A Comparative Study of Major Risk Assessment (RA) Frameworks in Geologic Carbon Storage (GCS)
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology presents a practical solution for reducing industrial carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions through underground anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub> storage in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs. The long-term storage efficiency faces seve...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Fuels |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2673-3994/6/2/42 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1839653954700443648 |
|---|---|
| author | Elvin Hajiyev Marshall Watson Hossein Emadi Bassel Eissa Athar Hussain Abdul Rehman Baig Abdulrahman Shahin |
| author_facet | Elvin Hajiyev Marshall Watson Hossein Emadi Bassel Eissa Athar Hussain Abdul Rehman Baig Abdulrahman Shahin |
| author_sort | Elvin Hajiyev |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology presents a practical solution for reducing industrial carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions through underground anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub> storage in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs. The long-term storage efficiency faces several CO<sub>2</sub> leakage challenges that need to be addressed in the planning phase of the CCS project. Thus, effective risk assessment (RA) methodologies are crucial for ensuring safety, regulatory compliance, and public acceptance of CCS projects. This review examines RA parts and their corresponding technical and non-technical challenges. The analysis critically compares over 20 qualitative, semi-quantitative, quantitative, and hybrid RA techniques employed throughout GCS operations. Available quantitative RA tools do not deliver dependable results because they require technical data that become available late in the CCS project development process. Qualitative approaches work well for the initial screening of storage sites with limited data available, yet quantitative methods enable quantification of CO<sub>2</sub> leakage. For the first time, a comparative analysis of two integrated assessment tools is presented in this paper. The techniques achieve success based on high-quality data and analysis of existing technical and non-technical challenges which this paper examines. The comparative analysis outlines the limitations and advantages of every methodology studied and emphasizes the need for integrated hybrid frameworks to boost decision-making in the RA process. Future research should focus on creating or improving existing hybrid frameworks for late-stage RA while utilizing qualitative frameworks in the initial site screening stage to advance GSC’s safe and effective implementation. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-7a558b37f5cb4d82ad89c1284d08baf5 |
| institution | Matheson Library |
| issn | 2673-3994 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Fuels |
| spelling | doaj-art-7a558b37f5cb4d82ad89c1284d08baf52025-06-25T13:52:26ZengMDPI AGFuels2673-39942025-06-01624210.3390/fuels6020042A Comparative Study of Major Risk Assessment (RA) Frameworks in Geologic Carbon Storage (GCS)Elvin Hajiyev0Marshall Watson1Hossein Emadi2Bassel Eissa3Athar Hussain4Abdul Rehman Baig5Abdulrahman Shahin6Bob L. Herd Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University, 807 Boston Avenue, Lubbock, TX 79409, USABob L. Herd Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University, 807 Boston Avenue, Lubbock, TX 79409, USABob L. Herd Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University, 807 Boston Avenue, Lubbock, TX 79409, USABob L. Herd Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University, 807 Boston Avenue, Lubbock, TX 79409, USABob L. Herd Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University, 807 Boston Avenue, Lubbock, TX 79409, USABob L. Herd Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University, 807 Boston Avenue, Lubbock, TX 79409, USABob L. Herd Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University, 807 Boston Avenue, Lubbock, TX 79409, USACarbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology presents a practical solution for reducing industrial carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) emissions through underground anthropogenic CO<sub>2</sub> storage in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs. The long-term storage efficiency faces several CO<sub>2</sub> leakage challenges that need to be addressed in the planning phase of the CCS project. Thus, effective risk assessment (RA) methodologies are crucial for ensuring safety, regulatory compliance, and public acceptance of CCS projects. This review examines RA parts and their corresponding technical and non-technical challenges. The analysis critically compares over 20 qualitative, semi-quantitative, quantitative, and hybrid RA techniques employed throughout GCS operations. Available quantitative RA tools do not deliver dependable results because they require technical data that become available late in the CCS project development process. Qualitative approaches work well for the initial screening of storage sites with limited data available, yet quantitative methods enable quantification of CO<sub>2</sub> leakage. For the first time, a comparative analysis of two integrated assessment tools is presented in this paper. The techniques achieve success based on high-quality data and analysis of existing technical and non-technical challenges which this paper examines. The comparative analysis outlines the limitations and advantages of every methodology studied and emphasizes the need for integrated hybrid frameworks to boost decision-making in the RA process. Future research should focus on creating or improving existing hybrid frameworks for late-stage RA while utilizing qualitative frameworks in the initial site screening stage to advance GSC’s safe and effective implementation.https://www.mdpi.com/2673-3994/6/2/42CCSRisk Assessment (RA)CO<sub>2</sub> leakageCO<sub>2</sub> geological storageCGSqualitative RA |
| spellingShingle | Elvin Hajiyev Marshall Watson Hossein Emadi Bassel Eissa Athar Hussain Abdul Rehman Baig Abdulrahman Shahin A Comparative Study of Major Risk Assessment (RA) Frameworks in Geologic Carbon Storage (GCS) Fuels CCS Risk Assessment (RA) CO<sub>2</sub> leakage CO<sub>2</sub> geological storage CGS qualitative RA |
| title | A Comparative Study of Major Risk Assessment (RA) Frameworks in Geologic Carbon Storage (GCS) |
| title_full | A Comparative Study of Major Risk Assessment (RA) Frameworks in Geologic Carbon Storage (GCS) |
| title_fullStr | A Comparative Study of Major Risk Assessment (RA) Frameworks in Geologic Carbon Storage (GCS) |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Comparative Study of Major Risk Assessment (RA) Frameworks in Geologic Carbon Storage (GCS) |
| title_short | A Comparative Study of Major Risk Assessment (RA) Frameworks in Geologic Carbon Storage (GCS) |
| title_sort | comparative study of major risk assessment ra frameworks in geologic carbon storage gcs |
| topic | CCS Risk Assessment (RA) CO<sub>2</sub> leakage CO<sub>2</sub> geological storage CGS qualitative RA |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2673-3994/6/2/42 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT elvinhajiyev acomparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT marshallwatson acomparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT hosseinemadi acomparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT basseleissa acomparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT atharhussain acomparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT abdulrehmanbaig acomparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT abdulrahmanshahin acomparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT elvinhajiyev comparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT marshallwatson comparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT hosseinemadi comparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT basseleissa comparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT atharhussain comparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT abdulrehmanbaig comparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs AT abdulrahmanshahin comparativestudyofmajorriskassessmentraframeworksingeologiccarbonstoragegcs |