Risk Assessment and Management Workflow—An Example of the Southwest Regional Partnership

Si-Yong Lee, Ken Hnottavange-Telleen, Wei Jia, Ting Xiao, Hari Viswanathan, Shaoping Chu, Zhenxue Dai, Feng Pan, Brian McPherson and Robert Balch
Additional contact information
Si-Yong Lee: Schlumberger, Denver, CO 80202, USA
Ken Hnottavange-Telleen: GHG Underground, Arrowsic, ME 04530, USA
Wei Jia: Energy & Geoscience Institute, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA
Ting Xiao: Energy & Geoscience Institute, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA
Hari Viswanathan: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
Shaoping Chu: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
Zhenxue Dai: College of Construction Engineering, Jilin University, Changchun 130026, China
Feng Pan: Utah Division of Water Resources, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, USA
Brian McPherson: Energy & Geoscience Institute, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA
Robert Balch: New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM 87801, USA

Energies, 2021, vol. 14, issue 7, 1-18

Abstract: This paper summarizes the risk assessment and management workflow developed and applied to the Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) Phase III Demonstration Project. The risk assessment and management workflow consists of six primary tasks, including management planning, identification, qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, response planning, and monitoring. Within the workflow, the SWP assembled and iteratively updated a risk registry that identifies risks for all major activities of the project. Risk elements were ranked with respect to the potential impact to the project and the likelihood of occurrence. Both qualitative and quantitative risk analyses were performed. To graphically depict the interactions among risk elements and help building risk scenarios, process influence diagrams were used to represent the interactions. The SWP employed quantitative methods of risk analysis including Response Surface Method (RSM), Polynomial Chaos Expansion (PCE), and the National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) toolset. The SWP also developed risk response planning and performed risk control and monitoring to prevent the risks from affecting the project and ensure the effectiveness of risk management. As part of risk control and monitoring, existing and new risks have been tracked and the response plan was subsequently evaluated. Findings and lessons learned from the SWP’s risk assessment and management efforts will provide valuable information for other commercial geological CO 2 storage projects.

Keywords: risk assessment; workflow; Farnsworth; workshop; process influence diagram; response surface model; polynomial chaos expansion; NRAP (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/7/1908/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/7/1908/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:7:p:1908-:d:526938

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().