Risk Assessment Network final.ppt

RISK ASSESSMENT?

“Estimation of risk is usually based on the expected value of the “Estimation of risk is usually based on the expected value of the conditional conditional probabilityprobability of the (risk) event occurring, of the (risk) event occurring, timestimes the the consequenceconsequence of the (risk) event given that it has occurred” of the (risk) event given that it has occurred”

IEA JOINT NETWORKS WORKSHOP 11-14 June, 2008, New York

Risk Assessment for m n fStorage Site

CharacterisationCharacterisationJohn Kaldi

CO2CRC at University of Adelaide

Site Characterisation(after CO2CRC, 2006)

“The collection, analysis and interpretation of subsurface, surface and atmospheric data

( , )

(geoscientific, spatial, engineering, social, economic, environmental) and the application of that knowledge to judge with a degree of confidence if an identifiedto judge, with a degree of confidence, if an identified site will geologically store a specific quantity of CO2

for a defined period of time and meet all required h lth f t i t l d l thealth, safety, environmental and regulatory

standards”.

CO2CRC

IEA JOINT NETWORKS WORKSHOP 11-14 June, 2008, New York© CO2CRC.

All rights reserved.

Scales of Investigation

• Country/State/Region ScreeningCountry/State/Region Screening

• Basin Assessment

• Site Characterisation

Sit D l t)• Site Deployment)


Storage Capacity Estimation

Techno-Economic Resource-Reserve Pyramid for CO2 Storage Capacity

Modified from Bachu et al CSLF 2005Modified from Bachu et al., CSLF, 2005

Combined Site & Capacity Evaluation

Decreasing Uncertainty; Increasing

D t / Eff tData / Effort Required

Risk-Based Decision Making in CCS Project Development

Pre-Injection Injection / Post Injection Bowden and Rigg, 2003)


Pre Injection Injection / Post Injection owde a d igg, 003)

Resource / Reserve Evaluation

Aim: Approval for permit acquisition for CCS

Requirements:• Qualitative evaluation of source-sink needs (See

Bradshaw et al, 2002)

– Storage capacity (estimate total pore volume)

– Potential site identification (site ranking – see Bachu 2003

– Transport (determine potential distances/costs to sites)

– Regional containment risksGeohazards (i.e. volcanism, earthquake)Eff i l i / l iEffective trap styles, reservoir/seal pairs

– Existing natural resources (chance of compromising?)


Pre-Feasibility / Options Analysis( t l)

Aim: Demonstration scale assessment

(expert panel)

Aim: Demonstration scale assessment

• Initial Quantitative Risk Analysis (See Bowden and Rigg, 2003)

• Assessment of available basic data– Storage capacity (estimate prospective capacity)

– Site details (chance economically and technically)

– Containment Risk AssessmentSeals, faults/fracture, well-bores

• Red flag any:– Environmental and social risks

N t l i k– Natural resource risks– Data gaps / high uncertainty areas

• Preliminary estimate of project cost including closure


Feasibility Analysis

Aim: Internal feasibility analysis for Commercialisation

y y(expert panel + modelling)

Aim: Internal feasibility analysis for CommercialisationDetailed, Quantitative Risk Assessment incorporating:

• Performance assessment, including newly acquired data, with modelling resultswith modelling results

– Detailed Containment Risk Assessment leakage pathways from primary container

– Detailed Technical Effectiveness Risk Assessment– Consequence analysis– Mitigation and remediation analysis– Probabilistic and modelled assessment of ‘Contingent

Storage Capacity’Storage Capacity

• Mitigation for regulatory/social risks– Environmental Impact Analysis– Initiate Stakeholder Engagement Program


Initiate Stakeholder Engagement Program

ApprovalsApprovals

Ai E t l (R l t ) A l f C i li tiAim: External (Regulatory) Approval for Commercialisation

• Transparent External Qualitative Risk Assessment (i.e. Environmental Impact Assessment) incorporating:

– Leakage Risk Assessment on all data availableLeakage to surface / near surface / existing resources

Conseq ence anal sis– Consequence analysis– Mitigation and remediation analysis (technical)– Mitigation for social risks

Fi li t k h ld tFinalise stakeholder engagement programClarify liability pathways


Construction and InjectionConstruction and Injection (Deployment)

Aim: Safely develop injection site and safelyAim: Safely develop injection site and safely inject CO2

• Standard industry equipment with standard procedures to manage and minimise risk of f iti l kfugitive leakage.

• Baseline surveys completed• Initial gathering of injection and monitoring data


Post Injection andPost-Injection and Post Closure

Aim:Aim: • Internal Approval for Site Closure• Regulator Approval for Abandonment• Demonstration of risk reduction through MMV • Based on verification that injected CO2

complies with modellingp g– Refinement of quantitative risk assessment

model– Revision of monitoring practices


RA for Site Characterisation: Gaps

• Should we also characterise the CO2 (the injection gas) in terms of composition given that differingin terms of composition, given that differing compositions may react with the storage formation in different ways?

• Existing wells must be considered as part of “site characterisation”, but what about planned future wells?, p

• Will RA for onshore and offshore characterisation need to meet different requirements?



RA for Site Characterisation: Gaps (cont.) Will RA for onshore and offshore characterisation need to meet

different requirements, given the significant differences?

For example………p

• Data type and availability

• M&V technologies that can be deployed

• Remediation options that may be used

• The economics of storage will differ

• The scale of operation will be different• The scale of operation will be different

• The opportunity for test wells prior to injection

• The use of existing infrastructure

• The environmental impact

• The jurisdictional issues State/Federal



RA for Site Characterisation: Gaps (cont.)

• Is characterisation an activity that occurs only prior to commencement of CO2 injection?

• Or does it also continue (and is refined) throughout the• Or does it also continue (and is refined) throughout the injection phase, and during later monitoring and verification stages?

Sh ld b d fi i it h t i ti i t 3• Should we be defining site characterization into 3 phases?

- pre-injectionj

- injection

- post injection??

Alternatively, is “site characterisation” the pre-injection phase & “site verification” (M & V) the injection/post injection phase?



j p

The Future: Aims & Objectives• Develop and get sign-off from all stakeholders on “best practice” for:

– Developing a risk assessment scheme to optimise characterising storage sites and estimating storage capacity of those sitesg g g p y

– Assuring consistency in data compilation, interpretation, modelling etc, to the extent that this is possible, given the variability in the extent and quality of geological & geophysical data

– Ensuring consistency in characterising storage sites and determining storage capacity across state boundaries, between offshore and onshore. Develop a consistent and readily useable methodology that will– Develop a consistent and readily useable methodology that will ultimately deliver the basis for bankable storage projects in an economical, credible and timely fashion.

• Potentially develop “roadmap to certification”!• Potentially develop roadmap to certification !


Conclusions• There is no such thing as the perfect site; they will be fit for

purpose….each with own risk assessment criteria

• We need to agree what is meant by “site characterisation”, including when it concludes

• We need to have an agreed methodology for storage capacity assessment

• “Characterisation” is site specific, onshore/ offshore specific and storage type (depleted fields, saline fmn, coal etc) specific; it is therefore essential that we identify commonalities and don’t just l k f diff (l litt !)look for differences (lumpers versus splitters!)

• Easy to work out what we can do ( “stamp collecting”); more difficult (and more essential?) to work out what we don’t need to do other ise the task ill o er helm s!do- otherwise the task will overwhelm us!

• Geology is only one of the features that determines suitability of a site for CO2 storage



Risk Assessment Network final.ppt

Documents

Transcript of Risk Assessment Network final.ppt