Advertisement

Systemic Methodology for Risk Management of CTSC Projects

Chapter
  • 396 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science book series (BRIEFSENVIRONMENTAL)

Abstract

The systemic methodology which is proposed for risk management of CTSC projects is introduced in this chapter. At the beginning, an overview of the methodology is presented. The methodology is founded on the concepts of STAMP and system dynamics. The objective is to model and analyze safety control structure involved in a CTSC project. Safety control structure is the organizational structure of stakeholders who are responsible for maintaining safety constraints. The goal of safety control structure in this work is to prevent CTSC projects delay or failure. This goal is rephrased as definition and treatment of significant risks that could avoid maintaining safety constraints. Following the identification of risks associated to CTSC projects progress, eighteen risks related to the phases prior to engineering are extracted. The aim is to put emphasis on the risks involved in the first phases of project development. Risks with different natures are selected and modeled by the proposed methodology. Stakeholders of CTSC projects are considered as the controllers. Required control actions for each controller (and for each particular risk) are discussed. Subsequently, inadequate control actions that could lead to a hazardous state are reviewed. System dynamics models are presented to understand the feedback networks affecting the amplification of each risk. Then, application of the methodology for three case studies (Barendrecht, Lacq and Weyburn) are explained. The context of each case study and major challenges related to each project are presented. Safety control structures are developed for each example in order to analyze the factors involved in the success or failure of projects. Afterwards, the three projects are compared in terms of context and associated risks. At the end of the chapter, a generic safety control structure is proposed for CTSC projects, according to the lessons learned from case studies analysis. Emphasis is placed on the importance of information feedback loops and communication between stakeholders, which lead to improve their mental models and decisions.

Keywords

Safety Control Structure Barendrecht Required Control Action Information Feedback Loops Safety Constraints 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. CBC news (2011) CO2 leaks worry Sask. Farmers, last updated: Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 8:49 PM. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/01/11/sk-carbon-complaint-1101.html. Accessed 10 Sept 2012
  2. CCJ (2010) Shell Barendrecht project cancelled, Carbon Capture Journal, November 5, 2010. http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=676. Accessed 22 June 2012
  3. CCP (2007) Public perception of carbon dioxide capture and storage: prioritized assessment of issues and concerns. Summary for Policy-Makers, CO2 Capture Project®, March 2007. http://ccs101.ca/assets/Documents/iea_public_perception_of_ccs.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2012
  4. CCP (2010) Update on selected regulatory issues for CO2 Capture and Geological Storage, CO2 Capture Project®. Final report, Nov 2010Google Scholar
  5. CCP (2012) CCS stakeholder issues, Review and Analysis, CO2 Capture Project®. Final report, Feb 2012Google Scholar
  6. CCS101 (2009a) Interview with Debra Button, Mayor of Weyburn, October 2009, The carbon capture and storage information source. http://ccs101.ca/ccs_communities. Accessed 26 Sept 2012
  7. CCS101 (2009b) Interview with Carmen Sterling, Reeve of the Rural Municipality of Weyburn, October 2009. The carbon capture and storage information source. http://ccs101.ca/ccs_communities. Accessed 26 Sept 2012
  8. CLIS (2008) CLIS (Commission Locale d’Information et de Suivi), Évaluation du projet de captage et stockage de CO2 à Rousse 1, Dossier présenté par Total, 29/09/2008. http://www.pyrenees-atlantiques.pref.gouv.fr/sections/actions_de_l_etat/environnement_et_dev/actualites/. Accessed 12 Nov 2010
  9. CLIS (2011) CLIS (Commission Locale d’Information et de Suivi), Demande de prolongation de la phase d’injections, 12/09/2011. http://www.pyrenees-atlantiques.pref.gouv.fr/sections/actions_de_l_etat/environnement_et_dev/actualites/. Accessed 15 Dec 2011
  10. Condor J, Unatrakarn D, Wilson M, Asghari K (2011) A comparative analysis of risk assessment methodologies for the geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Energy Procedia 4(2011):4036–4043.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. C&S Conseils (2008) Bilan de la concertation, Projet pilote de captage stockage de CO2 dans le bassin de Lacq, Janvier 2008. http://www.total.com/MEDIAS/MEDIAS_INFOS/2186/FR/. Accessed 13 Apr 2012
  12. Dulac N (2007) A framework of dynamic safety and risk management modeling in complex engineering systems. PhD thesis submitted to the department of aeronautical and astronautical engineering at MIT, Feb 2007Google Scholar
  13. Ecojustice (2011) Ecojustice reply to PTRC response to soil gas studies, January 28, 2011. http://www.ipac-co2.com/uploads/File/PDFs/ecojustice%20response.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2012
  14. Feenstra CFJ, Mikunda T, Brunsting S (2010) What happened in Barendrecht? Case study on the planned onshore carbon dioxide storage in Barendrecht, the Netherlands, ECN/CAESAR, 3 Nov 2010Google Scholar
  15. GCCSI (2009) Strategic analysis of the global status of carbon capture and storage. Report 5: synthesis report, Global CCS Institute, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  16. GCCSI (2011) The global status of CCS: 2011. Global CCS Institute 2011, Canberra, Australia. ISBN 978-0-9871863-0-0Google Scholar
  17. GCCSI (2012) Global status of large scale integrated CCS projects, June 2012 updateGoogle Scholar
  18. GCCSI (2016) The global status of CCS: 2016, Global CCS Institute 2016, Summary Report, Australia, ISBN 978-0-9944115-6-3Google Scholar
  19. GCCSI website (2017) Global CCS Institute, Projects status. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects. Accessed 27 Oct 2017
  20. IRGC (2010) The emergence of risks: contributing factors. Report of International Risk Governance Council, Geneva, 2010. ISBN 978-2-9700672-7-6Google Scholar
  21. Kapetaki Z, Scowcroft J (2017) Overview of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) demonstration project business models: risks and enablers on the two sides of the Atlantic. Energy Procedia 114(2017):6623–6630.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerlero de Rosbo G (2009) Integrated Risk Analysis for large-scale CCS projects implementation, Thèse professionnelle du Master Spécialisé en Ingénierie et gestion de l’Environnement (ISIGE)Google Scholar
  23. Lacq Project (2012) Documents concerning Lacq Project, available on the regional prefecture website. http://www.pyrenees-atlantiques.pref.gouv.fr/Politiques-publiques/Environnement-risques-naturels-et-technologiques/Pilote-d-injection-de-CO2/Projet-de-captage-CO2-de-Total/. Accessed from Nov 2010 to Oct 2012
  24. Lafleur P (2011) Geochemical soil gas survey, A Site Investigation of SW30-5-13-W2M Weyburn Field, SASKATCHEWAN, Monitoring Project Number 2, Petro-Find Geochem Ltd, Submitted to: Cameron and Jane Kerr, March 16, 2011. http://www.ipac-co2.com/uploads/File/PDFs/PetroFind_Report_Kerr_Feb_2011_Final.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2012
  25. Leveson N (1995) Safeware, system safety and computers. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. ISBN 0201119722Google Scholar
  26. Leveson N (2004) Model-based analysis of socio-technical risk, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division. Working Paper Series, ESD-WP-2004-08, Dec 2004Google Scholar
  27. Leveson N (2009) Engineering a safer world, system safety for the 21st century, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, July 2009 (a draft book). http://sunnyday.mit.edu/safer-world.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2011
  28. Longannet (2011) FEED documents of Longannet project, published online http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/ccs/demo_prog/feed/scottish_power/scottish_power.aspx. Accessed 29 Nov 2011
  29. Mairie Jurançon (2012) http://www.annuaire-mairie.fr/statistique-jurancon.html. Accessed 10 Sept 2012
  30. MIT (2016) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cancelled or Inactive Projects. http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_cancelled.html. Accessed 4 July 2017
  31. PMBOK (2008) A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 4th edn, Project Management Institute, USA. ISBN 978-1-933890-5-7Google Scholar
  32. Poumadère M, Bertoldo R, Samadi J (2011) Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind and geoengineering. John Wiley & Sons, WIREs Climate Change 2011.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.134
  33. PTRC (2004) IEA GHG Weyburn CO2 Monitoring & Storage Project: Summary Report 2000-2004. In: From the proceedings of the 7th international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies, 5–9 September 2004, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  34. Rochon E, Kuper J, Bjureby E, Johnston P, Oakley R, Santillo D, Schulz N, Von Goerne G (2008) False hope: why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate, Greenpeace, Published in May 2008 by Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  35. Skarlatidou A, Cheng T, Haklay M (2012) What do lay people want to know about the disposal of nuclear waste? A mental model approach to the design and development of an online risk communication. Risk Anal 32(9).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01773.x
  36. Soupa O, Lajoie B, Long A, Alvarez H (2012) Leading the energy transition: bringing carbon capture and storage to market. Schlumberger and SBC Energy Institute, June 2012Google Scholar
  37. Thomas N, Last G, Robertson A, Goldsmith J (2012) Carbon capture and storage: lessons from the competition for the first UK demonstration, National Audit Office, 16 March 2012, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  38. Tombari J (2011) Ten uncertainties around CO2 storage costs, GCCSI blog, 05 April 2011. http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/community/blogs/authors/tombari1/2011/04/05/ten-uncertainties-around-co2-storage-costs. Accessed 1 Aug 2012
  39. Verdon JP (2012) Microseismic monitoring and geomechanical modelling of CO2 storage in subsurface reservoirs, Springer theses, Chapter 2, The Weyburn CO2 Injection Project. ISBN 978-3-642-25387-4. www.springer.com/…/9783642253874-c2.pdf? Accessed 19 July 2012
  40. Whittaker S (2011) PTRC response to a soil case study performed by petro-find Geochem LTD., submitted to the Ministry of Energy and Resources, Petroleum and Natural Gas Division, Regina, January 19, 2011. http://www.ipac-co2.com/uploads/File/PDFs/whittaker%20letter%20to%20danscok%2019jan2011%20with%20ptrc%20response.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2012

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MINES ParisTechParisFrance
  2. 2.CRCMINES ParisTechSophia-Antipolis CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations