6.2.1 Modelling and risk assessment

Already during the application of a storage project it is necessary to provide evidence that at the selected project site CO2 storage can be performed safely. Therefore a site-characterization is necessary. The characterization of the reservoir and the site is an iterative process, which consists of the following major elements:

  • Data acquisition, monitoring;
  • Geological model;
  • Dynamic modelling;
  • Risk assessment.

The geological model is based on the acquired data. The main parameters of the geological model are the model area, the geometry, grid size, possible migration pathways within the model area, faults and other tectonic attributes. Due to constant monitoring of the site more data becomes available so the geological model can be adapted and reaches more realistic values.

The static geological model is then used to perform dynamic models in order to predict the behaviour of the reservoir once CO2 is injected. The dynamic model uses a flow model (based on the geometry characteristics of the geological model) to estimate the size of the plume, possible trapping mechanisms and the displacement of any other fluids present in the reservoir. It will further use coupled models to take into account geochemical and geo-mechanical changes in the storage formation, like pressure and stress. The results of different short-/long-term scenarios of the dynamic models are then compared to identify the site-specific uncertainties.

There is always an interaction between the 3 main players, geological model - dynamic model - risk assessment.

In general risk assessment is most effective prior to or at early stages of injection because the risks decrease with time after cessation of injection. This is not always true due to geochemical effects that may be slow and therefore will reach high risk at some point during post-closure or due to slow migration of the plume which may lead the plume into the vicinity of a leaky wells or open faults. Also tectonic activity could cause breaching of physical traps, which is dangerous if CO2 is still in a mobile stage. So geochemistry and migration should be a part in any long-term stability evaluation for risk assessment.

If the monitored CO2 plume is not behaving like in the predicted model the used geological and dynamical model require adjustments. The comparison stops as soon as a confident model is developed which agrees with the monitored data. Risk assessment in general is based on the geological settings and should basically answer the following considerations: How likely is leakage? How likely is leakage due to faults, wells and fractures of the reservoir? What size of leakage (leakage rate) is possible? Is there potential geo-mechanical failure, and if yes what kind? Which are the critical parameters for this site? Where to best install monitoring? Is there an environmental impact on the surrounding area? Are there any negative influences on population living in the vicinity?

International regulations

The "OSPAR FRAM" guidelines for risk assessment for CO2 storage in the marine environment are very prescriptive and serve as model for performing risk assessment. The "Report on the international regulatory requirements" (Korre, 2011) states that: "Decision 2007/2 of the OSPAR parties requires use of the FRAM when issuing storage permits". Also the London Protocol is accompanied by specific guidelines requiring use of OSPAR FRAM and especially many elements for assessing risks like migration, leakage pathways and potential effects on the marine environment.

The OSPAR FRAM is based on six stages reaching from problem formulation and storage-site characterization via the assessment of the site response when exposed to CO2 injection to risk characterization and management, including monitoring and remediation measures.

The IEA model framework uses OSPAR FRAM as a basis for their regulations as well.

European regulations

Modelling guidelines in the EU CCS Directive 2009/31/EC are only prescriptive in respect to the required outcomes .No particular tool is mentioned for modelling and there are no details on the level of accuracy. These guidelines are the optimum for a regulatory situation. They prescribe standards but they leave room for updated technology and practice. Risk assessment regulations in the European Union are based on OSPAR FRAM.

USA regulations

UIC regulations state that no effect on underground sources of drinking water shall occur. Furthermore they require computational modelling with respect to the extent of the plume and formation fluid (taking into account all properties of all phases of CO2) and any migration through faults, fractures and artificial penetrations. They require extra detailed computational multiphase flow modelling, accounting for geological heterogeneities and risk assessment for leakage. All the modelling should be updated periodically or whenever irregularities occur.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) provides guidelines on what risk assessment should achieve and lists assessment points. The main concerns are leakage, the fluids potential impact on confining zones and any possible endangerment to humans and environment. WRI asks for risk assessment to identify monitoring requirements and provide the basis for mitigation. The guidelines require periodic updating and are site-specific.