Patricia Larkin PhD Candidate, Population Health

Integrated Risk Management Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage

in the Canadian Context

5th IEAGHG Social Research Network Meeting

July 6, 2014

Project Team

University of Ottawa University of Waterloo University of Calgary

PI’s: Daniel Krewski

William Leiss

Mamadou Fall

PI’s: Robert Gracie

Maurice Dusseault

PI: Joseph Arvai

Team Team Team

Patricia Larkin, PhD Chris Ladubec, PhD Victoria Campbell, RA

Zhenze Li, PDF Mirhamed Sarkarfashi, PhD Douglas Bessette, PhD

Farshad Malekzadeh, PhD

Project Manager: UOttawa, Shalu Darshan, PhD

2

Outline

• Timeliness and usefulness

• Features of a generic Risk Management Framework

• CCS risk assessment and risk management frameworks worldwide and attempts at integration

• Integrated Risk Management Framework for CCS in the Canadian context

– Expert elicitation

– Risk-based decision making

• Conclusion and questions

3

CCS Implementation N

um

ber

of

pro

ject

s

Year

MtC

O2 y

r-1

Scott et al. (2012)

4

Generic Risk Management Framework

5

Stak

eho

lder C

om

mu

nicatio

n

CCS RA/RM Frameworks Worldwide

Many frameworks have been created o More than a dozen regulatory and non-regulatory organizations have

sourced documents and online resources

o The majority of regulatory documents have come out of international/regional (EU) entities

Elaboration varies o May simply mention a requirement, or may spell out specific inclusions

or approach

o Focus is often chain specific - Capture, Transport, Injection, Storage

Most comprehensive documents o Regulatory - UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – Clean

Development Mechanism, Modalities and Procedures for CCS (2011)

o Advisory - World Resources Institute (2008), DNV GL, US NETL (multiple)

6

Elaborated Frameworks

• Primary focus on injection and storage

• Many documents address storage site selection and characterization o 4-step RA (Hazard Characterization, Exposure Assessment, Effects

Assessment, Risk Characterization)

• Few frameworks link with an assessment of emissions, waste, or water use

• Uncertainty, stakeholder communication and consultation, and transparency are discussed sparsely in the regulatory context and frequently in non-regulatory documents

• Some non-government guidance includes a discussion on methodologies for risk ranking; government documents do not

7

Attempts at Integration

• Bowden and Rigg (2004)

o Features Events Processes (FEP); use of expert panel; community interface

• FutureGen (2007)

o 1000s of pages with web access

• Hnottavange-Telleen et al. (2011)

o Stressed that risks perceived by all stakeholders are equally important (public and expert)

• Koorneef et al. (2011, 2012)

o RA within broader Environmental Impact Assessment; transparent process

8

Attempts at Integration (con’t)

• Shell Quest (2012)

o Documentation and regulatory decision

• Bowden et al. (2013a, 2013b)

o Socially acceptable risk concept

• Gerstenberger et al. (2013)

o Methods and tools available for integrated risk assessment, including expert elicitation, in order to respond to uncertainties and limited data; communication

• Choptiany and Pelot (2014)

o Multicriteria Decision Analysis; interactive engagement

9

Integrated Risk Management Framework

10

Adapted from Leiss et al. (2010)

Risk Assessment Phase

11

Risk Management Phase

12

Structured Expert Elicitation

• To improve understanding of relative risk and quantification of collective uncertainty judgments

(Aspinall, 2010; Cooke & Goossens, 2008)

• International expert panel convened regarding risks and attendant uncertainties

– Injection and storage

– Risk management of high impact low probability events

• Full analysis yet to be completed

13

Relative Risk

14

16

What should be the storage project monitoring period (years)?

17

• Experts thought storage monitoring period should extend between a decade through a millennium

• Best expert judgement is approximately a century

What should be the storage project monitoring period (years)?

Effectiveness of RM Options for high impact low probability events

15

Risk-based Decision Making and Risk Management

18 Krewski et al. (2014)

Determining Acceptable Risk Management Options

19

20

Conclusion

_____________

Questions

References • Aspinall, W. (2010). A route to more tractable expert advice. Nature, 463, 294-295.

• Bowden, A. R., Pershke, D. F., & Chalaturnyk, R. (2013). Biosphere risk assessment for CO2 storage projects. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 16, S291-S308. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.02.015

• Bowden, A. R., Pershke, D. F., & Chalaturnyk, R. (2013). Geosphere risk assessment conducted for the IEAGHG Weyburn-Midale CO2 Monitoring and Storage Project. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 16, S276-S290. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.02.014

• Bowden, A. R. and Rigg, A. (2004). ‘Assessing Risk in CO2 Storage Projects’, APPEA Journal, Vol. 44, pp. 677-702.

• Canadian Standards Association. (2012) CSA Z741:2012 Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide. Toronto, CSA. http://shop.csa.ca/en/canada/design-for-the-environment/z741-12/invt/27034612012

• Choptiany, J. M. H. and Pelot, R (2014). ‘A Multicriteria Decision Analysis Model and Risk Assessment Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage’, Risk Analysis, Vol. 34, pp. 1720-1737.

• Cooke, R. M., & Goossens, L. L. H. J. (2008). TU Delft expert judgment database. Reliability Engineering and Systems Safety, 93, 657-674. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2007.03.005

• DNV GL – eg https://www.dnvgl.com/oilgas/innovation-development/joint-industry-projects/co2riskman.html

• FutureGen (2007) - http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/EIS-0394-DEIS-RiskAssessmentReport-2007.pdf

21

References con’t • Gerstenberger, M. C., Christophersen, A., Buxton, R., Allinson, G., Hou, W., Leamon, G., &

Nicol, A. (2013). Integrated Risk Assessment for CCS. Energy Procedia, 37(0), 2775-2782. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.162

• Hnottavange-Telleen, K., Chabora, E., Finley, R.J., Greenberg, S.E. and Marsteller, S. (2011) ‘Risk management in a large-scale CO2 geosequestration pilot project, Illinois, USA’, Energy Procedia Vol. 4, pp.4044-4051. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.346

• Koornneef, J., Ramírez, A., Turkenburg, W., & Faaij, A. (2011). The environmental impact and risk assessment of CO2 capture, transport and storage-an evaluation of the knowledge base using the DPSIR framework. Energy Procedia, 4, 2293-2300. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.119

• Koornneef, J., Ramirez, A., Turkenburg, W., & Faaij, A. (2012). The environmental impact and risk assessment of CO2 capture, transport and storage - An evaluation of the knowledge base. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 38, 62-86. doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2011.05.002

• Krewski, D., Westphal, M., Andersen, M. E., Paoli, G. M., Chiu, W. A., Al-Zoughool, M., . . . Cote, I. (2014). A framework for the next generation of risk science. Environ Health Perspect, 122(8), 796-805. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307260

• Leiss, W., Tyshenko, M. G., Krewski, D., Cashman, N., Lemyre, L., & Al-Zoughool, M. (2010). Managing the risks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy: a Canadian perspective. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 14(5), 381-436.

22

References con’t

• Scott, V., Gilfillan, S., Markusson, N., Chalmers, H., & Haszeldine, R. S. (2012). Last chance for carbon capture and storage. Nature Climate Change, 3(2), 105-111. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1695

• Shell Quest (2012) - http://www.shell.ca/en/aboutshell/our-business-tpkg/upstream/oil-sands/quest/about-quest.html

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2011). Modalities and procedures for carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations as clean development mechanism project activities. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov_2011/decisions/application/pdf/cmp7_carbon_storage_.pdf.

• US National Energy Technology Laboratory - http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/strategic-program-support/best-practices

• World Resources Institute. (2008). CCS Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and Storage. Washington: WRI Retrieved from http://pdf.wri.org/ccs_guidelines.pdf.

23

Appendix

24

IRMF for CCS in Canadian Context

25

26

27

28

What in your opinion is the likelihood of minor leakage in injection?

What in your opinion is the likelihood of minor leakage in injection?

• Some experts thought likelihood of minor leakage in injection is 100%

• Experts thought the range is between approximately

1 in 1.5 through 1 in 2300

• Best expert judgement is approximately 1 in 130

29

30

What in your opinion is the likelihood of minor leakage in storage in first 50 years?

What in your opinion is the likelihood of minor leakage in storage during the first 50 yrs?

• Experts thought likelihood of minor leakage in first 50 years is between

1 in 7 through 1 in 98,000

• Best expert judgement is 1 in 8000

31

32

In a typical large scale integrated saline aquifer storage project, what fraction of injected CO2 can be expected to be retained over a period of 1,000 years? (0-100%)

33

In a typical large scale integrated saline aquifer storage project, what fraction of injected CO2 can be expected to be retained over a period of 1,000 years? (0-100%)

• Experts thought between 87.5-100% of injected CO2 would be expected to be retained in a saline aquifer storage site through 1000 years

• Best expert judgement is approximately 99.8%