the time and resources to.

476
00:50:16,560 --> 00:50:22,140
Jerry, if you've had experience working in the sector yourself, so do you share that view?

477
00:50:22,140 --> 00:50:30,080
Yes, I do. I think we should remember that an awful lot of the oil and gas infrastructure in the world is owned by national governments.

478
00:50:30,080 --> 00:50:39,030
Eighty seven percent. So I'm sure I mean, there are very positive soundings coming from the big oil companies,

479
00:50:39,030 --> 00:50:44,940
but they only represent 13 percent of all of our infrastructure and know how.

480
00:50:44,940 --> 00:50:50,080
So I do think this is an international effort. The intergovernmental levels.

481
00:50:50,080 --> 00:50:54,460
That's required to get the cooperation from from everybody involved.

482
00:50:54,460 --> 00:51:02,730
But as regards shareholders, private companies, we know that, you know, the relationship is the one is beholden to the other.

483
00:51:02,730 --> 00:51:08,040
So corporate social responsibility is playing the increasing role.

484
00:51:08,040 --> 00:51:15,360
So I'm sure that, you know, with the right incentives, it can't be done, you know, philanthropically by the oil industry.

485
00:51:15,360 --> 00:51:23,100
But it could be done for essentially operating costs or just something a little bit above very modest profit margin.

486
00:51:23,100 --> 00:51:26,910
So but that is going to take the consumer to be willing to pay for it.

487
00:51:26,910 --> 00:51:35,260
And that has to be a transnational efforts and price setting.

488
00:51:35,260 --> 00:51:37,090
Tom, I mean, you are fairly optimistic.

489
00:51:37,090 --> 00:51:43,570
I think you ended on a fairly optimistic note that it could be scaled up, but he gave a sort of long list of things that that need to be put in place.

490
00:51:43,570 --> 00:51:50,500
Would you have a particular priority amongst those? So you say only to happen at the same time?

491
00:51:50,500 --> 00:51:55,150
Well, I think the a lot of the monitoring all plays into into each region, each point.

492
00:51:55,150 --> 00:51:58,780
So, you know, you're doing the monitoring. And it's not just for one aspect of it.

493
00:51:58,780 --> 00:52:05,200
You're doing the monitoring that helps in every way. The. He said that it to scale this up.

494
00:52:05,200 --> 00:52:11,680
We're talking about earnings. You know, you need to we need to work out ways to to apply this in the most efficient way possible,

495
00:52:11,680 --> 00:52:13,420
because if we're going to scale this up around the world,

496
00:52:13,420 --> 00:52:20,040
we need it to be affordable by effort, by not just, you know, Western Europe and by states needs to be applied around the world.

497
00:52:20,040 --> 00:52:25,340
So that's equality of opportunity around the world needs to be in place as well.

498
00:52:25,340 --> 00:52:30,160
So that's another factor. But I think in terms of something.

499
00:52:30,160 --> 00:52:38,290
One thing to focus on, I think, you know, with the monitoring in place, you can you can get a lot of you don't need to focus.

500
00:52:38,290 --> 00:52:43,630
You can look at each of these points at the same time and sort of make a wholesale assessment.

501
00:52:43,630 --> 00:52:50,200
And that's the safest thing to do. Just leading on from that, we've had several questions,

502
00:52:50,200 --> 00:52:55,660
which gets at the sort of transition of where carbon capture and storage in the oil and gas industry

503
00:52:55,660 --> 00:53:00,880
is today to where it needs where we need to pay for a sort of genuinely net zero compliance society.

504
00:53:00,880 --> 00:53:08,090
So there's some questions about the fact that you gave the example of the Boundary Dam coal plant and the fact that actually

505
00:53:08,090 --> 00:53:15,490
the costs of solar and other technologies mean should we really be looking at the use of CCW for coal in the long run or not?

506
00:53:15,490 --> 00:53:18,130
Tim Kruger, hello, timmers as chips. And a question about is,

507
00:53:18,130 --> 00:53:26,900
is the is the suggestion or the current sort of look at CCSVI enhanced oil recovery helping or hindering the long run scaling of CCAR?

508
00:53:26,900 --> 00:53:31,560
And we've talked a lot in general about the involvement of the oil and gas sector in scaling this up.

509
00:53:31,560 --> 00:53:41,180
So. Do you have thoughts on whether the current framing of CCSVI is the right one in order to get it scale and how we can actually achieve that?

510
00:53:41,180 --> 00:53:47,110
Efficiency is sort of threading a needle in a way, isn't it? Of working with the oil and gas sector to scale this up,

511
00:53:47,110 --> 00:53:54,190
but at the same time recognising that the uses in the long run of success might be very different to where we put them in the near-term.

512
00:53:54,190 --> 00:54:01,630
I don't know if I can tell you all your thoughts, but maybe, Mike, if you want to lead off on that one and then feel free to chip in.

513
00:54:01,630 --> 00:54:05,110
No, again, it's a really good point. I mean, it will.

514
00:54:05,110 --> 00:54:13,840
The framing of it will have to change. Most definitely. And hopefully there won't be a need for CO2 capture.

515
00:54:13,840 --> 00:54:22,030
Coal power plant to your is is a way you once you drill the well and you're producing oil and gas.

516
00:54:22,030 --> 00:54:29,380
I would argue environmentally you're better off using that to get everything out of it before you go to another spot and drill.

517
00:54:29,380 --> 00:54:35,200
So even though in the long term we have to diminish use of fossil fuels,

518
00:54:35,200 --> 00:54:39,520
once we actually have right now, we can use it in a more environmentally effective way.

519
00:54:39,520 --> 00:54:47,890
But then equally, as we move into these other technologies where we capture CO2 like Dark's and Bak's or the big

520
00:54:47,890 --> 00:54:54,000
challenge of capturing CO2 associated with either making hydrogen or with the mining industry,

521
00:54:54,000 --> 00:54:56,170
you're still going to have to do something with that CO2.

522
00:54:56,170 --> 00:55:03,760
And that's still going to involve all the processes we described of storing it and sequestering it in geologic reservoir.

523
00:55:03,760 --> 00:55:08,470
So I agree that the drivers and the framing will change.

524
00:55:08,470 --> 00:55:19,490
But you're still left with, you know, technically putting CO2 in the ground.

525
00:55:19,490 --> 00:55:24,220
Say, nodding heads is nothing else to add to that one. Okay, great.

526
00:55:24,220 --> 00:55:31,840
Thank you very much for that. Let's move on to another question and we'll try and squeeze in as many as we've got time for.

527
00:55:31,840 --> 00:55:38,320
Kevin Brigden asks, what evidence is there to show that stored CO2 remains stored for the necessary timescale?

528
00:55:38,320 --> 00:55:42,740
I mean, if we're talking about permanent net zero course, that needs to be millennia.

529
00:55:42,740 --> 00:55:49,390
And I think you show quite a lot of data which suggests that, you know, in this in the projects we have, it's looking pretty good.

530
00:55:49,390 --> 00:55:52,870
But of course, they are a period of few decades at most.

531
00:55:52,870 --> 00:56:01,830
So are you confident or are there still remaining question marks about whether it really stays there permanently?

532
00:56:01,830 --> 00:56:06,220
She lightship on chipin on that.

533
00:56:06,220 --> 00:56:21,780
CO2 and S.H. for not the same, but at a first approximation, the fact that gas is stayed underground in the form of methane for millions of years.

534
00:56:21,780 --> 00:56:26,520
Gives us some security or about the geological time scale.

535
00:56:26,520 --> 00:56:30,750
There are also CO2 accumulations, as Mike mentioned.

536
00:56:30,750 --> 00:56:39,990
And those have also been in place for millions of years. That's not to say some of that gas hasn't leaked and leakage is inevitable.

537
00:56:39,990 --> 00:56:48,050
The earth is a sieve, you know, with different meshes. So we shouldn't expect there to be no leakage.

538
00:56:48,050 --> 00:56:51,990
But the natural system is also very good at dealing with leakage.

539
00:56:51,990 --> 00:56:54,240
It can be fixed in different ways.

540
00:56:54,240 --> 00:57:01,890
Some of it, inevitably, as part of the carbon cycle, makes it naturally through to the earth's surface and into shallow aquifers.

541
00:57:01,890 --> 00:57:06,840
There's a natural flux of CO2 and hydrocarbons.

542
00:57:06,840 --> 00:57:15,570
So I think the fact from thousands and thousands of examples of long term residents in gas fields that we can be fairly sure

543
00:57:15,570 --> 00:57:23,790
that we know a reasonable amount about the sort of sealing conditions to say that it will be secure for a few thousand years.

544
00:57:23,790 --> 00:57:27,150
How you define secure is another matter.

545
00:57:27,150 --> 00:57:34,720
If you're absolutist about it and say there should be no leakage and you enshrine that in law, this won't happen.

546
00:57:34,720 --> 00:57:40,080
You know, it's simply not possible in a natural system where there are small voids in

547
00:57:40,080 --> 00:57:46,410
sediments for no leakage to occur and leakage occurs by diffusion all the time.

548
00:57:46,410 --> 00:57:52,590
But leakage by adverse action by actual flow also occurs as long as the rate is manageably

549
00:57:52,590 --> 00:57:59,400
small and doesn't lead to significant pollution of the water column or of the atmosphere.

550
00:57:59,400 --> 00:58:07,020
If these are on land leakages, then we're fine. But I go back actually to reports in the Bible of the burning bush.

551
00:58:07,020 --> 00:58:10,830
We now think that that was actually a natural methane leakage.

552
00:58:10,830 --> 00:58:18,690
So human beings have understood about the natural leakage from underground reservoirs for a long, long time.

553
00:58:18,690 --> 00:58:24,190
So we shouldn't be absolutists. Otherwise, we kill it dead. Stress testing.

554
00:58:24,190 --> 00:58:30,370
I'm going to try and squeeze in two or three questions, so we'll go for some brief answers if possible.

555
00:58:30,370 --> 00:58:36,400
One of them was actually groundwater, which you just mentioned, Joe. And I think you and Tom maybe touched on this as well as seismicity.

556
00:58:36,400 --> 00:58:45,280
But Amalia asks, are there negative effects of carbon sequence sequestration on groundwater quality and can that affect water security?

557
00:58:45,280 --> 00:58:51,910
I know that's a concern that has sort of come up in the social discussion around some of these activities, along with the risk of earthquakes.

558
00:58:51,910 --> 00:58:57,330
So do either of you want to say something on that? Sure, yeah.

559
00:58:57,330 --> 00:59:00,730
Yeah. This this comes up frequently, I try to be brief, this comes up frequently,

560
00:59:00,730 --> 00:59:06,190
especially with things like hydraulic fracturing or fracking is that, you know, is a risk that the groundwater.

561
00:59:06,190 --> 00:59:12,940
And I think it's important to stress the this the sense of scale that we're talking about here between a thousand kilometres.

562
00:59:12,940 --> 00:59:20,050
And so, you know, between a thousand and three thousand metres below the surface, groundwater is generally, you know,

563
00:59:20,050 --> 00:59:28,420
where we have wells really into freshwater aquifers are on the order of it, you know, on the Deep Eastern, a few hundred metres deep.

564
00:59:28,420 --> 00:59:35,830
So it's really ten times deeper than any kind of groundwater. So the where it where you may get any kind of pollution is where the well goes through.

565
00:59:35,830 --> 00:59:44,350
There's freshwater aquifers and you don't adequately seal the well, you don't case it well enough with concrete and steel.

566
00:59:44,350 --> 00:59:47,740
And so the we in the in Europe, you know,

567
00:59:47,740 --> 00:59:55,870
there's a lot of regulation around how well you case these and how we you ensure reservoir well integrity, wellbore integrity.

568
00:59:55,870 --> 01:00:05,230
Whereas, you know, in places with less regulation, that could be an issue where, you know, you're not insuring that, but with adequate regulation,

569
01:00:05,230 --> 01:00:14,120
then it's it's it's we are we are perfectly capable of keeping wells sealed and with no pollution into the surrounding groundwater.

570
01:00:14,120 --> 01:00:21,510
OK. We've had a few questions about the energy and the costs involved in carbon capture and storage.

571
01:00:21,510 --> 01:00:28,230
Maybe so. Nicholas Watts asks, How does the cost of a tonne of carbon stored compare with the cost of a tonne of carbon emissions avoided,

572
01:00:28,230 --> 01:00:34,530
for example, through behaviour change? So maybe if I just address that one very quickly, Tom, I think you gave some numbers, actually, didn't you,

573
01:00:34,530 --> 01:00:41,100
for carbon capture being in the range of 50 to 80 dollars a tonne, perhaps for sort of industrial and power applications?

574
01:00:41,100 --> 01:00:48,870
We know that for direct air capture as well, that that's currently probably in the hundreds and perhaps it might get down with deployment.

575
01:00:48,870 --> 01:00:53,010
Two hundred or if we're being optimistic, closer to one hundred dollars per tonne.

576
01:00:53,010 --> 01:00:57,030
So the short answer is that's that's higher than a lot of other measures we can do.

577
01:00:57,030 --> 01:01:02,370
So shifting to renewables in the power sector, some other behaviour changes we can make.

578
01:01:02,370 --> 01:01:07,720
But is lower than some of the other really difficult things to do. And that's why that's the discussion.

579
01:01:07,720 --> 01:01:12,990
My guess at why it comes out in Pathway's is being part of the solution. Carbon capture and storage.

580
01:01:12,990 --> 01:01:18,150
I'm just going to finish, though, conscious. We're running over time. But this is a great question from Lydia.

581
01:01:18,150 --> 01:01:22,950
And maybe this is a good one for you or with your academic geological hats on.

582
01:01:22,950 --> 01:01:29,130
She says, is all this technical investment really needed? Can we just plant trees and harvest them and bury them?

583
01:01:29,130 --> 01:01:30,080
Does that you know what?

584
01:01:30,080 --> 01:01:39,040
On the timescales we're talking about achieve things much more easily and efficiently than than building up this major new industry?

585
01:01:39,040 --> 01:01:43,350
She's as we've been flying to the moon, while there are desperately important basics we need to tackle on Earth.

586
01:01:43,350 --> 01:01:53,240
So how would you answer that question? That's a tough one.

587
01:01:53,240 --> 01:01:58,430
I mean, basically, there's there's not enough room for four trees to do.

588
01:01:58,430 --> 01:02:03,140
To do it with what's described. I mean, that's the whole. That's what I said at the beginning.

589
01:02:03,140 --> 01:02:04,880
There isn't one silver bullet.

590
01:02:04,880 --> 01:02:14,540
And almost any scenario, especially as you look across all the industries that are producing CO2, we will need some form of CO2 capture and storage.

591
01:02:14,540 --> 01:02:20,720
And Becks is a good example. We can plant the trees and use them for fuel Drax Power Station and then, you know,

592
01:02:20,720 --> 01:02:25,400
get a double whammy where we're pulling CO2 out of the air and we're sequestering it.

593
01:02:25,400 --> 01:02:34,320
But it alone is not going to do it. I mean, Steve, you know better than the figures, and that would mean.

594
01:02:34,320 --> 01:02:41,220
For those of you tuning in who haven't seen the whole series, you can find on YouTube the back and the back story and week two,

595
01:02:41,220 --> 01:02:46,170
I think it was with Professor Natalie Seddon, an Cecil zero down all about nature based solutions.

596
01:02:46,170 --> 01:02:53,250
And they talk about the many opportunities, but also the limitations of working with the biosphere to sequester carbon.

597
01:02:53,250 --> 01:02:56,730
But we're over time now. It just remains for me to say.

598
01:02:56,730 --> 01:03:02,550
Thank you very much to my Kendall, Joe Cartwright and Tom Cataldie for really fascinating presentation.

599
01:03:02,550 --> 01:03:05,325
And thank you to all of you in the audience for joining us to.