1887

Abstract

Summary

The assessment of geological carbon storage (GCS) projects includes the evaluation of the risks that can affect the project. This is required in view of their mitigation, and adequate consideration in the project economics.

To evaluate risks, several qualitative tools are sed: risk registers, bow-tie diagrams, risk matrices, etc. While these provide an overview of the adverse events that may affect a GCS project, and indicate what can be done to mitigate risks, they do not provide a sufficient temporal risk profile.

We have developed a workflow and a tool for quantitative risking of GCS projects. Here, we present some sources of numerical information to estimate frequencies and impacts of adverse events. While impacts can be assessed using expert knowledge, frequencies require expert judgement supported by statistically relevant data.

The analysis of historic adverse events that have affected actual GCS projects provides insight into the risks and allows for semi-quantitative risk estimates.

Numerical data, for example leakage frequencies, are available for other types of geological storage, such as methane storage.

Quantitative risking of GCS projects hinges on obtaining realistic data from multiple sources. Such data help reduce bias and increase confidence in the risk profile of the project.

© EAGE Publications BV
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521118
2025-10-27
2026-01-17

  • From This Site

    /content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521118
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Carragher, P., Constable, R., Jenkins, C. and Pestman, P. [2025]. Calibrating and Quantifying Subsurface Risk in CO2 Storage Projects. SPE-224174-MS. https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/224174-MS.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowden, A. and Rigg, A.2004. Assessing risk in CO2 storage projects. The APPEA Journal, 44, 677–702.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Denis-Ryan, A. and Morrison, K. [2024]. Gorgon CCS underperformance hits new low in 2023-24. IEEFA. Available at: https://ieefa.org/resources/gorgon-ccs-underperformance-hits-new-low-2023-24.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. EPA [2024]. EPA Announces Proposed Order Requiring Archer Daniels Midland Co. to Take Actions to Ensure Safe Operation of its Carbon Sequestration Well in Decatur, Illinois. EPA News Release. Available at https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Espie, T. and Woods, A. [2014]. Testing some Common Concepts in CO2 Storage. Energy Procedia, 63, 5450–5460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.576.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Furre, A.-K., Warchoł, M.J., Alnes, H. and Pontén, A.S.M. [2024]. Sleipner 26 years: how well-established subsurface monitoring work processes have contributed to successful offshore CO2 injection. Geoenergy, 2, 2024–015. https://doi.org/10.1144/geoenergy2024-015.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. IOGP [2019a]. Risk Assessment Data Directory Blowout Frequencies. https://www.iogp.org/bookstore/.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. IOGP [2019b]. Riser & Pipeline Release Frequencies. Available at: https://www.iogp.org/bookstore/.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. IOGP [2022]. Storage incident frequencies. Available at: https://www.iogp.org/bookstore/.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Garnett, A. [2014]. CCS major project development lessons from the ZeroGen experience. Webinar, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmQQk8RsS2E.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Hansen, O. and others [2013]. Snøhvit: The history of injecting and storing 1 Mt CO2 in the fluvial Tubåen Fm. Energy Procedia, 37, 3565–3573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.249.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Jenkins, C., Pestman, P., Carragher, P. D. and Constable, R. [2024]. Long Term Risk Assessment of Subsurface Carbon Storage: Analogues, Workflows, and Quantification. Geoenergy, 2, 2024–014. https://doi.org/10.1144/geoenergy2024-014.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Montoya, P. [2024]. Labarge CCS Project, Wyoming, USA:An Example of Containment Monitoring Using Non-Seismic Methods. 3rd Energy Group CCS Symposium, The Geological Society, London, 11–13 Sept. 2024.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Smith, N. and others [2022]. Quest CCS facility: Halite damage and injectivity remediation in CO2 injection wells. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 119, 103718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103718.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Tanase, D. and Tanaka, J. [2021]. Progress of CO2 injection and monitoring of the Tomakomai CCS Demonstration Project. GHGT-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3817073.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Trabucchi, C., Donlan, M., Spirt, V., Friedman, S. and Esposito, R., 2014. Application of a Risk-Based Probabilistic Model (CCSvt Model) to Value Potential Risks Arising from Carbon Capture and Storage. Energy Procedia, 63, 7608–7618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.795.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. White, J.A. and others [2014]. Geomechanical behavior of the reservoir and caprock system at the In Salah CO2 storage project. PNAS, 111, 8747–8752. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1316465111.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521118
Loading
Quantifying Risk of Geological Carbon Storage Projects
Conference Proceedings 2025, 1 (2025); https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.202521118
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521118
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.202521118
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error