Workshop 11

Description

The workshop shall address the challenge to scale up and industrialize new energy solutions like geothermal, direct lithium extraction, carbon storage and hydrogen/helium. As these are partially open systems, prospect definitions are not standardized, scaling up and portfolio generation for the industry is challenging. The workshop shall give guidance and deliver fruitful discussions.

Sub-Topics that will be covered in the workshop:

• Jan de Jager (ex-Shell): Prospect definition, risking an d portfolio generation in the oil and gas industry

Learnings from applying workflows and practices for assessing prospects and generating prospect portfolios in the oil and gas industry will be applicable in other areas of the energy transition: Hydrogen, helium, geothermal, carbon storage. Discussions will focus on generating a portfolio of prospects, dealing with the subjectivity of risk assessment, probabilistic evaluations, use of scenarios and some common biases.

• Emmanuel Masini (M&U) & Benoit Hauville He (45 8 Energy) Prospect assessment for H₂ and He exploration

Exploration for helium and free hydrogen are relatively new approaches. While Helium often is associated to further gases like CH₄, exploration approaches are comparable to the oil and gas industry with a higher focus on specific geological environments. H₂ accumulations are potentially less stable compared to hydrocarbons and requires different approaches

• Christian Kling & Fabian Setzer (Vulcan Energy Resources): From geothermal Lithium play assessment to prospect maturation and development.

Appraisal and development activities of deep lithium enriched geothermal brine resources gain traction as the world transitions to a greener future. Such plays compare in terms of lithium to some extend to unconventional and conventional oil and gas plays and prospects. Play or prospect risking and volume quantification considering prospects common to the oil and gas industry applied on geothermal and lithium brine systems must consider one key difference: the open nature of the system allowing for energy and to some extend for mass-inflow.

• Alexander Rath & Stephan Hannke (OMV) Deep geothermal closed systems

It is the ambition of deep closed geothermal systems to be more independent from classical subsurface conditions, which are needed in open systems. It is more important to locate the facilities close to the customer. However, not in all subsurface settings closed loops systems are feasible.

• Martin Neumaier (ArianeLogiX) & NN. – Carbon storage prospect assessment

At first glance, screening for carbon storage prospects has many similarities to oil and gas exploration. This is true for some static risks and the pore volume estimation. However, significant differences occur when it comes to the process of injection, the CO2 fluid properties, cap rock integrity and especially containment risk.