Any significant event occurring during an injection project should have been foreseen as a possibility. A thorough understanding of potential analogues, the allocation of sufficient time and tools to characterize projects, and the application of techniques to mitigate bias can help ensure this happens.
Moreover, the chance of the event occurring can be quantified through additional data gathering and analysis, and the cost of impactful eventscan be reduced by pilot projects prior to committing to a full-scale project. This requires a strategy that does not unreasonably accelerate development and minimizes expenditures.
These are not easy hurdles to overcome, and a concerted effort is needed to address them. Some of the techniques we advocate are framing sessions, a staged approach, peer reviews, external audits, and performance lookbacks. These promote a rigorous assessment of the uncertainties, which reveal the key risks, including those that are not immediately apparent.
An understanding of what unexpected events could occur, and what their impacts could be, is crucial. Failure cases should be constructed and shared with the regulator and stakeholders. The use of probabilistic techniques is highly recommended in this process for quantifying project framing, analysis, and risking.
Site-specific geological and project characteristics must guide appraisal and decisions regarding implementation. This means the burden is on the operator to quantify and mitigate risks. Failure to do so not only jeopardizes the commercial viability of the project, but can also imperil wider social license if the impact of unforeseen events negatively affects the public.