6.3 Risk assessment tools for CGS projects in various field cases

A survey of various risk tools that incorporate geologic CCS risk methodologies was conducted and updated with feedback from individucos involved in the development of specific risk methodologies (Tab. 6-2).

Tab. 6-2: A Summary of geologic carbon storage risk Tools (NETL, 2011)

E. Tab . 6-2

Work undertaken to amend the conventions regulating injections under the sea-bed (i.e.,the London Convention/Protocol and the OSPAR Convention) have led to an agreement on a risk framework (OSPAR, 2007) consisting of six essential steps. A methodological framework for assessing risks associated with CO2 storage operations has been developed in the EC-funded project CO2ReMoVe. A study for the IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme (IEA GHG, 2007) examined the transposition of the usual Environmental Impact Assessment frameworks for use with CCS (CSLF, 2009).

The OSPAR Framework for Risk and Management (FRAM) of Storage of CO2 Streams in Geological Formations (OSPAR, 2007) describes an iterative process that is proposed for continual improvement of the management of a storage project during its lifetime. It has been designed to meet the requirements of off-shore storage settings. The same framework with small adjustments would also be applicable for onshore CO2 storage settings. It suggests that a simple conservative deterministic assessment is sufficient when adverse consequences are insignificant, but when a precautionary approach is necessary, the assessment should include probabilistic approaches to achieve acceptable results. This frameworks consists of the six following stages with some modifications for onshore storage settings:

  • Problem formulation defining the boundaries of the assessment and including scenarios and pathways (i.e., suitability of deep geological formations, nature of overburden, characteristics of marine/land environment, need for long-term monitoring),

  • Site selection and characterization (i.e., collection and evaluation of data concerning the site),

  • Exposure assessment (i.e., characterization and movement of the CO2 stream),

  • Effects assessment (i.e., assembly of information to describe the response of receptors),

  • Risk characterization (i.e., integration of exposure and effect data to estimate the likely adverse impact),

  • Risk management (i.e., including monitoring, mitigation and remediation measures).

The FRAM approach is relevant to all phases throughout the life time of a CO2 storage project defined by the OSPAR (2007) including planning, COnstruction, operation, site-closure and post-closure (OSPAR, 2007; Korre and Durucan, 2009).

In Europe, two EU Directives require the assessment of the impacts of major projects on the environment before they can be authorized: (a) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive, relating to proposed plans and programmes; and (b) Environmental Assessment Directive, which requires that the environmental consequences of individual projects are identified and assessed before authorization is given, in particular the direct and indirect effects of a project on (i) human beings, fauna and flora; (ii) soil, water, air, climate and the landscape; (iii) material assets and the cultural heritage; and (iv) the interaction between the above factors (Stenhouse et al., 2009). In January 2008, the European Commission proposed a Directive to enable environmentally-safe capture and geological storage of CO2 in the EU as part of a major legislative package. The final version of the Directive (2009/31/EC) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 23rd April 2009 (EC, 2009). The EU member states are responsible for the transposition of the Directive to national legislation. In Annexes I and II of the Directive, the criteria for the characterization and assessment of potential storage complex and surrounding area and the criteria for establishing and updating the monitoring plan are described respectively. The characterisation and assessment of the potential storage complex and surrounding area referred to in Article 4(3) can be carried out in three steps:

Step 1 - Data collection covering the intrinsic characteristics of the storage complex;

Step 2 - Building the three-dimensional static geological earth model or a set of such models of the candidate storage complex including the caprock and the hydraulically connected areas and fluids shall be built using computer reservoir simulators;

Step 3 - Characterisation of the storage dynamic behaviour, sensitivity characterisation and risk based on dynamic modelling, comprising a variety of time-step simulations of CO2 injection into the storage site using the three-dimensional static geological earth model(s) in the computerised storage complex simulator (the risk will comprise hazard characterisation, exposure assessment, effects assessment and risk characterisation).