Background

At the 2^nd IEAGHG Joint Network Meeting, held between 19^th and 21^st June, 2012 in Santa Fe, it was decided to hold combined meetings of the Networks. .  The first such combined  network meeting was held in Trondheim between 10-13^th June 2013.  It combined the Modelling Network and the Risk Management Networks and was hosted by Statoil, and sponsored by Statoil, SINTEF and CLIMIT.  This combined meeting brought together 60 international experts in the field of modelling and risk assessment and management of CO₂ geological storage.  The meeting was chaired by Tim Dixon of the IEAGHG and Philip Ringrose of Statoil RDI.

The three day event consisted of a day dedicated to modelling applications; a second day covering a variety of risk management issues and a final day where topics involving both topics were discussed.  The meeting was preceded by visits to the SINTEF research facility in Trondheim and the CO₂ pipeline test facility at the Statoil Rotvoll site.  During the visit to SINTEFF delegates were shown lab-scale development of new solvents for CO₂ capture and an oxy-fuel combustion test rig.

During the introduction session Tore Andreas Torp of Statoil received an award in special recognition of his life-time contributions and achievements in progressing greenhouse gas reduction from fossil fuels through carbon dioxide capture and storage.  The award was presented to Tore by Tim Dixon  on behalf of John Gale, General Manager IEAGHG.

Overall

Managing public perception needs to take account of local issues and their relevance to CCS.  Greater public awareness and education is necessary to put CCS into context with other options and energy supply.

There is a significant benefit from real projects because new phenomena can be observed and a better understanding of changes induced by CO₂ injection can be determined (i.e. pressure changes, induced seismicity, fracture propagation). When the injection does not go as predicted, there is actually benefit from more learning.

The behaviour of faults exposed to CO₂ induced stress needs to be better understood especially as faults and fractures could act as conduits or seals.

There is a difference in the perception of risk between different authorities and organisations.  For example investors may not view risks associated with CCS compared to utility companies.

The feedback from monitoring and mitigation is very important to risk assessment modelling.

Uncertainty matters when the consequences are perceived to matter to ‘decision-influencers’.  In dealing with uncertainty, many had concluded that a ‘phased approach’ enabled progress to be made in a structured and rationale manner to arrive at appropriate conclusions.