Well Integrity Risk Assessment in Geothermal Wells - Status of Today

Ref.
Ares(2016)6753961 - 02/12/2016
Innovative materials and designs for long-life

high-temperature geothermal wells
Deliverable D6.1
Well integrity risk assessment in geothermal
wells – Status of today
Grant agreement no. 654497

Duration 01.02.2016 – 31.01.2019
Work package WP6 – Risk assessment for geothermal wells
Type R - document, report
Dissemination level PU - Public
Due date 30.11.2016
Actual submission date 30.11.2016
Lead author -
Contributors Hans Petter Lohne, Eric P. Ford, Mohammad Mansouri
Majoumerd and Erlend Randeberg
Version 1.0
Document status Completed
Change history Version Date Changes
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 654497.
The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the Commission's
own position. The document reflects only the author's views and the
European Union and its institutions are not liable for any use that may be
made of the information contained here.
D6.1 Well integrity risk assessment in geothermal wells
Executive summary
As part of activities in work package 6 of the GeoWell project, deliverable 6.1 aims to present
the current status of risk assessment methods and well integrity for geothermal wells, in order
to provide a starting point for listing future requirements for geothermal risk assessments .
In order to map the status of risk assessment methods/techniques and well integrity related to
geothermal wells, a literature review and a risk assessment survey have been conducted. The
survey has been sent to stakeholders in both geothermal and petroleum industries with the
aim to map the status of risk assessments that are performed in these industries.
An overview of the publications that were reviewed, together with the risk assessment survey
and its scope, methodology, criteria and preparatory requirements for conducting it, the
collected (raw) data and the analysis of data are also presented in this report. The results from
both the review and the survey should be interpreted as indicative, not conclusive evidence,
due to a limited portion of publications reviewed and limited responses to the survey.
The main findings can be summarized as follows:
 Based on the papers reviewed, the mostly addressed risk type relates to
project/financial risk, which differs significantly from our impression of focus in the
petroleum industry. This is probably due to the fact that while there is an enormous
financial upside when drilling petroleum exploration wells, this is not the case for
geothermal wells. Furthermore, the financial margins during production of geothermal
projects are typically far less than for oil and gas.
 Another important focus area in the papers is geological risk. However, this is often
tightly related to project/financial risk; large uncertainties in the resources to be
exploited will consequently result in large uncertainty in the project feasibility as well.
 Only 11% of the publications cover well integrity as a topic addressed.
 Only a few publications reviewed concern risk of loss of containment, or risks of failures
in barriers. In fact, the term barrier is hardly mentioned, and even the papers dealing
with well integrity do so to a large extent without considering the system as comprised
of barriers with failure modes and reliabilities.
 In the literature review, monetary indices were the most used method, with either
probabilistic methods or coarse risk ranking following.
 The survey finds brainstorming to be the most used risk identification method.
 The use of methods varies more between the areas of application for risk analysis. The
most used methods were HAZOP, root cause analysis, scenario analysis and
environmental risk and decision tree analysis, depending on the area.
 For risk evaluation, the situation was similar to risk analysis. This is not surprising, given
that the risk evaluation is based on the risk analysis. Depending on the area, Monte
Carlo simulation, root cause analysis, structured what-if technique analysis and
environmental risk analysis were most frequently chosen methods.
 Regarding the use of risk assessment methods in terms of resource demands, nature
of uncertainty and complexity, there is no evidence to suggest that there is an
overweight of simplistic, low-complexity methods in use in the geothermal industry.
Page 2 of 93
Contents
Executive summary ...................................................................................................... 2
Contents ....................................................................................................................... 3
Tables .......................................................................................................................... 4
Figures ......................................................................................................................... 4
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 6
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 8
Scope .............................................................................................................. 8
Methodology .................................................................................................... 9
Outline of the report ....................................................................................... 10
2 Well integrity in geothermal and petroleum industries ........................................... 11
Introduction to well integrity ........................................................................... 11
Petroleum vs. geothermal wells ..................................................................... 12
Financial ............................................................................................... 12
Formation characteristics ...................................................................... 12
Drilling .................................................................................................. 13
Well design ........................................................................................... 14
Production ............................................................................................ 14
Cementing ............................................................................................ 14
Geothermal wells – Challenges, risks and well integrity issues ...................... 15
3 Risk assessment ................................................................................................... 17
Important risk-related definitions .................................................................... 17
General risk frameworks ................................................................................ 17
Regulations.................................................................................................... 20
Risk assessment methods/techniques ........................................................... 22
4 Risk assessment survey ....................................................................................... 25
Objectives ...................................................................................................... 25
Methodology .................................................................................................. 25
Hypothesis............................................................................................ 25
Reasoning for survey questions............................................................ 25
Selection of the recipients..................................................................... 27
Preparatory requirements .............................................................................. 27
Post survey evaluation ................................................................................... 28
5 Results and discussion ......................................................................................... 30
Risk assessment status in the geothermal industry – Literature ..................... 30
Risk assessment status – Survey .................................................................. 34
Respondent overview ........................................................................... 34
Areas of application .............................................................................. 37
Summary of the analysis................................................................................ 50
6 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 52
7 Dissemination and future activities ........................................................................ 53
References ................................................................................................................. 54
Page 3 of 93
Appendices ................................................................................................................ 57
Appendix I: The GeoWell risk assessment survey................................................. 57
Appendix II: Responses to the survey ................................................................... 65
Appendix III: List of papers reviewed for Section 5.2.1 .......................................... 87
Tables
Table 3-1. Different available methods and techniques for assessing risks [32] ......... 23
Table 4-1. Different preparatory and quality assurance considerations for the survey. 28
Figures
Figure 1-1. Different phases in the life cycle of a well. .................................................. 9
Figure 3-1. A general framework for risk management as presented in ISO
31000:2009. ............................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-2. Risk assessment framework with a quantitative focus, as presented in
NORSOK Z-013. ........................................................................................................ 19
Figure 3-3. Risk assessment frameworks for nuclear industry (left, IAEA 2001) [21]
and for CO2 geological storage (right, IEA GHG 2009) [22]. ....................................... 20
Figure 4-1. Registered time spent for respondents spending less than 2 hours (Left)
and registered last question answered for the unfinished responses (Right). ............. 29
Figure 5-1. An overview of the reviewed papers by publication year........................... 30
Figure 5-2. Different types of risks addressed in the reviewed papers. ....................... 31
Figure 5-3. Distribution of the reviewed papers covering uncertainty quantification.
................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 5-4. An overview of different types of risk assessment methods addressed
in reviewed papers. .................................................................................................... 32
Figure 5-5. An overview of the resource demands, nature of uncertainty and
complexity in risk assessment methods addressed in the reviewed papers, as
classified in ISO 31010:2009. N/A are papers where no specific risk assessment
method is mentioned/presented. ................................................................................ 33
Figure 5-6. Distribution of the papers that address well integrity. ................................ 34
Figure 5-7. Industry as categorized by the respondents. ............................................ 35
Figure 5-8. Registered continents of respondents from the geothermal industry......... 36
Figure 5-9. Breakdown of the respondents based on company type, and whether
or not they perform risk assessments of wells. ........................................................... 36
Figure 5-10. An overview of different areas for which companies perform risk
assessments. ............................................................................................................. 37
Figure 5-11. Distribution of methods used for financial/project risk identification. ....... 38
Figure 5-12. Distribution of methods used for financial/project risk analysis. .............. 38
Figure 5-13. Distribution of methods used for financial/project risk evaluation. ........... 39
Figure 5-14. Distribution of methods used for health and safety risk identification. ..... 40
Figure 5-15. Distribution of methods used for health and safety risk analysis. ............ 40
Figure 5-16. Distribution of methods used for health and safety risk evaluation. ......... 41
Page 4 of 93
Figure 5-17. Distribution of methods used for barrier risk identification. ...................... 42
Figure 5-18. Distribution of methods used for barrier risk analysis. ............................. 42
Figure 5-19. Distribution of methods used for barrier risk evaluation .......................... 43
Figure 5-20. Distribution of methods used for geological risk identification. ................ 43
Figure 5-21. Distribution of methods used for geological risk analysis. ....................... 44
Figure 5-22. Distribution of methods used for geological risk evaluation. .................... 44
Figure 5-23. Distribution of methods used for geological event risk identification........ 45
Figure 5-24. Distribution of methods used for geological event risk analysis. ............. 45
Figure 5-25. Distribution of methods used for geological event risk evaluation. .......... 46
Figure 5-26. Distribution of methods used for pressure/well control risk
identification. .............................................................................................................. 46
Figure 5-27. Distribution of methods used for pressure/well control risk analysis........ 47
Figure 5-28. Distribution of methods used for pressure/well control risk evaluation.
................................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 5-29. Distribution of methods used for environmental risk identification. .......... 48
Figure 5-30. Distribution of methods used for environmental risk analysis. ................. 48
Figure 5-31. Distribution of methods used for environmental risk evaluation. ............. 49
Figure 5-32. Distribution of methods used for flow assurance risk identification. ........ 49
Figure 5-33. Distribution of methods used for flow assurance risk analysis. ............... 50
Figure 5-34. Distribution of methods used for flow assurance risk evaluation. ............ 50
Page 5 of 93
Abbreviations
API American Petroleum Institute
BHA Bottom hole assembly
CaCO3 Calcium carbonate
CBA Cost/benefit analysis
CaP Calcium aluminate phosphate
CCS Carbon capture and storage
Cl Chloride
CO2 Carbon dioxide
DF Design factor
EGS Enhanced geothermal system
EMV Expected monetary value
ERA Environmental risk assessment
ETA Event tree analysis
EU European Union
Fe Iron
FEP Features, events and processes
FMEA Failure mode and effects analysis
FMECA Failure mode, effects and criticality analysis
FTA Fault tree analysis
GEA Geothermal Energy Association
GRC Geothermal Resource Council
HACCP Hazard analysis and critical control points
HAZID Hazard identification
HAZOP Hazard and operability studies
HDR Hot dry rock
HPHT High pressure, high temperature
HRA Human reliability analysis
H2S Hydrogen sulfide
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
IEA GHG International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
IGA International Geothermal Association
IRR Internal rate of return
ISO International Organization for Standardization
LCF Low cycle fatigue
LCM Lost circulation material
Page 6 of 93
LOPA Layer of protection analysis

MCDA Multi-criteria decision analysis
NCS Norwegian Continental Shelf
NH4 Ammonium
NJRISE North Japan Research Institute for Sustainable Energy
NORSOK the competitive standing of the Norwegian offshore sector (“Norsk sokkels
konkurranseposisjon”, standards that are developed by the Norwegian
petroleum industry)
NPV Net present value
N2 Nitrogen
OSTI Office of Scientific and Technical Information
PDC Polycrystalline diamond compact
PHA Preliminary hazard analysis
PRA Probabilistic risk assessment
PSA Petroleum Safety Authority
QRA Quantitative risk assessment
RAMS Reliability, availability, maintainability and safety
ROI Return on investment
ROP Rate of penetration
SF Safety factor
Si Silica
SSAS Sodium silicate-activated slag
SWIFT Structured what-if technique
UCS Unconfined compressive strength
US DOE United States Department of Energy
WP Work package
WSD Working stress design
Page 7 of 93
1 Introduction
The geothermal industry is in steady growth. In 2015, geothermal energy systems produced
73.6 TWh of electricity in 24 countries [1] and 163 TWh of thermal energy [2]. In order to
accelerate the development of geothermal resources for power generation in Europe and
worldwide in a cost effective and environmentally friendly way, the European Union (EU)
has awarded the GeoWell project funding [3]. This collaborative research project (2016-
2019) aims at developing reliable, cost-effective and environmentally safe technologies for
design, completion and monitoring of high-temperature geothermal wells.
As part of the GeoWell project, work package six (WP6) “risk assessment for geothermal wells”
has the overall objective to develop risk and reliability analysis tools for assessment of both
high enthalpy wells and extreme temperature wells in volcanic areas. This WP has the
following secondary objectives:
 Raise the standard of risk analysis tools for geothermal wells to a standard that is
comparable to that of oil and gas wells;
 Propose a risk management framework that can be used for any deep geothermal
wells;
 Evaluate and manage risks related to the introduction of new materials and tools
developed in other work packages within the GeoWell project.
In order to achieve all the WP6 objectives, existing experiences and the vast volume of
knowledge and methodologies developed in the petroleum industry will be employed.
Accordingly, the foundations for the development of new risk analysis tools and a framework
for risk assessments in the geothermal industry, more specifically for the needs of geothermal
wells, will be established.
Deliverable 6.1 is aimed at providing a state-of-the-art report covering different well integrity
issues and risk assessment methods that are currently practiced in geothermal wells. For this
purpose, a review of recently published articles and reports has been conducted. Moreover,
the “GeoWell risk assessment survey” has been prepared and sent to stakeholders dealing
with risk assessment in both the geothermal and petroleum industries. Deliverable 6.1 presents
the findings of both the literature review and the risk assessment survey.
Parallel efforts have been devoted to provide a separate deliverable from WP6 covering
practices of the petroleum industry with respect to well integrity and risk assessment methods
(D6.2). Note that D6.1 and D6.2 are complementary to each other. These deliverables share
some common topics including introduction to well integrity and risk assessment as well as the
GeoWell risk assessment survey. The main purpose for presenting common topics with similar
description in both deliverables is to enable both reports to stand independently and to provide
necessary background information that readers might need to digest the main messages of
each report.
Scope
The life cycle of a geothermal well is similar to that of an oil and gas well and can be divided
into four main phases as shown in Figure 1-1.
Page 8 of 93
Figure 1-1. Different phases in the life cycle of a well.
Risk assessment is performed for both the initial execution of the job and the long-term
consequences of the activity for every life cycle phase. However, this deliverable mainly
focuses on methods for performing risk assessment during the well construction, production
and maintenance phases.
One may distinguish between technical and non-technical risk assessments. WP6 of the
GeoWell project addresses only technical risk assessment for geothermal wells. For
completeness, financial/economic risks for development of geothermal projects and risks
connected to personnel’s health and safety are also partly covered in D6.1.
In this work, the focus is on geothermal systems in which wells are constructed to produce
thermal power at a relatively high temperature (for electricity production). For the GeoWell
project, high-temperature issues such as thermal strains on well tubulars, corrosion,
casing/cement/formation bond are particularly relevant. As such, shallow geothermal systems
at low temperatures (typically utilizing heat pumps) are not treated in any detail.
Methodology
To carry out the literature review covering different technical risk assessment methods, a
number of articles have been reviewed. The main approach for finding relevant articles has
been to search the online database of International Geothermal Association1 (IGA) for
geothermal-related publications, as well as including other publications from various sources,
which were found to be relevant. The search words “risk” or “well integrity” have been used as
a selection basis for those papers selected in this review. There might be a weakness in this
approach as papers that primarily deal with risk methodologies, but are applied to geothermal
cases, could be published in risk-related journals (such as Journal of Risk and Reliability).
Nevertheless, there should still be a sufficient amount of papers within the geothermal
publication realm focusing, to a lesser or larger degree, on risk assessment and well integrity.
This is at least true in the petroleum industry, where numerous publications can be found when
searching for these topics in OnePetro2 (an online library of technical literature for the oil and
gas exploration and production industry). The reviewed papers are classified based on
different indicators such as 1) publication year; 2) the topics that are addressed e.g. uncertainty
quantification and well integrity; 3) different types of risks that are assessed; and 4) tools that
are used for assessing risks. It should be stressed that the classification of types of risks
addressed and risk assessment methods used are interpretations of the authors and as such
do not represent an “objective truth”.
1
https://www.geothermal-energy.org/publications_and_services/conference_paper_database.html
2
https://www.onepetro.org/
Page 9 of 93
The methodology for preparing the GeoWell risk assessment survey, covering the reasoning
for the questions, potential hypothesis, making the recipient list and data analysis
methodology, is elaborated in Section 4.
Outline of the report

Section 2 presents a brief introduction to well integrity and the main differences between
geothermal and petroleum. Section 3 provides a short introduction to risk assessment, general
risk assessment frameworks, regulations and guidelines influencing the risk assessment
process and existing risk assessment methods and techniques.
Section 4 presents the objectives, methodology, criteria, preparatory requirements and post
survey evaluations of the risk assessment survey. Section 5 provides results of both the
literature review and the risk assessment survey and summarizes the analysis of findings from
both the survey and the literature review. Section 6 provides the concluding remarks of this
deliverable, while Section 7 presents dissemination and future activities within WP6.
Appendices I and II provide the questions in the risk assessment survey and its assembled
raw data, respectively, while Appendix III presents a list of the reviewed papers (i.e. Section
5.1).
Page 10 of 93
2 Well integrity in geothermal and petroleum industries

This section primarily aims to provide a concise description of well integrity relevant for
geothermal and petroleum industries. Fundamental differences between geothermal and
petroleum wells are outlined, as these differences might influence both the approach
undertaken, and the tools used, to assess risk in each of the two contexts, and consequently
how well integrity is addressed.
Introduction to well integrity

Wells can be classified into two main categories; i) exploration wells, with the aim to
characterize potential reservoirs for future development and production, and ii) production or
injection wells that either extract the resources from the reservoir or inject water or gas for
pressure support.
The term “well integrity” has different definitions. Two of the most commonly used and
accepted definitions are found in standards NORSOK D-010 and ISO TS 16530-2:
NORSOK D-010: “Application of technical, operational and organizational solutions to reduce
risk of uncontrolled release of formation fluids throughout the life cycle of a well” [4].
ISO TS 16530-2: “Containment and the prevention of the escape of fluids (i.e. liquids or gases)
to subterranean formations or surface” [5].
NORSOK D-010 is developed by the Norwegian petroleum industry and has a focus on well
barrier elements, and that the integrity of these shall be verified by pressure testing or by other
specified methods. The standard requires at least one primary and one secondary barrier. It
also requires the risk assessment of well integrity failure or well control incidents. Risk
assessments of well integrity shall consider:
a) Cause of degradation;
b) Potential for escalation;
c) Reliability and failure modes of primary well barrier elements;
d) Availability and reliability of secondary well barrier elements;
e) Outline plan to restore or replace degraded well barriers.
As mentioned earlier in Section 1, the life cycle of the well is from the construction phase to
final abandonment (i.e. including drilling and completion, production, workovers and lifetime
extension, and plug and abandonment). NORSOK D-010 also specifies a well integrity
management system, comprised of the following elements: organization, design, operational
procedures, data system and analysis.
ISO TS 16530-2 applies to all wells that are utilized by the oil and gas industry, regardless of
age, type or location. It considers only the operational phase (i.e. not well construction,
workover/lifetime extension nor abandonment), and similarly requires addressing risk
assessment aspects of well integrity management. While NORSOK is more barrier-focused,
ISO TS 16530-2 lists considerations such as:
 Location;
 outflow potential;
 well effluent (i.e. fluid components);
 external environment, and
 redundant systems.
There are generally four ways in which a leakage may occur from the well to the environment;
1) through the downhole completion tubing, 2) through the downhole completion annulus, 3)
through the cement between the annuli or 4) outside and around the well casing system.
Page 11 of 93
Well integrity has been an important topic that has been investigated comprehensively for
petroleum wells. However, there are not many papers covering this topic for geothermal wells
as stated by [6].
The primary and long-term function of a geothermal well is to act as a conduit between the
surface and the underground geothermal reservoir [7]. Similar to hydrocarbon wells, the
integrity of wellbores throughout the life cycle of wells needs to be assured to provide good
zonal isolation.
Petroleum vs. geothermal wells

The geothermal industry has elements unique to it and also risks and uncertainties that differ
from those related to the petroleum industry. Some of the key features of geothermal prospects
and the drilling of geothermal wells are presented in the following sub-sections.
Financial
While most of the time hydrocarbons may be produced and sold very soon after discovery and
development, geothermal resources cannot generate a return on investment until a suitable
power plant is constructed and connected to the electrical and/or district heating grid, and thus
revenues are significantly delayed. In addition, in some cases, the need for casings that are
more expensive and other equipment to withstand the high temperature and corrosive
environment increase the costs of geothermal wells. For deep geothermal wells, the cost
increases sharply due to both stimulation in order to achieve sufficient production rates, and
completion of the well.
In addition, due to the less collaborative environment in the geothermal industry (unlike the
internationally oriented petroleum sector), it might not have been developed into an open spirit
community, and lessons learned and common technical standards are still today impossible to
establish across the business community.
Formation characteristics
Reservoir fluids should be at least 120 °C and preferably 150 °C to generate electricity
efficiently. However, there are systems for temperatures down to 90 °C, but the efficiency of
energy conversion is significantly lower than the systems with higher temperature levels. For
hot dry rock (HDR) geothermal systems, temperatures may range from 200 to 350 °C, while
for magmatic systems temperatures range from 600 to 1400 °C [8].
In addition to having high temperatures, formations where geothermal energy is exploited are
also characterized by being/having:
 Hard (> 240 MPa compressive strength)
 Abrasive (> 50% quartz content)
 Highly fractured (fracture apertures of centimeters)
 Under-pressured
 Corrosive fluids
 Very high solids content in the formation fluids in some cases
One of the most important differences between petroleum and geothermal wells is that the
latter are exposed to high temperatures and high temperature variations (specifically in the
case of deep wells or wells that are in high temperature areas). In the petroleum industry, high
temperature is defined as temperatures greater than 150 °C for undisturbed bottom hole
temperature at prospective reservoir depth or total depth [9].
Page 12 of 93
Drilling
Some geothermal wells drill a “controlled blowout”, i.e. drilling into the production zone while
the hole is producing dry steam, a conventional practice in The Geysers. In other cases,
instead of dry steam, brine inflow occurs while drilling (often a clean-out workover). This
requires special equipment and drilling tools such as high temperature wellhead/blowout
preventer (BOP) or special BOP cooling processes, and implies making connections in a hot
hole and sometimes running liners in a “live” well [8].
Geothermal wells, even within the same field, are more variable then oil and gas wells in a
specific hydrocarbon field; the resulting learning curve for geothermal wells based on
experience appears to be less useful. Development of enhanced geothermal systems often
involves hard rock drilling that is more challenging and costly compared to oil and gas drilling
[10]. The hardness of the rock is often defined as its capacity to withstand deforming loads. In
oil and gas drilling industry, 30 kpsi (about 200 MPa) unconfined compressive strength (UCS)
is by some considered as a limit to define hard rock. This criterion might be related to
technological limits, as 200 MPa is close to the limit of performance of current polycrystalline
diamond compact (PDC) drillbits in the oil and gas wells. Above this level of compressive
strength, different drilling methods are used depending on the industry. In both deep
geothermal and oil and gas industries, the typical response to hard sections is to use roller
cone bits, or to grind through the rock with impregnated diamond bits. In addition to high drilling
costs in hard rock formations, other challenges are:
 High equipment wear and failure, in particular regarding the bottom hole assembly
(BHA) and the drill string, as the drill bit is exposed to strong forces during hard rock
drilling;
 Low rates of penetration (ROP) and equipment lifetime;
There is also a higher risk of bit clogging or bit balling1 (as hard rocks are broken in smaller
cuttings sizes than softer rock) if cuttings removal (mud flow) is not efficient for a given bit and
formation. Although in general, hole cleaning is not a challenge for hard rock drilling, as the
ROP is low and the amount of cuttings to remove is somewhat moderate.
Different parameters affect the above-mentioned drilling challenges in hard rock formations
including rock hardness, rock abrasiveness (e.g. when quartz is part of the rock composition)
and formation heterogeneity (i.e. when formation consists of alternating layers of different rock
types, more specifically when alternating layers of hard and soft rock are in close proximity to
each other) [11]. Different evolutionary and revolutionary improvements in drilling operation
that might result in significant costs reduction, enabling access to deeper and hotter
geothermal resources are covered in [12].
With respect to drilling fluids, liquid-based drilling fluids are typically simple mixtures of fresh
water and bentonite clay (possibly also with polymer additives to clean the hole and stabilize
the wellbore) for geothermal wells, whereas oil- and saltwater-based liquids are also used for
hydrocarbon wells. In geothermal wells with high temperature environment, it is essential to
keep the drilling fluids cool to avoid alterations in mud properties. This also implies employing
special electronic tools (e.g. downhole measurement systems), not used in hydrocarbon wells,
to withstand the high temperatures. Aerated (i.e. gas-injected) mud is commonly used in low-
pressure formations where lost circulation is a problem. Drilling with air is common in places
where the reservoir produces dry steam [8], or in hot dry rock.
1 It should be noted that in general hole cleaning is not a challenge for hard rock drilling, as the ROP is low and
the amount of cuttings to remove is somewhat moderate.
Page 13 of 93
Well design
In order to have an efficient downstream energy system connected to geothermal wells, the
wells require large holes and casings, and in many cases require more casing strings than an
onshore oil well of the same depth. High drill string and casing weights imply the need for large
drilling rigs with sufficient hoisting capability. Large diameter casing and hole sizes require
large amounts of cement and more complex placement methods to be applied.
Geothermal wells also require a complicated casing design, especially for wells located in
tectonically active regions. The casing design and particularly the material of the casing, is also
complicated by temperature cycling [8].
The high-temperature environment that is common in geothermal wells has detrimental effects
on the production casing and wellhead [6]. The movement of the casing is restricted by the
presence of a cement sheath. Temperature variations, therefore, induce thermal stresses in
the casing string that may exceed the yield strength of the casing material [13]. This results in
different considerations e.g. for design and analysis of casings and couplings in geothermal
wells than in the petroleum wells [14]. As an example, changes need to be considered in case
of using working stress design (WSD) methodology that is very common to design and analyze
oil and gas wells. This method is used to analyze expected loads versus strength of the
selected casing and tubing. This design methodology assumes minimum strength and
maximum load assumptions with a safety factor (SF) to ensure a safe design. Minimum
strength is based on minimum yield strength and minimum wall thickness. Maximum expected
loads are assumed and compared to the strength to calculate the safety factor. The design
check is to have the SF equal or larger than the design factor (DF). Due to the high
temperatures of geothermal wells, the minimum yield strength is de-rated for elevated
temperatures as part of the design check [15]. Moreover, yield strength needs to be de-rated
in geothermal wells as the temperature during production is significantly above the room
temperature where minimum casing and tubing yield strengths are measured and checked. A
typical average derating factor for temperature is 5.4%/100 °C above 21 °C room temperature
(as an example minimum yield strength of casing or coupling would be de-rated by 5.4% if the
local temperature at depth is 121 °C under production condition) [15]. The combination of high
temperature fluids and high flow rates (that is desirable to produce more electricity or
heating/cooling) can induce additional stresses on the casing string in geothermal wells [16].
Production
Geothermal wells typically produce directly through the casing, instead of through a production
tubing inside the casing, as for most hydrocarbon production wells. In addition, the flow rates
are typically much higher in geothermal wells than in hydrocarbon wells. Geothermal wells may
also be exposed to corrosive fluids and face problems related to scaling, a challenge also
encountered in high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) and sour gas wells for oil and gas.
Cementing
Most geothermal wells have a complete cement sheath from bottom to surface, as opposed to
oil and gas wells, where casings typically are only cemented at the bottom (with a fluid above).
The reason is both for mechanical support during the intense temperature cycling and
protecting the casing from stress corrosion cracking due to in-situ fluids in the case of
geothermal wells [15]. Uncemented voids in casing annuli will result in casing failures; hence,
one of the primary important factors of a geothermal well is a good cement job on all casing
strings.
Geothermal cement is often lightweight (compared to conventional cement). Geothermal
cements must also be resistant to acid and CO2 attack. This has led to the use of e.g. calcium
aluminate phosphate (CaP) cement, designed for use in mildly acidic CO2-rich environments,
Page 14 of 93
and sodium silicate-activated slag (SSAS) cement, designed for use in hot, acidic
environments with low levels of CO2 [8].
Cementing can be challenging in lost circulation zones where cement can flow into the
formation, preventing cementation to the surface [17].
Geothermal wells – Challenges, risks and well integrity issues

Failure in the integrity of geothermal wells can result in lost production and induce significant
maintenance costs potentially comparable to well completion costs. Often in geothermal wells,
failures are related to the casing and cement used in the wells. Improved design and proper
selection of casing as well as performing a good cement job have been the most important
approaches to minimize the risk of catastrophic well failures [7].
In high temperature geothermal wells, there are risks of failure due to the initial heating up the
well, temperature variations during the operational life and formation environment (e.g.
presence of corrosive fluids) [7, 13]. Different studies elaborate various casing and coupling
failure modes and measures to mitigate the risk for such failures occurring [7, 13, 15, 16].
The study by Southon (2005) [7] is based on investigations of casing failures in geothermal
wells in a number of countries within the Pacific – Southeast Asia region. Teodoriu and Falcone
[13] evaluated the effects of thermal stresses induced by temperature variations (100-250 °C)
and low cycle fatigue (LCF) resistance in the casing string (18 5/8” casing) of a geothermal
well, both theoretically and experimentally. Hodson-Clarke et al. [15] focused on different
factors for drilling and completion of successful enhanced geothermal system (EGS) wells in
Cooper Basin, Australia. Similar to Hodson-Clarke et al., Kaldal and Thorbjörnsson [14] also
highlight the failure modes that can occur in the couplings. Lentsch et al. [16] studied different
casing failure modes and measures to avoid such failures based on drilling and construction
of deep geothermal wells in the Molasse Basin in southern Germany. Such a study can be
useful for other deep sedimentary basins.
The following list summarizes some challenges, risks and well integrity issues that may be
encountered in geothermal wells [6-8, 16, 18]:
 Difficult drilling conditions: low rate of penetration (ROP) and low bit life (leading to
more time spent tripping and idle).
 Higher risk of corrosion: the presence of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), which also limits the
type of drilling equipment materials and casing steels (these must be lower strength
steel, as higher strength steel fails by sulfide stress cracking) particularly imposes
higher risk of corrosion. External corrosion normally occurs in the presence of a shallow
environment (containing corrosive gases) where the casing is attacked from the outside
resulting in reduction in the casing wall thickness [7]. Some of the relevant corrosion
mechanisms can be found in [6].
 Higher risk and greater severity of lost circulation: this is due to high productivity
fractures combined with a low permeability and porosity matrix. Many geothermal wells
have been abandoned because of the inability to pass a loss zone, and many more
have required an unplanned string of casing to seal off a problem.
 Complex cement job: cement is often used to repair/plug fractures in the upper interval
of wells, but is difficult to place accurately, and if the cementing is done after the casing
is run, the cementation becomes even more complicated, see Shadravan et al. [6].
Cement casing de-bonding and cement sheath failures (such as formation of micro-
annuli and channels) are also common failures, mainly because geothermal operations
face high or extreme temperatures.
Page 15 of 93
 Risk for loss of well control: drilling while the hole is producing dry steam, or especially
while there is brine inflow, presents a particular risk for losing well control.
 Risk for lost circulation material (LCM): this often happens when the size of the fracture
aperture exceeds that of the LCM particles.
 Scaling: brine chemistry may cause scaling, i.e. mineral deposits both inside and
outside the casing and in the production interval, potentially resulting in reduced flow
area.
 Stress: casings and connectors may be stressed beyond the yield point due to extreme
and quick temperature cycling.
 Risk of casing collapse: if water is trapped between the cement and the casing,
especially in the intervals where one casing is inside another, there is risk for casing
collapse due to volume expansion. Over-pressured zones and tectonic stresses can
also cause casing collapse [16]. This usually happens in the body of the casing and is
commonly seen in big hole completions [7].
 Compression failure in casing or couplings: this failure mode is due to the loss of
mechanical integrity of the couplings, during compression under hot conditions that
would normally result in reduction in capacity of couplings to withstand tensile loading.
This mode can occur in high temperature fields and high temperature productions
conditions (with wellhead temperature exceeding 260 °C) [7].
 Under-pressured formations aggravate differential sticking.
 Aggravation of all the above issues due to high temperatures.
 There are also specific challenges, pertaining to geothermal fluid chemistry, such as:
o Corrosion: chloride (Cl-) in the steam entering the steam turbine could cause
corrosion damage to internal turbine components.
o Electronic tool damages and health risks: H2S in the steam may degrade
sensitive electronics and poses health risks to the local population and
operating personnel.
o Fouling: the presence of H2S, NH4+ or N2 in condensed steam may cause bio-
fouling in condensers and cooling towers.
o Precipitation: hyper-saline brines require either to keep dissolved solids in
solution or to control mineral precipitation.
o Scaling and erosion: silica (Si), calcium carbonate (CaCO3) or iron (Fe) in
geothermal brines creates a potential for both formation of mineral scales and
erosion of the injection system, injection wells and heat exchangers.
o Leakage: hydrocarbon-based working fluids used in binary geothermal plants,
pose a risk of air pollution and fire, in the event of a leak.
Some of the challenges with respect to cementing is covered by WP3 of the GeoWell project,
entitled “Improved cement, ductile surface layer and composite casing”. WP4, entitled “Flexible
coupling and casing materials”, covers challenges associated with well tubulars, including
connections and material properties suitable for a high-temperature well. Finally, WP5 “Well
monitoring” deals with well integrity using downhole fiber optic sensing techniques.
Page 16 of 93
3 Risk assessment
This section is aimed at presenting definitions of risk-related keywords that are often used
throughout this document. Moreover, risk assessment and its underlying activities as part of
generic risk management frameworks are described. This section also presents the available
regulations and standards that govern risk assessments to be performed within geothermal
and petroleum industries. Finally, different risk assessment methods/techniques that have
been touched upon by the Geowell risk assessment survey are briefly introduced.
Important risk-related definitions

The following important key words/phrases are frequently used throughout this report, based
on ISO 31000:2009 [19]:
 Risk – Effect of uncertainty on objectives. An effect is a deviation from the expected –
positive and/or negative. Objectives can have different aspects including strategic,
organization-wide, project, product and process. Risk is often characterized by
reference to potential events and consequences, or a combination of these. Risk is
often expressed in terms of a combination of the consequences of an event (including
changes in circumstances) and the associated likelihood of occurrence. Uncertainty is
the state, even partial, of deficiency of information related to, understanding or
knowledge of an event, its consequence, or likelihood.
 Risk assessment – The overall process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk
evaluation.
 Risk identification – Process of finding, recognizing and describing risks. Risk
identification involves the identification of risk sources, events, their causes and their
potential consequences. Risk identification can involve historical data, theoretical
analysis, informed and expert opinions, and stakeholder’s needs.
 Risk analysis – Process of comprehending the nature of risk and determining the level
of risk. Risk analysis involves developing an understanding of the risk and provides an
input to risk evaluation, to decisions on whether risks need to be treated, and on the
most appropriate risk treatment strategies and methods. It also involves consideration
of the causes and sources of risk together with their positive and negative
consequences, and the likelihood that consequences can occur.
 Risk evaluation – Process of comparing the results of risk analysis with risk criteria to
determine whether the risk and/or its magnitude or likelihood is acceptable or tolerable.
Risk evaluation involves comparing the level of risk found during the analysis process
with risk criteria established when the context of the risk assessment was considered.
The aim here is to assist in making decisions about which risks need treatment and the
priority for treatment implementation.
General risk frameworks

According to ISO 31000:2009 [19], risk management is “coordinated activities to direct and
control an organization with regard to risk”. Risk assessment is one part of a risk management
process, and is in the same standard defined as “the overall process of risk identification, risk
analysis and risk evaluation”.
Typically, other parts of the risk management framework include establishing the context, risk
treatment, communication and consulting, and monitoring and review, as shown in Figure 3-1.
Page 17 of 93
Figure 3-1. A general framework for risk management as presented in ISO 31000:2009.
The ISO framework for risk management and risk assessment is generic and high-level, and
does not give detailed guidelines on specifically what tool or methods should be used to
achieve the overall objectives. Naturally, the specific implementations of risk assessment
frameworks will vary in accordance with the area of application. The nature of the risk and its
associated uncertainty will be different when considering areas or industries such as
petroleum, nuclear energy, space aviation, societal security or natural disasters. The actual
implementation of the risk assessment framework will also vary with the types of risk that are
the focus of the assessment. Such categories include project- and financial risks, geological
risks, barrier risks, health and safety risks, environmental risks or pressure- and wellbore risks,
and are quite different.
Examples of other high-level standards or guidelines for risk management and assessment
include OCEG “Red Book” 3.0 GRC Capability Model1, BS 31100:2011 Risk Management:
Code of practice and guidance for the implementation of BS ISO 310002, COSO:2004
Enterprise Risk Management – Integrated Framework3, FERMA:2002 A Risk Management
Standard and Solvency II4.
The petroleum industry has several standards for risk management and assessment. On the
Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS), the NORSOK Z-013 [20] standard is widely used, and
1
http://www.oceg.org/resources/red-book-3
2
http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030228064
3
http://www.coso.org/documents/coso_erm_executivesummary.pdf
4
http://www.ferma.eu/app/uploads/2011/11/a-risk-management-standard-english-version.pdf
Page 18 of 93
has been developed by the petroleum industry. This standard has a focus towards a
quantitative risk assessment (QRA), as shown in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2. Risk assessment framework with a quantitative focus, as presented in NORSOK Z-013.
In quantitative risk assessments, the probability and consequence dimensions of risk are
expressed in quantitative terms, using for example risk matrices, historical data or probability
distributions, whereas in a qualitative assessment, a descriptive approach is used to express
risk. The use of these two approaches may be by design, due to a lack of available data
required to use quantitative models, or due to the complex nature of the risk or its inherent
uncertainty.
Other examples of high-level risk assessment frameworks from the industry include those from
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the nuclear industry [21] and from the
International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEA GHG) [22] for CO2
storage projects, as shown in Figure 3-3.
Page 19 of 93
Figure 3-3. Risk assessment frameworks for nuclear industry (left, IAEA 2001) [21] and for CO2 geological storage
(right, IEA GHG 2009) [22].
There seem to be few published or widely-used publications suggesting recommendations,

such as that of Heijnen et al. [23], but there are, to the best of our knowledge, no industry
standards specifically governing risk assessment or providing risk frameworks for geothermal
drilling.
Regulations
Generally, most industrial activities involve hazards/risks towards humans, safety or the
environment, and thus there are laws and regulations requiring risk assessments to be
performed. Distinction should be made between directives, standards and guidelines. In the
EU, “a directive is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve.
However, it is up to the individual countries own laws on how to reach these goals” [24]. A
standard is a description of a set of activities, and constitutes a particular level in which
compliance is met. A guideline is more advisory, for example in terms of how to reach
compliance with a standard. Developments in regulations over the past decades has seen a
gradual shift from prescriptive-based regulation to performance-based regulation, where the
management is held responsible for ensuring appropriate safety systems are in place [25].
In Europe, EU directive 82/501/EEC1 (often referred to as the Seveso Directive, and its
amended post-Piper Alpha in 1996, Seveso II) concerns the control of major accident hazards
1
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31996L0082
Page 20 of 93
involving dangerous substances. In the United States, 29 CFR 1910.1191 “Process safety
management of highly hazardous chemicals” constitutes similar legislation. Other examples of
wide-reaching legislative acts governing risk assessment include EU Directive 89/392/EEC2,
covering safety aspects for a wide range of machinery, for which the ISO standard ISO
12100:2010 3was also developed, the UK Health and Safety at Work Act of 19744, the UK
Offshore Installations (Safety Case) Regulations of 19925, and the US Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 20046.
There are various standards pertaining to different industries. The NORSOK Z-013 standard
for Risk and Emergency Preparedness Analysis [20] is used for the petroleum industry. In the
nuclear industry the guideline NUREG/CR-2300 concerns the risk assessments for nuclear
power plants [26], while in the space industry NASA has developed guides for probabilistic risk
assessment (PRA) procedures [27]. The standard EN501267 concerns “the specification and
demonstration of reliability, availability, maintainability and safety (RAMS)” for railway
applications.
On the NCS, the Petroleum Safety Authority (PSA) for example has requirements related
specifically to well barriers in PSA’s Facility Regulations, §48, and guidelines providing further
details, which link to specific parts of the NORSOK D-010 standard, which is the standard
covering well integrity in drilling and well operations. Other standard related to well integrity in
the petroleum industry include ISO/DIS 16530-2:2014 – Petroleum and natural gas industries
– Well integrity8 and NOG 117 – Recommended guidelines for Well Integrity9.
Many geothermal wells have been drilled to comply with the local petroleum regulations and
standards such as those set by ISO, American Petroleum Institute (API) etc. The code of
practice for deep geothermal wells (NZS 2403:2015) [28] is a standard commonly used as the
basis for designing geothermal wells.
Hodson-Clarke et al. highlighted that in an enhanced geothermal system project, design and
construction of the wells with a double barrier were performed in compliance with the South
Australian Petroleum regulations [15]. According to the authors, selection of the casing and
tubing materials as well as testing of materials for an enhanced geothermal system project in
Australia has been done using common standards for the oil and gas industry, namely ISO
15156-2, 2003 [29] and ISO 13679:2002 [30], respectively.
Lentsch et al. [16] stated that the guideline of the German economic community of oil and gas
production or “Wirtschaftsverband Erdöl- und Erdgasgewinnung e.V.” (WEG) have been used
for geothermal wells located in the Molasse Basin in the southern Germany. This standard is
commonly used for casing design of oil and gas wells in Germany. However, they mention that
because other guidelines such as NZS 2403:2015 [28] recommend different design factors,
currently used design factors for the design of wells in the southern part of the Molasse Basin
apply the stricter standard to reduce the risk of any failures.
1
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9760
2
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31989L0392&qid=1458901186986
3
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=51528
4
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/contents
5
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/2885/contents/made
6
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ295/html/PLAW-107publ295.htm
7
http://standards.globalspec.com/std/1272146/cenelec-en-50126-1
8
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=57056
9
https://www.norskoljeoggass.no/Global/Retningslinjer/Boring/117%20Norwegian%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20%
20recommended%20guidelines%20Well%20Integrity.pdf
Page 21 of 93
Often, geothermal wells during drilling, construction, operation and plugging, are regulated by
mining authorities, and must comply with the specific rules of that sector. Exploitation of
geothermal resources may also fall under existing regulatory legislation and regulatory
frameworks for natural resources, hydrocarbons, geology, groundwater and planning [31]. The
cause of this is in part due to a lack of a unified terminology (in legal and regulatory acts) for
the geothermal sector.
Risk assessment methods/techniques

There exist a wide range of available methods/tools/techniques for assessing risks, varying in
degree of depth and detail, complexity and requirements in terms of resources, the type of
focus (e.g. quantitative or qualitative), and the its place in the risk assessment process. This
section will briefly outline an overview of what exists, and some of the main differences. The
methods and classifications outlined are based on the ISO 31010:2009 standard as shown in
Table 3-1, which was also used as a basis for the survey that was conducted.
Page 22 of 93
Table 3-1. Different available methods and techniques for assessing risks [32]
A preliminary hazard analysis (PHA) is an example of a simple method requiring limited

knowledge of the process or activity in question. It can be viewed as high-level, with the
objective of prioritizing risks based on coarse probability or consequence assessments. The
requirement for conducting such an analysis is not considerable, and also in terms of execution
time, the process can be performed quickly. A PHA can typically be useful in the risk
identification phase, but has limited value in the later analysis phase, as it is neither
comprehensive nor detailed. The failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is another method
that can be used to identify risks, but is somewhat more comprehensive as it requires listing
all relevant failure causes/modes/mechanisms by which a system component may fail. It
requires more knowledge of the system in question than a PHA, and can become tedious if
the number of assessed components is large. An example of an analysis that is more used in
the risk analysis phase than the identification phase is the fault tree analysis (FTA). It uses
logical gates, root causes or combinations of failures that could lead to a single, identified
Page 23 of 93
failure. This analysis is often used in engineered systems where the components have
reliabilities, and thus has a quantitative focus. It is often an analysis that requires both time
and a high level of expertise.
As previously mentioned, some tools are more common for some areas of application, and for
assessing certain types of risks, than others. For example, in the petroleum industry on the
NCS, well integrity is strongly related to barrier analysis. Such analyses often revolve around
technical or physical barriers and the failure modes such components may encounter. Thus,
the use of e.g. FMEA/FMECA (failure mode, effects and criticality analysis) and FTA are
commonly used methods in this context. In other areas, such as the nuclear industry or the
carbon capture and storage (CCS) industry, scenarios analyses and checklists are commonly
used together with the features, events and processes (FEP) approach as stated in [33].
It is also important to emphasize that the method classification presented in ISO 31010:2009
does not represent an objective “true” classification. It is simply one way of representing an
overview of different methods for risk identification, analysis and evaluation. That does not
mean that methods not listed in the standard are inferior in any way, or that the classification
between identification, analysis and evaluation is the correct one. Monte Carlo simulation is by
many viewed as more logically belonging to analysis than evaluation, and there are also
arguments for not having many structured methods for evaluation at all, as this phase mostly
focuses on comparing analysis results with regulations, acceptance criteria, etc. It was chosen
to use ISO 31010:2009 as a basis for the survey, but allowing for adding methods not listed to
any of the three parts of the risk assessment, precisely because of the aforementioned
challenges.
Page 24 of 93
4 Risk assessment survey

Objectives
The main objective of the survey performed in the GeoWell project was to get an overview of
how risk assessments are performed in the geothermal and petroleum industries and
consequently to identify differences between the sectors.
Methodology
Hypothesis
The petroleum industry may be considered more mature than the geothermal industry, with
significantly more wells drilled, and stricter regulations. Based on this, a hypothesis that the
geothermal industry has less mature standards on risk assessments than the petroleum
industry seems reasonable. The primary purpose of the survey is to map the current application
of risk assessment methods in both geothermal and petroleum industries and to identify
differences that may let the geothermal industry raise the standard to that of the petroleum
industry.
Note that the differences in risk assessments might also be caused by:
 Difference in standards between onshore and offshore wells (offshore wells are more
costly to drill and spills will spread in the water, causing harm over a larger area).
 Difference between legislation and region in the world (e.g. Norwegian regulations are
considered strict compared to many other countries).
 Difference between sizes of companies (not all oil companies are staffed for costly and
resource intensive assessments, or may lack personnel with expertise).
Many companies involved in the geothermal industry are also involved in petroleum. This is
particularly true for the companies providing drilling services. It is likely these companies will
apply the same methods for both the petroleum and geothermal wells they are involved in.
However, there may be differences in how the assessments are performed with respect to the
collaboration between the contractors, service providers and operators.
Reasoning for survey questions
The web based survey, attached in Appendix I, consists of 7 pages. The initial page is a simple
welcome page, explaining the background for the survey, such as the purpose of the survey,
who is performing the survey and in what context, and how the results will be used. This
provides context for the receivers of the survey, giving them confidence in the seriousness of
the survey as well as an idea of how they should respond if any of the questions are considered
ambiguous.
The second page asks for information about the respondent. As respondents may not wish to
supply personal information about themselves, the company they work for and the country they
reside in are marked as optional. Most of the questions do not actually require a response;
however, responses are expected. The reason for allowing many unanswered questions was
to get as much as possible of the questionnaire answered, and the creation of unnecessary
barriers.
The other questions on page 2 relate to the type of company and the respondent’s role in
relation to risk assessments for wells. Common company types from the industry were used
to identify their responsibilities related to wells.
Another question was posed to be able to separate the respondents working in geothermal
from those in petroleum, as well as those working offshore with those working onshore.
Page 25 of 93
Offshore geothermal was not considered a relevant alternative. The final question on the
second page; whether the respondent performs risk assessments related to wells is a
qualifying question, intended to filter out those who would not be in a position to provide
relevant answers to the more risk specific questions. This question also served to identify who
is involved in risk assessments related to wells. Answering “No” to this question takes the
respondent to the end of the survey, where they can provide their email addresses (for future
dissemination activities) and any feedback they may have.
The third page is used to identify in which area the respondents apply risk assessments. As a
main purpose of the GeoWell project is related to well integrity, it was desirable to distinguish
assessment of downhole conditions from assessments related to the work processes. Different
areas, accompanied with a short description, are:
 Health and safety risk: assessment regarding the health and safety of personnel.
 Project/financial risk: risk assessment related to project execution such as delays,
timing, reputation, capital, regulatory etc.
 Geological risk: assessment related to reservoir characterization uncertainty.
 Geological event risk: risk assessment related to seismic events, fracking, reopening
of faults etc.
 Pressure/well control risk: assessment regarding wellbore pressure control related
incidents such as lost circulation, kick, stuck pipe etc.
 Equipment reliability: assessment of failure of non-barrier equipment such as drilling
tools.
 Barrier reliability: assessment of the condition of integrity related equipment such as
casing and cement.
 Environmental risk: assessment of environmental impact of operations.
 Flow assurance: assessment related to production.
The fourth page requests the respondent to identify which methods are used in risk
identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation. These are common terms in risk management,
and definition can for example be found in ISO 31010:2009 [32]. The methods were subject to
discussion, as many different names are used for similar methods. As there was a large
number of methods, trying to group the methods by types was considered. However,
introducing new naming conventions would easily make it more difficult for the respondents to
recognize which type of methods they are using. In the end, the methods strongly applicable
to each risk assessment activity as defined in ISO 31000:2009 were used. It was believed that
most would understand which methods would apply to them. A direct use of the method as
defined in the standard would not be assumed, but the answers would at least give an
indication of the type of method. Each method was also given a tool-tip text in the survey,
giving a brief description of the method for clarification.
The fifth page breaks down the use of methods in to the different life cycle phases considered
(including drilling, completion, production and maintenance). To avoid unnecessary
alternatives, only the methods selected on the previous page were shown, as the rest should
be irrelevant.
The sixth page is similar to the fifth, breaking down which methods are applied to which areas
of application (e.g. project/financial, geological and environmental risks). Similarly, only the
previously selected methods and the previously selected areas were shown. The
comprehensiveness of this question depends on how many methods were selected earlier.
The final page of the survey informs the respondent of how the results will be communicated,
and asks whether they are interested in attending a webinar for the purpose of dissemination
Page 26 of 93
and communication of the findings of the survey. Comments are also requested, to get
feedback on the survey and get additional information.
Selection of the recipients
As the survey was targeted to map the status of risk assessments performed in a well integrity
context in the geothermal and petroleum industries, the survey is sent to experts active in each
or both of industries.
While the list of contacts for the petroleum industry was based on an internal IRIS database,
the contact list for the geothermal industry was based on:
 Contacts provided in Hirosaki University, Aomori Campus, North Japan Research
Institute for Sustainable Energy (NJRISE) (http://njrise.cc.hirosaki-
u.ac.jp/hiro/indexE.html);
 Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) Database, United States
Department of Energy (US DOE), (http://www.osti.gov/geothermal/)
 Geothermal Energy Association (GEA) membership list (http://geo-
energy.org/gea_members.aspx);
 Geothermal Resource Council (GRC) publication database
(https://www.geothermal.org/publications.html);
 Search through the paper database of IGA (International Geothermal Association) and
finding active authors in the field (https://www.geothermal-
energy.org/publications_and_services/conference_paper_database.html); and
 Contacts provided by GeoWell partners.
Preparatory requirements
Prior to the risk assessment survey, different preparatory and quality assurance considerations
were made, as listed in Table 4-1.
All of the considerations listed in Table 4-1 are obvious, but the most important ones are to
create questions that serve the objectives, are simple to understand and unambiguous, and
have alternatives that are exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the survey should be
able to provide results that are of mutual interests to both recipient and the survey team.
Page 27 of 93
Table 4-1. Different preparatory and quality assurance considerations for the survey.
Consideration Remarks Quality assurance checklist
Length of the survey All questions were discussed to see if they Can any question be excluded?
could be excluded without losing needed Is it too time consuming to complete it?
information
Reasonable and short (about 10 min
estimated by survey provider)
Simplicity As simple as possible Are all the questions simple?
Are the questions understandable for the
target audience?
Layout Clear and consistent form with the
GeoWell’s logo
Target group Relevance to the recipients and precise Is the survey clear on who the recipients are,
definition of target group and are the questions suitable for them?
Type of questions Clear and relevant Are all the questions relevant?
Are all the questions balanced?
Are all the questions unambiguous?
Will the questions provide the answers that are
desired?
Is there a combination of open and closed
questions?
Are the questions asked in a logical order?
Do the questions match the alternatives?
Type of answers Mainly multiple choices are provided. Are the alternatives exhaustive?
Alternatives based on literature sources, Are the alternatives mutually exclusive?
e.g. ISO standard. Is similar type of scale used consistently
throughout the survey?
Time for sending the The survey sent at a time that the
survey respondents have time to answer it
(during summer time).
Risk of being overlooked due to being in
summer vacation.
Results Recipients have been informed about the Is the purpose of the survey clear?
use of results. Is it clear how the results will be used?
Reminder sending One reminder was sent to those who had
not left their e-mail in the questionnaire.
Incentives use Communication of the results through a Why would the target audience complete the
planned webinar has been promised. survey?
Teaser format An e-mail invite is used as a teaser. How has the target group been informed about
Target audience incentivized by the e- the survey?
mail invite.
Communication An email account was specifically created Is there any contact information provided for
for communication with recipients of the future communication between recipients and
survey. the GeoWell team?
Post survey evaluation

The survey status as of September 14, 2016, includes 46 finished responses and 18 partial
responses (in total 64 response) as well as 31 in progress. Most of those who completed the
survey spent less than 10 minutes (to the left in Figure 4-1). Of those that did not finish, most
stopped at the company information page, (i.e. first page, see Appendix I and II for the
Page 28 of 93
questionnaire and its collected data, respectively) as seen to the right in the figure, and some
did just not press the finish button. These results indicate that the last part of the questionnaire
was not time consuming enough to make the respondents stop, which due to the matrix
functionality of the question, was feared. Alternatively, one could argue that due to
comprehensiveness, respondents rushed through just to get finished with the survey, giving
random answers along the way. While this could of course be the case, we do not see any
arbitrariness or contradictory survey results suggesting this.
Record time spent on Last question seen by

the questionnaire responses in progress
16
11
10
5 3 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 2 0
2,4 5,6 8,9 12,1 15,3 18,6 21,8 25,1 28,3 31,5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Duration [minutes] Question number
Figure 4-1. Registered time spent for respondents spending less than 2 hours (Left) and registered last question
answered for the unfinished responses (Right).
Only two comments on the survey itself have been received through the comment functionality.
One was particular to the mentioned matrix functionality between methods and application
area, where many combinations had to be considered if the respondent used many methods
and applied them to many areas. The respondent commented that many methods and
applications overlap, which means many boxes had to be ticked off. Knowing that filling out
parts of survey could take a lot of time in some cases makes the appreciation for their efforts
even larger.
The other comment was that too many “risk-insider” terms were used in the questionnaire, and
that this may lead to unclear results. Introducing custom categories for the methods was a
concern, as this could possibly lead to different interpretations of the categories. To ensure
consistency and traceability, the methods as mentioned in the ISO standard were used, with
tool-tip text describing the methods. However, many might not have seen the tool-tip text, or
been inclined to read it for every method. Thus, the actual methods chosen by the respondents
should only be used as indications of the risk assessments performed, rather than the
conclusive basis for use of the methods.
Page 29 of 93
5 Results and discussion

Risk assessment status in the geothermal industry – Literature
Similar to many industries, the geothermal industry faces various kinds of risks including
technical risk, geological risk, health and safety risk, project/financial risk, political risk,
environmental risk etc. As mentioned earlier, in order to provide an overview of different
technical risk assessment methods that are being used in the geothermal industry, many
articles have been reviewed.
In the following, some of the main findings of the literature survey of geothermal publications
relating to risk assessment and well integrity are presented. For each paper included in the
selection, we have classified it in terms of publication year, whether the paper addresses
uncertainty quantification, which types of risks are addressed, which tools are used for
assessing risks and whether the paper addresses well integrity. We would like to stress that
the classification of types of risks addressed and risk assessment methods used are
interpretations of the authors, and, as such, do not represent an “objective truth”.
The papers reviewed span the last 11 years as shown in Figure 5-1. Except a slight overweight
of papers from 2015, the distribution over the years is generally fair. There is no particular
reason for setting a cut-off year of 2005, but papers dating much further back would arguably
not represent the current state-of-the-art. A total of 54 papers or publications were included in
the review. Most of these papers were presented at various geothermal conferences world-
wide and few of them were from peer-reviewed journals. A list of papers reviewed is given in
Appendix III.
Number of papers reviewed
11
5 5
4 4 4 4 4
3
1 1
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year published
Figure 5-1. An overview of the reviewed papers by publication year.
The review also looked into which types of risks were addressed in each case (see Figure 5-2).
There are many ways in which risks can be categorized; in this case different categories have
been defined based on previous experience. The distribution of types of risks in the reviewed
papers are shown below. Note that many of the papers address more than one type of risk,
and the total does therefore not sum to 100%.
Page 30 of 93
PROJECT/FINANCIAL RISK 72,2 %
GEOLOGICAL RISK 38,9 %
BARRIER RELIABILITY 14,8 %
EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY 16,7 %
PRESSURE/WELL CONTROL RISK 13,0 %

Risk type
GEOLOGICAL EVENT RISK 11,1 %
HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK 7,4 %
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK 7,4 %
FLOW ASSURANCE 1,9 %
OTHER - SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE 1,9 %
N/A 1,9 %
0,0 % 10,0 % 20,0 % 30,0 % 40,0 % 50,0 % 60,0 % 70,0 % 80,0 %

Proportion of total number of reviewed papers
Figure 5-2. Different types of risks addressed in the reviewed papers.
Figure 5-2 interestingly shows that the by far most addressed risk type is related to
project/financial risk, i.e. risk related to the project viability and feasibility. This differs
significantly from our impression of the focus in the oil and gas industry. The finding is probably
attributable to the fact that while there is an enormous financial upside when drilling petroleum
exploration wells, this is not the case for geothermal wells. Furthermore, the financial margins
during production are several magnitudes less than for oil and gas. In fact, when reviewing the
geothermal publications, many papers did not even define risk properly; it was implicitly taken
to be project/financial risk.
Geological risk is also a key focus area regarding risk (nearly 40% of the papers address this
area). However, this is often tightly related to project/financial risk; large uncertainties in the
resources to be exploited will consequently yield large uncertainty in the project feasibility as
well. Barrier reliability and equipment reliability, which are those areas most closely related to
well integrity, have been discussed in ca. 1/6 of the papers reviewed.
In terms of whether the papers address uncertainty quantification is also a question of interest.
In many papers the definition of risk includes the consideration of uncertainty; however, the
majority do not explicitly address how to quantify it, as shown in Figure 5-3.
Page 31 of 93
Yes
33%
No
67%
Figure 5-3. Distribution of the reviewed papers covering uncertainty quantification.
Furthermore, we investigated the risk assessment methods used (or described) in the
reviewed papers. The basis for the types of risk assessment methods was that defined in ISO
31010: 2009; however, as that list is not exhaustive, we added method types to the list as
needed. Throughout the 54 papers, 96 mention or describe risk assessment methods. Figure
5-4 lists method types as a proportion of these 96, as an indication of how frequently each type
was used.
Types of risk assessment methods addressed in

reviewed papers
MONETARY INDICES - NPV/EMV/IRR/ROI/CASH FLOW 17,9 %
MONTE CARLO 11,6 %
COARSE RISK RANKING -… 9,5 %
EXPERT ELICITATION/BAYESIAN ANALYSIS 7,4 %
DECISION TREE ANALYSIS/OTHER DECISION ANALYSIS 5,3 %
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 4,2 %
Risk assessment method
FMECA 3,2 %
VALUE OF INFORMATION 3,2 %
FAILURE INVESTIGATION/RISK-BASED INSPECTION/DATA… 3,2 %
HISTORICAL DATA AGGREGATION 2,1 %
SCENARIO ANALYSIS 2,1 %
CHECKLISTS 2,1 %
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS 2,1 %
INTERVIEWS 1,1 %
HAZID 1,1 %
FUZZY LOGIC 1,1 %
OTHER 2,1 %
N/A 21,1 %
0,0 % 5,0 % 10,0 % 15,0 % 20,0 % 25,0 %
Proportion of total number of risk assessment methods adressed in reviewed papers
Figure 5-4. An overview of different types of risk assessment methods addressed in reviewed papers.
Page 32 of 93
In line with the findings on risk types, the most used risk assessment methods relate to financial
metrics such as net present value (NPV), expected monetary value (EMV), internal rate of
return (IRR), return on investment (ROI) and cash flow. Monte Carlo, often in conjunction with
expert elicitation and/or Bayesian analysis was also addressed in several papers. Coarse risk
ranking, such as the use of simple risk indices, consequence/probability matrices, was also a
commonly used tool. The remaining methods were rarely used. One observation was that
many of the papers did not have risk in particular as the main focus. In many cases,
geological/reservoir simulations were the focus, with some discussions of risk/uncertainty
around the calculated values, missing the context of a particular method for risk analysis. The
overall impression was that there was little consensus on common approaches to risk
assessment methods and why they were chosen. That said, the topics covered in the reviewed
papers spanned many and diverse topics.
The risk assessment methods were also grouped according to the ISO 31010: 2009 [32] in
terms of resource demands, nature of uncertainty and complexity. Where either the method
was not listed, or it was listed but not classified in ISO 31010: 2009, we applied our own
interpretation. For papers where there was no mention of any specific risk assessment method,
it was obviously not possible to perform any classification (“N/A”).
The resource demands of a risk assessment method are related to experience and capability
of the risk assessment team, organizational constraints on time and other resources, and
available budget. The nature of the uncertainty is linked to the quality, quantity and integrity of
information relating to the risk under consideration, and the availability of information about the
risk and its sources, causes and consequences.
Regarding all three dimensions (resource demands, nature of uncertainty and complexity)
there is no evidence to suggest that there is an overweight of simplistic, low-complexity
methods in use, nor of sophisticated, highly demanding tools. Figure 5-5 shows an overview
of the resource demands, nature of uncertainty and complexity in risk assessment methods
that are addressed in the reviewed papers.
41,1 %
Proportion of total number of risk assessment
34,7 % 34,7 %
methods adressed in reviewed papers
28,4 %
23,2 % 23,2 % 22,1 % 23,2 % 23,2 %

20,0 %
13,7 % 12,6 %
RESOURCE DEMANDS NATURE OF UNCERTAINTY COMPLEXITY

Risk assessment method classification in terms of
N/A Low Medium High
Figure 5-5. An overview of the resource demands, nature of uncertainty and complexity in risk assessment methods
addressed in the reviewed papers, as classified in ISO 31010:2009. N/A are papers where no specific risk
assessment method is mentioned/presented.
Page 33 of 93
The reason that both resource demands and complexity are more weighted towards the
medium/high group, is partly due to the fact that both Monte Carlo and monetary indices have
a medium or high classification for these dimensions, and together account for a large
proportion of the total number of methods. With this in mind, it appears that the geothermal
publications concerning risk assessment methods cover a rather large span in types of
methods, covering the low/medium/high range in terms of resource demands, nature of
uncertainty and complexity.
Finally, with respect to well integrity, this topic is to a very small extent covered in the reviewed
publications. As shown in Figure 5-6, only 11% of the publications cover, to some extent, well
integrity as a topic addressed.
Yes
11%
No
89%
Figure 5-6. Distribution of the papers that address well integrity.
Very few publications we studied concern risk of loss of containment, nor risks of failures in
barriers. In fact, the term barrier is hardly mentioned, and even the papers dealing with well
integrity do so to a large extent without considering the system as comprised of barriers with
failure modes and reliabilities.
Risk assessment status – Survey

In this sub-section, results from the risk assessment survey are presented using only the
responses from those classifying themselves as working in geothermal, and do not have
activity related to petroleum. Note that the analysis is limited to fully completed responses who
have selected “yes” when asked whether they perform risk analysis for wells or not. This
reduces the number of relevant respondents to 15. Although this number is too low to generate
statistically significant results, the results will still give an indication on what is performed
related to risk assessments. These results look into what methods are applied, to which
activities, and by whom.
Respondent overview
In Section 4, a description of the recipients of the risk assessment survey is provided. Due to
the encouragement to forward the survey to relevant contacts, there was no real control over
the respondents. This sub-section provides information about the respondents of the survey.
Most of the responses came from the geothermal industry, probably due to the survey being
posted on geothermal websites and being sent to more geothermal industry contacts. Many of
the traditional petroleum companies also defined themselves as involved in geothermal, while
few categorized themselves as pure petroleum companies. This is shown in Figure 5-7. In this
report, the focus is on the 57% working only in the geothermal industry.
Page 34 of 93
'Geothermal and 'Other' 'Offshore 'Onshore

Onshore and 2% Petroleum' Petroleum'
Offshore 8% 0%
Petroleum' 'Offshore
19% Petroleum &
Onshore
Petroleum'
'Geothermal 8%
and Offshore
Petroleum'
2%
'Onshore
Geothermal
and
Petroleum' 'Geothermal'
4% 57%
Figure 5-7. Industry as categorized by the respondents.
There is a possibility that there may be regional differences concerning how risk assessments
are performed. Some countries have stricter regulations related to the risk assessment than
others do, and different parts of the world may have different geological challenges. The
distribution of the respondents among the continents is displayed in Figure 5-8. In both Figure
5-7 and Figure 5-8, responses where no information was available have been excluded, and
those marked “other” have been interpreted and assigned to the most relevant response where
possible.
Page 35 of 93
14% North America

South America
11%
46% Europe
0%
Africa
Asia
29% Oceania
0%
Figure 5-8. Registered continents of respondents from the geothermal industry.
Figure 5-8 shows participation from most continents. The bulk of respondents comes from
North America and Europe, which is not surprising, as the survey was distributed mainly to
these continents. Some responses were also received from Asia and Oceania, while none
came from Africa or South America (although there were representatives from these regions
in the survey mailing list).
As many of the respondents of the survey are not performing risk assessments related to wells,
it could be interesting to see which types of companies perform risk assessments in geothermal
industry. This is shown in Figure 5-9 that also shows which types of companies have
responded to the survey.
'"UNIVERSITY, RESEARCH INSTITUTE OR LABORATORY"' 0 1
'OPERATING COMPANY' 5 1
'GOVERNMENT AGENCY' 1 0
'EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER' 0 1
'SERVICE PROVIDER' 2 1
'CONSULTING COMPANY' 5 6
'DRILLING CONTRACTOR' 3 0
Performs risk assessments Does not perform risk assessments
Figure 5-9. Breakdown of the respondents based on company type, and whether or not they perform risk
assessments of wells.
Page 36 of 93
Areas of application
Risk assessments are performed for different purposes. Figure 5-10 shows how many of the
respondents perform risk assessment in different areas. This is based on the 15 respondents
working only in the geothermal industry and perform risk assessments for wells.
As is reasonable, most companies are responsible for health and safety risk assessments. A
majority of the respondents are also performing assessments related to project/financial risk,
geological risk, pressure/well control and environmental risk. These are general areas that are
related to the business case, safety of personnel, and for the purpose of meeting regulations.
Just less than half the respondents work with risk related to barriers, geological events and
flow assurance. These are more specific areas, which might not be relevant in all cases, or are
long-term activities in the production phase.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
HEALTH AND SAFETY
PROJECT/FINANCIAL
BARRIER RELIABILITY
Operating Company
Drilling Contractor
GEOLOGICAL RISK
Consulting Company
Equipment Manufacturer
GEOLOGICAL EVENT RISK
Government Agency
Operating Company
PRESSURE/WELL CONTROL
Service Provider
ENVIRONMENTAL
FLOW ASSURANCE
OTHER
Figure 5-10. An overview of different areas for which companies perform risk assessments.
Each of these areas will be looked into more thoroughly to understand which methods are
applied.
Financial risk
Twelve respondents fully completed the survey work on financial/project risk. As seen in Figure
5-11, the by far most popular method for risk identification is brainstorming, with scenario
analysis coming second. Only seven out of the 15 listed methods were used. In Figure 5-12,
the risk analysis methods applied to financial/project risk are primarily scenario analysis,
business impact analysis and cost-benefit analysis. About half of the methods have been
applied. For evaluation of financial/project risk, Monte Carlo simulation is the primary method
used as shown in Figure 5-13.
Page 37 of 93
3
2 2 2
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Figure 5-11. Distribution of methods used for financial/project risk identification.
4 4
2 2 2
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
Figure 5-12. Distribution of methods used for financial/project risk analysis.
Page 38 of 93
0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
Figure 5-13. Distribution of methods used for financial/project risk evaluation.
Health and safety

Within health and safety, the primary method for risk identification is again brainstorming.
Checklists and hazard and operability studies (HAZOP) follows as popular methods for this
purpose, as seen in Figure 5-14. In general, more methods are used in this area than in
financial/project risk. Figure 5-15 illustrates that for risk analysis there are four almost equally
used methods. These are HAZOP, root cause analysis, environmental risk assessment (ERA)
and decision trees. Figure 5-16 shows that for risk evaluations, root cause and environmental
risk assessments are the most used, with no use of Monte Carlo simulations, Bayesian
statistics and two others.
Page 39 of 93
10
5
4
3 3
0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 1
Figure 5-14. Distribution of methods used for health and safety risk identification.
5
4 4 4
3
2 2
0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
Figure 5-15. Distribution of methods used for health and safety risk analysis.
Page 40 of 93
3 3
1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
Figure 5-16. Distribution of methods used for health and safety risk evaluation.
Barrier risk
Figure 5-17, Figure 5-18 and Figure 5-19 present the distribution of methods used for barrier
risk identification, analysis and evaluation, respectively. Only three respondents from the
geothermal industry selected barrier reliability.
For barrier assessments, brainstorming remains the most used risk identification method,
together with HAZOP and cause-and effect analysis. The only other method used is
consequence/probability matrices. In risk analysis HAZOP are the most used, with some
applications of root cause analysis, bow-tie analysis, cost-benefit analysis and multi-criteria
decision analysis. For risk evaluation, only root cause analysis is reported used.
Page 41 of 93
2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5-17. Distribution of methods used for barrier risk identification.
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5-18. Distribution of methods used for barrier risk analysis.
Page 42 of 93
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5-19. Distribution of methods used for barrier risk evaluation
Geological risk
For identification of geological risks, brainstorming and checklists are the most used methods
as shown in Figure 5-20. Other methods are also used, but to a lesser extent. For risk analysis
(Figure 5-21), the most used methods are scenario analysis and root cause analysis. There is
less variety in the methods used compared to the previous applications with a similar number
of respondents. For risk evaluation, Monte Carlo simulations and risk indices are the most used
(see to Figure 5-22).
2 2 2
0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
Figure 5-20. Distribution of methods used for geological risk identification.
Page 43 of 93
3 3
2 2
1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5-21. Distribution of methods used for geological risk analysis.
2 2
1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5-22. Distribution of methods used for geological risk evaluation.
Geological event risk

Geological event risk identification methods mainly are, as in the other applications,
brainstorming and checklists. This can be seen in Figure 5-23. For risk analysis, root cause
analysis and cause-and effect analysis is most used, as shown in Figure 5-24. Some other
methods are also used, including decision tree and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA).
For risk evaluation, what-if analyses are the most used according to Figure 5-25.
Page 44 of 93
2 2
1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5-23. Distribution of methods used for geological event risk identification.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5-24. Distribution of methods used for geological event risk analysis.
Page 45 of 93
1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5-25. Distribution of methods used for geological event risk evaluation.
Pressure/well control risk

Within pressure/well control, the most used risk identification methods seems to be
brainstorming, scenario analysis and cause and effect analysis (see Figure 5-26). Nine of the
fifteen methods are used to some extent. There is not a wide variety of methods used in risk
analysis, with root cause analysis being a preferred method according to Figure 5-27. For risk
evaluation, root cause analysis remains the most used as shown in Figure 5-28. Though
reliability centred maintenance, Monte Carlo simulations, environmental risk assessment and
risk indices are also used.
4 4
3 3
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Figure 5-26. Distribution of methods used for pressure/well control risk identification.
Page 46 of 93
2 2 2 2 2
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Figure 5-27. Distribution of methods used for pressure/well control risk analysis.
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
Figure 5-28. Distribution of methods used for pressure/well control risk evaluation.
Environmental risk
Methods used for environmental risk identification, analysis and evaluation are shown in Figure
5-29, Figure 5-30 and Figure 5-31, respectively. For environmental assessments, the most
used methods for risk identification are brainstorming and, not surprisingly, environmental risk
assessment (see Figure 5-29). Several of the other methods are also used. In risk analysis
(Figure 5-30), environmental risk assessments and decision tree analysis are the most used,
followed by cost-benefit analysis and root-cause analysis. For risk evaluation, which is shown
in Figure 5-31, environmental risk assessments are the primary method, with root cause
analysis coming second.
Page 47 of 93
8
7
4 4
3
2 2
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Figure 5-29. Distribution of methods used for environmental risk identification.
6 6
3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Figure 5-30. Distribution of methods used for environmental risk analysis.
Page 48 of 93
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1
Figure 5-31. Distribution of methods used for environmental risk evaluation.
Flow assurance risk

For flow assurance, brainstorming is the most used risk identification method. This is not an
area chosen by many respondents, and only four other methods have been chosen, as shown
in Figure 5-32. No risk analysis method has full support, but many use business impact
analysis. Six other methods are also applied, according to Figure 5-33. As seen in Figure 5-34,
the risk evaluation methods reported used for this purpose is root-cause analysis, Monte Carlo
simulations and risk indices.
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5-32. Distribution of methods used for flow assurance risk identification.
Page 49 of 93
1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5-33. Distribution of methods used for flow assurance risk analysis.
1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5-34. Distribution of methods used for flow assurance risk evaluation.
Summary of the analysis

As was seen in both the literature review and the survey, well integrity is less focused on in the
geothermal industry than what is believed to be the case in the petroleum industry. A significant
part of the findings may be related to the geothermal industry mainly being in the exploration
stage, where the feasibility is the issue more than operational concerns.
An early question was if the geothermal operators were mostly power plant operators,
outsourcing concerns related to wells to consulting companies. As seen in Figure 5-9, there is
Page 50 of 93
little indication of this, with at least some of the operating companies involved in all the areas
mentioned in the survey.
In the literature review, monetary indices were found to be the most used method, with either
probabilistic methods or coarse risk ranking following. The questionnaire finds brainstorming
to be the most used risk identification method. Most of the identification methods are applied
across the different areas, except Delphi, human reliability analysis (HRA) and reliability
centred maintenance. The use of methods varies more between the areas of application for
risk analysis. The most used methods were HAZOP, root cause analysis, scenario analysis
and environmental risk and decision tree analysis, depending on the area of application.
Several methods were not mentioned by anyone, such as Markov analysis, Bayesian statistics
and Bayesian nets, fault tree analysis and event tree analysis (ETA). For risk evaluation, the
situation was similar to risk analysis. Depending on the area, Monte Carlo simulation, root
cause analysis, structured what-if technique (SWIFT) analysis and environmental risk analysis
were the most frequently chosen methods.
Page 51 of 93
6 Conclusions
The findings of the work presented here as part of GeoWell deliverable 6.1 are based on the
literature review and analysis of responses to the GeoWell risk assessment survey. The
conclusions can be summarized as follows:
 Based on the papers reviewed, the mostly addressed risk type relates to
project/financial risk, which differs significantly from our impression of focus in the
petroleum industry. This is probably due to the fact that while there is an enormous
financial upside when drilling petroleum exploration wells, this is not the case for
geothermal wells. Furthermore, the financial margins during production of geothermal
projects are typically several magnitudes less than for oil and gas.
 Another important focus area in the papers is geological risk. However, this is often
tightly related to project/financial risk; large uncertainties in the resources to be
exploited will consequently result in large uncertainty in the project feasibility as well.
 Only 11% of the publications cover well integrity as a topic addressed.
 Only a few publications reviewed concern risk of loss of containment, or risks of failures
in barriers. In fact, the term barrier is hardly mentioned, and even the papers dealing
with well integrity do so to a large extent without considering the system as comprised
of barriers with failure modes and reliabilities.
 In the literature review, monetary indices were the most used method, with either
probabilistic methods or coarse risk ranking following.
 The survey finds brainstorming to be the most used risk identification method.
 The use of methods varies more between the areas of application for risk analysis. The
most used methods were HAZOP, root cause analysis, scenario analysis and
environmental risk and decision tree analysis, depending on the area.
 For risk evaluation, the situation was similar to risk analysis. This is not surprising, given
that the risk evaluation is based on the risk analysis. Depending on the area, Monte
Carlo simulation, root cause analysis, structured what-if technique analysis and
environmental risk analysis were most frequently chosen methods.
 Regarding the use of risk assessment methods in terms of resource demands, nature
of uncertainty and complexity, there is no evidence to suggest that there is an
overweight of simplistic, low-complexity methods in use in the geothermal industry.
Page 52 of 93
7 Dissemination and future activities

For the purpose of dissemination and communication of the findings of the GeoWell risk
assessment survey in the work package 6, a webinar is planned. Respondents leaving their
email addresses have been invited to join the webinar. In the planned event, a summary of key
findings from the survey will be presented followed by a question and answer session.
In addition to the planned webinar, it is an aim to publish selected findings from this report at
relevant conference(s). At the time of writing this report, details about this were not ready.
Thus far, the work in GeoWell WP6 has focused on establishing a foundation for the present
state of risk assessment in the geothermal and petroleum industries. With this information, the
work package will focus more on particular challenges associated with integrity of geothermal
wells by including input from the other work packages of the project. The following tasks will
build on the work performed in tasks 6.1 and 6.2 of GeoWell:
 Task 6.3 is entitled “Develop risk assessment methods for phenomena that are
currently not covered for geothermal wells, particularly at elevated temperatures up to
450 °C”. The aim is to establish barrier definitions for geothermal wells and
corresponding risk assessment tools for the relevant barriers. The results from this task
will supply a framework for a quantitative approach to risk assessment for geothermal
wells.
 Task 6.4 is entitled “Develop a European protocol for risk assessment in geothermal
drilling in compliance with European and domestic regulations”. Here, the foundations
for geothermal well integrity and risk assessment methodology will be established as a
basis for a future European protocol. This can contribute to developing a basis for a
common European standard for planning and execution of geothermal well
construction.
 Task 6.5 is entitled “Reliability analysis of new developed materials and technology”.
In this task, results from GeoWell work packages dealing with new materials (casing,
cement and tubulars) and corresponding technology will be input. An evaluation will be
made to answer to what degree the newly developed technologies can replace existing
ones in terms of risk properties.
Page 53 of 93
References
1. Bertani, R., Geothermal power generation in the world 2010-2014 update report, in
Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, 2015. Melbourne, Australia: International
Geothermal Association (IGA).
2. Lund, J.W., Boyd, T.L, Direct utilization of geothermal energy 2015 worldwide review,
in Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress 2015. Melbourne, Australia:
International Geothermal Association (IGA).
3. GeoWell. http://www.geowell-h2020.eu/. 2016 [03.10.2016].
4. NORSOK Standard D-010 - Well integrity in drilling and well operations, 2004,
Standards Norway: Lysaker, Norway.
5. ISO, ISO/TS 16530-.2:2014– Well integrity -- Part 2: Well integrity for the operational
phase, 2014, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
6. Shadravan, A., Ghasemi, M., Alfi, M., Zonal isolation in geothermal wells, in Fortieth
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, 2015. Stanford University, Stanford,
California, USA.
7. Southon, J.N.A., Geothermal well design, construction and failures, in Proceedings
World Geothermal Congress 2005. Antalya, Turkey: International Geothermal
Association (IGA).
8. Finger, J., Blankenship, D., Handbook of best practices for geothermal drilling, 2010,
Sandia National Laboratories: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. p. 84.
9. Petrowiki. Glossary:HPHT (high pressure, high temperature). 2013 [11.10.2016];
Available from: http://petrowiki.org/Glossary%3AHPHT.
10. Randeberg, E., Fordi, E., Nygaard, G., Erikssoni, M, Gressgård, L.J., Hansen, K,
Potentials for cost reduction for geothermal well construction in view of various drilling
technologies and automation opportunities, in Proceedings, Thirty-Sixth Workshop on
Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, 2012. Stanford University, Stanford, California,
USA.
11. Polsky, Y., Capuano, L., Finger, J., Huh, M., Knudsen, S., Mansure, A.J.C., Raymond,
D., Swanson, R, Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) well construction technology
evaluation report, 2008, Sandia National Laboratories: USA. p. 108.
12. Tester, J.W., Anderson, B.J., Batchelor, A.S., Blackwell, D.D., DiPippo, R., Drake,
E.M., Garnish, J., Livesay, B., Moore, M.C., Nichols, K., Petty, S., Toksöz, M.N.,
Veatch, R.W, The future of geothermal energy - Impact of enhanced geothermal
systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st century, 2006, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
13. Teodoriu, C., Falcone, G., Comparing completion design in hydrocarbon and
geothermal wells: The need to evaluate the integrity of casing connections subject to
thermal stresses. Geothermics, 2009. 38: p. 238-246.
14. Kaldal, G.S., Thorbjörnsson, I.Ö, Thermal expansion of casings in geothermal wells
and possible mitigation of resultant axial strain, in European Geothermal
Congress2016, European Geothermal Congress (EGC): Strasbourg, France.
15. Hodson-Clarke, A., Rudolf, R., Bour, D., Russell, P., Key factors to successful drilling
and completion of EGS well in Cooper Basin, in 41st Workshop on Geothermal
Reservoir Engineering, 2016. Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA: Stanford
University.
Page 54 of 93
16. Lentsch, D., Dorsch, K., Sonnleitner, N., Schubert, A., Prevention of casing failures in
ultra-deep geothermal wells (Germany), in World Geothermal Congress, 2015.
Melbourne, Australia: International Geothermal Association (IGA).
17. Goodman, M.A., Lost circulation experience in geothermal Wells, in International
Geothermal Drilling and Completions Technology Conference1981, Office of Scientific
and Technical Information (OSTI), US DOE: Albuquerque, NM, USA.
18. Matek, B., The manageable risks of conventional hydrothermal geothermal power
systems: A factbook on geothermal power’s risks and methods to mitigate them, 2014,
Geothermal Energy Association (GEA).
19. ISO, ISO 31000-2009 Risk management – Principles and guidelines, 2009, the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
20. NTC, NORSOK Z-013 Rev. 2 - Risk and emergency preparedness analysis, 2001,
Norwegian Technology Centre (NTC): Oslo, Norway.
21. De Castro, S., Gasper, J.A., Gasper, J.K., Gessler, A., Gomez-Cobo, A., Labroille, S.,
Langlois, L., Lawrence, G., Mazour, T., Nettleship, D., Pakan, M., Na, J.H., Surendar,
Ch., Risk management: A tool for improving nuclear power plant performance, 2001,
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Vienna, Austria.
22. Korre, A., Durucan, S, A review of the international state of the art in risk assessment
guidelines and proposed terminology for use in CO2 geological storage, 2009, Report
Number 2009-TR7, International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
(IEA GHG): Cheltenham, United Kingdom.
23. Heijnen, L., Rijkers, R., Ohmann, R.G, Management of geological and drilling risks of
geothermal projects in the Netherlands, in Proceedings of World Geothermal Congress
2015. Melbourne, Australia: International Geothermal Association (IGA).
24. EU. EU law. 2016 [10.10.2016]; Available from: https://europa.eu/european-
union/law/legal-acts_en.
25. Rausand, M., Risk assessment: Theory, methods, and applications, 2013, Hoboken,
New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
26. USNRC, PRA procedures guide: A guide to the performance of probabilistic risk
assessments for nuclear power plants (NUREG/CR-2300), 1983, Washington, D.C.,
USA: Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(USNRC).
27. Stamatelatos, M., Dezfuli, H, Probabilistic risk assessment procedures guide for NASA
managers and practitioners, 2011, NASA: Washington, D.C., USA.
28. NZS, NZS 2403:2015 -- Code of practice for deep geothermal wells (Superseding NZS
2403:1991) 2015, Standards New Zealand.
29. ISO, ISO 15156-2:2003 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Materials for use in
H2S-containing environments in oil and gas production -- Part 2: Cracking-resistant
carbon and low alloy steels, and the use of cast irons, 2003, the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO).
30. ISO, ISO 13679:2002 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Procedures for testing
casing and tubing connections, 2002, the International Organization for Standardization
(ISO).
31. GTR-H. The GeoThermal Regulation-Heat (GTR-H) project: Geothermal regulation
framework. 2009 [10.10.2016]; Available from:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-
projects/files/projects/documents/gtr-h_final_gtr_h_framework.pdf.
Page 55 of 93
32. ISO, IEC/ISO 31010 Risk management – Risk assessment techniques, 2009, the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
33. Savage, D., Maul, P.R., Benbow, S., Walke, R.C, A generic FEP database for the
assessment of of long-term performance and safety of the geologic storage of CO 2,
2004, Quintessa Report QRS-1060A-1. p. 73.
Page 56 of 93
Appendices
Appendix I: The GeoWell risk assessment survey
EU-GeoWell Risk Assessment Survey
Welcome to the GeoWell Risk Assessment Survey

The International Research Institute of Stavanger (IRIS), Norway, conducts a short survey
within the framework of the GeoWell project. The project has received funding from the
European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement
no. 654497. The purpose of this survey is to collect and analyze information that can help to
map the currently used methods for risk assessment in the geothermal and petroleum
industries and more specifically during the drilling and completion, production and
maintenance phases. The findings will be communicated to the participants via a planned
webinar in Fall 2016. Please take your time to answer this survey that should take no more
than 10 minutes to complete. Answers to most of the questions are given by selecting the
alternative which best describes your company and its practice. Please direct any questions
or comments to the GeoWell team at IRIS. Email: GeoWell@iris.no
Page 57 of 93
1 Company Information
 Company Name (Optional) (1)
 Country (Optional) (2)
2 How would you define your company/organization type?

 Operating Company (1)
 Drilling Contractor (2)
 Service Provider (3)
 Consulting Company (4)
 Equipment Manufacturer (5)
 Government Agency (6)
 University, Research Institute or Laboratory (7)
 Other (Please Specify) (8) ____________________
3 In which of the following areas is your company/organization active?

 Onshore Geothermal (1)
 Offshore Petroleum (2)
 Onshore Petroleum (3)
4 Is your company responsible for performing risk assessments in the context of well
operations?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Page 58 of 93
5 Which types of risk assessments do you perform?

 Health and Safety Risk (1)
 Project/Financial Risk (2)
 Geological Risk (3)
 Geological Event Risk (4)
 Pressure/Well Control Risk (5)
 Equipment Reliability (6)
 Barrier Reliability (7)
 Environmental Risk (8)
 Flow Assurance (9)
Page 59 of 93
Note: According to IEC/ISO 31010, a risk assessment process is accomplished in three

different steps including: i) Risk identification - Risk identification is activities related to the
identification of sources of risks, areas of impacts, events and their causes and their potential
consequences. ii) Risk analysis - Risk analysis is the consideration of the causes and sources
of risk, their positive and negative consequences, and the likelihood that those consequences
can occur. iii) Risk evaluation - Risk evaluation involves the comparison of the level of risk
found in the risk analysis with risk criteria established, taking into account tolerance to risk.
6 Which of the following methods are used for risk identification at your company?
 Brainstorming (1)
 Interviews (Structured or Semi-structured) (2)
 Delphi (3)
 Checklists (4)
 PHA (Preliminary Hazard Analysis) (5)
 HAZOP (HAZard and Operability studies) (6)
 HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) (7)
 SWIFT (Structured What-If Technique) (8)
 Scenario Analysis (9)
 FMEA/FMECA (Failure Mode and Effect (and Criticality) Analysis) (10)
 Cause-and-Effect Analysis (11)
 HRA (Human Reliability Analysis) (12)
 Reliability Centred Maintenance (13)
 Environmental Risk Assessment (14)
 Consequence/Probability Matrix (15)
 Other Methods (Please Specify) (16) ____________________
7 Which of the following methods are used for risk analysis at your company?
 HAZOP (HAZard and Operability studies) (1)
 Scenario Analysis (4)
 Business Impact Analysis (5)
 Root Cause Analysis (6)
 Fault Tree Analysis (8)
 Event Tree Analysis (9)
 Cause-and-Effect Analysis (10)
 LOPA (Layer of Protection Analysis) (11)
 HRA (Human Reliability Analysis) (12)
 Bow-Tie Analysis (13)
 Markov Analysis (15)
 Bayesian Statistics and Bayes Nets (16)
 Decision Tree Analysis (18)
 FN Curves (19)
 Risk Indices (20)
Page 60 of 93
 Consequence/Probability Matrix (21)

 CBA (Cost/Benefit Analysis) (22)
 MCDA (Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis) (23)
8 Which of the following methods are used for risk evaluation at your company?
 Root Cause Analysis (3)
 Monte Carlo Simulation (6)
 Bayesian Statistics and Bayes Nets (7)
 FN Curves (9)
 Risk Indices (10)
Page 61 of 93
Please specify the phases you perform risk management methods. Note that every phases
also include pre-planning prior to execution.
9 Please check the corresponding phases you perform risk identification methods:
Drilling Completion Production Maintenace
Risks that are selected in Q.6
10 Please check the corresponding phases you perform risk analysis methods:
11 Please check the corresponding phases you perform risk evaluation methods:
Page 62 of 93
12 Please check the corresponding risks you apply the risk identification methods:
Risks that are selected in risks that are selected in Q.5
Q.5
Methods that are selected in Q.6
13 Please check the corresponding risks you apply the risk analysis methods:
Q.5
14 Please check the corresponding risks you apply the risk evaluation methods
Q.5
Page 63 of 93
15 Please provide your email address here if you are interested in participating in a webinar
presenting the findings of this survey.
16 Do you have any other comments, questions or concerns?
Page 64 of 93
Appendix II: Responses to the survey
1 - Company Information
Please note that because of confidentiality issues, these information are excluded from the
report.
2 - How would you define your company/organization type?
Answer % Count
Operating Company 22.45% 11
Drilling Contractor 8.16% 4
Service Provider 20.41% 10
Consulting Company 44.90% 22
Equipment Manufacturer 10.20% 5
Government Agency 6.12% 3
University, Research Institute or Laboratory 12.24% 6
Other (Please Specify) 4.08% 2
Total 100% 49
Other (Please Specify)

Pilot plant of CLEAG Geothermal energy
Contract drilling supervision
Page 65 of 93
3 - In which of the following areas is your company/organization active?
Answer % Count
Onshore Geothermal 79.59% 39
Offshore Petroleum 36.73% 18
Onshore Petroleum 30.61% 15
Total 100% 49

Mineral prospecting
CLEAG CloZEd Loop Energy
Offshore wind
mapping
Geothermal
Pipeline Failure Analysis
Mining, Geotechnical
Page 66 of 93
4 - Is your company responsible for performing risk assessments in the context of well
operations?
Answer % Count
Yes 65.31% 32
No 34.69% 17
Total 100% 49
Page 67 of 93
5 - Which types of risk assessments do you perform?
Answer % Count
Health and Safety Risk 80.65% 25
Project/Financial Risk 67.74% 21
Geological Risk 61.29% 19
Geological Event Risk 35.48% 11
Pressure/Well Control Risk 74.19% 23
Equipment Reliability 48.39% 15
Barrier Reliability 38.71% 12
Environmental Risk 77.42% 24
Flow Assurance 32.26% 10
Total 100% 31

Integrity
Drilling Problem Risk
Well integrity risk (may be pressure, but not well control)
Page 68 of 93
6 - Which of the following methods are used for risk identification at your company?
Page 69 of 93
Answer % Count
Brainstorming 80.77% 21
Interviews (Structured or Semi-structured) 46.15% 12
Delphi 3.85% 1
Checklists 61.54% 16
PHA (Preliminary Hazard Analysis) 23.08% 6
HAZOP (HAZard and Operability studies) 42.31% 11
HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) 3.85% 1
SWIFT (Structured What-If Technique) 15.38% 4
Scenario Analysis 53.85% 14
FMEA/FMECA (Failure Mode and Effect (and Criticality) Analysis) 23.08% 6
Cause-and-Effect Analysis 38.46% 10
HRA (Human Reliability Analysis) 7.69% 2
Reliability Centred Maintenance 3.85% 1
Environmental Risk Assessment 57.69% 15
Consequence/Probability Matrix 38.46% 10
Other Methods (Please Specify) 15.38% 4
Total 100% 26
Other Methods (Please Specify)

Top-Set
Hazard Identification Risk Assessment and Controls (HIRAC)
Contractor & Service Prespud Operations Review
DWOP (Drill Well on Paper), CWOP (Complete Well on Paper)
Page 70 of 93
7 - Which of the following methods are used for risk analysis at your company?
Page 71 of 93
Answer % Count
HAZOP (HAZard and Operability studies) 42.31% 11
Scenario Analysis 57.69% 15
Business Impact Analysis 34.62% 9
Root Cause Analysis 46.15% 12
Fault Tree Analysis 15.38% 4
Event Tree Analysis 19.23% 5
Cause-and-Effect Analysis 34.62% 9
LOPA (Layer of Protection Analysis) 3.85% 1
HRA (Human Reliability Analysis) 3.85% 1
Bow-Tie Analysis 23.08% 6
Markov Analysis 0.00% 0
Bayesian Statistics and Bayes Nets 7.69% 2
Decision Tree Analysis 30.77% 8
FN Curves 7.69% 2
Risk Indices 15.38% 4
Consequence/Probability Matrix 38.46% 10
CBA (Cost/Benefit Analysis) 19.23% 5
MCDA (Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis) 7.69% 2
Total 100% 26

Top-Set
qras, Monte carlo simulations
Formal quantitative risk analysis
Page 72 of 93
8 - Which of the following methods are used for risk evaluation at your company?
Answer % Count
Root Cause Analysis 45.83% 11
Monte Carlo Simulation 45.83% 11
Bayesian Statistics and Bayes Nets 8.33% 2
FN Curves 8.33% 2
Risk Indices 16.67% 4
Total 100% 24
Page 73 of 93

Top-Set
Risk matrices, risk tolerance criteria
Risk Register
Extreme Event Statistics
Formal quantitative risk analysis
Page 74 of 93
9 - Please check the corresponding phases you perform risk identification methods:
Question Drilling Completion Production Maintenance Total

Brainstorming 100.00% 65.00% 50.00% 55.00% 20
Interviews (Structured or Semi-structured) 100.00% 45.45% 45.45% 63.64% 11
Delphi 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1
Checklists 100.00% 64.29% 50.00% 64.29% 14
PHA (Preliminary Hazard Analysis) 100.00% 66.67% 50.00% 50.00% 6
HAZOP (HAZard and Operability studies) 90.91% 63.64% 27.27% 36.36% 11
HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1
Points)
SWIFT (Structured What-If Technique) 100.00% 100.00% 66.67% 33.33% 3
Scenario Analysis 90.91% 63.64% 54.55% 54.55% 11
FMEA/FMECA (Failure Mode and Effect (and
80.00% 40.00% 0.00% 80.00% 5
Criticality) Analysis)
Cause-and-Effect Analysis 100.00% 100.00% 37.50% 37.50% 8
HRA (Human Reliability Analysis) 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1
Reliability Centred Maintenance 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0
Environmental Risk Assessment 100.00% 58.33% 75.00% 75.00% 12
Consequence/Probability Matrix 100.00% 71.43% 28.57% 14.29% 7
Other Methods (Please Specify) 100.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 4
Page 75 of 93
10 - Please check the corresponding phases you perform risk analysis methods:
Page 76 of 93

HAZOP (HAZard and Operability studies) 100.00% 70.00% 30.00% 40.00% 10
HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0
Points)
Scenario Analysis 100.00% 61.54% 46.15% 30.77% 13
Business Impact Analysis 100.00% 66.67% 66.67% 77.78% 9
Root Cause Analysis 90.00% 70.00% 40.00% 60.00% 10
FMEA/FMECA (Failure Mode and Effect (and 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 100.00% 4
Fault Tree Analysis 100.00% 75.00% 50.00% 25.00% 4
Event Tree Analysis 100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 60.00% 5
Cause-and-Effect Analysis 87.50% 62.50% 50.00% 37.50% 8
LOPA (Layer of Protection Analysis) 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1
HRA (Human Reliability Analysis) 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1
Bow-Tie Analysis 80.00% 40.00% 40.00% 60.00% 5
Markov Analysis 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0
Bayesian Statistics and Bayes Nets 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 2
Decision Tree Analysis 100.00% 85.71% 42.86% 28.57% 7
FN Curves 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 2
Risk Indices 100.00% 100.00% 25.00% 25.00% 4
Consequence/Probability Matrix 100.00% 75.00% 37.50% 50.00% 8
CBA (Cost/Benefit Analysis) 100.00% 80.00% 40.00% 40.00% 5
MCDA (Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis) 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1
Page 77 of 93
11 - Please check the corresponding phases you perform risk evaluation methods:

HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 1
Points)
Root Cause Analysis 81.82% 54.55% 27.27% 54.55% 11
FMEA/FMECA (Failure Mode and Effect (and 75.00% 25.00% 0.00% 75.00% 4
Monte Carlo Simulation 90.00% 50.00% 40.00% 20.00% 10
Bayesian Statistics and Bayes Nets 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1
FN Curves 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 50.00% 2
Risk Indices 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 25.00% 4
Page 78 of 93
12 - Please check the corresponding risks you apply the risk identification methods:
Page 79 of 93
Question Health Project/Fina Geological Geological Pressure/We Equipment Barrier Environm Flow Other (Please Total
and ncial Risk Risk Event Risk ll Control Reliability Reliability ental Assura Specify)
Safety Risk Risk nce
Risk
Brainstorming 89.47% 63.16% 52.63% 26.32% 68.42% 31.58% 36.84% 78.95% 31.58% 10.53% 19
Interviews (Structured or 72.73% 36.36% 36.36% 18.18% 63.64% 36.36% 27.27% 45.45% 27.27% 9.09% 11
Semi-structured)
Delphi 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1
Checklists 76.92% 46.15% 53.85% 38.46% 69.23% 46.15% 23.08% 61.54% 23.08% 7.69% 13
PHA (Preliminary 50.00% 16.67% 50.00% 16.67% 50.00% 16.67% 33.33% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 6
Hazard Analysis)
HAZOP (HAZard and 72.73% 27.27% 27.27% 27.27% 63.64% 36.36% 54.55% 54.55% 18.18% 0.00% 11
Operability studies)
HACCP (Hazard 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1
Analysis and Critical
Control Points)
SWIFT (Structured 50.00% 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 50.00% 75.00% 50.00% 0.00% 4
What-If Technique)
Scenario Analysis 63.64% 45.45% 27.27% 18.18% 81.82% 27.27% 27.27% 54.55% 18.18% 18.18% 11
FMEA/FMECA (Failure 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% 6
Mode and Effect (and
Cause-and-Effect 60.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 90.00% 30.00% 60.00% 60.00% 40.00% 10.00% 10
Analysis
HRA (Human Reliability 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1
Analysis)
Reliability Centred 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0
Maintenance
Environmental Risk 58.33% 33.33% 25.00% 25.00% 33.33% 16.67% 16.67% 100.00% 25.00% 8.33% 12
Assessment
Consequence/Probabilit 83.33% 66.67% 50.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 83.33% 66.67% 16.67% 33.33% 6
y Matrix
Other Methods (Please 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 25.00% 4
Specify)
Page 80 of 93
13 - Please check the corresponding risks you apply the risk analysis methods:
Page 81 of 93
Question Health Project/Fin Geological Geological Pressure/Well Equipment Barrier Environment Flow Other Total
and ancial Risk Risk Event Risk Control Risk Reliability Reliability al Risk Assurance (Please
Safety Specify)
Risk
HAZOP (HAZard and 81.82% 36.36% 27.27% 27.27% 54.55% 36.36% 63.64% 45.45% 18.18% 9.09% 11
Operability studies)
HACCP (Hazard Analysis 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0
and Critical Control
Points)
SWIFT (Structured What- 60.00% 40.00% 40.00% 20.00% 60.00% 20.00% 60.00% 80.00% 40.00% 0.00% 5
If Technique)
Scenario Analysis 41.67% 58.33% 41.67% 16.67% 50.00% 8.33% 25.00% 50.00% 8.33% 16.67% 12
Business Impact Analysis 37.50% 87.50% 37.50% 12.50% 25.00% 25.00% 12.50% 50.00% 37.50% 0.00% 8
Root Cause Analysis 54.55% 9.09% 27.27% 27.27% 72.73% 36.36% 27.27% 36.36% 18.18% 18.18% 11
FMEA/FMECA (Failure 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5
Mode and Effect (and
Fault Tree Analysis 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 75.00% 50.00% 75.00% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 4
Event Tree Analysis 40.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 80.00% 40.00% 100.00% 40.00% 20.00% 40.00% 5
Cause-and-Effect 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 44.44% 22.22% 44.44% 44.44% 22.22% 33.33% 9
Analysis
LOPA (Layer of 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1
Protection Analysis)
HRA (Human Reliability 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1
Analysis)
Bow-Tie Analysis 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 40.00% 40.00% 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 5
Reliability Centred 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0
Maintenance
Markov Analysis 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0
Bayesian Statistics and 100.00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1
Bayes Nets %
Environmental Risk 66.67% 33.33% 22.22% 22.22% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9
Assessment
Decision Tree Analysis 28.57% 71.43% 42.86% 14.29% 28.57% 14.29% 28.57% 57.14% 42.86% 0.00% 7
FN Curves 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 2
Page 82 of 93
Risk Indices 75.00% 75.00% 50.00% 25.00% 75.00% 50.00% 75.00% 50.00% 50.00% 25.00% 4
Consequence/Probability 88.89% 77.78% 55.56% 33.33% 66.67% 44.44% 66.67% 77.78% 33.33% 22.22% 9
Matrix
CBA (Cost/Benefit 25.00% 50.00% 0.00% 25.00% 75.00% 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4
Analysis)
MCDA (Multi-Criteria 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1
Decision Analysis)
Other Methods (Please 100.00 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 50.00% 75.00% 25.00% 25.00% 4
Specify) %
Page 83 of 93
14 - Please check the corresponding risks you apply the risk evaluation methods
Page 84 of 93
Question Health Project/Financial Geological Geological Pressure/Well Equipment Barrier Environmental Flow Other Total
and Risk Risk Event Risk Control Risk Reliability Reliability Risk Assurance (Please
Safety Specify)
Risk
HACCP (Hazard 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1
Analysis and
Critical Control
Points)
SWIFT 42.86% 57.14% 42.86% 42.86% 42.86% 14.29% 42.86% 28.57% 14.29% 0.00% 7
(Structured
What-If
Technique)
Root Cause 50.00% 10.00% 0.00% 10.00% 60.00% 20.00% 20.00% 30.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10
Analysis
FMEA/FMECA 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 25.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4
(Failure Mode
and Effect (and
Criticality)
Analysis)
Reliability 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1
Centred
Maintenance
Monte Carlo 11.11% 77.78% 33.33% 11.11% 33.33% 11.11% 33.33% 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 9
Simulation
Bayesian 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 1
Statistics and
Bayes Nets
Environmental 62.50% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8
Risk Assessment
FN Curves 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 100.00% 50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 2
Risk Indices 50.00% 75.00% 75.00% 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 4
Other Methods 83.33% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 50.00% 33.33% 66.67% 66.67% 33.33% 16.67% 6
(Please Specify)
Page 85 of 93
15 - Please provide your email address here if you are interested in participating in a webinar
presenting the findings of this survey:
report.
16 - Do you have any other comments, questions or concerns?

report.
Page 86 of 93
Appendix III: List of papers reviewed for Section 5.2.1
# Paper title Authors Year Type of risks Uncertain Type of Method Well
assessed/cove ty integrity
red quantifica covered
tion
1 Integrated risk assessment for Lowry, T.S., Kalinina, 2012 Project/financi Yes Monte Carlo No
geothermal energy E., Hadgu, T., al risk
development and evaluation McKenna, S.A., Cutler,
L.
2 ROI - oriented project Schönwiesner- 2005 Project/financi No Return on No

realization and risk Bozkurt, C., Imolauer, al risk investment
management K., Richter, B. (ROI)
3 Risk mitigation systems in Imolauer, K., Ueltzen, 2015 Project/financi No N/A No

comparison M. al risk
4 Geothermal play fairway Garchar, L., Badgett, 2016 Project/financi Yes Value of No
analysis: Phase i summary A., Nieto, A., Young, al risk information
K., Hass, E., Weathers,
Geological risk Bayesian
M.
analysis
Fuzzy Logic
Multi-Criteria
Decision Making
Expert
Elicitation
5 Risk of seismicity from Horowitz, F.G, and 2016 Geological Yes Other - Coarse No
potential direct-use Appalachian Basin event risk risk
operations in the appalachian GPFA Team categorization
basin geothermal play fairway based on
project seismic
evaluations
6 Slim hole reservoir Nielson, D.L., Garg, 2016 Project/financi No Cost/benefit No

characterization for risk S.K. al risk analysis
reduction
7 A procedure for appraisal of Ari Ingimundarson 2015 Project/financi No N/A No

drilling success and Helga Tulinius al risk
8 Assessment of new Akar, S., Young, K.R. 2015 Project/financi No Value of No

approaches in geothermal al risk information
exploration decision making
Internal rate of
return (IRR)
9 Reducing geothermal Ussher, G., 2015 Project/financi No N/A No

resource risk and project Hochwimme, Ar al risk
schedule prior to exploration
drilling
Page 87 of 93
tion
10 Geologic risks assessment and Suryantini, Wibowo, 2015 Geological risk No Checklists No
quantification in geothermal H.
Probability
exploration case studies in
assessments
green field and developed
prospects
11 An evaluation of risk Robertson-Tait, A., 2015 Project/financi No N/A No

mitigation approaches for Jayawardena, M., al risk
geothermal development Sanyal, S., Berman, L.,
Huttrer, G.
12 Management of geological Heijnen, L., Rijkers, R., 2015 Project/financi Yes Checklists No
and drilling risks of Ohmann, R.G. al risk
Consequence/pr
geothermal projects in the
Geological risk obability matrix
Netherlands
Pressure/well Decision Tree
control risk Analysis
13 Cooperation in geothermal Hayashi, M., Kuge, K., 2015 Project/financi Yes Internal rate of No
development at Great Rift Sato, H., Tanaka, H. al risk return (IRR)
Valley in Africa
Monte Carlo
14 Geothermal Risk Mitigation Horst Kreuter1 and 2010 Project/financi No N/A No

Schemes in Germany Christina Schrage al risk
15 Innovative Approach for risk Fausto batini1 and 2010 Geological risk Yes Risk indices No
Assessment in Green Field Jan-Diederik van
Project/financi Cost/benefit
Geothermal Project Wees
al risk analysis
Environmental Monte Carlo
risk
Decision Tree
Analysis
Expert
Elicitation
16 Managing geothermal Robertson-Tait, A., 2008 Project/financi No N/A No

resource risk - Experience Henneberger, R., al risk
from the United States Sanya, S.l
Geological risk
17 Private and state risk Kreuter, H., Schrage, 2009 Project/financi No N/A No
mitigation programs for C. al risk
geothermal exploration risk
Page 88 of 93
tion
18 SW-CPDEP, project Dumrongthai, P., 2015 Project/financi Yes N/A Only

management process for the Putra, W.M. al risk implicitly -
right decision in geothermal the paper
Health and
field drilling and completion presents a
Safety risk
general
Environmental decision
risk making
Geological framewor
event risk k
19 RISK based approach to Barnett, P. 2013 Project/financi No Return on No

geothermal project valuation al risk investment
(ROI)
Cash flow
EMV
20 Risk control for disaster at the Adachi, M. 2011 N/A No N/A No

geothermal field
21 Risk management and Homuth, S., Palsson, 2010 Geological risk No Historical data Yes
contingency planning for the B., Holmgeirsson, S., to set
Geological
first icelandic deep drilling Sass, I. probabilities
event risk
project well in Krafla, Iceland
Scenario
Pressure/well
analysis
control risk
Expert
Equipment
Elicitation
reliability
Consequence/pr
Barrier
obability matrix
reliability
22 Risk mitigation in deep Kreuter, H. 2008 Project/financi No N/A No

geothermal projects – al risk
experience in Germany
Geological risk
23 The AUC/KFW geothermal risk Bloomquist, G., 2012 Project/financi No N/A No

mitigation facility (GRMF) — A Niyongabo, P., El- al risk
aatalyst for East African Halabi, R., Löschau, M.
geothermal development
24 The French geothermal risk Bézèlgues-Courtade, 2008 Project/financi No N/A No

guarantee system S., Jaudin, F. al risk
25 When smaller is better — Elíasson, L., Smith, C. 2011 Project/financi No Internal rate of No
Cost/size/risk analysis of al risk return (IRR)
geothermal projects
NPV
Page 89 of 93
tion
26 Modeling the risk of Lowry, T.S., Kalinina, 2011 Project/financi Yes NPV No
geothermal energy E., Hadgu, T., al risk
Sensitivity
production using GT-Mod McKenna S.A.
Geological risk analysis
27 Risk management for Black, P., Fitzgerald, 2012 Project/financi Yes Probabilistic No
recoverable thermal energy M., Sully, M., Klingel, al risk decision analysis
using a probabilistic decision E.
Value of
analysis approach
information
Monte Carlo
28 Geothermal well design, Southon, J.N.A. 2005 Equipment No FMECA Yes

construction and failures reliability
Historical failure
Barrier frequencies
reliability
29 Key factors to successful Hodson-Clarke, A., 2016 Equipment No Failure Yes

drilling and completion of EGS Rudolf, R., Bour, D., reliability investigation
well in Cooper Basin Russell, P.
Barrier
reliability
Pressure/well
control risk
30 Prevention of casing failures Lentsch, D., Dorsch, 2015 Geological risk No FMECA Yes
in ultra-deep geothermal K., Sonnleitner, N.,
Pressure/well
wells (Germany) Schubert, A.
control risk
Equipment
reliability
Barrier
reliability
31 Zonal isolation in geothermal Shadravan, A., 2015 Pressure/well No Scenario Yes

wells Ghasemi, M., Alfi, M. control risk analysis
Equipment FMECA
reliability
Barrier
reliability
32 Comparing completion design Teodoriu, C., Falcone, 2009 Equipment No FEM for casing Yes
in hydrocarbon and G. reliability fatigue
geothermal wells: The need to
Barrier
evaluate the integrity of
reliability
casing connections subject to
thermal stresses
Page 90 of 93
tion
33 Enhanced geothermal Polsky, y., Capuano, 2008 Project/financi No Cost analysis of No

systems (egs) well L., Finger, J., Huh, M., al risk operations
construction technology Knudsen, S., Chip
evaluation report Mansure, A.J.,
Raymond, D.,
Swanson, R.
34 Handbook of best practices Finger, J., 2010 Project/financi No N/A No

for geothermal drilling Blankenship, D. al risk
Pressure/well
control risk
Equipment
reliability
Barrier
reliability
35 Application of risk based Salonga, N.D., Lichti, 2005 Equipment No Risk-based No

inspection methodology to K.A. reliability inspection
aging geothermal fluid
Health and Consequence/pr
collection and disposal system
Safety risk obability matrix
in Tongonan, Philippines
Environmental
risk
36 Best practices for geothermal US Department of 2014 Project/financi No N/A No

power - State, GEA al risk
Risk reduction workshop Geological risk
follow-up manual
37 Preliminary technical risk McVeigh, J., Cohen, J., 2007 Project/financi Yes Expert No
analysis for the geothermal Vorum, M., Porro, G., al risk Elicitation
technologies program Nix, G.
Consequence/pr
obability matrix
38 Geothermal energy utilization Norden, B. (Ed.) 2006 Project/financi No NPV No

in low-enthalpy sedimentary al risk
Monte Carlo
environments
Geological risk
Sensitivity
Geological analysis
event risk
Decision Tree
Analysis
Portfolio
analysis
Page 91 of 93
tion
39 Quantifying risk in geothermal Antics, M., 2010 Project/financi Yes NPV No

development—high-enthalpy Ungemach, P. al risk
Consequence/pr
and low-enthalpy cases
Geological risk obability matrix
Barrier Success/Failure
reliability criteria
Equipment
reliability
Environmental
risk
Other - Social
acceptance
40 Report on the U.S. DOE Young, K.R., 2010 Project/financi Yes Monte Carlo No
geothermal technologies Augustine, C., al risk
Expert
program’s - 2009 risk analysis Anderson, A.
Elicitation
41 Risk assessment for Lentsch, D., Schubert, 2013 Project/financi Yes Monte Carlo No
geothermal wells — A A. al risk
Expert
probabilistic approach to time
Elicitation
and cost estimation
Sensitivity
analysis
42 Risk management for Sarmiento, Z.F. 2011 Project/financi No N/A No

geothermal projects al risk
Geological risk
43 Software for geothermal Lichti, K.A., White, 2005 Geological No N/A No

corrosion and risk based S.P., McGavin, P. event risk
assessment
44 The manageable risks of GEA 2014 Project/financi No N/A No

conventional hydrothermal al risk
geothermal power systems: A
Geological risk
factbook on geothermal
power’s risks and methods to Health and
mitigate them Safety risk
45 EGS Probabilistic Seismic Karvounis D., Gischig 2014 Geological No N/A No

Hazard Assessment with 3-D V. and Wiemer S. event risk
Discrete Fracture Modeling
46 Enhanced Geothermal System Rijkers, R., van der 2013 Flow Yes Monte Carlo No
in the Lower Carboniferous in Hoorn, K., van assurance
Internal Rate of
the Netherlands – a geological Gijtenbeek, K.
Geological risk Return (IRR)
risk and modelling study Ohmann, R.G.,
Nitters, G., Rombout, Project/financi
B., Spiers, C., de al risk
Zwart. ,B.
Page 92 of 93
tion
47 Geothermal resource risk in Sanyal, S.K., Morrow, 2011 Project/financi No Data review No
indonesia – a statistical J.W., Jayawardena, al risk
inquiry M.S., Berrah, N., Li,
S.F., Suryadarma
48 Geothermal systems Beardsmore, G.R., 2009 Geological risk No N/A No

assessment — Identification Cooper, G.T.
Project/financi
and mitigation of egs
al risk
exploration risk
49 MeProRisk-II - A joint research Marquart, G., Clauser, 2013 Geological risk Yes Monte Carlo No
project for optimization C. and the MeProRisk
Pressure/well
strategies and risk analysis for Research Consortium
control risk
deep geothermal reservoirs
50 Modeling contribution to risk Vogt, C., Iwanowski- 2013 Geological risk Yes Monte Carlo No
assessment of thermal Strahser, K.,
production power for Marquart, G., Arnold,
geothermal reservoirs J., Mottaghy, D.,
Pechnig, R., Gnjezda,
D., Clauser, C.
51 Quantifcation of geothermal Sanyal, S.K., Morrow, 2010 Geological risk Yes Sensitivity No
resource risk — A practical J.W. analysis
Project/financi
perspective
al risk Internal Rate of
Return (IRR)
Monte Carlo
52 Resource risk assessment in Hadi, J., Quinlivan, P., 2010 Project/financi No N/A No
geothermal greenfield Ussher, G., Alamsyah, al risk
development; An economic O., Pramono, B.,
Geological risk
implications Masri, A.
53 What target to drill? Cooper, G.T., 2009 Project/financi Yes NPV No

geothermal pre-drill play Beardsmore, G.R., al risk
EMV
evaluation (PDPE): Mortimer, L.
Geological risk
Understanding the nexus
between project risk and
value
54 Occupational risk assessment Daniel, C., Guadalupe, 2012 Health and No HAZID No
for hydrogen sulfide G., Nayeli, M. Safety risk
Interviews
concentrations from a
geothermal power plant Consequence/pr
obability matrix
Page 93 of 93

Well Integrity Risk Assessment in Geothermal Wells - Status of Today

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Integrity Risk Assessment in Geothermal Wells - Status of Today

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Well Integrity Risk Assessment in Geothermal Wells - Status of Today

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ref.

Innovative materials and designs for long-life

Grant agreement no. 654497

LOPA Layer of protection analysis

Figure 1-1. Different phases in the life cycle of a well.

Outline of the report

2 Well integrity in geothermal and petroleum industries

Introduction to well integrity

Petroleum vs. geothermal wells

Geothermal wells – Challenges, risks and well integrity issues

Important risk-related definitions

General risk frameworks

There seem to be few published or widely-used publications suggesting recommendations,

Risk assessment methods/techniques

A preliminary hazard analysis (PHA) is an example of a simple method requiring limited

4 Risk assessment survey

Post survey evaluation

Record time spent on Last question seen by

5 Results and discussion

Figure 5-1. An overview of the reviewed papers by publication year.

PROJECT/FINANCIAL RISK 72,2 %

GEOLOGICAL RISK 38,9 %

BARRIER RELIABILITY 14,8 %

EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY 16,7 %

PRESSURE/WELL CONTROL RISK 13,0 %

GEOLOGICAL EVENT RISK 11,1 %

HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK 7,4 %

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK 7,4 %

FLOW ASSURANCE 1,9 %

OTHER - SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE 1,9 %

0,0 % 10,0 % 20,0 % 30,0 % 40,0 % 50,0 % 60,0 % 70,0 % 80,0 %

Figure 5-2. Different types of risks addressed in the reviewed papers.

Figure 5-3. Distribution of the reviewed papers covering uncertainty quantification.

Types of risk assessment methods addressed in

23,2 % 23,2 % 22,1 % 23,2 % 23,2 %

RESOURCE DEMANDS NATURE OF UNCERTAINTY COMPLEXITY

N/A Low Medium High

Figure 5-6. Distribution of the papers that address well integrity.

Risk assessment status – Survey

'Geothermal and 'Other' 'Offshore 'Onshore

Figure 5-7. Industry as categorized by the respondents.

14% North America

Figure 5-8. Registered continents of respondents from the geothermal industry.

'"UNIVERSITY, RESEARCH INSTITUTE OR LABORATORY"' 0 1

Performs risk assessments Does not perform risk assessments

HEALTH AND SAFETY

Figure 5-11. Distribution of methods used for financial/project risk identification.

Figure 5-12. Distribution of methods used for financial/project risk analysis.

Figure 5-13. Distribution of methods used for financial/project risk evaluation.

Health and safety

Figure 5-17. Distribution of methods used for barrier risk identification.

Figure 5-18. Distribution of methods used for barrier risk analysis.

Figure 5-19. Distribution of methods used for barrier risk evaluation

Figure 5-20. Distribution of methods used for geological risk identification.

Figure 5-21. Distribution of methods used for geological risk analysis.

Figure 5-22. Distribution of methods used for geological risk evaluation.

Geological event risk

Pressure/well control risk