Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,768 studies31 sourcesUpdated 7 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDProcess Safety and Environmental Protection

Safety and risk assessment frameworks for offshore CO2 storage

  • Md. Shaheen Shah1
  • Sohrab Zendehboudi1
  • Xili Duan1
  • Noori M. Cata Saady1
  • Mohamad Mohamadi‐Baghmolaei2
  • Dru Heagle2
  • Maurice B. Dusseault3
  • Faisal Khan1,4
4 affiliations
  1. 1Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Memorial University, St. John’s, NL, Canada
  2. 2Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
  3. 3Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  4. 4Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center, Artie McFerrin Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
Open at sourceDOICite

Abstract

Offshore carbon capture and storage (CCS) is increasingly recognized as an important strategy for reducing large-scale greenhouse gas emissions. However, its deployment depends on demonstrating long-term operational safety, environmental protection, and regulatory confidence. This study reviews safety and risk assessment frameworks for offshore geological CO 2 storage and clarifies the conceptual distinction between safety as the desired operational condition and risk as the probability and consequence of adverse events. Key risk pathways include leakage through faults and wells, induced seismicity, brine displacement, operational hazards, and potential impacts on marine ecosystems. Evidence from major offshore CCS projects, including Sleipner and Snøhvit, is used to illustrate practical risk management experience. The review compares qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative risk assessment methods and discusses how their application evolves across the CCS lifecycle, from early site screening to operation and post-closure stewardship. Integrated frameworks such as the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) and the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG) are examined for their role in supporting probabilistic analysis and regulatory decision-making. The study also highlights monitoring technologies, modelling tools, and remaining challenges related to long-term stewardship, data availability, regulatory coordination, and stakeholder confidence.

Related

  1. Towards regulatory readiness: evaluating frameworks for microplastic health risk assessment
    Albert A. Koelmans, Hans Bouwmeester, Emily A. Christopher +9
    Microplastics and NanoplasticsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull text8 citedEnvironmental science & pollutionOpenAlex
  2. Potability assessment of surface water of two Indus basin rivers using information enhanced linear and non-linear data-driven frameworks
    Harsimran Kaur, Dinesh Kumar Benbi, Sumita Chandel +3
    Discover WaterPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textHydrology & soilsDOAJ
  3. High-Resolution Assessment of Terrestrial Carbon Storage and Restoration Benefits in China, 1990-2023.
    Zhen Wu, Xianjin Huang, Michael E Meadows
    Environmental science & technologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textEnvironmental science & pollutionEurope PMC
  4. Hazard- vs. Risk-based paradigms in agricultural water reuse: A global comparative analysis of regulatory frameworks
    Ignacio Gómez-Lucena, Nassim Ait-Mouheb, Emilio Camacho +1
    Agricultural Water ManagementPeer-reviewedCC BYEnvironmental science & pollutionHAL
  5. Assessment of methods for collection, preservation, and storage of water samples for dissolved methane and nitrous oxide concentration measurements
    Anagha Payyambally, Josie L. Mottram, Julie Granger +1
    EarthArXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textClimate scienceEarthArXiv

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{shah2026safety,
  title = {{Safety and risk assessment frameworks for offshore CO2 storage}},
  author = {Md. Shaheen Shah and Sohrab Zendehboudi and Xili Duan and Noori M. Cata Saady and Mohamad Mohamadi‐Baghmolaei and Dru Heagle and Maurice B. Dusseault and Faisal Khan},
  journal = {Process Safety and Environmental Protection},
  year = {2026},
  month = may,
  doi = {10.1016/j.psep.2026.108980},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2026.108980},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Safety and risk assessment frameworks for offshore CO2 storage
AU  - Md. Shaheen Shah
AU  - Sohrab Zendehboudi
AU  - Xili Duan
AU  - Noori M. Cata Saady
AU  - Mohamad Mohamadi‐Baghmolaei
AU  - Dru Heagle
AU  - Maurice B. Dusseault
AU  - Faisal Khan
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/05/14
JO  - Process Safety and Environmental Protection
DO  - 10.1016/j.psep.2026.108980
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2026.108980
AB  - Offshore carbon capture and storage (CCS) is increasingly recognized as an important strategy for reducing large-scale greenhouse gas emissions. However, its deployment depends on demonstrating long-term operational safety, environmental protection, and regulatory confidence. This study reviews safety and risk assessment frameworks for offshore geological CO 2 storage and clarifies the conceptual distinction between safety as the desired operational condition and risk as the probability and consequence of adverse events. Key risk pathways include leakage through faults and wells, induced seismicity, brine displacement, operational hazards, and potential impacts on marine ecosystems. Evidence from major offshore CCS projects, including Sleipner and Snøhvit, is used to illustrate practical risk management experience. The review compares qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative risk assessment methods and discusses how their application evolves across the CCS lifecycle, from early site screening to operation and post-closure stewardship. Integrated frameworks such as the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) and the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG) are examined for their role in supporting probabilistic analysis and regulatory decision-making. The study also highlights monitoring technologies, modelling tools, and remaining challenges related to long-term stewardship, data availability, regulatory coordination, and stakeholder confidence.
SN  - 0263-8762
SN  - 0957-5820
SN  - 1744-3563
SN  - 1744-3598
SN  - 1876-4800
ER  -