Our Approach
Understanding Subsurface Systems for Capital Decisions (Energy, Transition & Infrastructure)
A Framework for Capital Decision - Makers
Subsurface and engineered energy systems are governed by a small number of fundamental physical constraints. These constraints determine whether a resource exists, whether it can be stored or contained at useful scale, and whether it can be moved through the system safely and economically.
This applies across the energy sector — from upstream oil and gas to geothermal, carbon storage, hydrogen storage, and the infrastructure that connects them. Regardless of the technology or project type, success ultimately depends on whether a small set of physical conditions can be met at the right scale, at the right cost, and with acceptable risk.
At Enclime, subsurface evaluation is therefore structured around four fundamental constraints that determine whether an energy system can exist, perform, and endure over time.
The first constraint is whether there is a resource or supply available at the scale and quality needed—either naturally present (e.g., hydrocarbons, geothermal heat) or deliverable into the system (e.g., captured CO2 for storage, hydrogen for storage and transport).
In upstream petroleum, “charge” depends on generation, migration, and timing from source rocks into traps. In geothermal, it relates to heat-in-place, recharge, and deliverability. In CCS and subsurface storage, it is the availability, purity, and continuity of injected streams (CO2/H2) and the ability to sustain injection over time. In all cases, the question is the same: is there enough of the right thing, in the right place, at the right time?
Without a credible resource/supply basis, downstream design work is optimisation without a foundation.
The second constraint is whether the system can store, contain, and transmit fluids and energy in a controlled way—within porous rock, engineered caverns, depleted fields, or connected infrastructure.
In petroleum, reservoir quality (porosity, permeability, connectivity, architecture) determines recoverable volumes and deliverability. In CCS and hydrogen storage, the equivalent questions are capacity, injectivity/withdrawal performance, containment, and plume/pressure management. In infrastructure, it extends to the capacity and connectivity of the network (hubs, pipelines, storage) that enables delivery.
Even with strong resource/supply, weak storage/containment characteristics (or poorly understood connectivity) can cap performance and undermine the investment case.
Energy projects are governed by how fluids behave and how they flow through subsurface, wells, pipelines, and facilities.
Temperature, pressure, and composition determine phase behaviour (oil/gas/condensate, supercritical CO2, dense-phase CO2, H2 embrittlement considerations, brine chemistry) and therefore drive recovery mechanisms, injectivity, corrosion/scale risk, and surface processing requirements. In infrastructure, these same factors show up as flow assurance, compression needs, materials selection, and operating envelopes.
Understanding fluid and flow behaviour is essential for predicting performance, defining operating limits, and avoiding avoidable cost and safety surprises.
Pressure governs flow, integrity, and operability—both in the subsurface and across connected infrastructure.
In upstream, pressure regimes influence drilling risk, deliverability, and recovery. In CCS and subsurface storage, injection-induced pressure must be managed to protect containment (caprock integrity and fault stability) and to remain within regulatory constraints. In infrastructure, pressure management governs throughput, compression power, linepack, and safety margins.
Effective lifecycle management requires understanding how pressure evolves, what it implies for integrity, and what monitoring is needed to stay inside the safe operating envelope.