We provoke the development of geoscientific expertise for the early stages of CCS through analogy with fields that geoscientists already command.
Recently, there has been a tremendous increase of interest in the safe and permanent underground storage of carbon dioxide (CCS). This has been driven by governmental enactment of climate goals in many parts of the world. These goals have been powerfully manifested in several ways, including through penalties and incentives. Canadian efforts in this regard have included the Government of Canada’s (GOC) rapidly escalating carbon tax, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, and the 2022 Emissions Reduction Plan which requires a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases in Canada by 40% from 2005 levels by 2030 (GOC, 2022, 2023). The time sensitivity of these acts of government are resulting in commensurate rapid scheduling of CCS projects. Developing CCS projects at a high pace will require billions of dollars of investment and the subsurface expertise of a significant number of geoscientists. For this to happen, many geoscientists must enter the field of CCS. These individuals will need to develop their skillsets in what is a relatively new specialty. But there is a problem here: CCS lacks sufficient history upon which such a skillset can be solely based.
While there are indeed some CCS projects to provide historical learnings, such as the Quest project (Alberta), Aquistore (Saskatchewan), the Otway pilot (Australia) and Sleipner (North Sea), among others, most of these projects are ongoing and in the learning stage. We do not yet have a single CCS project that is well into its closure stage. Undoubtedly the publications from these projects must be used in developing geoscientific expertise in CCS, but they are not comprehensive enough by themselves, especially given the governmental time pressure to develop CCS capability. Our lean historical knowledge must be augmented by something else—by using analogy to draw upon expertise from related fields.
We will reference the current and remarkable early-stage development of carbon storage hubs in Alberta, Canada to demonstrate the power of analogy in developing geoscientific expertise in CCS.
Analogical reasoning – your gift to yourself
Analogical reasoning is a type of inductive logic conducted through comparisons between representations that are well-understood and representations that are new (Holyoak, 2012). Another way of describing analogical reasoning is that it is the process of applying information that has previously been learned, in order to learn new things (Vendetti et al., 2015). A key to this type of reasoning is to be able to assess the similar causal or relational nature internal to the two things being compared. The idea sounds simple, but the process is complex. Figure 1 below is adapted from Holyoak (2012) and illustrates the key elements of this undertaking. The first step is to consider, or retrieve, previously learned knowledge. The second step is to map the shared relational knowledge from what has already been learned, to the new or target problem. From there comes the final step of creating inferences regarding the new problem. These inferences come about from a combined understanding of the shared principles of the new and old ideas.
Figure 1. The primary elements of analogical reasoning. Adapted from Holyoak, 2012.
The process’s effectiveness depends to a large degree upon an understanding of what Holyoak (2012) would call the shared functional relationships that exist within the already learned, or source, knowledge. For physicists, geoscientists, engineers and businesspersons this equates to understanding the physical, geoscientific, engineering and business principles of the specialty. Pedagogical studies of adolescents support this assertion. It has been shown by educators that child development through analogical reasoning becomes more powerful as the child using it gains experience, knowledge, and executive function (Holyoak, 2012, Vendetti et al., 2015). That is, this type of reasoning depends on the depth of understanding, particularly that of causal relations that the reasoner has already mastered. Referring to Figure 1, analogy is aided by having a well-understood set of sources from which to draw relations, which means that the more expertise we develop in geosciences, the better our potential to learn other specialties of geosciences should be.
The value of analogical reasoning is that it is a gift of knowledge that you give to yourself.
A word of caution, however, is that analogy can be misapplied.
It is not just the similarities that provide an opportunity
Analogical reasoning can help us learn—and learn quickly—not just from comparing the similarities between something we know and something we do not know, but also by contrasting their differences. In fact, the differences between CCS and hydrocarbon production can be critically important, as broadly discussed by Penrose et al. (2022) in their paper, “Why CCS is not like reverse gas engineering”. Drawing attention to the similarities between two endeavors may enable the beautiful cross-pollination that is the goal of analogical reasoning, but understanding the differences is the only way to also shed ourselves of ideas and techniques that are not applicable to the new field. This is crucial, as carrying a favorite old idea incorrectly into a new problem can be a serious impediment to finding that problem’s solutions. Misapplying old, ill-suited techniques to a problem is an element of the human condition, and is known as the cognitive bias Maslow’s Hammer (Hunt, 2021). This error is likely to happen, and undoubtedly has happened, because the over-use, or outright misuse of previous knowledge or techniques may happen unconsciously—such is the nature of cognitive biases. Cognitive biases most often become a problem when we fail to pay attention to what we are doing, or in this case fail to ask ourselves if the relational structures being mapped truly apply to the new problem. So, while we, on one hand, attempt to demonstrate the similarities between geoscientific fields, we must also be on guard against our natural inclinations to apply favored or conditioned ideas that do not belong. The goal is to benefit from what we already know, but not be burdened or led astray by it.
Twenty-five CCS hubs in the early stages of development in Alberta, Canada
In 2022, the Government of Alberta (GOA) entered negotiations with numerous project teams to potentially approve the timely and secure development of 25 CCS storage hubs. This puts these 25 projects in the early stages of the CCS project timeline. Given this remarkable situation, we shall focus our analogical exercise only upon the early stages of CCS development. Let us gather key publicly known facts about the 25 proposed storage hubs in Alberta and use those to help construct some of our relational structures for CCS.
Table 1. The proposed maximum capacity of the 25 carbon hubs approved for a storage exploration permit by the Government of Alberta (GOA) in 2022. For reference, the Quest project capacity is about 1 Mtpa.
Table 1 illustrates the proposed capacity of the new storage hubs, given by hub name. While about half of the hubs are similar to the 1 Mtpa (million tonnes per annum) Quest size, the other half of the projects are larger, some greater than 20 Mtpa. Although these are proposed sizes, and some or many of the final developed hubs may be smaller, the aggregate amount of carbon dioxide that could be stored is significant, and some of these projects are of noteworthy size on a worldwide scale.
The area of the storage permits for the hubs is also remarkably large. Figure 2 illustrates the permit areas in map form. In Figure 2, we have given the project owner names rather than the project names. The largest of the projects are over 150 townships in area. The entire area of these twenty-five projects exceeds 1050 townships or 99,000 square kilometers in area. For reference, metro Calgary is about 5,110 square kilometers in size. Due to the scale of these projects, 2D seismic is often used in the early stages of project development. Although 3D will eventually be used in most or all these projects, their incredible size makes the use of 2D a practical economic necessity in many cases.
Figure 2. The proposed areas of the 25 carbon hubs, by operator, approved for a storage exploration permit by the GOA in 2022. The Quest project area is outlined in red dash.
It is well worth noting that the storage reservoirs being contemplated by these projects are deep—primarily the Basal Cambrian Sand (BCS) or Devonian carbonates. Deep targets such as these are chosen partly for their storage capacity and injectivity, and partly for their likelihood to permanently contain the carbon dioxide. Of crucial importance are the seal sections for these storage complexes, but just as important is that these deep targets are relatively unexplored, with fewer wells penetrating them. While this lack of historic exploration significantly lowers the amount of geoscientific and engineering information about the complexes, it also minimizes the chances of a legacy wellbore providing a leak path for the stored CO2.
Defining our ideal CCS storage complex
The ideal we must create for comparison is axiomatically a generalization and cannot perfectly represent all carbon storage projects. Moreover, we should note that we are considering storage reservoirs on land, with a bias towards the geology of Alberta, Canada, and that we are also referring exclusively to saline aquifer storage. The Basal Cambrian Sand (BCS), which is widely deposited in Alberta, and is the dominant storage reservoir in the 25 projects currently being developed, is in many ways ideal for carbon storage. An ideal carbon storage complex has the following key characteristics:
relatively deep, allowing for dense supercritical CO2 to be injected,
relatively unexplored by wells, minimizing leak paths,
has thick and competent seal sections above and below it,
is relatively unstructured,
is widely deposited, and
is of good reservoir quality, with high storage capacity and injectivity.
Although other jurisdictions may not always have such an ideal candidate for storage, we will use a BCS-like storage complex as our model to define the relational structures for CCS in our analogical exercise.
Defining the early stages of a CCS project
The early stages of carbon storage projects have been structurally defined by organizations like the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL, 2017) and the CSA Group (2022) which have published generalized workflows and standards, respectively, for CCS projects. Although there may not be as wide a history of carbon storage hubs as geoscientists need, these sources are helpful to learn from, as well as to further define the relational structures we require for analogy.
We showed earlier that CCS projects may be very large in size and capacity. They may also have very long timelines by business standards—spanning several decades in many cases, and even longer if we consider post-closure stewardship. This project longevity is caused by
several factors, including:
the expense of the project infrastructure, planning, regulatory processes, measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV) procedures, and construction require a long, stable, project life;
projects are tied into key human activities, such as complex and inter-related energy systems—none of which can be reliably changed quickly; and
the permanence and integrity of the planned-for storage.
Even the early stages of a CCS project can span several years. Figure 3 is a rendering of the generalized CCS workflow. Of importance is the final investment decision milestone (FID) where the choice is made for the project to go forward or not. We define the early stages of a CCS project as all the work that occurs prior to FID. In the language of NETL, we are referring to the Site Screening, Site Selection, and Characterization steps. The timelines shown in Figure 3 are notable when recalling the GOC Emissions Reduction Plan, which has a milestone in 2030. Considering that it might take 7 years or more to develop a carbon storage hub, this plan appears aggressive.
Figure 3. A generalized flow-chart for a CCS project life through to the Closure stage.
Let us walk through the stages of a CCS project with respect to the recent GOA process. The requested expression of interest (EOI) of 2021 more or less conformed with the Site Screening stage, though some operators may have progressed into Site Selection. The subsequent governmental request for full project proposals approximately aligns with feasibility reports and the conclusion of the Site Selection stage (GOA, 2022). Up to this stage in a CCS project, much of the geoscientific work involves examining publicly available data, though some projects will have invested in some amount—modest, most likely—of seismic data.
It is in the Characterization phase, broken into Initial and Detailed elements, that more significant investments are made to acquire new geoscientific data. The demand for detailed and specific subsurface analysis is much greater now, as this is the stage that leads to FID, where tremendous amounts of capital may be committed. This analysis can take the form of additional purchases of seismic data and the drilling of appraisal wells. Seismic purchases are usually kept at moderate capital levels in Characterization, which often equates to the use of legacy 2D seismic for large projects. Geoscientific identification of risks is often done in a qualitative manner in these stages, involving “stop-light” style common risk segment (CRS) mapping where red equates to high risk, yellow to moderate risk and green to low risk. The acquisition of 3D seismic is commonly done post-FID, once it is known the project will be executed. Coming out of these stages, a number of activities and plans must be completed, including: reduction of subsurface uncertainties, the ranking and management of risks, a development plan with costs and economics, and a MMV plan. Ultimate questions concerning the storage complex’s storage capacity and injectivity, sealing capability, geomechanical properties, and geochemical and hydrogeological parameters, must be well understood.
Focusing on these early stages is a practical analogical cut-off point for this discussion. The subsurface paradigm changes drastically in the Develop and later stages of the project, where operational activities proceed and MMV activities such as repeat (or 4D) seismic take on a dominant role. This noted, our comparison must include certain aspects of later stages that overlap the earlier ones, such as risk management, MMV—which exists in an earlier form from the start—and the well spacing that the project is likely to have.
CCS analogy with Quest
Figure 4 depicts the relational geological structure of our ideal carbon storage complex. From bottom to top, red depicts igneous or metamorphic rocks, yellow stippled depicts sandstone, gray dash depicts silts or interbedded sand and shale, brown dash depicts shale, blue bricks depict limestone or dolomite carbonates, green shading over the blue bricks depicts oil charge in the carbonates, green cubes depict salts. The light green blue near the top of the section illustrates the base of the groundwater. The BCS is the sand overlaying the Precambrian granitic basement. The black well penetrates the deepest, high-quality reservoir in the section. There is only one well, because the well spacing for CCS is large. There is a thick seal section above the storage reservoir. No other wells penetrate the storage complex, and both reservoir and seal are pervasive across the local area. This depiction also approximately represents the Quest project geology.
Similarities will always reference the source—or known—geoscientific field with the ideal carbon storage project. In this case Quest is similar to the ideal CCS project in that it is injecting, is foundationally planned from the point of view of risk management and MMV, and uses the same deep, pervasive, relatively unexplored storage complex.
What could possibly be different between Quest and the ideal carbon storage complex? That Quest has already happened is an important distinction. Knowledge from Quest exists now that did not exist when Quest was planned. Further, Quest’s existence affects the pressure field locally. Quest also enjoyed about $865 million in public funding—on the order of two-thirds of the project capital costs (Crouch, 2011). New projects may not receive such generous public support. Other differences include the much larger size of some new CCS projects (recall Figure 2) as well as the actors involved. By actors, we mean project managers. Quest was led by Shell Canada, a major oil and gas company with technical expertise in seismic, oil and gas drilling, production, and downstream processing. New project leadership teams may have different expertise than the Quest team.
Figure 4. The ideal carbon storage complex, which is roughly equivalent geologically to that of the Quest project. From bottom to top, red depicts igneous or metamorphic rocks, yellow stippled depicts sandstone, gray dash depicts silts or interbedded sand and shale, brown dash depicts shale, blue bricks depict limestone or dolomite carbonates, green shading over the blue bricks depicts oil charge in the carbonates, green cubes depict salts. The light green blue near the top of the section illustrates the base of the groundwater.
CCS analogy with CO2 EOR (CCUS)
Figure 5 illustrates our ideal carbon storage reservoir and a CO2 EOR scheme such as at Weyburn or Clive. These types of schemes could be termed carbon capture utilization and storage or CCUS. They store carbon dioxide but also use it to drive enhanced production of hydrocarbons. CCUS is the target of our analogical exercise, and its operation (and that of all succeeding target illustrations) is depicted by the thinner blue wells. Similarities with CCS include the fact that CO2 is injected, and that risk management and MMV are of central importance. Experts in CO2 EOR projects can transfer their knowledge of risk management and MMV to CCS.
The differences between CCS and CO2 EOR (CCUS) are profound. EOR projects tend to have vastly more information from historic drilling and production and have much tighter well spacing. This tighter well spacing means that observation of the CO2 injection can be done on a timelier basis. EOR projects have greater pressure management capabilities due to their existing, often extensive, producing infrastructure. Of economic importance is the fact that because EOR produces hydrocarbons, the stored carbon dioxide may not be eligible for carbon credits or tax incentives in some jurisdictions.
Figure 5. The ideal carbon storage complex (black well), compared to a CO2 EOR, or CCUS, project (thinner blue wells).
CCS analogy with SAGD
Figure 6 illustrates our ideal carbon storage reservoir and a steam-assisted gravity drainage or SAGD project. These types of schemes inject steam from one set of wells and produce heavy oil from others, the steam helping to mobilize the inherently viscous oil. The wells are often, but not always, horizontal. As in the previous comparison, SAGD is depicted by blue wells. Similarities with CCS include the fact that SAGD is an injection scheme, and that risk management and MMV (particularly of the caprock) are of central importance. Experts in SAGD projects can transfer their knowledge of risk management and MMV to CCS.
The differences with CCS are significant. SAGD projects tend to have vastly more information from historic drilling and production, and have much tighter well spacing—the tightest in all of oil and gas. This tighter well spacing means that observation of the effects of injection can be done on a timelier basis. As with EOR projects, SAGD enjoys the capability of managing pressure because of its extensive producing infrastructure. CCS projects have little ability to reduce pressure once injection starts; the best mitigation for the effects of pressure-related frictional disequilibrium effects in CCS would be to halt production at one or more injector locations. SAGD also deals with the production of a carbon-rich, low viscosity, oil.
Figure 6. The ideal carbon storage complex (black well), compared to a SAGD project (thinner blue wells).
CCS analogy with tight gas (unconventional)
Figure 7 illustrates our ideal carbon storage reservoir and an unconventional tight gas project. Tight gas is conducted with long horizontal wells that undergo multi-stage fracture stimulation due to the very low permeability of the reservoir. As in the previous comparisons, tight gas is depicted by blue wells. Similarities with CCS are very few but include the notion of a wide-spread reservoir. Tight gas may also be conducted on large scales, like CCS.
The differences with CCS are vastly different. Tight gas projects tend to have significantly more information from historic drilling and production, must be planned with 3D seismic, have tighter well spacing, much lower reservoir quality, and are extracting hydrocarbons. A critical difference to bear in mind—and not transfer from tight gas to CCS—is the finely detailed reservoir characterization necessary for tight gas. CCS plumes are enormous, in reservoirs with permeability several orders of magnitude greater, and this is a profound difference in early-stage evaluation. 2D seismic would rarely be used to aid tight gas because of the nature of the questions being asked about the reservoir. This type of seismic is highly useful in addressing the gross reservoir and structural questions of the early stages of carbon storage.
Figure 7. The ideal carbon storage complex (black well), compared to a tight gas project (thinner blue wells).
CCS analogy with pre-1990s Canada
Figure 8 illustrates our ideal carbon storage reservoir and pre-1990s Canadian projects. Pre-1990s Canadian projects were conducted with vertical wells in oil and gas reservoirs of a variety of depths and types. This project type is perilous to generalize because it is so broad, but in those days, the activities had more exploratory elements than now. As in the previous comparisons, pre-1990s Canadian projects are depicted by blue wells. Similarities with CCS include exploration risk handling and the use of 2D seismic data. Geoscientists who worked in the industry before the 1990s and have remained in the industry, can transfer their skills with working with 2D seismic to CCS, if they can remember them from that long ago.
The differences with CCS: pre-1990s Canadian projects tended—even then—to have more information from historic drilling and production, tighter well spacing, were of much smaller scale, had to consider charge and migration risks, and were in the business of extracting hydrocarbons.
Figure 8. The ideal carbon storage complex (black well), compared to pre-1990s Canada projects (thinner blue wells).
CCS and international exploration
Figure 9 illustrates our ideal carbon storage reservoir and international exploration projects. International exploration projects are primarily conducted with vertical wells in oil and gas reservoirs of a variety of depths and types. This project type is difficult to generalize because it is so broad and depends on the maturity of the region in which it is being conducted, however, it can be very exploratory. As in the previous comparisons, international exploration projects are depicted by blue wells. Similarities with CCS include exploration risk handling, the use of 2D seismic data, potentially large areas of interest, and the use of CRS mapping. Experts in international exploration can transfer their knowledge of exploration, CRS mapping and 2D seismic to CCS.
The differences with CCS include: international exploration projects have smaller well spacing, must consider charge and migration risks, and are in the business of producing hydrocarbons.
Figure 9. The ideal carbon storage complex (black well), compared to an international exploration project (thinner blue wells).
Table 2 summarizes the key similarities and differences shown in the preceding figures. We have added notes for helium exploration and lithium brine extraction, for completeness, and have added a column named “Source / target” for particularly important relational structures.
Table 2. Summary of the key similarities, differences, and target knowledge between early-stage CCS and the other fields. Helium and lithium have been added to this chart for completeness, although beyond the scope of this paper.
Well spacing and scale, an important difference in CCS
Every field that we compared CCS to has a much smaller relative well spacing. Figure 10 shows the ranges of well spacings for each of these analogous projects. The CCS well spacing is up to an order of magnitude larger than all the other activities and is up to three orders of magnitude larger than one—SAGD. This important difference drives some of the geoscientific activities of CCS, particularly in the early stages, where it correlates to the large size of these storage projects. Reservoir studies of such large areas are prudently conducted with mindfulness towards the large scale of CCS developments, at least prior to FID.
Figure 10. Well spacing by business type. A range must be given in each case due to differences in optimal spacing arising from geological, engineering, and economic factors. (Compiled from Feng and Liao, 2020, Jacobs, 2019, Khan and Awotunde, 2017, Shell Canada, 2012, Tao, 2021, Trabelsi, 2017, Zargar and Ali, 2021.)
2D seismic—another big difference in early-stage CCS
The discussion of well spacing and scale relates directly to the kinds of information that a project might use prior to FID. Careful managers minimize capital exposure on projects they are uncertain will go forward, and this plays out in CCS where numerous sites might be considered prior to choosing the one to develop for carbon storage. The use of 2D seismic is simply prudent in such a set of circumstances, and it is also apt. In the early stages, geoscientists are trying to identify large scale risks to ubiquitous storage complexes and are only beginning to reduce uncertainties. 2D seismic is useful for these tasks.
The use of 2D seismic has become somewhat of an anachronism in some parts of the world, particularly in Canada where it has been placed firmly and correctly in the past for endeavors such as SAGD and unconventional gas. The finely detailed reservoir characterization and geomechanical problems to be solved in these fields have been shown to be inappropriate for 2D seismic. The uses of 2D seismic data for CCS are much more like those for international exploration, where 2D seismic is still in widespread use today (Grahame and Cole, 2021 and Madiba and McMechan, 2003). Decalf and Molina (2021) noted that when used in conjunction with other subsurface data, even poor quality 2D seismic data is materially useful for exploration targets. Such data is particularly valuable in identifying area-wide occurrences of faults and fractures, as noted by Nunes et al. in Brazil (2017). It is this kind of feature that we are especially interested in at this stage of carbon storage subsurface evaluation. Much 2D seismic may be apt for carbon storage, though its correct use requires seismic interpreters who are experienced with it (Herron and Smith, 2019).
To put a blunter point on this situation—we need 2D seismic for CCS. Not only do many modern geoscientists lack skills with 2D seismic, but their projects have conditioned them to devalue this data type. Be warned not to bring the burden of this conditioning to the development of your CCS skillset, at least during the early stages.
It is really information that is the challenge in early-stage
The last key difference with CCS projects that we will discuss is that of information. CCS projects tend to suffer a paucity of geological and geophysical data and information. This is an unfortunate corollary to the desire to minimize leak path risks beneath previous drilling activity. Geoscientists must find ways of using very small amounts of information effectively. And conversely, they must also be skilled at formulating efficient data gathering plans. This will include seismic, but may also include appraisal wells and their associated logging and coring programs. Data gathering in the Characterization phase is critical to advance projects, and skills in creating plans for such will be very useful.
What we have learned and what we have yet to learn
This discussion has focused on early-stage CCS and its similarities and differences with selected other industrial fields of geoscientific work. It should be emphasized that this comparison is most valid for early-stage CCS because later-stage CCS, the Develop stage and beyond, requires a different geoscientific skillset, including skills with 2D seismic and managing projects with less information. The value of this discussion depends uniquely on the reader. This value argument is a function of the method of analogical reasoning itself: we have pointed out the source and target relations to be compared, now readers are encouraged to give themselves the gift of knowledge by using the method to leverage their own dearly won expertise.
Feng, Xiaoxu and X. Liao, 2020, Study on Well Spacing Optimization in a Tight Sandstone Gas Reservoir Based on Dynamic Analysis, ACS Omega, 2020, 5, 7, 3755-3762, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b04480
Grahame, Jarrad, and V. Cole, 2021, Prospectivity of the Triassic successions of the North West Shelf of Australia: New insights from a regional integrated geoscience study, The Leading Edge, 30, 3, 172-177, https://doi.org/10.1190/tle40030172.1
Khan, Rizwan, and A Awotunde, 2017, Optimal parameters selection for SAGD and VAPEX processes, Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology, 7, 821-842, DOE: 10.1007/s13202-016-0302-2
Madiba, Gislain, and G. McMechan, 2003, Processing, inversion, and interpretation of a 2D seismic data set from the North Viking Graben, North Sea, GEOPHYSICS, 68, 3, 782-1103, https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1581036
National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2017, Best Practices: Site Screening, Site Selection, and Site Characterization for Geologic Storage Projects, DOE/NETL-2017/1844
Nunes, Salomao, et al, 2017, The use of seismic attribute in 2D data: a case study, 15th International Congress of the Brazilian Geophysical Society, 1268-1271,
Penrose, Philip, et al, 2022, Why CCS is not like reserve gas engineering, First Break, 40, 85-91, DOI: 10.3997/1365-2397.fb2022088
Tao, Lei, et al, 2021, Visulaization Experimental Study on Well Spacing Optimization of SAGD with a Combination of Vertical and Horizontal Wells, ACS Omega, 6, 44, 30050-30060, DOI:: 10.1021/acsomega.1c04737
Trabelsi, R., et al, 2017, Type curves relating to well spacing and heterogeneity to oil recovery in a water flooded reservoir—a case study, Natural Resources, 2017, 8, 632-645, DOI: 10.4236/nr.2017.810040
Vendetti, M., et al, 2015, Analogical Reasoning in the Classroom: Insights from Cognitive Science, International Mind, Brain, and Education Society, 9, 2, 100-106, DOE: 10.1111/mbe.12080
Zargar, Zeinab, and F. Ali, 2021, How to Space SAGD Well Pairs for Optimal Performance, SPE Annual Conference, SPE-206381-MS, DOI: 10.2118/206381-MS
About the Authors
Lee Hunt, P.Geoph. is a professional geophysicist with three decades of experience working virtually every play in the WCSB and many other basins. He has drilled over 400 horizontal and vertical wells, using 2D and 3D seismic, and has experience with the oldest, most primitive techniques as well as the newest, most advanced ones. And he has catalogued the value of these experiences in some 50 conference presentations and journal publications. Lee was appointed as the 2012 CSEG Distinguished Lecturer, a national lecture tour where he spoke about AVO analysis, fracture and hazard detection and the economic value of processing and interpretive techniques. In 2020, he was chosen as the 2020 CSEG Symposium Honoree, the ninth such honoree in the history of the society. Lee and his co-authors won Excellence of Oral Presentation for the 1997 SEPM Convention, the 2000 CSEG Convention Best Paper Award, the 2008 CSEG Convention Best Geophysical Abstract, the 2008 CSEG Best Technical Luncheon Talk, the 2010 CSEG Convention Best Geophysical Oral Presentation, the Best Exploration Paper at VII INGPET in 2011, Honorable Mention for Best Paper in The Leading Edge in 2011, and Best Paper in the CSEG Recorder in 2011. He was a participant in the creation of the CSEG MLA, APEGA’s Q.I. Practice Standard, as well as APEGA’s Guideline for the Ethical Use of Geophysical Data. He was also one of the principal designers of the first CSEG Value of Geophysics with Case Histories course. Lee currently works as Principal, Geophysics for Carbon Alpha, a Carbon Capture and Sequestration company. On the personal side, Lee Hunt is an Ironman Triathlete, an enthusiastic sport rock climber and an author. His published works of fiction include the novels Dynamicist, Herald, Knight in Retrograde, Last Worst Hopes, and Bed of Rose and Thorns. Lee is also a contributing journalist for Big-Media.ca when time allows.
Eric Street, P.Geo. serves as Director, Geosciences at Carbon Alpha. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Earth Sciences from Simon Fraser University. His career has included exploration and development roles in the upstream energy industry for both domestic and international projects. Eric’s international experience in multiple basins worldwide has been of particular value in CCS projects, specifically his expertise with 2D seismic, play-based exploration and common risk segment mapping, and the use of GIS and public data systems. In his role, Eric is responsible for ensuring a rigorous, risk-based, methodical geoscience workflow is applied to all Carbon Alpha projects. His work helps build stakeholder confidence in subsurface storage attributes to enable project advancement safely and on schedule.
Graham Hack, P.Eng. is Director, Reservoir & Data Sciences at Carbon Alpha. Graham is an experienced professional engineer with a broad technical foundation in modern techniques for reservoir analysis, well monitoring, optimization and data science. He has enthusiastically applied these methods to industry challenges across North America, including unconventional resource development and CO2 project assessments. Graham is comfortable in looking at big picture questions involving strategy, value of information and decision analysis down to more detailed work such as coding in Python. Graham has coded Carbon Alpha’s proprietary transient analytical modeling software, OMEGA. Graham graduated with distinction from the University of Alberta in Chemical Engineering (specializing in Computer Process Control) and returned to complete a Masters of Engineering Management, collaborating with world-class experts on decision-making techniques in measurement, monitoring and verification.