Current States of Legislation
and Regulation on CCSTim Dixon
IEAGHGCCS Technical Workshop
Tokyo
16 January 20191

Why regulatory developments
started happening
Role of CCS in climate change mitigation?
• IPCC Special Report (2005) – CCS contributing 15-55% of CO2
mitigation to 2100
• G8 2005 recognised CCS at highest level, 5 initiatives• IEA Technology Perspectives (2006) – CCS 20-28% of mitigation
to 2050. Second only to energy efficiency.
• Stern Report (2006) – CCS ~10% mitigation by 2025, ~20% by
2050. Marginal mitigation costs without CCS increase by ~60%.
• 2004/5 Ocean acidification realisation

IPCC Special Report on CCS(2005)• “Observations from engineered and natural analogues as well as models

suggest that the fraction retained in appropriately selected and managed
geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years and islikely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years. “• “For well-selected, designed and managed sites, the vast majority of theCO2 will gradually be immobilized by various trapping mechanisms and,in that case, could be retained for up to millions of years. Storage could
become more secure over longer timescales. ”

3

IPCC Guidelines for GHG
Inventories• Apr 2006
• Vol 2 Energy, Chp 5 - CO2 Transport, Injection and Geological Storage• Each site will have different characteristics• Methodology
Site characterisation – inc leakage pathways
Assessment of risk of leakage – simulation / modelling
Monitoring – monitoring plan
Reporting – inc CO2 inj and emissions from storage site
• For appropriately selected and managed sites, supports zero leakage
assumption unless monitoring indicates otherwise

London Convention andProtocol• Marine Treaty - Global agreement regulating disposal of wastes andother matter at sea• Convention 1972 (87 countries)• Protocol 1996 – ratified March 2006 (50 countries as of Oct 2018)• Annual Meeting of the Contracted Parties. Annual meeting of ScientificGroup.
• How it works:• Prohibition on dumping of all wastes, except for those listed in Annex
1, which need to be permitted under conditions in Annex 2.
• Annex 1: dredged material; sewage sludge; fish waste; vessels andplatforms; inert, inorganic geological material; organic material ofnatural origin; bulky items primarily comprising unharmful materials,
from small islands with no access to waste disposal options

London Convention andProtocol and CCS• Prohibited some CCS project configurations• CO2 Geological Storage Assessed by LC Scientific Group 2005/6• 2006 - Risk Assessment Framework for CO2• To allow prohibited CCS configurations – Protocol amendment
adopted at 28th Consultative Meeting (LP1), 2 Nov 2006 - cameinto force 10 Feb 2007 to allow disposal in geological formations• CO2 Specific Guidelines (2007)

8.6

Simulated and observed marine pH
ranges till 2100

8.4
pH range for the last 20 million years

8.2

pH

8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7
190 ppm

280 ppm

GlacialPre-ind

370 ppm 500 ppm
Now

2050

700 ppm 1000 ppm
2100

PML
2005

2100 worst
case

7

London Protocol Amendment
Allowed to dispose of “ CO2 streams from CO2 capture processes forsequestration”“Carbon dioxide streams may only be considered for dumping, if:
1 disposal is into a sub-seabed geological formation; and2 they consist overwhelmingly of carbon dioxide. They may contain
incidental associated substances derived from the source material
and the capture and sequestration processes used; and3 no wastes or other matter are added for the purpose of disposing of
those wastes or other matter.”
LC 28/15 (6 Dec 2006) Annex68

London Protocol – CO2
Specific Guidelines•”the CO2 stream, consisting of:
1. CO2;
2. incidental associated substances derived from the source material
and the capture and sequestration processes used:.1 source- and process-derived substances; and.2 added substances (i.e. substances added to the CO2 stream toenable or improve the capture and sequestration processes);• Acceptable concentrations of incidental associated substances should
be related to their potential impacts on the integrity of the storagesites and relevant transport infrastructure and the risk they may poseto human health and the marine environment.
LC/SG 30/14 (Jul 2007) Annex 3.

9OSPAR••••••

Marine Convention for NE Atlantic, 1992
15 nations and EC
Prohibited some CCS configurations
Considered CCS and CO2 impacts
To allow prohibited CCS configurations:
Amendments (to Annexes II and III) forCO2 storage adopted June 2007
• Needed ratification by 7 Parties (8 ratified
as of Oct 2011)• Amendments came into force July 2011
• OSPAR Decision – requirement to use Guidelines when permitting,including risk assessment and management process• OSPAR Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management of Storageof CO2 in Geological Formations – includes the Framework for Risk
Assessment and Management (FRAM)• OSPAR Decision to prohibit ocean storage

10

London and OSPAR Guidelines for
Risk Assessment and Management
In order to receive a permit must demonstrate:• Scope – scenarios, boundaries• Site selection and characterisation – physical,
geological, chemical, biological• Exposure assessment – characterisation CO2 stream,leakage pathways• Effects assessment – sensitivity of species,
communities, habitats, other users• Risk characterisation – integrates exposure andeffects - environmental impact, likelihood• Risk management – incl. monitoring, mitigation

London Protocol Transboundary
London Protocol Article 6“EXPORT OF WASTES OR OTHER MATTER
Contracting Parties shall not allow the export of wastes or other matterto other countries for dumping or incineration at sea.”• Prohibits transboundary transport of CO2 for geological storage• 2009 LP4 (30 Oct) - Amendment to allow CO2 for storage was adopted
by vote.
• Article 6 , new para 2 : ‘Export of CO2 for disposal in accordance with
Annex 1 may occur, provided an agreement or arrangement has beenentered into by countries concerned’• Agreement shall include : permitting responsibilities; for export to nonLP Parties provisions equivalent to LP’s for issuing permits.
• To come into force needs ratification by two thirds all Parties• Transboundary movement of CO2 streams after injection is not exportin the sense of article 6, of the London Protocol.

12

London Protocol Transboundary
2018 Update• 2012 - Revised CO2 Specific Guidelines approved and adopted at LC34,Oct29, London. Covering subsurface transboundary migration.
Transboundary storage offshore now possible• Transboundary movement of CO2 streams after injection is not export in
the sense of article 6, of the London Protocol• 2013 - New ‘Guidance on Export of CO2 Streams for Disposal’ approved tocover responsibilities for ‘arrangements or agreements’ for export• All safeguards are now in place for transboundary CCS activity in themarine environment, including export.
• But – 2009 Transboundary amendment for CO2 export needs 33
countries to ratify in order to come into force. Only 5 so far (Norway,
UK, NL, Iran, Finland), 1-2 more on way (Canada leading)• So export of CO2 still not permitted for offshore storage

13

• Mr. Koji Sekimizu, Secretary-General of the International Maritime
Organization, at the 2012 Annual Meeting (40th Anniversary of the
London Convention)• “The London Protocol currently is also the only global
framework to regulate carbon capture and sequestration in subseabed geological formations……. However, it remains a serious
concern that, to date, only two of the 43 London Protocol Parties
have accepted the 2009 amendment, which is a long way fromsatisfying the entry-into-force requirements. The importance of
securing its entry into force cannot be over-emphasized, if thethreat of acidification of the oceans from climate change is to beminimized.”

14

Options:
1. Interpretative resolution
2. Provisional application
3. Subsequent agreement throughan additional treaty
4. Modification of the operation of
relevant aspects of the London
Protocol between two or more
contracting parties
5. Suspension of the operation of
relevant aspects of the London
Protocol between two or more
contracting parties
6. Conducting CCS throughnon-contracting parties

IEA 2011

15

EU CCS Directive (1)‘Directive on the Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide’
2009/31/EC
Enabling regulatory framework to ensure environmentallysound CCS
• Permits will be required for CCS – exploration and storage• Follows IPCC GHG Guidelines and OSPAR• Objective is permanent storage• Ocean storage prohibited• Storage permit only if “no significant risk of leakage”• Emphasis on site selection, characterisation, risk assessment, monitoringplan• Corrective measures plan, and provisional post-closure plan

16

EU CCS Directive (2)• After closure, responsibilies transfer to competent authority “whenevidence indicates completely and permanently contained” and >20 yrs.
Evidence: conformity of monitored behaviour with modelled; absenceof detectable leakage; evolving towards long-term stability.
Monitoring will continue but reduced to detect irregularities .
• Financial security – to Competent Authority to cover long-term monitoringfor 30 years• CO2 stream acceptance criteria - “overwhelmingly CO2” – may contain
impurities, levels based on risk assessment of integrity – no wastes to be
added• Monitoring plans to include ETS monitoring. Update every 5yrs. Leakage
triggers ETS monitoring.
• Removes barriers in other Directives –Waste, Water, EIA, ELD, LCPD Capture-ready• Reviewed in 2014 – Fit for Purpose, no revisions, update GuidanceDocuments

17

EU Emissions Trading Scheme• EU ETS ‘Cap-and-trade’ scheme. Phase I from 2005 – 2007. Phase II
2008-2012. Phase III 2013-2020• Phase II - CCS via Article 24 ‘Opt-in’• New ETS Directive June 2009 - to strengthen, expand and improve
the ETS from 2013.
• CCS fully included from 2013o Site and operation will need to comply with CCS Directive• No free allocation to CCS (same as electricity)• Separate permitting of capture, transport, and storage installations• If any leakage – surrender of allowances• If leakage from storage suspected from monitoring under CCS
Directive, then trigger ETS monitoring to quantify• Monitoring and Reporting Guidelines for CCS• Biomass and CCS ?

18

CCS in UNFCCC
 2005 - IPCC SR on CCS
 2005– 2011 CCS in CDM?



2011 – CCS CDM Abu Dhabi workshop
2011 - COP-17 CCS in CDM2014 - ADP TEM on CCS – project focussed
2014 - COP-20 – CCS projects Side Event
2015 - COP-21 – CCS projects Side Event
2016 – COP-22 – CCS in Africa Side Event
2017 – COP-23 – CCS, Oceans and SIDS






19

Kyoto Protocol and CCS• 2008 - 2012 (KP 1st Period)• 2013 - 2020 (KP 2nd Period)• Developed country emission commitments

o CCS included in KP Art 2.1
o IPCC GHG Guidelines 2006 allows CCS to bereported• Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – Policy

mechanism for rewarding CO2 reduction in developing
countries. Project-based carbon credits.
• > 7,500 projects, 1,500 CERs (Mt CO2e)20

Technical Workshop 2011
Abu Dhabi 7-8 Sep 2011
• Brought technical expertise to negotiators• Technical experts on site selection; modelling; accounting;project boundaries; transboundary; risk assessment;
environmental impacts; monitoring; liability (28 talks,
several members of IEAGHG Networks).
• Results and experiences from real projects and natural
systems, to support modelling and risk assessments• Good Q&As from CCS negotiators and others

Courtesy H.Olson, BEG, UT

21

CCS in COP-17, Durban
Decision CMP#.7 (final draft was FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/L.4)• Agreed and adopted CCS Modalities and Procedures

M&Ps - Liability• Treatment of local liability - health, safety, environmental impacts• Participation requirement; host party establish national laws andregulations that address local liability• Liable entity identified for each phase of project lifecycle• Project participants liable from operation phase until transfer of
liability• Transfer of liability to host party after monitoring period ends (20yrs after crediting period)• Treatment of climate liability - obligations to surrender allowancesfor ”net reversal of storage”• Any CO2 seepage results in retirement of credits equivalent toseepage emissions• Host party has 2 options;Ultimate responsibility resides with the host party
Ultimate responsibility resides with developed country using thecredits, i.e. a buyer liability.

23

M&Ps – Project Closure• CDM project closure when monitoring stops• Monitoring stops when:• Not less than 20 years after last CDM crediting period• No seepage observed in previous 10 years• All available evidence from observations and modellingindicates CO2 will be completely isolated from theatmosphere in the long-termo History matching of modelling and monitoringo Modelling confirms no future seepage expected• Enables transfer of liability to host party• Enables final certification report, which triggers release of
CERs from Reserve Account to project participants24Significance of CCS M&Ps
from Durban• Allows CCS to be CDM project activity and earn CERs
• Create incentives / signal for CCS in developing countries
 CDM key international mechanism supporting low-C
technology in developing countries• Legitimises CCS as valid technology for developing
countries• Establishes precedence-setting regulatory framework for
CCS funded under international mechanisms

25

US EPA Storage Regulation• Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic
Sequestration (GS) Wells – Final Rule
• Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 237 p77230. Dec 10, 2010
• Applies to wells to inject CO2 for the purpose of long-term
storage.
• Purpose of protecting underground sources of drinking
water (USDWs).
• Establishes a new class of well for CCS, Class VI• (Experimental use Class V, EOR and EGR use Class II)

26

US EPA - Class VI• Sets minimum technical criteria for:• Permitting• Geologic site characterization,• Area of review (AoR) – determined by pressure front, update every 5

years• Corrective action• Financial responsibility• Well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing• Monitoring – monitoring plan reviewed every 5 years, to include CO2
stream composition, well integrity, ground water quality, pressure,plume tracking, possible surface monitoring• Well plugging• Post injection site care (PISC), Site closure• PISC and monitoring for 50 years (unless alternative timescale
approved based on non-endangerment to USDWs)

27

US EPA - GHG Emissions• Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Injection andGeologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide - Final Rule
• Federal Register Vol. 75, p75060. Dec 1, 2010.
• Requirement to report GHG data to EPA annually• Subpart RR - for geologic sequestration.
• to develop and implement an EPA-approved site-specificmonitoring, reporting and verification plan
• to quantify and report the amount of CO2 sequestered• to detect, quantify and report emissions from subsurface• This rule is complementary to and builds on UIC requirements.
• Subpart UU - requires GHG reporting from all other facilities that
inject CO2 underground for any reason, including EOR and EGR

28

US: Transition from CO2-EOR
to CO2 Storage
Issues:• Site characterization and CO2 modelling• Storage risk assessment – EOR has 1000s of wells• Monitoring baseline measurements
 all required in advance for storage projects but not for
CO2-EOR projects• Pore space access/ownership/leasing (which may end at
the end of EOR operations)• Additional monitoring to demonstrate storage
permanence• Post-closure monitoring and liability issues
Ref: EPA Memo 2015, CCP4 2016, SCCS Haszeldine 2015, CSLF 201729

ISO TC 265 - CCS• Proposed by Canada. Technical Committee TC265 was approved by
ISO members in 2011. Canadian Chair, Canada and China Secretariat.
16 participating countries, 11 observer countries, 6 Liaison orgs.

• Objective: to prepare standards for the design,
construction, operation, environmental planning andmanagement, risk management, quantification,
monitoring and verification, and related activities in
CO2 capture, transportation, and geological storage.
• Excluded: ocean storage of CO2 by direct injection; mineralcarbonation storage; industrial uses of CO2 not related to CCS; andlegal liability and permitting.

30

TC265 Working Groups and
Outputs
•
•
•
•
•
•

WG 1 Capture – JapanWG 2 Transport – Germany
WG 3 Storage - Canada and JapanWG 4 Quantification and Verification – China and France
WG 5 Cross-cutting issues – France and China
WG 6 CO2-EOR – USA and Norway

Published ISO Standards on:• Pipeline transport (ISO 27913:2016);• Geological storage (ISO 27914:2017);• Vocabulary (ISO 27917:2017)• (4 more under development)
Published TR reports on:• Capture systems (ISO 27912:2016);• Quantification and verification (ISO 27915:20167)• (2 more under development)

31

Regulatory lessons learnt
from CCS
Regulatory principles for CCS to ensure environmental integrity: Site-by-site assessment
 Risk assessment
 Site characterisation and simulation, supported by monitoring CO2 stream impurities determined by impacts on integrity
Development and application of regulation:• Use the technical and scientific evidence base
• Learn from previous regulatory developments• Benefit of having real projects to drive and test regulations• Good communication between project and regulators, starting early as
possible• Be flexible in application of regulations so as to learn from doing andadapt to developments• MMV plans should be risk-based and adaptive

32

ADM CCS Projects• Archer Daniels Midland, Decatur, Illinois. Storage in Deep
Saline Formation• IBDP (0.3Mt pa from 2011)• Class I (2011), then Class VI (2014) – 10 year PISC, AoR 2 miles
radius• ICCS project (1Mt pa from 2017)• Class VI (2014) – 10 year PISC, AoR 2 miles radius• Subpart RR for GHG reporting (2017) – similar MRV as for Class VI

33

Shell’s Quest CCS project• Quest, Shell, Alberta, Canada• H2 Refining• 1Mt CO2 pa to DSF storage from 2015
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

No CCS-specific regulation in place at outset
Project worked in collaboration with regulators
Alberta Energy Regulator Directive 65 “Application for a CO2 acid gas storage
scheme”
Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation requirements (only in existence 2011).
MMV plan: to address D65 approval and Carbon Sequestration Tenure
Regulation requirements. MMV plan for the operational phase submitted in
January 2015 and approved in March 2015. Revisions - latest MMV plan was
submitted in February 2017 and approved in May 2017.
Post-injection site closure activities to last approx. 10 years – then transfer
liability to Gov of Alberta
Alberta Emission Offset System provides carbon credits

34

Sleipner and Snovit• Sleipner 1Mt pa from offshore gas production processing
to DSF since 1996
• Snovit 07Mt from LNG to offshore DSF since 2008••••

Regulated under Norwegian Petroleum Law
Re-permitted under EU CCS Directive 2016
Existing MMV plan was sufficient
Post-injection plan covred under Petroleum decommissioning plan

Sleipner
1Mt/y CO2

Snohvit
0.7Mt/y CO2

35

ROAD Project Storage Site
• P18-4 field - near-depleted gas field located approximately 20 km off
the Dutch coast in the North Sea, originally proposed for ROAD
project storage.
• Operator applied for a CO2 storage permit to the Dutch authorities in2011.
• EC gave positive ‘Opinion’ in Feb 2012.
• Storage permit for P18-4 was approved in September 2013.

• However the project was postponed indefinitely due to economic
constraints.

36

Comparison with London
Protocol requirements• EU CCS Directive

OSPAR CCS Amendment

London Protocol• Objective: to assess to what extent the permit application complies with
the London Protocol’s 2012 Specific Guidelines, and therefore the 1996
London Protocol itself.
• Systematic cross-check of the 56 requirements of the Specific Guidelines
against the contents of the application material provided by the operator
to the National Authority. Approximately 1100 pages of material (some in
Dutch).

37

CO2 Specific Guidelines• Around 56 requirements - generally qualitative rather than quantitative in nature:
Waste prevention audit / Waste management options
Chemical and physical properties (of CO2 stream)
Action list (substances not allowed in CO2 stream)
Site selection and characterisation• Characterization of the sub-seabed geological formation• Characterization of the marine area
• Evaluation of potential exposure
o Assessment of potential effects• Evaluation of potential effects• Risk assessment• Impact hypothesis
o Monitoring and risk management• Monitoring and risk management• Mitigation or remediation plano Permit and permit conditions
o
o
o
o

38

39

Compliance – Partial
Para

Specific Guideline requirements

3.2.2

other disposal and/or sequestration options, e.g. land-based
underground storage.

4.2.3
5.2

toxicity, persistence, potential for bio-accumulation
Development of a screening tool to assess the acceptability of CO2
streams for disposal, based on the presence of incidental substances

6.2.9
7.6

economic and operational feasibility
Evaluation of potential effects on human health, living resources,
amenities and other legitimate uses of the sea.

7.8.1

Magnitude to which the release increase the concentration of thesubstance in the seawater, sediments or biota

7.8.2

The degree to which the substance can produce adverse effects on themarine environment or human health

7.11
8.7.4

Development of an impact hypothesis
Monitoring marine communities (benthic and water column) to detect
effects of CO2 leakage

9.2
9.4

Opportunities are provided for public review and participation
Permits should be reviewed at regular intervals

Evaluation

40

Recommendations in report
Recommendations to the National Authority• A brief summary of conformance with the requirements of the 1996 London
Protocol to be included in permit conditions.
• Applicant should be asked to provide information on effects of CO2 leakage on themarine environment. Can be based on the outcomes of the risk assessment and/orfrom pre-existing information from a similarly indicative area.
• The applicant should be asked explicitly to conclude with an “Impact Hypothesis”• If it has been decided not to develop an Action List this should be explicitly
mentioned as part of the LP compliance summary recommended above.
• The National Authority should ensure that fixed intervals for permit review are
explicitly mentioned in the permit conditions.
•••

Recommendations to the London Protocol
Clarification on the economic and operational feasibility aspects in site-selection .
Clarification could be sought on the extent and nature of public participation
recommended.

41

Conclusions• Material submitted to National Authority
was broadly sufficient to allow
compliance assessment• Compliance assessment indicates overall
technical compliance with the CO2Specific Guidelines• Overall, this exercise demonstrated thatthe requirements of the CO2 Specific
Guidelines are relevant and achievable bynational regulators and CCS projects, andthat transparency of complianceassessment is possible in ensuring theprotection of the marine environment.

42

CO2-EOR Monitoring in USA• Occidental’s Denver Unit (Texas) CO2 MRV Plan approved by EPA under
Subpart RR (GHG reporting) (approved 2015)• Using existing EOR infrastructure and injection pressure monitoring withadditional data management for monitoring CO2 behaviour• H2S sensors and visual inspection for leakage detection• Processed gases are metered• Post-period reporting 2-3 years
Similar EPA Subpart RR approvals for:• Occidental’s Hobbs Field, New Mexico (2017)• Exxon’s Shute Creek, Wyoming (2018)• Core Energy’s Northern Niagaran Pinnacle Reef, Michigan (2018)• in context of Subpart RR MRV being discussed/proposed for 45Q proofof secure storage

43

IPCC 1.5 Special Report• Impacts and pathways to achieving 1.5C by 2100, in context ofincreasing global response, sustainable development andpoverty• “Removing BECCS and CCS from the portfolio of available
options significantly raises mitigation costs.” (Chp 4.3)•

IEAGHG Note: IAMs typically assume Capture rate of 90% - this is a limiting
factor for CCS deployment from IAMs later this century. Can be increased to
99% cost increase only ~ 5%•https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

44

Useful information sources
and references
•
•
•
•
•
•

IEA Regulatory Network http://www.iea.org/ccs/legal/index.asp(CCS Legal Review, Webinars, Model Regulatory Framework)
UCL Carbon Capture Legal Programme http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cclp/ andhttp://www.globalccsinstitute.com/networks/cclp
Dixon, T, et al. Legal and Regulatory Developments on CCS. International Journal ofGreenhouse Gas Control 40 (2015) 431–448 (IPCC SR Special Issue)
Dixon, T, et al. International Marine Regulation of CO2 Geological Storage. Elsevier
Energy Procedia 1 (2009) 4503-4510
Dixon, T. et al. Trials and Tribulations of Getting CCS in an ETS. Elsevier Energy
Procedia 1 (2009) 4443-4450
Dixon, T. et al. Getting Science and Technology into International Climate Policy: CCS
in the UNFCCC. Elsevier Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 7590-7595

45

Thank You
Any questions?

www.ieaghg.org

Contact details46