Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
ISO/TR 27918:2018 — Lifecycle Risk Management for Integrated CCS Projects
A comprehensive risk management framework spanning the full lifecycle of carbon capture and storage projects from feasibility to post-closure
ISO/TR 27918: Lifecycle Risk Management for Integrated CCS Projects
ISO/TR 27918:2018 presents a comprehensive risk management framework specifically designed for integrated carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects spanning the full project lifecycle — from feasibility assessment through construction, operation, and post-closure stewardship. Unlike conventional industrial risk management standards, this Technical Report addresses the unique risk profile of CCS, which combines elements of chemical processing, pipeline transportation, subsurface injection, and long-term geological containment over timescales extending decades beyond project closure.
ISO/TR 27918 recognizes that the risk profile of a CCS project evolves fundamentally across lifecycle phases. Upfront risks (regulatory, financial, technical feasibility) dominate the pre-operational phase, while long-term containment risks (fault reactivation, well integrity, migration pathways) become increasingly relevant during and after injection operations.
The standard adopts a risk-based decision-making approach structured around five core elements: risk identification, risk analysis, risk evaluation, risk treatment, and risk communication. It emphasizes the importance of developing a project-specific risk register that captures hazards across the entire CCS chain, including capture system failures (solvent degradation, equipment corrosion), transport disruptions (pipeline rupture, compressor failure), injection anomalies (near-wellbore damage, pressure buildup), and storage integrity threats (caprock fracturing, fault reactivation, groundwater contamination).
Risk Assessment Methodologies for CCS Chains
ISO/TR 27918 provides detailed guidance on applying both qualitative and quantitative risk assessment methods to CCS systems. For qualitative assessment, the standard recommends bow-tie analysis for major accident hazards, HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Study) for process safety, and structured what-if checklists for operational risk. For quantitative assessment, it introduces event tree analysis (ETA) and fault tree analysis (FTA) tailored to CCS-specific failure modes, with particular emphasis on the treatment of common-cause failures that can simultaneously affect multiple CCS chain elements.
| Risk Assessment Method | CCS Application | Output Type | When to Apply |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bow-tie analysis | Major hazard scenarios (pipeline rupture, well blowout) | Qualitative risk ranking | Feasibility / Concept design |
| HAZOP | Capture plant process safety | Causes, consequences, safeguards | Detailed design / Pre-ops |
| Fault tree analysis (FTA) | System reliability (compression, injection) | Top event probability | Detailed design |
| Event tree analysis (ETA) | Post-failure scenario progression | Consequence probabilities | Quantitative risk assessment |
| Feature, Event, Process (FEP) | Long-term storage performance | Scenario screening | Storage permit application |
| Performance assessment (PA) | Post-closure containment | Regulatory compliance metrics | Operation / Post-closure |
A uniquely challenging aspect of CCS risk management is the timescale disconnect between operational risks (measured in hours to years) and containment risks (measured in decades to millennia). ISO/TR 27918 addresses this through a phased risk assessment approach, with increasingly detailed long-term assessments triggered at key project milestones.
The standard introduces the concept of “risk tolerance criteria” specifically for CCS, recognizing that geological storage of CO₂ involves residual risks that cannot be entirely eliminated. It recommends establishing quantitative thresholds for acceptable leakage rates (< 0.01% per year of the stored inventory for carbon credit projects), maximum pressure buildup limits (typically 80-90% of fracture gradient), and minimum groundwater quality protection levels. These criteria should be developed through stakeholder consultation and regulatory engagement before injection begins.
Engineering Insights for Risk Mitigation and Monitoring
From an engineering design perspective, ISO/TR 27918 emphasizes the hierarchy of risk controls for CCS: inherent safety (design out hazards), prevention (reduce likelihood), detection (early warning), mitigation (limit consequences), and emergency response. For CO₂ injection wells, this translates to material selection for corrosion resistance, multiple well barrier envelopes, continuous annulus pressure monitoring, and site-specific emergency response plans for potential CO₂ migration scenarios.
The monitoring program design is a critical risk management tool. The standard recommends a risk-driven monitoring approach where monitoring frequency, spatial coverage, and measurement techniques are directly tied to the identified risks in the project risk register. For example, areas with high fault density or historical well penetrations warrant higher monitoring density. This targeted approach is more effective and cost-efficient than blanket monitoring across the entire storage complex.
Experience from operational CCS projects following ISO/TR 27918 principles shows that systematic risk management reduces unplanned shutdowns by 30-50% and enables earlier detection of incipient well integrity issues, significantly improving both safety and economic performance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How does ISO/TR 27918 differ from conventional process safety standards like ISO 31000 or IEC 61511?
A: While ISO/TR 27918 aligns with ISO 31000 principles, it adds CCS-specific elements: long-term geological containment risk, lifecycle planning across decades, treatment of public perception risks, and integration with storage site characterization uncertainty.
A: While ISO/TR 27918 aligns with ISO 31000 principles, it adds CCS-specific elements: long-term geological containment risk, lifecycle planning across decades, treatment of public perception risks, and integration with storage site characterization uncertainty.
Q: What is the most significant risk in CCS projects according to the standard?
A: The standard does not single out one risk as most significant, as risk profiles vary by project. However, it identifies well integrity failure and caprock seal compromise as consistently ranked among the highest consequence risks across most storage scenarios.
A: The standard does not single out one risk as most significant, as risk profiles vary by project. However, it identifies well integrity failure and caprock seal compromise as consistently ranked among the highest consequence risks across most storage scenarios.
Q: How should risk communication be handled for CCS projects?
A: The standard recommends transparent, multi-stakeholder engagement throughout the project lifecycle, with particular emphasis on communicating residual risk levels, monitoring results, and contingency plans to local communities and regulators.
A: The standard recommends transparent, multi-stakeholder engagement throughout the project lifecycle, with particular emphasis on communicating residual risk levels, monitoring results, and contingency plans to local communities and regulators.
Q: Does ISO/TR 27918 address financial risk assessment?
A: Yes, the standard includes guidance on incorporating financial risks related to carbon price volatility, regulatory changes, and long-term liability into the overall risk management framework, though the primary focus remains on technical and operational risks.
A: Yes, the standard includes guidance on incorporating financial risks related to carbon price volatility, regulatory changes, and long-term liability into the overall risk management framework, though the primary focus remains on technical and operational risks.
📥 Standard Documents Download
No download files available yet