Systematic Risk Reduction: Chances and Risks of Geological Storage of CO2

A profound risk assessment should be the basis of any underground activity such as the geological storage of CO2. The risks and benefits should be weighted, whereas the risks need to be systematically reduced. Even after some decades of geological storage of CO2 (as part of a carbon capture and storage CCS), only a few projects are based on an independent risk assessment. In some cases, a risk assessment was performed after the start of storage operation. Chances: - Are there alternatives to CCS with lower risk? - Is a significant CO2 reduction possible without CCS? - If we accept that CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change having a severe economical impact, we need to substantially reduce CO2 emissions. As long as economic growth is directly related to CO2 emissions, we need to decouple the two. - CCS is one of the few options - may be a necessity, if the energy market is not only dependent on demand. Risks: Beside the risk not to develop and implement CCS, the following risks need to be addressed, ideally in a multi independent risk assessment. - Personal Interests - Acceptance - Political interests - Company interests - HSE (Health Safety Environment) - Risk for Climate and ETS - Operational Risks If a multi independent risk assessment is performed and the risks are addressed in a proper way, a significant and systematic risk reduction can be achieved. Some examples will be given, based on real case studies, such as CO2SINK at Ketzin.