An Integrated Risk Management Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage in the Canadian Context
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Climate change is a risk issue of global proportions. Human health and environmental impacts are anticipated from hazards associated with changes in temperature and precipitation regimes, and climate extremes. Increased natural hazards include storms and flooding, extreme heat, drought, and wildfires. Reduced food and water quality and quantity, reduced air quality, new geographic range of infectious diseases, and increased exposure to ultra-violet radiation are also predicted. In order to make a measurable contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions at point source fossil fuel and industrial process sites that contribute to climate change, estimates suggest that up to 3,000 dedicated large scale carbon capture and geological sequestration (CCS) projects will be necessary by 2050. Integrated projects include carbon dioxide capture; compression into a supercritical stream; transport, most often by pipeline; deep injection at wellheads; and sequestration in suitable saline aquifer geological formations, usually 800 metres or more below the earth’s surface. In implementing CCS as part of an overall climate change mitigation strategy, it is important to note that population health and environmental risks are associated with each of these value chain components of integrated projects. Based on an assessment of existing regulatory and non-regulatory guidance for risk assessment/risk management (RA/RM), an analysis of the application, assessment, and approval process for four large scale Canadian projects, and findings from a structured expert elicitation focused on hazard and risk issues in injection and storage and risk management of low probability high impact events, this research developed an Integrated Risk Management Framework (IRMF) for CCS in the Canadian context. The IRMF is a step-wise systematic process for RA/RM during the life of a project, including engagement with wide ranging government and non-government partners that would contribute to a determination of acceptable risk and risk control options. The execution of the IRMF is an intervention that could reduce local hazards and associated risks in terms of likelihood and consequence, as well as identify and document risk management that could underpin broad acceptance of CCS as a climate change mitigation technology. This would thereby also have an important part in protecting global population health and wellbeing in the long term. Indeed, diverse stakeholders could be unforgiving if hazard assessment and risk management in CCS is considered insufficient, leading to ‘pushback’ that could affect future implementation scenarios. On the other hand, RA/RM done right could favourably impact public perception of CCS, in turn instilling confidence, public acceptance, and ongoing support for the benefit of populations worldwide. This thesis is composed of an introduction to the research problem, including a population health conceptual framework for the IRMF, followed by five manuscripts, and concluding with a discussion about other barriers to CCS project development, and a risk management policy scenario for both the present time and during the 2017-2030 implementation period.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».