Ref.

Ares(2018)1755776 - 31/03/2018

Innovative materials and designs for long-life

high-temperature geothermal wells

Deliverable D6.4
Foundations for well integrity and risk
assessment

Grant agreement no. 654497

Duration 01.02.2016 – 31.01.2019
Work package WP 6.4 – Report on the foundations for well integrity and
risk management
Type R - document, report
Dissemination level PU - Public
Due date 31.03.2018
Actual submission date 23.03.2018
Lead author Hans Petter Lohne
Contributors Eric P. Ford, Mohammad Mansouri Majoumerd, Erlend
Randeberg, Arnaud Barré, Ton Wildenborg, Logan
Brunner
Version 1.0
Document status
Change history Version Date Changes

This publication was completed with the support of the European

Commission and European Union funding under Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme. 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.
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Executive summary
The aim of the GeoWell project is to develop reliable, cost effective and environmentally safe
technologies for improved productivity and lifetime of high-temperature geothermal wells. As
part of this, a framework that can be applied to risk assessment and management is developed
and described in this report. The document constitutes a basis for discussions relating to
regulations, guidelines/standards and industry best practice, thus providing a foundation for a
common approach to geothermal risk assessment and well integrity.
Current European Union (EU) legislation related to geothermal wells and geothermal energy
is reviewed. Even though geothermal energy is defined in EC (European Commission)
Directives, the specific implementation and legislation vary greatly between different regions
across Europe. It has been suggested by others that the legislative and regulatory framework
should be harmonized and that this can be led by the EU. A step towards such harmonization
could be through the development of a geothermal well protocol, providing guidance on how
risk assessment with a focus on well integrity should be conducted for different types of
geothermal wells for the well life-cycle. The summary of relevant legislation/standards to the
geothermal industry offers a basis for understanding the main concerns that need to be
addressed by risk assessment and/or management activities, such as gas emissions,
operational and occupational safety, and environmental hazards.
In the development of a framework for assessment and management of geothermal well risks,
certain requirements should be fulfilled. This document outlines the general characteristics of
such a framework, reviews what data is necessary and which well integrity considerations are
relevant throughout the life-cycle of a geothermal well, and provides the necessary phases and
activities in a risk management process. It is suggested that a future protocol should result in
a comprehensive, transparent and verifiable risk assessment and management practice during
all phases of the (high-temperature) geothermal well life.
The overall approach to risk assessment and management for geothermal wells is not
fundamentally different from other comparable industries. However, the assessment context,
influenced in part by prevailing legislation determining issues of concern and mandating
requirements differs between countries, depending on how geothermal energy is defined and
hence how it is regulated. A shift towards a common definition and regulation for geothermal
wells across the EU could also represent a first step towards a more cohesive approach to risk
assessment. The establishment of a common definition for well barriers and associated well
barrier elements, would in the same way improve geothermal well integrity management.

Page 3 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 6
Background ..................................................................................................... 6
Objectives ........................................................................................................ 6
What is a geothermal well protocol? ................................................................ 7
2 Concepts and principles ...................................................................................... 8
Definition of well integrity ................................................................................. 8
Risk management principles ............................................................................ 9
The precautionary principle .................................................................... 9
ALARP ................................................................................................... 9
Cost-benefit ............................................................................................ 9
Definitions of geothermal energy in legislation ............................................... 10
3 Review of legislation .......................................................................................... 10
Different European Union legislative terms .................................................... 10
Review of relevant geothermal legislation ...................................................... 11
4 Requirements for Risk Assessment and Management .................................... 15
Risk Assessment characteristics.................................................................... 15
Data requirements ......................................................................................... 16
Well integrity considerations for the life-cycle of a well ................................... 17
Recommendations for a geothermal well risk assessment and management protocol
18
Assessment context ............................................................................. 20
Risk identification and quick screening ................................................. 22
Risk analysis ........................................................................................ 23
Risk evaluation ..................................................................................... 24
Monitoring............................................................................................. 24
Risk reduction....................................................................................... 25
Communication with stakeholders ........................................................ 25
Continuous risk review.......................................................................... 26
5 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 28
Appendix A Casing design .................................................................................. 34
A.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 34
A.2 Establishing context ....................................................................................... 34
A.3 Risk identification ........................................................................................... 35
A.4 Risk analysis.................................................................................................. 37
A.5 Risk evaluation .............................................................................................. 38
A.6 Risk monitoring and treatment ....................................................................... 38
Appendix B Italian high-temperature geothermal guideline.............................. 39
B.1 Air quality ....................................................................................................... 39
B.2 Noise ............................................................................................................. 40
B.3 Surface water and groundwater ..................................................................... 40
B.4 Land subsidence............................................................................................ 40
B.5 Induced seismicity ......................................................................................... 41
B.6 Visual impact ................................................................................................. 41
Page 4 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

B.7 Waste ............................................................................................................ 41

Appendix C Industry feedback summary ........................................................... 42
Appendix D Legislation overview ....................................................................... 43

Tables
Table 1. Description of different types of unilateral acts of EU secondary law ............ 10
Table 2. Summary of the main concerns of legislation ................................................ 12
Table 3. Relevant EU directives for geothermal industry ............................................ 43

Figures
Figure 1 The role of this document related to regulations and industry practices. ......... 7
Figure 2. ALARP principle adapted from NORSOK Z-013 [60] ..................................... 9
Figure 3. Different phases in the life-cycle of a well (modified after [4]) ...................... 20
Figure 4 The proposed framework for risk assessment and management of
geothermal wells [5] ........................................................................................ 22
Figure 5. Screening and selection of methods in the risk assessment framework....... 24
Figure 6. Risk management process, adapted from DESTRESS [46]......................... 26
Figure 7: Summary of factors to consider for establishment of context ....................... 35
Figure 8: Example of failure modes for a casing ......................................................... 35
Figure 9: Transition from a normal to a failed state (casing rupture) for the casing ..... 36
Figure 10: Example of a risk matrix ............................................................................ 37
Vocabulary
ALARA/ALARP As low as reasonably achievable/As low as reasonably practicable
Hazard Potential source of risk
HAZID Hazard identification
Measure Plan or course of action to reduce risk (physical or organisational)
Monitoring Continuous or time-lapse measurement of risk indicator
Protocol Procedure for carrying out risk assessment and management of
(HT) geothermal wells
Risk Effect of uncertainty on outcomes [1]; consequences of the
activities, with associated uncertainty [2]
Risk assessment Investigation into the effects that uncertainty has on the
consequences of potential fluid leakage. The intention of a
quantitative risk assessment is to support decision-making by
providing numbers on how much effect uncertainty has on the
consequences.
Root cause The basis cause of a hazard or risk

Page 5 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

1 Introduction
Background
Description of the project,
New concepts for high-temperature geothermal wells are developed in the GeoWell project
addressing the lifetime of the wells, to improve the economic viability and environmental
friendliness of geothermal projects. The project objective is to develop reliable, cost effective
and environmentally safe well completion and monitoring technologies; such as optimized well
designs involving corrosion resistant materials, optimized cementing procedures, and
compensation for thermal strains between casing and the well. The project also targets the
development of methods and tools to assess the main life stages of the well, and manage the
associated risks.
Risk assessment in the petroleum industry is described in several standards. The practices
described in these standards is considered to be at the highest quality level, in particular those
for offshore petroleum exploitation in Europe. Thus, it is considered to be desirable to bring
relevant practices in the petroleum industry to the geothermal industry. The New Zealand Code
of Practice for deep geothermal wells [3] is commonly referred to as the most advanced
standard within geothermal wells. For example, it was used as the basis for The African Union
Code of Practice for Geothermal Drilling [4], adapting it to the conditions of the geothermal
industry in Africa. The geothermal industry relies to a degree on the practices in the petroleum
industry, primarily onshore practices and standards provided by the American Petroleum
Institute (API). It is of interest to also consider the place of petroleum approaches to risk
management in a geothermal context.
In [5], [6] and [7], have gone through the common uses of risk assessment methods and in
particular quantitative risk assessments.
The applicability of the framework described in [7] needs to be put in context with existing
regulations; and exemplified further for practical use. This document, i.e. “Foundations for well
integrity and risk management”, attempts to create a foundation for the development of a
European protocol for Risk assessment and Well integrity in geothermal wells, which means it
is a recommendation in compliance with European and domestic regulations.

Objectives
The objective of the document is to provide building blocks for a protocol for risk assessment
and management of geothermal wells. To this end an elaborated assessment and
management framework has been provided which can be applied in a “recipe”-based manner
to deep high temperature (HT) geothermal wells (i.e. wells reaching temperatures required for
electricity production and requiring multiple casing strings) within the EU member states. The
presented building blocks are meant to be a basis for possible future regulation on risk
assessment and management of HT geothermal wells. While the presented risk assessment
and management framework is generally applicable also to oil & gas wells, the specific relation
to geothermal wells is presented in the form of addressing legislation specific to this industry,
which is an integral part of the assessment context. The generality of the foundations
presented here does not permit covering all aspects unique to HT geothermal wells, but does
provide some relevant examples throughout. Issues that concern geothermal wells in general,
may also apply to HT geothermal wells.

Page 6 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Previous studies in the GeoWell project have highlighted the lack of any widely used guidelines
for how to perform risk assessments for geothermal wells. It is the aim of this document to
provide a first step towards a more uniform approach towards geothermal risk assessment and
well integrity.

2 Concepts and principles

Definition of well integrity
Well integrity is in general terms related to the functionality of a well to prevent loss of
containment or its ability to perform its intended functions. However, there are various
definitions that differ in both scope and focus area, that are briefly outlined in this section.
The NORSOK D-010 standard [9] governs well integrity on the Norwegian Continental Shelf
(NCS), and is here defined as “application of technical, operational and organizational
solutions to reduce risk of uncontrolled release of formation fluids throughout the life cycle of
a well”. The standard focuses on establishing well barriers by use of Well Barrier Elements
(WBE), their acceptance criteria, their use and monitoring of integrity during their life cycle.
The risk element is the uncontrolled release of formation fluids, while the integrity aspect
covers technical, operational and organizational solutions that will either lower the probability
of the risk occurring, or reduce the consequences, should it occur.
Another common standard from the oil & gas industry, is the API RP 17N [10]. In this standard,
integrity is defined as the ability of a system of components to perform its required function
while preventing or mitigating incidents that could pose a significant threat to life, health and
the environment over its operating life. This is a broader definition, as the risk aspect is not
limited to loss of containment, but rather any potentially harmful event, while there are also no
specific dimensions (such as technical or organizational) to the integrity aspect. The term
integrity management is also included and is defined as “the systematic implementation of the
activities necessary to ensure that critical systems are properly designed and installed in
accordance with specifications, and remain fit for purpose until they are retired”.
NOGEPA Industry Standard No. 90 [11] is a Dutch oil and gas standard that defines asset
integrity. The definition of well integrity is expressed as “the ability of the well(s) to perform its
required function effectively and efficiently whilst protecting Health, Safety and the
Environment (HSE)”. Well Integrity Management (WIM) is the means to ensure that the people,
systems, processes and resources which deliver integrity are in place, in use and will perform
when required over the whole lifecycle of the well(s). The definition is similar in scope and
focus to API 17 RP 17 N.
ISO/TS 16530-2:2014 [8] is a standard explicitly addressing well integrity, covering the
operational phase of oil & gas wells. Here, well integrity is defined as “containment and the
prevention of the escape of fluids (i.e. liquids or gases) to subterranean formations and
surface”, while well integrity management is “a combination of technical, operational and
organizational processes to ensure a well’s integrity during the operating life cycle”. Similarly
to NORSOK D-010, the risk element is limited to the escape of formation fluids, while the
integrity aspect covers processes aimed to prevent loss of containment.
There are no similar standards that explicitly define well integrity for geothermal wells, but there
are standards that cover design and best practices, that also cover well integrity. One of the
most common reference documents in the geothermal industry, is the New Zealand NZS
2403:2015 Code of practice for deep geothermal well drilling, used by the geothermal industry
and regulators worldwide [3]. This document covers all life-cycle phases of the well, and

Page 8 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Definitions of geothermal energy in legislation

In a European context, geothermal resources have been listed as one of the renewable energy
sources in the Article 2 of the Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal
electricity market [13]. However, there was not any clear legal definition of geothermal energy
until that expressed in Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from
renewable sources. According to Article 2 of the Directive 2009/28/EC, “geothermal energy
means energy stored in the form of heat beneath the surface of solid earth” [14].
On an individual country level, definition of geothermal energy and its implementation in the
legislations vary from mature to non-mature regions across Europe. Pasquali states [15] that
geothermal energy is defined in legislation in the mature regions such as France, Germany,
the Netherlands and Italy. The classifications are often different in these countries, e.g. based
on system installed capacity, depth of drilling, end-use, etc. Nevertheless, lack of consistent
considerations for depth of geothermal resources, installed capacity and system size, as well
as temperature and utilization of water or resources are apparent in the legal definitions of
geothermal energy.

3 Review of legislation
To understand what is needed to comply with EU requirements, it is useful to review legislation
and standards relevant to the geothermal industry. This chapter aims to provide a summary of
legislation/standards that are relevant to the context of the GeoWell project, i.e. improving well
integrity at high temperatures. The goal is to understand the main concerns of the
legislations/standards that need to be addressed by risk assessment activities. Note that the
intention is not to list all the international, national and regional legislation that might be relevant
to the geothermal industry.

Different European Union legislative terms

Prior to reviewing different relevant regulations, it is important to understand differences
between various legal terms that are typically used in the European Union. This will be of
assistance when it comes to searching different databases for finding relevant regulations. The
sources of European Union law include [16]:

i) Primary law: founding Treaties that establish the EU and determine the legal
framework within which the EU institutions implement European policies.
ii) Secondary law: legal instruments based on the Treaties that include unilateral
secondary law (regulations, directives, decisions, opinions and recommendations,
and "atypical" acts e.g. communications and recommendations, and white and
green papers), and conventions and agreements.
iii) Supplementary law: elements of law not provided for by the Treaties such as Court
of Justice case-law, international law and general principles of law.

Based on the description of different EU law sources, secondary law seems to have most
relevance to the scope of this report. Table 1 presents different types of secondary law [17]
that are listed in Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU [18].
Table 1. Description of different types of unilateral acts of EU secondary law

Term Description

Page 10 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Regulations Binding legislative acts that must be applied in their

entirety across the EU.
Directives Binding legislative acts that set out different goals
that all EU countries must achieve. It is up to the
individual countries to devise their own laws on
how to reach these goals.
Decisions Binding legislative acts on those to whom it is
addressed (e.g. an EU country or an individual
company).
Recommendations Recommendations are not binding and do not
impose any legal obligation on those to whom they
are addressed.
Opinions Instruments that allow the institutions to make a
statement in a non-binding fashion, i.e. without
imposing any legal obligation on those to whom it
is addressed. It can be issued by the main EU
institutions (Commission, Council, Parliament), the
Committee of the Regions and the European
Economic and Social Committee. While laws are
being made, the committees give opinions from
their viewpoint.
Based on the information provided in Table 1, regulations, directives and decisions have been
selected as relevant legislation for further search to identify the important concerns that should
be addressed by a European protocol on geothermal well risk assessment.

Review of relevant geothermal legislation

Different publications have compiled various lists of national regulations relevant to the
geothermal industry across Europe [19, 15, 20]. Although there might be some changes in the
national regulations since publication of these references, the intention here is not to update
those lists. As mentioned earlier, we try to keep the review of legislation at a European level,
with emphasis on relevant EU directives. However, as a reference to documents related to
high temperature geothermal wells, a recent national Italian guideline for medium-high
enthalpy geothermal wells has been discussed in Appendix B.
Based on a report from European Geothermal Energy Council (EGEC), there are great
differences in existing legislation between European countries (both EU Member States and
non-EU countries) [20]. These differences do not necessarily influence requirements of a risk
assessment and are rather related to simplifications of application and licensing procedures.
Nevertheless, it has been highlighted that the legislative and regulatory framework for
geothermal energy should be harmonized and this can be led by the EU.
There are several EU directives that may influence geothermal installations. Key legislation
relevant to the geothermal industry, more specifically to drilling and operation of wells, include:
 Water Framework Directive (WFD) or Directive 2000/60/EC [21] that establishes a
framework in the field of water policy.
 Groundwater Directive or Directive 2006/118/EC [22] that aims to protect groundwater
against pollution and deterioration.

Page 11 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

 Environmental Quality Standards Directive (EQSD) also known as the Priority

Substances Directive or Directive 2008/105/EC [23] that establishes environmental
quality standards in the field of water policy.
 Natura 2000 based on Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC) [24] and Habitats
Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) [25] that ensures the long-term survival of Europe's
most valuable and threatened species and habitats.
 Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment [26] updating the original Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) Directive (Directive 85/337/EEC) [27] that aims to ensure the
environmental implications of projects are considered before decisions are made, i.e.
in the projects preparation phase.
 Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) or Directive 2004/35/EC [28] that establishes a
framework of environmental liability based on the “polluter-pays” principle, to prevent
and remedy environmental damage.
 Directive 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive industries [29] that
lays down minimum requirements to prevent or reduce as far as possible any adverse
effects on the environment (in particular water, air, soil, fauna and flora and landscape),
or on human health brought about as a result of the management of waste from the
extractive industries.
 Directive 92/104/EEC [30] and Directive 92/104/EEC [30] that lay down minimum
requirements for safety and health protection of workers in the mineral- extracting
industries.
 Industrial emissions Directive (IED) or Directive 2010/75/EU [31] that aims to achieve
a high level of protection of human health and the environment by reducing harmful
industrial emissions across the EU, through better application of best available
techniques (BAT). Note that geothermal power plants do not need to necessarily
comply with this Directive as they are not listed within the industrial activities listed in
the Annex I of this Directive. However, measures and limits provided in IED can be
useful for performing environmental assessments of geothermal projects.
 Environmental Noise Directive (END) or Directive 2002/49/EC [32] that aims to
determine exposure to environmental noise, to ensure that information on
environmental noise and its effects is made available to the public, and to prevent and
reduce environmental noise where necessary and preserve environmental noise
quality where it is good [33].
The directives usually do not explicitly recommend that an individual best practice or standard
be used as a guiding principle. However, some of them such as Directive 2006/21/EC or
Directive 2010/75/EU require that the measures to be taken are, among other things, based
on best available techniques. Appendix D presents a non-exhaustive list of the relevant
directives together with a short summary and relevance of them to the geothermal industry.
For a better understanding of the topics that should be kept in mind while laying down the
foundations for geothermal well risk assessment, the main concerns that are covered in the
legislation are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of the main concerns of legislation
Main concern Description (relevant regulations) Legislation

Page 12 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Protection of water Any risk to aquatic ecosystem/environment WFD [21]

(including shall be avoided.
groundwater) Hazardous substances shall be identified WFD [21]
through risk assessment focusing on aquatic
ecotoxicity and on human toxicity via the
aquatic environment.
Concentration limits shall not be exceeded EQSD [23]
for priority substances and priority
hazardous substances in case of surface
waters.
Waste from extractive industries needs to be Directive
subject to certain requirements to protect 2006/21/EC [29]
surface water and/or groundwater. The
stability of such waste should be secured,
and appropriate monitoring should be done.
Discharge or re- Member States may authorize the reinjection WFD [21]
injection of water into the same aquifer of water used for
geothermal purposes. Therefore, it is within
the competence of the national governments
to decide whether reinjection of the
geothermal fluids is required. However, such
discharges shall not compromise the
achievement of the environmental objectives
established for that body of groundwater.
Protection and long- Appropriate steps shall be taken to avoid WFD [21],
term survival of pollution or deterioration of habitats or any Directive
valuable and disturbances affecting the birds in the areas 2009/147/EC [34],
threatened species covered by Natura 2000. As an example, and
and habitats necessary steps shall be taken where the Directive
maintenance or improvement of the status of 92/43/EEC [25]
water is an important factor for protection of
birds and habitats.
Even outside these protection areas, Directive
Member States shall strive to avoid pollution 2009/147/EC [34],
or deterioration of habitats. and
Directive
92/43/EEC) [25]
Well repair, well Operators shall take all necessary measures Directive
stimulation, well to prevent or reduce as far as possible any 2006/21/EC [29]
drilling and testing negative effects, actual or potential, on the
phase environment or on human health because of
the management of waste from the
extractive industries.
Operators need to prepare appropriate
waste management plans for the prevention
or minimization, treatment, recovery and
disposal of extractive waste.
Heat emission /heat Discharge of heat (because of human WFD [21]
transfer activity) into the air, water or land is
considered as pollution. This may be harmful
to human health or the quality of aquatic
ecosystems or terrestrial ecosystems
Page 13 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

directly depending on aquatic ecosystems,

which result in damage to material property,
or which impair or interfere with amenities
and other legitimate use of the environment.
This shall be avoided if it results in change of
temperature outside the range in which the
bodies of water have good status.
Gas emission Regarding pollution prevention and control, WFD [21]
a combined approach is followed using
control of pollution at source through the
setting of “emission limit values” and of
“environmental quality standards”.
Pollution through the discharge, emission or
loss of “priority hazardous substances” must
cease or be phased out.
A high level of protection of human health Directive
and the environment shall be achieved by 2010/75/EU [31]
reducing harmful industrial emissions across
the EU, in particular through better
application of best available techniques
(BAT). Note that geothermal power plants
are not listed in Annex I of the IED. But, such
a directive seems to be relevant for emission
control and prevention.
Geothermal power plants often meet the
most stringent clean air standards because
of their low emissions [19].
Noise pollution Noise limits may be of relevance during well Directive
construction and the hydraulic test work [19]. 2002/49/EC [32]
The necessary measures shall be taken
particularly in built-up areas, in public parks
or other quiet areas in an agglomeration, in
quiet areas in open country, near noise-
sensitive buildings (e.g. schools, hospitals).
Occupational and The employer shall take the necessary Directive
operational safety measures to safeguard the safety and health 92/104/EEC [30]
(HSE-related) of the workers including design of workplace,
identification and assessment of worker
risks, protection from fire explosions and
health-endangering environments, warning
and alarm systems, health surveillance etc.
In addition to the concerns listed in the table above, issues such as monitoring and leak
prevention as well as risk mitigation are of importance for laying down the foundations for a
European protocol on the geothermal well risk assessment. Furthermore, relevant directives
have been reviewed to see whether there is an explicit requirement for performing risk
assessment.
In this regard, WFD explicitly requires that a list of priority substances shall be identified
considering the precautionary principle, relying in particular on the determination of any
potentially adverse effects of the product to humans and the environment and on a scientific
assessment of the risk. Accordingly, a risk assessment should be performed under Council
Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93 [35], Council Directive 91/414/EEC [36] and Directive 98/8/EC

Page 14 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

of the European Parliament and of the Council [37], or a targeted risk-based assessment
(following the methodology of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93) should be performed
focusing solely on aquatic ecotoxicity and on human toxicity via the aquatic environment. The
ultimate goal is to achieve concentrations in the marine environment near background values
for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances.
Also from WFD (and Environmental quality standards Directive), to set a maximum annual
average concentration for setting chemical quality standards, Member States shall set
appropriate safety factors consistent with the nature and quality of the available data and the
guidance given in technical guidance document in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC
on risk assessment for new notified substances [38] and Commission Regulation (EC) No
1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances [39] and the safety factors set out in the
water framework Directive.
In order to protect the environment as a whole, and human health in particular, detrimental
concentrations of harmful pollutants in groundwater must be avoided, prevented or reduced.
Similar to water framework Directive, risk assessment procedures required by 91/414/EEC or
98/8/EC.
In order to ensure a high-level protection of the environment, precautionary actions need to be
taken for certain projects because of their vulnerability to major accidents, and/or natural
disasters (e.g. flooding or earthquakes). According to EIA Directive [40], a description of the
vulnerability of such projects to risks of major accidents or disasters and their adverse effects
on human health, cultural heritage or the environment needs to be provided. To meet the
requirements of this Directive, relevant information available and obtained through risk
assessments pursuant to EU/national legislation may be used. Where appropriate, this
description should include measures envisaged to prevent or mitigate the significant adverse
effects of such events on the environment.
For assessing damages of the projects to land as defined in ELD, it is desirable to use risk
assessment procedures to determine to what extent human health is likely to be adversely
affected [28].
According to wastes management from extractive industries Directive, a waste facility shall be
classified, among other conditions, under category A (i.e. waste facilities with stricter
environmental regulations), if a failure or incorrect operation could give rise to a major accident,
based on a risk assessment considering factors such as the location and the environmental
impact of the waste facility [29].

4 Requirements for Risk Assessment and Management

Risk Assessment characteristics

It is useful to perform risk assessments in different contexts; such as a tool for decision support
from engineering and financial points of view, or as a means to identify, control and document
HSE risks typically required by laws as seen in section 3.2. The reviewed legislation did not
provide any recommendation on how to perform the risk assessments they refer to, only when
they are required (e.g. on potential water pollution).
In general, the purpose of a risk assessment is to execute a process that gathers and assesses
information about what may happen and why, how measures (changes or already
implemented) can influence what may happen, and what is acceptable. Based on previous

Page 15 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

sections and the framework presented in D6.3, a geothermal well risk assessment should
possess the following characteristics:
 Be risk-based, i.e. consider both the probability of an event occurring and the impact
of such an occurrence.
 Cover all phases of a traditional risk management process (including monitoring and
risk treatment).
 Be reasonable and proportionate for the threats profile (e.g. according to ALARP
principle).
 Use readily available data.
 Address data, information and model uncertainty.
The focus in this document is on well integrity, thus related to this, a risk assessment should
cover:
 Assessment of the well integrity (technical, operational and organizational) during its
life cycle.
 Both production and injection wells (doublet).
 The source, pathway and receptor components.
The most relevant consequences to consider are:
 Serious damage to human health, safety and the environment (ecosystem), and in
particular related to substances mentioned in the legislation (see section 3.2).
 Impact on equipment/system performance.
 Communication and reputation.
 Financial.
 Whether the Geothermal well contains either hazardous waste or dangerous
substances.

Data requirements
Site-specific data are needed to properly support the activities related to risk assessment and
risk management. The actual collection may already start during the exploration phase, well
before the development of the geothermal project starts and will continue during the project
development. The outcome of the risk assessment may require additional data acquisition to
reduce remaining uncertainty. Monitoring data will be gathered during the operation of the
geothermal (HT) well (see also 4.4.5).
Data needs relate to:
 Overall well design and well barrier concept
 Detailed description of the well casing, cement and completion
 Well barrier properties
 Near-well rocks and sediments (cores, log data, seismic data)
 THMC (Thermal-Hydraulic-Mechanical-Chemical) properties of rocks and sediments
 Potential pathways to receptors of the fluids
 Production forecasts
 Composition of production fluids with physico-chemical properties
 Temperature and pressure
Page 16 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

 Receptors of leaking fluids: population distribution, protected species, buildings,

proximity of other resources, nearby activities (e.g. production of potable water)
The uncertainty associated with the above data, such as representativeness, accuracy,
precision and underlying assumptions, must also be gathered.
In addition to site specific data, general purpose data are also useful for the risk assessment.
Learnings from past activities are important. For example, the risk identification can make use
of databases, checklists or detailed operating procedures as a basis.
As it may be difficult to identify all risks and assess them properly in the initial assessment, it
is useful to have reporting systems and updates of the risk assessment over time to cover new
information gather from events and detected incidents.
Much of the relevant documentation for well integrity is often stored in a well integrity
management system (WIMS), with information such as history of the well, well design,
operational data, maintenance data, testing data, logs, etc.

Well integrity considerations for the life-cycle of a well

The focus of well integrity issues of importance varies with the different life-cycle phases.
During the well design phase, less data is available describing the formation and reservoir
properties, and what is available is subject to potentially large uncertainty. Reliability in
information relating to subsurface pressures (pore and fracture pressures), borehole stability,
geothermal temperature, lithology and fluid characteristics all possess a degree of uncertainty,
ultimately impacting the design of the well.
During the well construction phase, the main KPI (Key Performance Indicator) is often the
time vs. depth curve, and to a lesser extent well integrity KPIs. However, from a well integrity
perspective it is essential that control mechanisms exist, both prior to cementing and after as
well as during the completion stage, to verify the validity of the planned design in light of
measurements and data obtained during well construction.
Casing design is a crucial component of the integrity of any well, and there are a number of
considerations in this respect. According to NORSOK D-010 (2013), these include maximum
allowable setting depth with regards to kick margin, pore pressure development and formation
strength, drilling fluid and cement program, induced loads, H2S potential, circulation density,
isolation of weak formations, potential loss zones and geo-tectonic forces. For high
temperature wells particular considerations must be made for thermal expansion of steel and
trapped fluids, weakening of the casing through temperature cycling, and presence of corrosive
well fluids [7].
The integrity of the casing as a barrier element may be degraded during the drilling phase. The
use of abrasive coating materials on drill pipe tool joints may wear the casing. Wear of casing
also arises from the longer contact time between the casing and drill pipe tool joint due to low
rate of penetration (ROP) and high revolution per minute (RPM).
The drilling of geothermal wells often poses many geological risks that affect the well integrity.
In particular the challenge of lost circulation due to highly fractured formations poses a risk to
the cement integrity. When cementing the casing in such cases, the cement may fail to reach
surface, making it challenging to calculate the cement requirements for the well. This might
also lead to trapping drilling mud or water between the casing and the cement, which in turn
ultimately could lead to casing collapse due to fluid expansion. Another threat to cement
integrity is high temperature, which may degrade the quality of the cement and cause problems
later in the well life-cycle [41]. In CO2-rich environments, the use of traditional Portland cement
is known to be thermodynamically unstable, and could cause cement degradation and casing

Page 17 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

corrosion. Furthermore, the cement placement is also essential to cement integrity, where
proper hole-cleaning and casing centralization are important considerations.
In the production phase, the risk of corrosion is one of the main concerns due to a greater
exposure to formation fluids. Another important aspect is that until the production commences,
the well is the responsibility of the drilling department. The change in responsibility when
moving into another life-cycle phase, implies the importance of a proper handover, to ensure
that all important well-specific concerns, including those relating to well integrity, are
transferred to the production department. This pertains not only to data transfer, but also to
training and re-evaluation of the risk assessments conducted during the previous life-cycle
phases, involving personnel from the production department.
The challenges in the abandonment phase can often relate to the fact that data on the well
has been handed over multiple times, and gaps in data and/or inadequate handover may lead
to poor decisions being made relating to risk management and well integrity. Issues, such as
sustained casing pressure, that have been circumvented through dispensations in the
production phase, may cause problems in the abandonment phase when attempting to verify
barrier integrity, as restoration of e.g. annulus barriers is difficult [42]. An updated well
evaluation, including cement bond logs etc., and abandoning the well in accordance with local
regulations, as is industry practice, can help overcome such challenges.

Recommendations for a geothermal well risk assessment and

management protocol
Background
The interest in exploiting high-enthalpy heat is growing at a rapid pace and will put extra
demands on the quality of the well materials and their barrier functions. A common protocol to
assess and manage the integrity of these barriers and the associated risks is strongly required
by regulators at the national and European level. Such a protocol would make it easier for
regulators to form legal rules around it, and make the review process of the operators activities
more efficient. The recommendations are meant in particular for national and European bodies
developing regulations.
Need for common procedures in geothermal legislation have already been highlighted in [20].
They highlight, among others, a need for formalized processes for environmental impact
assessments (EIA) in order to reduce the time to perform such assessments, as well as a
reference document of technical solutions to satisfy geothermal requirements. Such industry
standard documents were created for and by the Norwegian petroleum industry to harmonize
solutions and legislation, to ensure adequate safety, added value and cost effectiveness of
operations [43].
Chapter 3 listed several concerns in the EU Directives. These concerns are mainly related to
protecting the health and well-being of the public, workers and the environment. They are in
the legislation given specific tolerance limits, require either risk identification or a full risk
assessment, or monitoring requirements. There are no specific methods for risk assessment
mentioned, except mentioning principles such as the precautionary principle or use of best
available techniques (BAT).
Although the primary focus of risk assessment is to avoid surprises through a documented
process gathering information about the effects of uncertainties (what is not known with
certainty), there can be other uses of the results of a risk assessment. Frequently, risk
assessments are associated with bureaucracy and being cost drivers due to e.g. HSE
requirements from legislation, even though that is not the intention [44]. However, it can also

Page 18 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

be used for decision support for example in a design phase to balance different considerations.
Even though one usually focuses on reducing the probability and/or consequences of negative
outcomes in a risk assessment, there are also situations where reducing the probability of
negative outcomes will also reduce the probability of favourable outcomes which might be
valued higher. In such situations one might want to maintain the risk, even if the measure has
no direct cost associated with it. Such a focus would be included in the ISO-definition of risk,
although it would be more commonly referred to as decision and risk analysis. Considering the
precautionary principle, a balanced view of the effect of uncertainty should only be taken when
it is accepted by all parties, such as if all negative consequences are suffered by the company.
The risk assessment process proposed here is not intended to give a complete solution for a
protocol, but to describe how to arrive at solutions which are consistent with a risk-based
approach. Such an approach must include necessary elements given by the national and
European regulations, such as directives related to water pollution, mining laws, other
environmental laws and power-, work-, operational- and environmental permits (see chapter
3).

Objective
The purpose of the present proposal is to provide recommendations for a future European
protocol on the risk assessment and management of high-temperature geothermal wells. The
objective of the protocol is to ascertain that fluids cannot unintendedly escape from the well
bore and adversely impact the environment, human beings, utilities and resources. The future
protocol should result in a comprehensive, transparent and verifiable risk assessment and
management during all phases of the (HT) geothermal well life.

Scope
The risk assessment and management protocol is primarily directed to the function of the well
including completion, wellhead, safety valves and rocks and sediments which are directly
exposed to the wellbore. Information on rocks and sediments in a wider region around the well
are necessary if fluids may escape from the well in the subsurface and on the conditions at the
surface including population density, land use etc.
The proposed protocol deals with the whole chain of events which could result in unintended
leakage of fluids from the well bore and its consequences for the environment, human beings,
utilities and resources. The emphasis in GeoWell however is on the integrity of the well and
less on the possible consequences of an unintended release of fluids.
The recommendations will suggest guidelines for risk assessment of geothermal wells, their
monitoring and measures to reduce risk. The proposed protocol will thus address the risk
management next to the risk assessment.
The proposal will try to establish a practical level of detail of the protocol but without becoming
overly prescriptive.
The proposed protocol will in principle deal with all phases of the geothermal project life but
most emphasis will be placed on the construction and production phases of the geothermal
well life-cycle (see Figure 3).

Page 19 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Figure 3. Different phases in the life-cycle of a well (modified after [6])

The details of a risk assessment depend on the objectives. Early in a well planning stage the
main focus would be on whether there are any showstoppers related to drilling, construction
and operation of the well. At such a stage where information is limited to considerations related
to the area in general (geographical or regional concerns) and general subsurface conditions
(related to well integrity and well control), a company-specific checklist is a resource effective
method to focus on feasibility and safety. Similarly, when different well concepts (alternatives
for how the well will be constructed) have been identified, a more detailed checklist covering
issues related to pressures, well barriers, hydraulics, friction etc. can be performed.
For a chosen well concept, a more complete risk assessment can be made. In the petroleum
industry it is common to use risk matrices where issues are identified and evaluated in coarse
scales in both probability and consequence dimensions. The consequences can be divided
into different dimensions, such as HSE (e.g. health, safety, environment and reputation), cost
(and/or time), and well performance objectives. This assessment can be used to give an overall
score to the concept, identify the main risk drivers related to the concept and in general be
used in the decision-making process. Detailed assessments are made when well design is
almost finished (e.g. 80% finished). Then particular challenges can more appropriately be
investigated with a more in-depth risk analysis using quantitative methods.
In the GeoWell report D6.3 a framework for risk assessment has been proposed [7] which will
be included in the current proposed protocol. The framework for risk assessment of geothermal
wells uses ISO 31000 [1] as a point of departure (Figure 4) and consists of the following main
steps:
 Establishment of the context;
 Risk assessment sub-divided into risk identification, analysis and evaluation;
 Monitoring and risk reduction;
 Continuous communication with stakeholders and risk review.
In performing risk assessment and management activities of (HT) geothermal wells GeoWell
recommends following the individual steps of the proposed framework. A rudimentary example
is provided in the Appendix A.

Assessment context
The first step in the risk assessment and management process is to define the context of the
risk assessment and management which is specific to the geothermal wells to be developed,
operated, plugged and abandoned. The context deals with the specific objectives of the risk

Page 20 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

assessment and management, the acceptance criteria to be evaluated, the well barrier concept
with system boundaries, the site-specific geological and geographical setting and resources
needed.
Objectives describe what the risk assessment and management is aiming at in securing the
integrity of the well barriers and minimizing damage from fluids leaking from the well. It should
include any company policies relevant to the risk context, regulations or requirements as to
how the risk assessment is conducted or what it must contain as a minimum.
Related to geothermal well integrity, there are several activities related to designing and
maintaining well integrity. In the petroleum standard NORSOK D-010, [9], a list of documented
activities that should be performed to ensure well integrity is provided, which includes design
of well, assessment of the risk related to well integrity or well control, activity programs and
procedures. The objective of the geothermal well integrity risk assessment will typically relate
to one of these activities.
A thorough well design is important to make sure all components can withstand loads and
stresses covering all the life cycle phases of the well. For well integrity this will focus on well
barriers. This should be performed for new wells, wells that change purpose (e.g. from
exploration to production), or other changes to the original scope of the design. The New
Zealand code of practice [3] provides recommendations for well design in a geothermal
context.
A good understanding of the well barrier concept is essential for the execution of the risk
assessment and management protocol, in particular for the identification of possible failure
modes. Defining the well barriers for the activities under consideration is important to specify
the scope of analyses related to well integrity. This involves selecting sets of well elements
that together can form an envelope which should be sufficient for its purposes, i.e. prevent
leakage. It is useful to prepare it in the form of a well barrier schematic (WBS) to easily
reference, communicate and identify operations or failures which may threaten the well
integrity. Through the risk assessment, the well barrier elements should be described together
with their function in the barrier, acceptance criteria and verification/monitoring method.
In addition to risk assessment of the well barriers, [9] recommends an analysis such as safe
job analysis should be performed for new or non-standard operations, operations using new
or modified equipment, or operations that are considered hazardous or could have increased
risk compared to when the activity has been performed previously.
In addition to the performance of activities such as drilling and intervention, the well integrity
must also consider wear from production or other states where no equipment is in the well. To
preserve the integrity a maintenance program for the well barrier elements should be made.
Some elements will have continuous monitoring, where indications of failures can be quickly
identified. Other elements should have a prescriptive maintenance program. Periodic
inspection (or test) intervals (how often they are performed) can be based on reliability data
and field conditions that may influence reliability over time.
Acceptance criteria are to be defined which indicate the level of acceptable risk resulting from
leakage of fluids from the well. They can either be quantitative or qualitative, relate to the
possible damage resulting from leakage or can be indicators of increasing leakage risk (e.g.
pressure, temperature, corrosion etc.). The acceptance criteria must often be defined by the
company, as few are given in the legislation (see Chapter 3).
The system boundaries will define which elements of the well zone and which phases of the
well life-cycle are included or excluded in the risk assessment.
The setting of the well is very important in terms of the subsurface rocks and sediments
penetrated by the well, nearby subsurface activities and the surface conditions including
population, protected water resources natural reserves and built-up areas.
Page 21 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Another important factor that will impact the subsequent steps is the availability of resources
to successfully execute the risk assessment and management. This includes budget and
personnel resources, competence and skills, and data and information concerning the well in
question, as well as any resources that could be used to infer failure statistics, either in-house
or external databases.

Figure 4 The proposed framework for risk assessment and management of geothermal wells [7]

Risk identification and quick screening

After the context of the risk assessment has been defined a comprehensive overview of risk
factors will be assembled. Such an exercise may start with the identification of possible well
barrier failure modes and their causes. This is also named hazard identification (HAZID) and
depending on the assessment objectives the identification could be limited to this part or
extended to the identification of consequences of unintended loss of fluids from the well, in
Page 22 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

particular those that lead to damage to the environment, human beings, built-up areas and
subsurface or surface resources. This complete set of activities is referred to as risk
identification. Special attention is to be directed to the occurrence of cascading events resulting
in adverse consequences.
The identified risks are qualitatively or semi-quantitatively characterized in terms of probability
and severity of the impact. This offers the possibility for ranking and screening the various
risks. A first evaluation of possible risk treatment and its expected reducing effect on the risk
level is to be included.
An appropriate method for risk identification and screening is to be selected or is prescribed
by inhouse company risk management procedures. Various methods based on expert
judgment and supporting databases are available, which are categorized on the basis of
several characteristics (Figure 5). These categories are qualitative/quantitative, resource
requirements, complexity, and degree of uncertainty. The result is a method selection basis
for risk identification techniques.
As it is important to communicate the risk efficiently, representing the risk picture through visual
means is recommended. Thus, using simple visual methods such as risk matrices and/or bow-
tie diagrams are useful, even if other methods are used.
The identification should consider the ability of the elements defined in the context to perform
their defined function considering information such as best practice documents, company
procedures, historical data or lessons from previous wells, expert knowledge, and
consequences expressed in regional, national and EU legislation (e.g. those mentioned in
section 3.2 and Appendix B). For high temperature wells it is of particular importance to
consider temperature related mechanisms that may lead to new failure modes or
consequences that are less common or not relevant for low temperature wells. This could be
new components in the produced fluid, plastic behaviour of the casing or severe blowouts.
Keeping track of identified risks and their treatment from the start of the life of the well is
important.

Risk analysis
On the basis of the criticality of the identified hazards and risks, quantitative analysis is to be
performed in a staged manner from simple to complex models. The level of detail of the
analysis very much depends on the nature of the risks to be quantified. In some instances, a
‘back-of-the-envelope’ quantitative analysis is sufficient; in other situations one may need to
use sophisticated coupled THMC-models. Choices are to be made whether deterministic or
probabilistic approaches are required.
Depending on the objective the hazards are to be quantified in terms of resulting fluid leakage
(hazard analysis). In other type of analyses fluid migration paths need to be quantified leading
to the exposure to geothermal fluids (exposure analysis). Finally, the effects of exposure to
various receptors (e.g. environment, potable water, human beings) can be quantified (effects
analysis). The temporal and spatial scales of the impact of the hazards on the release of fluids,
exposure to fluids and effects to receptors are to be characterized. Some consequences may
be local and sudden whereas others are more diffusive over a larger area.
A lot of site-specific information including the characterization of uncertainties is required to
execute a quantitative analysis (see Section 4.2). Before addressing uncertainties, one may
perform sensitivity analysis to identify the most relevant parameters in the quantitative risk
analysis. The representativeness of the information must also be considered. For example, the
risk in extreme temperature wells may be poorly estimated if relying on data and models from
lower temperature wells.

Page 23 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Appropriate risk analysis methods need to be selected which fit the requirements of the
assessment context, which includes the specific objective of the risk analysis and the
availability of adequate expertise. Also, the availability of relevant data and the complexity of
the problem are of importance in selecting the appropriate methodology (Figure 5). At times
regulations and company rules demand for specific risk analysis methodologies.

Figure 5. Screening and selection of methods in the risk assessment framework

Risk evaluation
The preparation work for the risk evaluation or risk assessment is covered by the risk
identification and analysis described in the previous two sections. In the risk evaluation the
integrated results of the analysis will be compared to the criteria and indicators for risk
acceptance and a conclusion on compliance will be drawn.
Any critical uncertainties for the outcome of the evaluation will be identified and follow-up work
may be defined to reduce these uncertainties (see also section 4.4.6).

Monitoring
Monitoring provides evidence for the integrity of the well and the absence of unacceptable
damage to protected goods. A well monitoring plan is to be established with monitoring
parameters which are adjusted to the performance and risk criteria, and associated indicators.
Suitable monitoring technologies with monitoring locations, durations and sampling
frequencies are part of the plan. Monitoring parameters may include the quality of the well
barriers, fluid production and injection rates, fluid composition, pressure, temperature, leakage
detection and impact of fluid leakage, which can be measured continuously or in a time-lapse
mode.
Page 24 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

The well monitoring plan is established before operations start. Some parts of the monitoring
plan might start already before the start of operations in the case where baseline data are
needed.
The output from monitoring is regularly verified for conformance with the expected
performance of the well. In case the observed behaviour is deviating from the expected
behaviour, follow-up actions may be necessary. Depending on the nature of the anomaly, this
needs to be communicated with the state authorities and actions to mitigate or remediate
adverse consequences may need to be started. Contingency monitoring may be necessary
and the monitoring plan is to be updated. If the deviating behaviour has been resolved, the
contingency monitoring may be ended.

Risk reduction
To reduce and keep the risks at ALARA levels risk reduction measures may be emplaced.
Developing these measures already starts in the phase of risk identification. Once risks have
been identified (see section 4.4.2), potential reduction measures can be assigned to individual
risks.
Preference is given to preventive measures, which in most cases are implemented before
the start of operations. A large part of the measures can be adopted in the design of the well.
Additional preventive measures may be implemented during operations for example because
new rules for material usage or preventive maintenance apply.
In case monitoring results point to deviating behaviour, one may deploy additional corrective
measures, to mitigate the risks. In case damage by leaking fluids would occur remedial
measures may need to be implemented to restore the damage.
In petroleum there is a high focus on blowouts, and a blowout contingency plan is required [9].
Blowouts also occur in geothermal wells if the conditions are sufficient (i.e. high pressure
formations and/or high temperatures). High consequence events should be addressed (almost
irrespective of probability per the precautionary principle), with regards to e.g. layout, well
design, stopping method (kill strategy) and emergency response responsibilities. Simulations
of the rate and requirements to stop the blowout for the most difficult scenarios should be
performed to ensure the well can be controlled.
As part of mitigating measures, it is important to have the ability to employ them to desired
effect, such as sufficient fluids available to quench a well, sufficient area to contain any leakage
or waste and identification of soil areas which should be treated. This may create a larger
footprint on the area around the well, and must as such be evaluated against other
environmental concerns. Measures should also include organizational aspects for rapid
response and minimizing worker exposure (such as responsibilities, evacuation plans, fire
fighting plans, personal protective equipment etc.).
Communication with stakeholders
Continual communication with and engagement of stakeholders is an integral part of risk
assessment and management from the development of the geothermal project and onwards
to operations and abandonment. Confidence in the safety of the well-related activities is key
to making decisions during the realisation of the project. Different groups of stakeholders can
be identified with different interests, i.e. geothermal energy company (business case),
regulator and inspector (compliance with safety and environment riles), local public (safety and
environment), local authorities (socio-economic wellbeing) and local companies (interference
with their business). Proper communication and engagement requires a strategy and
implementation plan.

Page 25 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

The geothermal project owner will have to report on the outcome of the risk assessment and
the actions on monitoring and risk management to the state authorities. Regular updates on
the safe performance of geothermal well activities including outcomes of monitoring, events
occurring during operations and follow-up actions, maintenance activities etc.

Continuous risk review

The presented workflow for risk assessment and management of (HT) geothermal wells is not
a one-time exercise but is continually being reviewed and updated during all stages of the HT
geothermal project life.
Thus, new data, rules or criteria, or monitoring results may require updating all or part of the
risk assessment and management work. The cyclic nature of risk assessment and
management is illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Risk management process, adapted from DESTRESS [45]

Plans for updating must be made, whether initiated at periodic intervals or triggered by events.
An example is predetermined shut-down criteria which determine when normal activities
should cease, such as when a well barrier is weakened or has failed, or the risk has increased
beyond that which was planned for (e.g. operating limits of critical equipment will be exceeded
or high content of hazardous gasses). In such cases the risk should be reassessed, and
attempts made to normalize the situation, such as restoring degraded barriers.
A program describing the activities to be performed and procedures to be followed should
typically be developed in cooperation with the main contractors, to ensure that the activities
performed are consistent (e.g. in accordance with the assessments performed for the specific
well and previously for similar activities). Significant deviations should be documented,
approved and distributed to the users. Similarly, a management of change (MOC) procedure
on how to deal with technical, operational or organizational changes to the approved

Page 26 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

information is important. Changes may introduce new risks that must be assessed, but often
overlooked are consequences where implicit assumptions originally were made. Thus, the
holistic overview gained in the planning stage should be used to describe how changes are
dealt with.

Page 27 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

5 Bibliography

[1] ISO, “ISO 31000:2009 Risk management - Principles and guidelines,” International
Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2009.

[2] PSA, “New definition of the risk concept,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www.psa.no/risk-and-risk-management/new-definition-of-the-risk-concept-
article11908-897.html..

[3] Standards New Zealand, “NZS 2403:2015: Code of Practice for deep geothermal wells,”
Standards New Zealand, Wellington, 2015.

[4] African Union, “The African Union Code of Practice for Geothermal Drilling,” African
Union's Regional Geothermal Coodrination Unit, 2016.

[5] H. P. Lohne, E. P. Ford, M. Mansouri Majoumerd and E. Randeberg, “Well integrity risk
assessment in geothermal wells - Status of today,” GeoWell, Stavanger, 2016.

[6] H. P. Lohne, E. P. Ford, M. Mansouri Majoumerd and E. Randeberg, “A roadmap for

transferring well integrity risk assessment from oil and gas to geothermal,” GeoWell,
Stavanger, 2016.

[7] H. P. Lohne, E. P. Ford, M. Mansouri Majoumerd, E. Randeberg, S. Aldaz, T. Reinsch,

T. Wildenborg and L. G. Brunner, “Barrier definitions and risk assessment tools for
geothermal wells,” GeoWell, Stavanger, 2017.

[8] ISO, “ISO/TS 16530-2:2014 - Well integrity -- Part 2: Well integrity for the operational
phase,” International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, 2014.

[9] Norwegian petroleum industry, “NORSOK Standard D-010: Well integrity in drilling and
well operations, Rev. 4,” Standards Norway, Lysaker, 2013.

[10] American petroleum institute, “API recommended practice 17N, Second edition,” API
Publishing Services, Washington, 2017.

[11] NOGEPA, “Industry standard no. 90: Asset Integrity,” Netherlands oil and gas
exploration and production association, 2016.

[12] European Union, “http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al32042,” [Online].

[13] European Union, “Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy
sources in the internal electricity market,” 2001. [Online]. Available: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32001L0077. [Accessed 5 March
2018].

[14] European Union, “Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable
sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and

Page 28 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

2003/30/EC,” 2009. [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028. [Accessed 5 March 2018].

[15] R. Pasquali, “ReGeoCities - Best Practices related to regulation of shallow geothermal

energy,” 2013. [Online]. Available:
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/sites/iee-
projects/files/projects/documents/report_of_the_best_practices_related_to_regulation_
of_sge_systems.pdf. [Accessed 8 November 2018].

[16] European Union, “Sources of European Union law,” 2017. [Online]. Available: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:l14534. [Accessed 5 March
2018].

[17] European Union, “Regulations, Directives and other acts,” 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/legal-acts_en. [Accessed 1 March 2018].

[18] European Union, “Consolidated versionsConsolidated versions of the Treaty on

European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union,” 2010.
[Online]. Available: , http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2010.083.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2010:083:T
OC. [Accessed 5 March 2018].

[19] P. Dumas, M. Serdjuk, R. Kutschick, S. Fraser, S. Reith and T. Koelbel, “Deliverable

4.1 of GEOELEC: Proposals for improving the regulatory framework for geothermal
electricity,” GEOELEC project, 2013.

[20] K4RES-H, “K4RES-H Key Issues for Renewable Heat in Europe - Key issue 3:
Regulations for geothermal energy,” 2006. [Online]. Available: http://geodh.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2012/11/K4RES-H_Geothermal_Regulations.pdf. [Accessed 8
November 2018].

[21] European Union, “Directive 2000/60/EC Of The European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water
policy,” 2000. [Online]. Available:
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/endocrine_disruptors/docs/wfd_200060ec
_directive_en.pdf. [Accessed 5 March 2018].

[22] European Union, “Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 12 december 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and
deterioration,” 2006. [Online]. Available: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:372:0019:0031:EN:PDF.
[Accessed 5 March 2018].

[23] European Union, “Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy,”
2008. [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0105. [Accessed 6 March 2018].

[24] European Union, “Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
wild birds,” 1979. [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A31979L0409. [Accessed 6 March 2018].

Page 29 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

[25] European Union, “Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,” 1992. [Online]. Available: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043. [Accessed 6 March
2018].

[26] European Union, “Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment,” 2011. [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011L0092#ntr3-L_2012026EN.01000101-E0003.
[Accessed 6 March 2018].

[27] European Union, “Council Directive of 27 june 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC),” 1985. [Online].
Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:1985:175:FULL&from=EN. [Accessed 6 March 2018].

[28] European Union, “Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying
of environmental damage,” 2004. [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02004L0035-20130718. [Accessed 7 March 2018].

[29] European Union, “Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending
Directive 2004/35/EC,” 2006. [Online]. Available: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:c370006a-063e-4dc7-9b05-
52c37720740c.0005.02/DOC_1&format=PDF. [Accessed 7 March 2018].

[30] European Union, “Council Directive 92/104/EEC of 3 December 1992 on the minimum
requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in surface and
underground mineral-extracting industries,” 1992. [Online]. Available: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01992L0104-20070627. [Accessed 8
March 2018].

[31] European Union, “Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and
control),” 2010. [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0075. [Accessed 8 March 2018].

[32] European Union, “Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise,”
2002. [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002L0049. [Accessed 8 March 2018].

[33] European Commission, “Environmental noise Directive,” 2016. [Online]. Available:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive_en.htm. [Accessed 8 March 2018].

[34] European Union, “Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (codified version),” 2009.
[Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147. [Accessed 6 March 2018].

[35] European Union, “Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the
evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances,” 1993. [Online]. Available:

Page 30 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31993R0793:EN:HTML.
[Accessed 6 March 2018].

[36] European Union, “Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing
of plant protection products on the market,” 1991. [Online]. Available: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31991L0414. [Accessed 6 March
2018].

[37] European Union, “Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market,” 1998.
[Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31998L0008. [Accessed 6 March 2018].

[38] European Union, “Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993 laying down the
principles for assessment of risks to man and the environment of subtances notified in
accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC,” 1993. [Online]. Available: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31993L0067. [Accessed 6 March
2018].

[39] European Union, “Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying
down the principles for the assessment of risks to man and the environment of existing
substances in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93,” 1994. [Online].
Available: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31994R1488:EN:HTML.
[Accessed 6 March 2018].

[40] European Union, “Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment,” 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0052. [Accessed 6
March 2018].

[41] L. Okwiri, “Risk Assessment and Risk Modelling in Geothermal Drilling,” Iceland School
of Energy, Reykjavik, 2017.

[42] D. Etetim, “Well integrity behind casing during well operation. Alternative sealing
materials to cement.,” NTNU Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied
Geophysics, Trondheim, 2013.

[43] Standard Norge, “NORSOK standards,” 14 3 2018. [Online]. Available:

http://www.standard.no/en/sectors/energi-og-klima/petroleum/norsok-standards/.

[44] Health and Safety Executive, “Controlling the risks in the workplace,” [Online]. Available:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/controlling-risks.htm. [Accessed 20 3 2018].

[45] DESTRESS project, “Risk assessment as part of risk management,” [Online]. Available:
http://www.destress-h2020.eu/en/Best-Practices/Risk-assessment/. [Accessed 9
March 2018].

[46] A. Manzella, R. Bonciani, A. Allansdottir, S. Botteghi, A. Donato, S. Giamberini, A. P. M.

Lenzi, A. Pellizzone and D. Scrocca, “Environmental and social aspects of geothermal
energy in Italy,” Geothermics, vol. 72, pp. 232-248, 2018.

Page 31 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

[47] MISE-MATTM, “Italian Ministry of Economic Development and Ministry of the

Environment and Protection of Land and Sea,” 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://unmig.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/unmig/agenda/upload/174_375.pdf. [Accessed 9
March 2018].

[48] A. Baldacci, M. Mannari and F. Sansone, “Greening of geothermal power: An inovative

technology for abatement of hydrogen sulphide and mercury emissions,” in Proceedings
of World Geothermal Congress, Antalya, Turkey, 2005.

[49] Italian Parliament, “Decreto Legislativo 3 aprile 2006, n. 152 - Rules on the
environment,” 2006. [Online]. Available:
http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/deleghe/06152dl2.htm. [Accessed 9 March 2018].

[50] T. Narasimhan and K. Goyal, “Subsidence due to geothermal fluid withdrawal,” 1982.
[Online]. Available: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8zz4q56x. [Accessed 9 March
2018].

[51] US National Research Council, “Induced seismicity potential in energy technologies,”

The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2013.

[52] CIRM Working Group, “Guidelines for monitoring seismicity, ground deformation and
pore pressure in subsurface industrial activities,” 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://unmig.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/unmig/agenda/upload/151_238.pdf. [Accessed 9
March 2018].

[53] European Commission, “Water framework Directive,” 2010. [Online]. Available:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/factsheets/water-framework-directive.pdf.
[Accessed 5 March 2018].

[54] European Commission, “Priority substances under the water framework Directive,”
2016. [Online]. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
dangersub/pri_substances.htm#intro. [Accessed 6 March 2018].

[55] European Commission, “Natura 2000,” 2017. [Online]. Available:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm. [Accessed 6 March
2018].

[56] European Union, “Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on
the environment,” 1997. [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31997L0011. [Accessed 6 March 2018].

[57] European Union, “Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain
plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public
participation,” 2003. [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003L0035. [Accessed 6 March 2018].

[58] European Union, “Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of The Council
of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide,” 2009. [Online]. Available:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0031. [Accessed 6
March 2018].

Page 32 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

[59] D. G. Lawrence, “Environmental liability Directive: A short overview,” 2006. [Online].

Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/pdf/Summary%20ELD.pdf.
[Accessed 7 March 2018].

[60] European Union, “Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 12 June 2013 on safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending Directive
2004/35/EC,” 2013. [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013L0030&from=EN. [Accessed 7 March 2018].

[61] European Union, “Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on
the environment,” 2001. [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32001L0042. [Accessed 8 March 2018].

[62] Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Geothermal power plants –
minimizing solid waste and recovering minerals,” 2010. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-power-plants-minimizing-solid-
waste-and-recovering-minerals. [Accessed 7 March 2018].

[63] European Union, “Council Directive 92/91/EEC of 3 November 1992 concerning the
minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in the
mineral- extracting industries through drilling,” 1992. [Online]. Available: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:31992L0091. [Accessed 8 March
2018].

[64] NTC, “NORSOK Z-013 Rev. 2 - Risk and emergency preparedness analysis,”
Norwegian Technology Centre (NTC), Oslo, 2001.

[65] ISO, “IEC/ISO 31010 Risk management - Risk assessment techniques,” International
Organization for Standardization, 2009.

Page 33 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Appendix A Casing design

A.1 Introduction
Well design is an important step to make sure the well is designed to withstand the forces,
stresses and environment it will be subjected to during its life. One aspect of well design is the
casing design, which is described for petroleum wells in [9]. Due to the very high temperature
of some geothermal wells, the geothermal industry has adapted to more relevant methods
described in [3]. The method followed is a comparison of the load case against the casing
design, where maximum load cases are defined according to a conservative common practice
for different operations. Even though conservative assumptions are made, quality assurance
through a risk assessment should be performed to ensure that all relevant effects will not give
undesirable outcomes, and which measures can be taken to reduce the effect or likelihood of
such from any effects. In a quality assurance context, a risk assessment will typically be
qualitative in general, but include quantitative elements. A fully quantitative approach could
alternatively be performed, to give further insight into optimizing the casing design.

A.2 Establishing context

In the assessment context, the objectives and criteria should be defined. The objective sets
the scope of which elements to include in a risk assessment, such as which decisions the
assessment should support and what company or regulatory requirements must be
considered. This will frequently be related to the resources (time, competence and data)
available to the assessment. Although acceptance criteria are recommended set by regulators,
it is customary that the companies themselves also create their own criteria which are in line
with the regulations. From a well integrity point of view, zero leakage is the criteria in the
petroleum industry. In geothermal, at least in [3], there is often some acceptance for minor gas
leakages due to the difficulty in maintaining gas tight connections under large temperature
variations. Also, practical criteria based on the design, such as room for linear expansion
should be described.
The casings are part of the barrier system, at least during parts of the well life. During which
operations it will have the function of a barrier element will determine what loads and conditions
must be considered. Setting the system boundary for what will be considered in the
assessment will typically decide how the consequences will be modelled. In addition, the
design life and other limitations for when, if exceeded, a revised assessment must be
performed. It may be necessary to add further limitations based on the risk analysis; for
example a significant potential threat may be better resolved when more information is
available if its existence can be identified before escalating into a failure.
As mentioned, the context will narrow down which types of risk analysis methods are useful to
satisfy the objectives and available resources. As different methods have different
requirements, it is already at this point useful to screen relevant methods as the method
selected will influence the risk identification process.
An example of a summary table from the context establishment phase, showing brief example
values for illustrational purposes is provided below.

Page 34 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Figure 7: Summary of factors to consider for establishment of context

A.3 Risk identification

The risk identification process will typically start by identifying the failure modes of the
assessed element. This is to create an overview over which failed or degraded states can
result. For casings this can for example be collapsed casing or ruptured casing. The process
of identifying such failure modes can be based on available in-house experience and data
records of previous failures, or from external sources such as published literature and company
shared data. An example of failure mode listing for a casing (including couplings), based on
previous work in the GeoWell project is shown below.

Figure 8: Example of failure modes for a casing

These failure modes will be related to a failure event, which is the occurrence of the failure
itself, i.e. when the assessed element transitions from working as intended to not working as
intended. This is modelled as a limit-state, such as when the actual load on the casing exceeds
the actual strength of the casing (as opposed to the estimated strength and loads).
The next step is to identify possible transitions from a working state to a failed or degraded
state. These are the processes occurring over time describing how it can transition to a failed
state. For casings these processes can be e.g. corrosion or temperature cycling/plastic
deformation. In quantitative assessments the processes are often modelled using mechanical
and chemical mathematical models, however, also logic-based models can be used for non-
physical processes.
The identification can also be considered from initiating factors for the processes leading to
the failure modes. For casings, a these can be the existence of a particular corrosive element

Page 35 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

in the reservoir fluids, or long-term temperature changes. For the latter, an example of a
transition process to a failed state is shown.

Figure 9: Transition from a normal to a failed state (casing rupture) for the casing
Depending on the complexity of the phenomena (cause) leading to the failed state, various
techniques may be applied. Fault-tree analysis can be useful when the transition to a failed
state is conditioned on a wide range of factors, or where the system being analysed is complex
in nature. The purpose of this process is not only to identify the causes, but also to help
highlight the particular system parameters (such as casing layer material and temperature, and
thermal expansion) that need to be accounted and designed for.
No matter how many definitions are used to describe concepts in risk management, there is
some freedom in what are considered causes, processes and failure modes depending on the
view and level of the analysis. The important part is to ensure consistency in their treatment
and that all relevant occurrences are included in the analysis that follows. This is one reason
why the selection of methods to be used in the analysis is relevant to be screened in advance.
Typically initiated from a table, database and/or brainstorming, further risk identification will
depend on the assessment context. For assessments related to specific operations, it is useful
to go through the planned procedures, as well as any relevant contingency procedures, to
identify factors that may influence the barrier elements, such as the casing. Examples would
typically be factors influencing temperature changes, maximum temperature and pressures.
Although prevention of failures is preferred, and thus the focus is often on the probability of
failure, the context will often define acceptance criteria in terms of consequences given a
failure. The relevant regulations (some of which are listed in Appendix D) could for example
impose requirements for the types of consequences to be considered, or require that specific
types of risk analyses be applied, such as an environmental risk assessment. Consequences
can often be divided into well objective, cost and health, safety, environment and reputation.
While many of the vulnerable elements to consider are given by the assessment context, the
possible paths from failed barrier element to impact on the vulnerable element as well as the
escalation of failures must be identified. An example of this could be the location of nearby
groundwater and possible pathways from the well, if a concern is leakage to this groundwater
resource. HSE risks are always part of the considered consequences. There are a number of
risks that could impair the health, safety and environment throughout the life-cycle of a well.
The leakage of toxic gases, such as H2S and CO2 (large exposure) is one such risk to health.
Noise, operations involving exposure to falling objects, massive moving parts, terrain and
ground conditions, weather conditions, chemical substances, etc. are other examples. Brine
ponds, disposed cuttings and air pollution from drilling equipment are examples of
environmental risks [41].
In the risk identification stage, coarse judgments are used to screen and select the most
important risks to be further analysed in the subsequent assessment steps. As such, the
causes and failure modes are often used as a basis for listing risk elements in a risk matrix,
where probability of occurrence and consequences for different dimensions are divided into
categories. An example is provided in Figure 10.

Page 36 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Figure 10: Example of a risk matrix

The combination of probability and impact (consequence) yields a risk classification, here
shown as red, yellow or green. This classification is normally established based on company
policies but should be made case-specific if necessary. Essentially, the risk classification will
represent acceptable (green) and unacceptable (red) risk levels, with an intermediate (yellow)
level where further analysis is required. These levels must be aligned with the established
context, implying that e.g. relevant regulations are taken into consideration as previously
stated.
The judgment process (often called a HAZID) is typically based on a workshop facilitated by a
risk analyst, where personnel from relevant disciplines are brought together to elaborate,
review and assess the suggested risks. This process may well highlight new risks that were
not initially considered. The risk analyst will process and formalize an initial draft, which will be
QA’ed by the participants before a final version is submitted.
While much of the assessment context, in particular the acceptance criteria, should not be
modified during the process, other parts such as limitations may need to be revised based on
the risk identification.
The most suitable risk analysis method will depend on whether a qualitative assessment is
sufficient, the existence of complex relationships and the level of detail these relationships
would need to be investigated, what resources are available (especially what data is available)
and the degree of uncertainty.

A.4 Risk analysis

The analysis itself will depend on the methods selected. For example, when using scenario-
based methods one would typically find relevant models for the various failure mechanisms
and define a range of plausible scenarios that incorporate these models. For casing design,
scenarios could for example be certain temperature ranges and their development over time,
while models for the related stress and deformation in the casing describe part of a potential
path to failure. The failure itself would then occur when the deformation exceeds a criterion,
which may also be the result of a model, which would over the scenarios generate failure
probability as a function of time.
Consequences are more commonly estimated using scenario modelling than failure
probabilities are, as useful historical data are more often available for the failure events. The
analysis of the consequences would typically be performed by defining scenarios for the
consequences given a failure mode, with a model to quantify the following escalation or end
impact in the various scenarios. For a casing design, the failure of the casing may not give
immediate problems, as fluid might still have to pass cement or other obstacles before reaching

Page 37 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

the surface or pollute underground resources. Models for the flow of these fluids will be able
to estimate how much will be able to reach the areas of interest as well as how long it will take.
Consequences are generally more difficult to quantify than probability of occurrence, because
they are not restricted to one dimension; considering impact on human health, the environment
or monetary loss essentially implies at least three different models of prediction.
Economic loss for the case of a ruptured casing could be assessed by identifying possible
remedial steps required, for different severity levels. These would typically be found in
contingency plans, operational procedures and other planning documents. In such cases, it is
likely that the company has experience with similar, or comparable operations, and has records
of the duration of these. By making assumptions on the required personnel, the estimated time
to perform operations, and allocating costs to both, the main remaining challenge would be
quantifying the uncertainty of each. In the simplest instance, one could use high/medium/low
scenarios, and use e.g. a triangular distribution for each uncertain quantity. A simple model
connecting the quantities could then be realized using a Monte Carlo framework to make
tentative estimates. While similar approaches could be used for other types of consequences,
such as impact on human health, this would be more challenging, as the range of different
types of outcomes is not purely measured on one scale, and there would need to be a wide
range of assumptions related to each. For example, a ruptured casing would likely not in itself
cause impaired human health, but if considering that this leads to a surface leak, the
assessment of what the severity would be would be conditioned on factors such as what is the
leakage rate, what control mechanisms, including warning system would be breached and to
what degree, as well as the number of persons subjected to exposure and at what proximity.
That being said, the analysis should however focus on scenarios that are plausible and
conceivable, and “likely” relative to one another. Data on human tolerance to exposure of
substances such as H2S and CO2 are widely available, so consequence assessments could
start by identifying the non-acceptable exposure levels, and then evaluate whether such levels
could be reached, and under what conditions.
As a part of the analysis, it is also important to consider the assumptions made, and what
uncertainties have not been accounted for. For example, the models and data used should be
analysed in terms of the understanding of the valid domain, representativeness, simplifications
and the implications of assumed independence of events. These aspects can quickly be
forgotten when an engineering model has become close to an industry standard, but are taken
into use in new settings.

A.5 Risk evaluation

When the analysis has described the risks in terms of probability of occurrence, associated
range of consequences given occurrence, and a general description of the strength of
knowledge they are based on, it is time to evaluate the risks. The evaluation is primarily a
comparison of these numbers with the acceptance or decision criteria established in the
assessment context. Typically, this would also include a ranking of how the different risks
performed, such as is commonly displayed in a risk matrix. In addition, some analysis methods
are also suitable to provide a sensitivity or uncertainty analysis of the impact and importance
of risks, scenarios and/or parameters. This type of information is valuable when defining
monitoring systems and risk reducing measures.

A.6 Risk monitoring and treatment

To control and manage the risk, the implementation of monitoring systems and other risk
reducing measures should be considered. Such measures should be identified to the extent
possible, but their implementation needs to consider the change in risk each would cause
versus their implementation cost. For casing design, such measures can for example be
Page 38 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

continuous monitoring for fluid losses or pressure increases behind the casing, periodical
monitoring with visual inspections utilizing a downhole camera, or limiting the number of
temperature cycles before the design life is exceeded and any extension would have to go
through a new assessment. As mentioned, the risk reducing effect of implementing these
measures should be quantified, or at least estimated. For some measures that do not introduce
any new risks this can be done fairly quickly based on the already performed risk assessment.
However, for other measures such as new technologies or cladding of the casing, the process
should be repeated to identify and estimate the change in risk.

Appendix B Italian high-temperature geothermal

guideline
Different activities during construction and operation of geothermal power plants including
drilling, repairs, and testing of wells can impact the environment. In high temperature
applications, management of geothermal fluids that are used in power plants require certain
level of safety procedures because of their chemical composition, temperature and pressure.
Like other EU countries, environmental aspects in Italy are regulated by EU, national and
regional legislation. For geothermal power application regional legislation of Tuscany is of
importance for construction and operation of geothermal power plants, as large power plants
such as Larderello and Mount Amiata plants are located in the Tuscany area. Even for plants
in other regions in Italy, Tuscany represents an important reference [46].
Recently, the first national guidelines on the use of geothermal energy at medium-high
enthalpy resources were released in 2016. The best practices that need to be followed in
phases of a geothermal project from such resources are described in these guidelines [47].
Some of the most important concerns that have been addressed by the relevant Italian
national/regional legislation and standard practices (e.g. national guidelines for use of
geothermal energy at medium-high enthalpy resources and regulations in the Tuscany area)
are discussed in this section. These concerns mainly include important environmental impacts
of geothermal power plants on air, water and ground.

B.1 Air quality

High temperature geothermal fluids usually contain a few percent (usually less than 10wt%) of
non-condensable gases (NCG) that require treatment. NCG is composed of CO2, H2S, H2, CH4
and other trace elements, such as Hg, As, B, Rn, Sb and NH3.
In Italy, partial reinjection of fluids, excluding NCG, and the adoption of abatement systems for
NCG (such as AMIS technology for abatement of H2S and mercury [48]) are common practice.
Gas recirculation has not been adopted in Italy in contrast to Iceland. This is because of high
safety and environmental risks due to potential gas breakthrough phenomena occurring if the
reinjected gas is not properly mineralized and to the need for high pressure pipelines and
equipment necessary for gas reinjection. In contrast to Iceland, where gases are partially
injected in highly reactive basaltic rocks rich in calcium, magnesium and iron, composition of
Italian reservoir rocks does not guarantee the rapid formation of carbonate minerals [46].
With respect to emissions form geothermal plants, EU and Italian legislation establish air
quality standards defining emission limit values only for mercury and arsenic. Emissions from
geothermal plants in Italy are fully compliant with these limits [46]. For other contaminants not
covered in the EU or Italian legislation, reference values established by international
organizations such as World Health Organization (WHO) can be used as good practices by
regional authorities. In Tuscany, the regional government has taken different measures to

Page 39 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

reduce the release of pollutants into the atmosphere including: i) establishment of reference
emission thresholds in accordance to technological advancements; ii) introduction and
improvement of new/existing on-line emission monitoring systems for air quality; iii) financial
support of R&D on new abatement technologies for other pollutants.

B.2 Noise
Noise can be produced during different phases of construction and operation of geothermal
power plants. Noise relevant to the context of this report are those arising from production and
reinjection wells where noise is produced during the initial setup and construction of drilling
site, and noise produced by drilling operations and testing wells after drilling.
Noise production is classified as a form of pollution by Italian law that defines the maximum
allowed noise levels, how to handle pollution, etc. By law, each municipality must perform an
acoustic mapping and ranking of its local area. The level of noise allowed is regulated
according to the local area (including six classes of land use ranging from hospitals to industrial
areas) and its usage, and different levels are set for night-time and day-time.
Authorizations for temporary activities (such as drilling wells) that might exceed the noise limits
can be requested to local municipalities. After plant construction, all the technologies adopted
in geothermal power plants in Italy hold the noise level below the most restrictive standards of
Class I (i.e. areas with special protection such as hospitals, schools, etc). Emission level, intake
level and quality standard values for this class of land use are 45(day)/35(night) dB(A),
50(day)/40(night) dB(A), and 47(day)/37(night) dB(A), respectively [46].

B.3 Surface water and groundwater

Geothermal fluid contains a wide range of dissolved ions in its liquid phase, such as Na, K, Ca,
B, Li, As, F, Mg, Si, chlorides and sulfates that can cause water contamination. Geothermal
operation may cause surface and groundwater contamination through different ways, such as
accidents during well drilling, continuous small spills of geothermal fluid due to failures in the
casing, and accidental spills of mud and geothermal fluid temporarily stored in tanks prior to
reinjection.
The reference law for the protection of water in Italy is Part Three, Section II (Environmental
regulations on soil protection and combating desertification, protection of water from pollution
and management of water resources) of Decreto Legislativo (D. Lgs.) 152/2006 and
subsequent amendments [49]. D. Lgs.152/2006 transposes European Directive 2000/60/EC
or WFD [21].
Water and groundwater contamination can be avoided through following and performing
proper procedures for drilling, operating and maintaining the facilities [46]. Different applicable
procedures such as blowout prevention, cementing procedures, waste disposal and material
(mud, cement, casing) to be used to avoid pollution to the soil and underground water are
described in the recent national guidelines for use of geothermal energy at middle-high
enthalpy resources [47]. These guidelines also include further instructions related to monitoring
techniques, suitable locations for monitoring stations, and the frequency of inspection.

B.4 Land subsidence

Land subsidence is commonly defined as vertical downward movement of the ground surface
that may result from natural processes, or human activities. Geothermal power production is
often accompanied by some subsidence [50].
Mitigation of land subsidence phenomena is initially stated in Italian law 183/1989. The main
reference is the D. Lgs.152/2006 and subsequent amendments to Part Three. The 2016

Page 40 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

guidelines for use of geothermal energy at middle-high enthalpy resources describe

procedures and protocols for monitoring and analyzing the spatial-temporal evolution of
seismicity, surface deformation and pore pressure [47]. They also require the use of synthetic
aperture radar (SAR) interferometry or InSAR techniques complemented by GPS surveys
during geothermal operations.

B.5 Induced seismicity

Geothermal fluid extraction and reinjection may generate stress field alteration in the
subsurface, resulting in seismicity. This seismicity is however relatively rare and usually of a
small magnitude [51].
During recent years, a couple of practices such as performing detailed geological and
seismotectonic studies, use of technologies that maintain a balance between produced and
reinjected fluid and minimize pore pressure changes at depth, and use of local micro seismic
monitoring networks have been established as best practices. These practices help to assess,
manage, and mitigate the potential seismic risk posed by some industrial activities, including
geothermal [46]. Implementation of these practices has been described in “Guidelines for
monitoring seismicity, ground deformation and pore pressure in subsurface industrial
activities”, developed by a working group established at the Italian Ministry of Economic
Development (MiSE) within the Commission on Hydrocarbon and Mining Resources [52]. The
2016 national guidelines have further detailed the monitoring and operational procedures to
be applied for geothermal activities [47].

B.6 Visual impact

One of the other important public concerns is the visual impact of geothermal power plants.
This has been raised in [46] focusing on the plants in Italy, more specifically in Larderello that
has also historical buildings. It is mentioned that mitigation of visual impact has become
increasingly important, and all the new plants are designed in harmony with the natural
landscape.

B.7 Waste
Geothermal power plants produce both liquid and solid waste, resulting from different activities
such as well construction, operation and maintenance of the plant etc. During well construction,
fluid and solid wastes are produced, such as mud, other fluid additives, cement slurry, diesel
and lubricant, cleaning fluid, geothermal brine, cuttings, excavated earth and rocks, and
industrial waste of different types.
Waste is classified into urban, or industrial waste in the Italian law. Industrial waste is classified
into non-hazardous, which is treated similarly to urban waste, or hazardous. Hazardous and
non-hazardous waste cannot be mixed. Temporary storage of waste is allowed in an area
within the production site, before disposal or recovery, and does not require any authorization.
However, the waste must be disposed or recovered at least quarterly, regardless of the
volume, or whenever a volume of 20 m3 of non-hazardous waste, or 10 m3 of hazardous waste,
is reached. In any case, waste cannot be stored for more than one year. Excavated earth and
rocks from drilling and construction can be reused or disposed.

Page 41 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Appendix C Industry feedback summary

Some information regarding what the industry partners of GeoWell would like from a risk assessment framework was gathered, along with some
relevant regulations.

Page 42 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Appendix D Legislation overview

Following Table 3 presents a non-exhaustive list of relevant directives together with a short summary and relevance of them.
Table 3. Relevant EU directives for geothermal industry
Name Description Relevance/remark
Water framework Directive The water framework Directive, adopted in 2000, introduces A review of the status of water sources shall be performed
(WFD) or Directive 2000/60/EC a new legislative approach to managing and protecting and any steps shall be taken to prevent or limit input of
[21] water, based on natural geographical and hydrological pollutants into the body of water and to prevent the
formations, i.e. river basins, and not on national or political deterioration of the status of all bodies of water. Essentially
boundaries. This Directive sets out a precise timetable, with precautionary approach shall be taken.
2015 as the deadline for getting all European waters into Pollution through the discharge, emission or loss of priority
good condition [53]. hazardous substances must cease or be phased out.
The main objective is to establish a framework to protect Anthropogenic induced pollution shall be reversed and
inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and monitored for through systems to detect or give warning.
groundwater [21].
Groundwater Directive or This Directive complements the water framework Directive Specific measures are established to prevent and control
Directive 2006/118/EC [22] by setting up specific measures to prevent pollution or limit groundwater pollution.
the inputs of pollutants into groundwater, criteria for the
assessment of good groundwater chemical status and
criteria for the identification and reversal of significant and
sustained upward trends and for the definition of starting
points for trend reversal.
Environmental quality This Directive also complements the WFD. According to EQSD put limits on concentration of 33 priority substances
standards Directive (EQSD) Article 16 of the WFD, the first step to set out strategies and 8 other pollutants. Good chemical status (refer to WFD
also known as the priority against pollution of water, was to establish a list of priority for definition) is reached for a water body when it complies
substances Directive or substances to become Annex X of the WFD. This first list was with the EQS for all the priority substances and other
Directive 2008/105/EC [23] replaced by Annex II of the EQSD, which sets environmental pollutants listed in Annex I of the EQSD [54].
quality standards (EQS) for the substances in surface waters Some of the substances are relevant for geothermal industry
(river, lake, transitional and coastal). including mercury and benzene.
A subset of particular concern was designated as priority or
priority hazardous substances [54].

Page 43 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Name Description Relevance/remark

Natura 2000 based on birds Natura 2000 is a network of core breeding and resting sites Stronger prevention measures must be utilized near areas
Directive (Directive for rare and threatened species, and some rare natural covered by Natura 2000.
79/409/EEC) [24] amended in habitat types that are protected based on the birds and
2009 by Directive 2009/147/EC habitats Directives. It covers 18% of EU’s land area and 6%
[34], and habitats Directive of its marine territory. The aim of the network is to ensure the
(Directive 92/43/EEC) [25] long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened
species and habitats [55]
Directive 2011/92/EU on the This Directive is the updated version of the environmental Deep geothermal drilling and surface facility for production of
assessment of the effects of impact assessment (EIA) Directive or Directive 85/337/EEC electricity/steam/hot water are included in Annex II of
certain public and private [27]. It provides a high-level protection of the environment by Directive meaning that national authorities decide whether
projects* on the environment integrating environmental considerations in the preparation an EIA is needed [26] for a project or not.
of projects. The Directive requires that EIA is performed for The EID Directive has been amended three times in 1997 by
a project subjects to Annex I (mandatory) or Annex II Directive 97/11/EC [56], 2003 by Directive 2003/35/EC [57],
(discretion of Member States). Effects of the project is and 2009 by Directive 2009/31/EC [58]. The original
assessed on different factors including human beings, fauna Directive of 1985 and its three amendments have been
and flora, soil, water, air, climate and the landscape, the codified by Directive 2011/92/EU [26] that has been
inter-action between the factors mentioned before, and amended in 2014 by Directive 2014/52/EU [40].
material assets and the cultural heritage.
Environmental liability Directive ELD establishes a framework of environmental liability based This Directive requires that the operator takes immediate
(ELD) or Directive 2004/35/EC on the “polluter-pays” principle, to prevent and remedy preventive or remedial actions in case of damage to the
[28] environmental damages. environment (including damage to protected species and
It aims at ensuring that the financial consequences of certain natural habitat, water damage, and land damage).
types of harm caused to the environment will be borne by the The ELD was amended three times through Directive
economic operator who caused this harm. 2006/21/EC on the management of waste from extractive
Operator is defined as any natural or legal, private/public industries [29], through CCS Directive [58], and through
person who operates or controls the damaging occupational Directive 2013/30/EU on safety of offshore oil and gas
activity or, where this is provided for in national legislation, to operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC [60].
whom decisive economic power over the technical
functioning of such an activity has been delegated [59].
*In case of relevance of public plans and programs, the environmental assessments shall be based on Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects
of certain plans and programmes on the environment [61].

Page 44 of 44
 D6.4 Foundations for well integrity and risk assessment

Name Description Relevance/remark

Directive 2006/21/EC on the This Directive broadened the scope of ELD by adding the The Directive should cover the management of waste (e.g.
management of waste from management of extractive waste. The goal is to lay down minerals) arising from the prospecting, extraction (including
extractive industries [29] minimum requirements to prevent or reduce as far as the pre-production development stage) of land-based
possible any adverse effects on the environment (in extractive industries. It does not apply to injection of water or
particular water, air, soil, fauna and flora and landscape), or reinjection pumped groundwater.
on human health brought about as a result of the National authorities should ensure that operators take all
management of waste from the extractive industries. necessary measures to prevent or reduce as far as possible
any negative effects, actual or potential, on the environment
or on human health because of the management of waste
from the extractive industries.
The mineralized geothermal brine sometimes contains
enough corrosive salts and heavy metals (mercury, silica,
H2S etc.) requiring special recovery and disposal units [62].
Directive 92/91/EEC [63] and These Directives lay down minimum requirements for Employers must ensure that a safety and health document is
Directive 92/104/EEC [30] on improving the safety and health protection of workers in drawn up and kept up to date. This document must be drawn
safety and health of workers, in surface and underground mineral-extracting industries up before work starts, and demonstrate in particular that risks
mineral-extracting industries (Directive 92/104/EEC) and in mineral-extracting industries to which workers are exposed have been determined and
through drilling (Directive 92/91/EEC). assessed; adequate measures will be taken to attain the
aims of these Directives; and the design, use and
maintenance of the workplace and equipment are safe.
Industrial emissions Directive The IED aims to achieve a high level of protection of human Geothermal power plants are not listed in Annex I of the IED.
(IED) or Directive 2010/75/EU health and the environment by reducing harmful industrial However, this Directive seems to be the most relevant for
[31] emissions across the EU, in particular through better emissions from such plants and industry.
application of best available techniques (BAT).
Environmental noise Directive This directive aims to determine exposure to environmental The Directive applies to noise to which humans are exposed,
(END) or Directive 2002/49/EC noise, ensure that information on environmental noise and its particularly in built-up areas, in public parks or other quiet
[32] effects is made available to the public, and prevent and areas in an agglomeration, in quiet areas in open country,
reduce environmental noise where necessary and preserve near noise-sensitive buildings (e.g. schools, hospitals). It
environmental noise quality where it is good [33]. does not apply to noise that is caused by the exposed person
himself, noise from domestic activities or created by
neighbours, or at work places or inside means of transport
[33].

Page 45 of 44