Risk assessment and management frameworks for carbon capture and geological storage: a global perspective

Self Cite

With a focus on risk management (RM) in injection and storage for carbon capture and geological sequestration (CCS), an expert elicitation of scientific judgements quantified collective uncertainty ranges for a number of difficult environmental and human health risk challenges. Results suggest similarities and differences in opinions, an outcome that may be reflective of both the newness and the complexity of this technology. A suitable monitoring period was estimated at about a century; however, uncertainty was three orders of magnitude, with an upper (5th percentile) value of almost 1,000 years. For selected low probability high impact georisks, only site selection and monitoring were considered 'very' effective RM options. Monitoring, well integrity studies, emergency response plan, automatic emergency shut down system and training were considered 'very' or 'extremely' effective in managing two risks more directly related to human health. Experts responded with a wide uncertainty spread for a regulated threshold of minor, major and catastrophic leakage. A companion paper discusses elicitation findings for issues related to risk assessment.

Section: Storage Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk management in carbon capture and geological storage: insights from a structured expert elicitation

Larkin

Gracie

Shafiei

et al. 2019

Self Cite

“…Various government reports and policy frameworks have advocated for a transfer of responsibility, either to assure the public that there will be a responsible entity even if the operator becomes insolvent or simply disappears over the long time that CO 2 is expected to be sequestered, or as an incentive to encourage CCS development (IOGCC, 2007;Alberta Energy, 2013;ecoEnergy Task Force, 2008;Alberta Carbon Capture and Storage Development Council, 2009). Most jurisdictions have followed this advice (Jacobs and Stump, 2010;Havercroft and Macrory 2014;IEA, 2018); but not all -for example both Victoria and Queensland leave liability with the operator post-closure (Gibbs, 2011(Gibbs, , 2018IEA, 2018;Larkin et al, 2018c). Most writers also support the post-closure transfer of liability although most also suggest that the industry should be responsible for some or all of this liability through an industry fund that is financed by a fee per tonne of sequestered CO 2 (Jacobs and Stump, 2010;Morgan and McCoy, 2012;Klass and Wilson, 2008).…”

Section: The Case For Transferring Liabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Alberta's approach to the transfer of liability for carbon capture and storage projects

Bankes

2019

The Province of Alberta has assumed a leadership role in Canada in developing a legal and regulatory framework for encouraging the adoption of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. One element of that framework deals with liability issues. This paper reviews the different liability issues associated with CCS projects as well as the case for transferring liability post-closure to the government. The paper then examines how Alberta has chosen to accept a transfer of that liability and how Alberta seeks to recover at least a portion of the costs associated with that liability from the injection industry through the mechanism of the Post-Closure Stewardship Fund. Some reference is made to the European Union's CCS Directive as a point of comparison.Keywords: carbon capture and storage; CCS; law and regulation; liability.Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Bankes, N. (2019) 'Alberta's approach to the transfer of liability for carbon capture and storage projects', Int.

“…While each of these issues could be the single subject of a Special Issue, the individual papers included herein consider selected aspects of these issues in more depth. (Larkin et al, 2019d) Alberta's approach to the transfer of liability for carbon capture and storage projects (Bankes, 2019) The evolution of regulatory practice for CCS projects in Canada (Larkin et al, 2019c) Canadian context in the present article 2 Adequate risk assessment and risk management frameworks…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An integrated risk assessment and management framework for carbon capture and storage: a Canadian perspective

Larkin

Leiss

Árvai

et al. 2019

Self Cite

This concluding paper of the Special Issue on carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the Canadian context provides a brief overview of the findings from all contributions, followed by a description of the Canadian policy and regulatory backdrop for CCS at both the federal and provincial levels in active jurisdictions. An integrated risk management framework (IRMF) is proposed with reference to environmental and human health risk assessment and risk management frameworks published worldwide as well as risk management demonstrated in large scale Canadian CCS projects to date. Key features of the IRMF are the ten-step rational and transparent process, options to engage with and integrate wide-ranging government and non-government stakeholders on an ongoing basis, and incorporation of independent external review. The next generation of risk-based decision making is then applied to the IRMF for CCS.