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 probability probability of the (risk) event occurring, of the (risk) event occurring, times times the the consequence consequence 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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
– 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
IEA JOINT NETWORKS WORKSHOP 11-14 June, 2008, New York
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
IEA JOINT NETWORKS WORKSHOP 11-14 June, 2008, New York
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
IEA JOINT NETWORKS WORKSHOP 11-14 June, 2008, New York
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?
• 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?
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 !
IEA JOINT NETWORKS WORKSHOP 11-14 June, 2008, New York
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