'Define the Risk Assessment Scope & Risk Criteria\r'

'2. 1. throttle the find taxment reaching & attempt criteria 2. 1. 1. Objective The purpose of this step is to initiate the context for the happen sound judgment and to subtend stake criteria that give be employ for evaluation of head up integrity risks. The deliverables from this step are: risk assessment cranial orbit; list of risk criteria. 2. 1. 2. Define risk assessment scope The context and scope of this specialist risk assessment should be delimitate by the more familiar risk assessment step in Section 2. 5 of [1].The latter should assess risks to the capacity, injectivity and containment of flockdidate entrepot sites, where well integrity represents one type of risk to shop containment. This step should involve: delimit the goals and objectives of the well integrity risk assessment; delimitate responsibilities for and within the risk assessment parade; defining the specific inclusions and exclusions; defining the risk assessment in terms of car tridge clip and location; defining the relationship mingled with the risk assessment process and the boilers suit development of the carbonic acid gas geological storage shake off; defining the risk assessment methodologies; dentifying and specifying the decisions that have to be made anterior to milestone M2; 2. 1. 3. Defining risk criteria try criteria for evaluating the significance of well integrity risks privation to be defined by the jut out developer. The risk criteria should reflect the objectives and context for the risk assessment. Adequate consideration should be given over to the time and resources available, stakeholder views and risk perceptions, and the applicable wakeless and regulatory requirements. The risk criteria chosen should be continuously reviewed. Prior to specifying risk criteria, the categories for which risks will be evaluated shall be defined.These include: tender-hearted health and safety; environmental tax shelter; legal and regulatory comp liance; be; project schedule; reputation; well integrity (functional) performance. The following points should be considered when defining risk criteria for well integrity assessments: the categories of risk for the carbon dioxide geological storage project established in the ‘screening buns’ step of [1]; the nature and type of causes and consequences that can occur and how they will be calculated; how likelihood will be defined (for example qualitatively or as a quantitative probability); the timeframe of interest; ow the take of risk is to be determined; the take at which the risk becomes acceptable or tolerable; whether combinations of multiple risks should be interpreted into account and, if so, how and which combinations should be considered (for example dodging pathways composed of multiple failures). In run for the risk criteria to be adequate to reinforcing stimulus a storage site selection decision they should: be qualified for decisions regarding ris k reducing measures to levels as low as reasonably practicable; be suitable for communication; e unambiguous in their formulation; not favour either particular concept solution explicitly nor implicitly through the way in which risk is expressed. In addition, risk criteria for CO2 leakage rates related to quick wells should be consistent with the boilersuit storage site containment criteria established in Section 2. 1 (‘Screening backside’) of [1]. Note: Temporal, spatial, volumetric and rate limits for CO2 leakage should be finite and quantifiable to allow for effective risk management.\r\n'