Illinois Basin-Decatur Project: initial risk-assessment results and framework for evaluating site performance

Hnottavange-Telleen, Ken; Krapac, Ivan G.; Vivalda, Claudia

doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.004

Cited by 27 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The underground CO 2 plume movement and distribution, extension, and magnitude of the induced injection pressure, and possible and potential risks and hazards associated with this phenomenon both during and after injection have been analyzed by many research and study groups. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Nevertheless, one major concern is that the effective amount of CO 2 that needs to be injected and stored in the saline formations to have a known effect on climate change is far beyond the amounts that have been injected so far. 19 Consequently, one of the most important tasks in CCS research is to estimate the most feasible capacity of these formations to hold and store CO 2 for many years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Pressure‐limited approach to model and estimate CO₂ injection and storage capacity: saline Mount Simon Formation

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To estimate the carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) injection and storage capacity of saline formations, we used Tough2-ECO2N simulation software to develop a pressure-limited (dynamic) simulation approach based on applying three-dimensional (3D) numerical simulation only on the effective injection area (A eff ) surrounding each injection well. A statistical analysis was performed to account for existing reservoir heterogeneity and property variations. The accuracy of the model simulation results (such as CO 2 plume extension and induced injection well bottomhole pressure values) were tested and verified against the data obtained from the Decatur CO 2 injection study of the Mount Simon Formation. Next, we designed a full-field CO 2 injection pattern by populating the core sections of this formation with a series of the simulated effective injection areas such that each simulated A eff acts as a closed domain. The results of this analysis were used to estimate the optimum number and location of the required CO 2 injection wells, along with the dynamic annual CO 2 injection rate and overall pressure-limited storage capacity of this formation. This approach enabled us to model separate CO 2 injection activities independently at different sections of the same saline formation and to model and simulate faults and natural barriers by considering them as boundary conditions for each simulated A eff without constructing full-field models. Using this approach, a series of modeled A eff with relevant properties may be redesigned to model any other saline formation with a similar structure. C

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3D Pressure‐limited approach to model and estimate CO₂ injection and storage capacity: saline Mount Simon Formation

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After the initial risk workshop, the 120+ evaluated FEPs were ranked on the basis of their risk values. The six quantities collected per FEP offer several possibilities for computing rankings, one of which has been previously reported . In common with practice followed in later projects, the risk values reported in Table compute risk as the product of ‘best‐guess’ severity (S bg ) and the likelihood of this best‐guess severity (L bg ).…”

Section: Risk Evaluation Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Th e six quantities collected per FEP off er several possibilities for computing rankings, one of which has been previously reported. 7 In common with practice followed in later projects, the risk values reported in Table 5 compute risk as the product of 'best-guess' severity (S bg ) and the likelihood of this best-guess severity (L bg ). Th e average of all qualifi ed (expert) S bg × L bg values (slightly diff erent from average S bg × average L bg ) is used here for risk ranking.…”

Section: Risk Evaluation Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The central function of risk assessment for the IBDP is to provide decision support for project management, and specifically to help prioritize the allocation of resources for actions taken to reduce project risks. In the semi‐quantitative method addressed by this paper and previously, the calculated quantity defined as ‘Risk’ is compared with pre‐defined, policy‐driven risk tolerance levels as established by the project partners (private companies, public funding agencies, and other sponsors). The key early output is a set of risk‐prioritized scenarios coupled with a set of risk treatments (also called risk response actions or control measures).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Risk management at the Illinois Basin – Decatur Project: A FEPs‐based approach

Hnottavange-Telleen

2014

Greenhouse Gases

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Illinois Basin – Decatur Project (IBDP) evaluates risk as the potential for negative impact to five project values: health and safety, environment, financial, research, and industry stewardship. Goals include monitoring one million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) injected about 2,150 meters below the ground surface. Risk treatments address ways in which any project value is at risk: for example, monitoring is designed to narrow parameter uncertainties that are important for system control, research, and public assurance. This paper details the risk management approach undertaken by the IBDP. Although approaches taken by other geologic storage projects are not compared here, some aspects of this project's risk management approach are judged to have been more effective (comprehensiveness; contribution to early‐project organization), and some less effective (execution efficiency and information management). IBDP initially evaluated risk related to 123 Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs). Higher‐risk FEPs provided the basis for writing 88 scenarios, which are the critical entities whose associated risks are tracked and treated. Individuals are assigned to organize and to confirm the execution of risk treatments. Maintaining risk at acceptable levels is a key aspect of performance management. In concept, risk is re‐evaluated before significant new activities and decision points, and after significant new information is received. In practice, project workers are charged to maintain everyday awareness of risk levels in the scenarios already identified, and to be vigilant for the emergence of new risk‐bearing scenarios. Coordinating the activities of multiple organizations presents special risks and challenges. For IBDP, the first risk workshop was a central element in the project kickoff meeting, initiating a risk management process whose application has been a key aspect of project success. Integrated risk management has influenced activities within all IBDP partner organizations, shaped internal and external communications, and contributed to smooth operation of the project's physical components.

show abstract

“…In some cases, additional research and/or application of formal methods, such as expert elicitation may help reduce or bound uncertainties (see, for example, Hnottavange-Telleen et al, 2009;Roman et al, 2008;Bonano et al, 1990). For example, a formal, rigorous elicitation approach might include statistical tests on expert responses to evaluate the potential for bias, or testing the experts group accuracy at prediction by asking questions about other events for which probabilities are known.…”

Section: Valuationmentioning

confidence: 98%

A multi-disciplinary framework to monetize financial consequences arising from CCS projects and motivate effective financial responsibility

Trabucchi¹,

Donlan²,

Wade³

2010

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Illinois Basin-Decatur Project: initial risk-assessment results and framework for evaluating site performance

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

3D Pressure‐limited approach to model and estimate CO₂ injection and storage capacity: saline Mount Simon Formation

3D Pressure‐limited approach to model and estimate CO₂ injection and storage capacity: saline Mount Simon Formation

Risk management at the Illinois Basin – Decatur Project: A FEPs‐based approach

A multi-disciplinary framework to monetize financial consequences arising from CCS projects and motivate effective financial responsibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Illinois Basin-Decatur Project: initial risk-assessment results and framework for evaluating site performance

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

3D Pressure‐limited approach to model and estimate CO2 injection and storage capacity: saline Mount Simon Formation

3D Pressure‐limited approach to model and estimate CO2 injection and storage capacity: saline Mount Simon Formation

Risk management at the Illinois Basin – Decatur Project: A FEPs‐based approach

A multi-disciplinary framework to monetize financial consequences arising from CCS projects and motivate effective financial responsibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

3D Pressure‐limited approach to model and estimate CO₂ injection and storage capacity: saline Mount Simon Formation

3D Pressure‐limited approach to model and estimate CO₂ injection and storage capacity: saline Mount Simon Formation