IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/greenh/v14y2024i6p1068-1091.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantitative assessment of CO2 leakage risk in geologic carbon storage management

Author

Listed:
  • Meng Jing
  • Qi Li
  • Guizhen Liu
  • Quan Xue

Abstract

Large‐scale geological storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) is indispensable for mitigating climate change but faces significant challenges, especially in the accurate quantitative assessment of leakage risks to ensure long‐term security. Given these circumstances, this paper proposes an innovative approach for quantitatively assessing CO2 leakage risk to address the previous limitations of limited accuracy and insufficient data. We construct a fault tree and transform it into a Bayesian network–directed acyclic graph, and then use judgment sets along with fuzzy set theory to obtain prior probabilities of root nodes. The feature, event, and process method was utilized to identify key components and subsequently determine the conditional probability table (CPT) of the leaf node. The subjective experience assessments from experts are defuzzified to obtain the CPTs of intermediate nodes. The obtained basic probability parameters are input into the directed acyclic graph to complete the model construction. After calculating the leakage probability using this model, it is combined with the severity of impacts to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment. Furthermore, critical CO2 risk sources can be determined through posterior probability calculations when intermediate nodes are designated as deterministic risk events. The gradual implementation process of the proposed model is demonstrated via a typical case study. The results indicate an overall CO2 leakage probability of 29%, with probabilities of leakage along faults/fractures, caprock, and well identified as 32%, 28%, and 19%, respectively. The project is categorized as a medium‐low risk level. When leakage is confirmed, tectonic movement, thickness, and delamination at interface connections/the presence of cracks are the critical risk sources, and measures to mitigate key risks are outlined. The identified key risk factors conform to empirical evidence and previous research, validating the accuracy of the model. This study is instrumental in CO2 geological storage risk assessment and scalable development program design. © 2024 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Meng Jing & Qi Li & Guizhen Liu & Quan Xue, 2024. "Quantitative assessment of CO2 leakage risk in geologic carbon storage management," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 14(6), pages 1068-1091, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:greenh:v:14:y:2024:i:6:p:1068-1091
    DOI: 10.1002/ghg.2315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/ghg.2315
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/ghg.2315?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zan Wang & Robert M. Dilmore & Diana H. Bacon & William Harbert, 2021. "Evaluating probability of containment effectiveness at a GCS site using integrated assessment modeling approach with Bayesian decision network," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 11(2), pages 360-376, April.
    2. Yanqing Wang & Liang Zhang & Shaoran Ren & Bo Ren & Bailian Chen & Jun Lu, 2020. "Identification of potential CO2 leakage pathways and mechanisms in oil reservoirs using fault tree analysis," Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 10(2), pages 331-346, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hu, Yusha & Man, Yi, 2023. "Energy consumption and carbon emissions forecasting for industrial processes: Status, challenges and perspectives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:greenh:v:14:y:2024:i:6:p:1068-1091. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2152-3878 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.