Launch Meeting of the Risk Assessment Network

Publication Overview

This report summarises the major outcomes of the launch meeting of the Risk Assessment Network which was jointly organised by IEA GHG and TNO with the support of EPRI. It was held at the TNO offices in Utrecht, Netherlands, 23-24 August 2005. This international meeting was attended by 40 delegates from industry and research institutes drawn from nine countries.

Publication Summary

• This section provides the major points of discussion from the meeting.
• Identifying the missing groups in the network. Regulators are not well represented, neither are specialists or NGO’s. The working group looking at Environmental Impacts would benefit from more biologists and toxicologists being involved. NGO’s should be approached to join the network, it was suggested that the network provides them a more neutral contact to the subject rather than having to be linked to specific projects.
• Before any measure of comparing datasets, access to data by a wider audience needs to be facilitated. This could be a role for the network, specifically for IEA GHG.
• Terminology was a common point for discussion. Commonly referred to as benchmarking there was a consensus from the data management working group that a more suitable term could be ‘Comparison of RA Methodologies’.
• In order to begin comparing the datasets, the first step should be to establish a protocol of what data is wanted. It needs to be clear and concise.
• Comparing RA models on a case that was rejected might be less sensitive than using the data available from operating projects.
• It could be a role for the network to show the reliability of predictive tools. If there are differences then it should be explained why.
• In the models that are available at the moment, the codes are not written with CO2 injection in mind. Rather than cobble together existing codes, which were not designed for this purpose, could it be a role of the network to develop a model together writing a new code? It might not be the time yet but within 2-3 years of CO2ReMoVe an agreement could be achieved.
• Comparisons between the models and codes used for RA would be useful and problems could be developed that each model works on individually. The weaknesses in the code could be identified and improved through this type of collaboration.
• Comparing models could become a dominate part of the network but it should not dominate other important questions raised by the other groups (Regulatory Interactions and Environmental Impacts). Comparison will be very time consuming. There could be a forum to discuss the comparisons, and others in the group go away and get external funding to do the code comparison.
• Risk assessment is not new. The regulator in the Netherlands has had to look at codes and came up with a list of codes/models that were accepted. The regulators will say which codes/models are allowed to undertake risk assessment. However, they could go to the model with gives the lowest risk.
• The regulators should be kept informed of the different techniques and the current status. It could be the networks role to communicate this.
• If you were to choose a dataset based on current models in what format should the data set be in? What size of dataset should be made? And where would it be stored?
• By stating what is in a dataset you are influencing risk assessment. But it is important to use what ever data is available. The amount of data will vary between different sites. There will be some generic data such as how CO2 behaves but there will be a lot of information that is site specific.
• It could be possible to define a set of parameters for modelling; therefore, can we define what is needed for risk assessment.
• At this stage it is not possible to quantify the bare minimum requirements for data. Each model requires generalised data and specific data. Unless there is comparison between the models it will be difficult to increase confidence. One solution suggested was to have access to the most comprehensive dataset available and then test it with different models. Not all models will use all available data. The results will then show how close they compare. Until there has been this type of comparison it will not be possible to suggest a minimum. This type of comparison may still not provide us with a minimum but it is a start and may provide a direction for future developments.
• It was suggested that the current status of risk assessment allows a definition of a good dataset.
• All available models should be identified and an inventory should be produced.
• A question raised was when should the modelling stop and a more practical aspect start? Practical could be in the next few years but is everyone on the same timescale?
• Is it possible to use the tools currently available and compare how the various projects perform? This would certainly help to identify any gaps.
• Regulators can permit but at this time it is not possible to guarantee security of storage. However, the risk will decrease with time as the models improve.
• It was suggested that there were two steps that were important. The first is that it was important to identify the minimum codes that were required to provide information to the regulator in order to give sufficient confidence. The second step is to set the codes for the models themselves.
• The urgency could be underlined by Otway Basin Project. It was clear the progress of the project was decided by regulatory and liability issues. Authorities are afraid of setting an example that becomes binding for the future. There is an urgent need for progress in this area.
• IGCC plants with CO2 capture technology are close to being finalised. There are a lot of projects ready to go ahead. Some are close to oil reservoirs where there is money to be made. Others are located close to saline aquifers were there is little known about the structures and information will be required, soon!