Developments on the Implementationof CCS in Europe
John Gale
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
CCS Workshop
19th November 2007
Tokyo, Japanwww.ieagreen.org.uk

Introduction• Recent developments under the Internationalmarine environment conventions• London Protocol & OSPAR• European Commission initiatives to support
CCS implementation• National initiatives and plans• National legal and regulatory frameworks• Broader Issues
www.ieagreen.org.uk

International Marine Conventions• International marine environmental convention
established in 1972
• London Convention (LC) prevents dumping ofwastes at sea• London Convention and extended London Protocol• Below LC there are regional agreements
covering specific regions of the ocean• Convention for Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR)
www.ieagreen.org.uk

London Convention• London Convention introduced in 1975
• Prevents aims to control all sources of pollution to the marine
environment• Contracting parties agree to prevent dumping of of industrial
wastes at sea• Those that are liable to cause damage to human health, marine lifeetc.,

• Include precautionary approach to ensure preventative measures
are taken in the event that anything introduced can cause harm

• London Protocol• More extensive approach to dumping than LC• Prevents dumping of all materials not included in a “reverse list”• CO2 not in “reverse list”• Includes sea, sea bed and sub soil
• But does not include sub sea bed repositories accessed by land
www.ieagreen.org.uk

OSPAR•••••Entered into force in 1998
Ratified by 15 signatory nations and EC
Most comprehensive and strict legal
convention
Does not distinguish between watercolumn and sub sea bed like the London
Protocol
Activities covered by a framework thatconsiders sources and nature ofplacement••••

Discharges from land based sources into
the sea are NOT PROHIBITED but must beauthorised & regulated
Placement from a vessel is PROHIBITED
Placement of CO2 from the operation of anoffshore platform is NOT PROHIBITED but
must be authorised & regulated
CO2 from on shore to an offshore platform
can be placed along as it is for enhanced oil
recovery

www.ieagreen.org.uk

Recent Amendments to Marine Conventions•London Protocol• Meetings of Scientific Group and Legal Working Group held in April 2006
• Technical Working Group meeting recommended that:• CCS is a waste management option to be considered by Contracting Parties’ intheir approaches to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions• Legal Working Group agreed to amend Annex 1 of Protocol to theConvention to allow CO2 to be included under wastes that can be disposedof (Paragraph 1.8)
• Only in sub sea geological structures,• The waste is overwhelmingly of carbon dioxide,• No wastes or other matter are added.

• Proposals from Working groups submitted to first Statutory Meeting of theProtocol Parties•

30 October – November 3, 2006

• Amendment to London Protocol accepted• CCS in sub sea geological storage structures (CCS_SSGS) now legal underLondon Protocol
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Recent Amendments to Marine Conventions• London Protocol• Guidelines adopted in April 2007 for use by national authorities
regulating disposal at sea• Guidelines indicate that acceptance of CCS does not remove
obligation to reduce need for disposal under the Protocol• Guidelines require:• Waste prevention audit/Waste management option review• Characterisation of waste stream• Site characterisation• Impact assessment• Permit Issue• Compliance monitoring• Performance monitoring• Mitigation plan
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Recent Amendments to Marine Conventions• In Spring 2007 OSPAR adopted amendments to the Annexes to theConvention to allow storage of CO2 in geological formations underthe seabed.
• Follows publication of reports on ocean acidification, whichindicated early action was needed to prevent damage to the marine
environment from natural uptake of CO2.
• CCS seen as one of a portfolio of measures to reduce emissions• OSPAR adopted a Decision to ensure environmentally safe storageof carbon dioxide streams in geological formations• OSPAR adopted guidelines for Risk Assessment and Managementof that activity.
• A Decision was also adopted to legally rule out placement of CO2
into the water-column of the sea and on the seabed.
• Actions considered complimentary to those of London Protocol
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Guidelines on Risk Assessment and Management• Objective of guidelines“authorities shall ensure that carbon dioxidestreams, which are stored in geologicalformations, are intended to be retained in theseformations permanently and will not lead tosignificant adverse consequences for themarine environment, human health and other
legitimate uses of the maritime area”.

www.ieagreen.org.uk

Guidelines on Risk Assessment and Management••Storage of CO2 in geological formations shall not be permitted byContracting Parties without authorization or regulation by their competentauthorities.
Any authorization or regulation shall be in accordance with the OSPAR
Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management,• as updated from time to time.

•A decision to grant a permit or approval shall only be made if a full risk
assessment and management process has been completed to thesatisfaction of the competent authority“ and that the storage will not lead to significant adverse consequences forthe marine environment, human health and other legitimate uses of themaritime area”.

•The provisions of the permit or approval shall ensure the avoidance ofsignificant adverse effects on the marine environment,• Bearing in mind that the ultimate objective is permanent containment of
CO2 streams in geological formations.
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Guidelines on Risk Assessment and Management•

Any permit or approval issued shall contain :• a description of the operation, including injection rates;• the planned types, amounts and sources of the CO2 streams, including
incidental associated substances, to be stored in the geological formation;• the location of the injection facility;• the characteristics of the geological formations• the methods of transport of the CO2 stream;•A risk management plan that includes:• monitoring and reporting requirements ;• mitigation and remediation options including the pre-closure phases;• a requirement for a site closure plan, including a description of post-closure
monitoring and mitigation and remediation options;• Monitoring shall continue until there is confirmation that the probability of any
future adverse environmental effects has been reduced to an insignificant level.

•Permits or approvals shall be reviewed at regular intervals, taking into
account the results of monitoring programmes and their objectives.
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Reporting Requirements• All plans publicly available• Reporting plans set out
Site by Site basis
General basis

Year concerned

Cumulative number ofpermits issued
Are guidelines
implemented
Amount CO2 stored(tonnes)
Net amount of CO2 stored(tonnes)

Chemical composition of
the CO2 stream
Type of storage formation

yes/no2

Any observed leakage rates
and exposure pathways- any expected impacts
from this leakage
Any observed impacts on
the marine environmentand other legitimate uses ofthe maritime area
Any (mitigative) measures
taken

www.ieagreen.org.uk

Year concerned

CO2 Purity Issue• Not dealt with Specifically by Marine
Conventions• “Overwhelmingly” or “Predominately” CO2• Acceptance that there will be some low level
impurities from the capture process• Issue of setting" acceptable” CO2 purity levels
will be dealt with by National authorities

www.ieagreen.org.uk

European Commission Plans• COM(2006)843, 10.01.07, Sustainable power
generation from fossil fuels: aiming for near-zeroemissions from coal by 2020
• Key actions included:• Make demonstration of sustainable fossil fuel technologies apriority research topic for 2007-2013• Substantial increase in EC R&D funding• Member states to make an equal commitment• Options to support up to 12 large scale demonstrations• All new fossil fuels plants will need to be ‘capture ready’ by 2020

www.ieagreen.org.uk

Proposed Integrated CCS Projects inEurope
HaltenMongstad
DF1

KarstoE.ON
Centrica
Scottish & Southern Energy
Nuon
Powerfuel
RWE
Port of Rotterdam

Vattenfall
RWE
Siemens

Key
Pre-Combustion
IGCC
Post-Combustion
Oxy-Combustionwww.ieagreen.org.uk

GE/PolishUtility

What is ‘Capture Ready’• IEA GHG has produced a headline summary ofCapture Ready considerations• Carry out a study of capture retrofit options• Leave space and access for capture plant• Identify a reasonable route to storage of CO2• Major pre-investment is unlikely to beworthwhile unless capture is going to be
retrofitted soon after plant start-up
www.ieagreen.org.uk

CO2 Capture Ready Plant‘Capture
Ready’area(Site of existingpower plant)

Proposed ‘capture ready’ power plant at Tilbury
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Courtesy RWE NpowerEuropean Commission Plans• The European Commission has considered how to implement CCS
under its existing environmental directives• A new CCS Directive will be developed• Specifically cover storage• Capture covered under existing IPPC
• Some updating of BAT documents required• Transport covered by existing NG pipeline standards• Considered CO2 risk to be no different to NG therefore no need to changeapproach• Draft out for preliminary consultation in November 2007
• Member states will have an initial 3 month consultation period• Initial feedback positive• Aim to be adopted by European Parliament by mid 2008
www.ieagreen.org.uk

EC Draft CCS Directive• Basic Provisions• Exploration• Subject to permit• Non discriminatory access to permits• Permits last for 2 years, if not converted to storage permit• CO2 criteria• Consistent with OSPAR/London Protocol• Operators to demonstrate criteria are met before injection andrecords of origin, characterisation etc., kept
• CO2 streams from different sources from will be accepted on anon –discriminatory basis
www.ieagreen.org.uk

EC Draft CCS Directive• Site selection• Detailed requirements set out (static model, dynamicmodel, and risk assessment required)• Permit allowed if no significant risk of leakage or if noecosystem damage in extreme cases• Monitoring needed for:• Checking behaviour of CO2 in reservoir• Detection of migration• Detection of leakage• Detection of adverse effects on environment• Assurance of permanent storage• Monitoring plan to be based on best monitoring practise
and regularly updated.
www.ieagreen.org.uk

EC Draft CCS Directive• Measures in event of leakage• Competent authority notified and corrective
measures taken• Operator or competent body to take measures• Transfer of responsibility• Competent authority takes charge of site when
CO2 demonstrated to be secure• Ensures future liabilities for states are low• Polluter pays principle applies• If there is a risk the operator pays
www.ieagreen.org.uk

EEC Draft CCS Directive• Closure• Closure plan required for initial permit• Resubmitted to competent authority when closure planned• Site only considered closed when CA confirms plan fully
implemented• Site remains responsibility of operator until transferred to state• Financial security• Operators to demonstrate financial competence for operation andclosure• Analogous to oil and gas industry decommissioning rules• Corrective measures covered by insurance• Typical provision for petroleum industry

www.ieagreen.org.uk

EC Draft Directive• Access to transport/storage network• Non discriminatory access to network• Right to limit access retained• Non discriminatory access to storage prospects• Review of draft permits• Review early on needed to ensure consistency ofapproach• Reviewed by EC or Scientific Panel• EC comments to be taken into account by CompetentAuthority• Final decision rests with Member States
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Other EC Plans• A revision to the existing directive on use ofState aid will be announced in Late 2007.
• Allow national governments to support
demonstration projects directly• The European Trading system will be modified
to allow CCS projects to be included• Changes to rules to be announced in late
2007/early 2008
• Help finance CCS projects in the futurewww.ieagreen.org.uk

United Kingdom••

UK currently has proposals for 8 demonstration projects
UK Government has announced plans to support one demonstration
project• Competition to be held in early 2007 with decision by end of 2007
• Details not announced yet••

Guidelines• Project in UK and have a comprehensive engineering design• Will cover full CCS chain• At least 300MWe• Store at least 0.25mT/y CO2• UK Government will support capture and storage component not fullplant• Plant to be operational between 2011 and 2017
UK will announce regulatory framework in Late 2007 for off-shore
projects
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Recent Developments in UK• Government announced in October 2007 that it
will support a single post combustion capture
demonstration• Specific mention of coal
• Post combustion technology considered to havemost potential worldwide• Vital for the transition to a low carbon economy
in China and India
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Netherlands and Germany• Dutch Government expressed their intent to host atleast 1 CCS demonstration project• Mining Act adapted to allow for CCS• Initial informal tender to EC was rejected• Netherlands expected to build a 400 MW coal fired IGCC project• Magnum project supported by NUON

• Two project developers active in Germany• RWE planning a 450 MWe coal fired IGCC project withon-shore storage• May go it alone• Vattenfall have a built a 30 MW Oxy combustion pilot
plant• Plans to build a 300MW demonstration project in Germany
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Norway• In July 2006 Statoil announces plan to build theMongstad CHP plant• Gas fired power plant providing 350 MWh heat and 280
MWe• Due to be built in 2008 at a cost of $450M• Norwegian Government imposed need for CCS• Project pushed out to 2014
• Norwegian Government will meet $594M for CCS plant• It is also planned to create a European CO2 Test
Centre at Mongstad funded by Norwegian
Government, DONG Energy, Statoil, Hydro andVattenfall
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Adaptation of Existing Laws
• Many countries in Europe looking at adaptation of existing laws
• Norway – permitting operations under existing Petroleum andPollution Control acts
• Netherlands - Mining Law already adapted for K-12B• Covers both on and offshore operations• UK - Petroleum Act for North Sea operations• New White Paper to be issued in early 2008
• UK Government will claim rights over all sea bed structures• Jurisdictional issues will prevent operations onshore for foreseeable
future• Poland has advocated it will change its Mining Act• Germany can adapt oil and gas exploration laws for offshore
operations and Mining Act for on-shore operations• Most existing laws cover; permitting, construction, operational andabandonment phases but not post closure
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Sleipner Case
• Sleipner is a production operation and isregulated under the Norwegian Petroleum Act• Act requires:• A Plan for Development and Operation (PDO)• Approved by the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy• Approval requires a impact assessment• A Decommissioning plan
• Monitoring conditions after decommissioning are yet
to be set

• Pollution is subject to strict liability under PA
www.ieagreen.org.uk

Sleipner Case
• Also regulated under the Pollution Control Act• Main provision is that pollution is prohibited
unless permitted by law• Sources of pollution, or those that threaten
pollution, must be identified• Sleipner also requires a permit under the PCA• Permit requires:• Injection is monitored and reported annually• Up to 1 Mt/y CO2 can be injected• Actual volumes injected is reported annuallywww.ieagreen.org.uk

Summary• It is likely than any regulatory regime will include thefollowing:• Detailed site characterisation for permitting andoperational requirements• Monitoring during all phases• Pre-operational, operational, post operational and post
abandonment• Abandonment/closure plan
• Remediation plan
• Competent body to oversee permitting etc.,• Operators to demonstrate financial security• Insurance provision to cover leakage
www.ieagreen.org.uk

THANK YOU
ANY QUESTIONS?

www.ieagreen.org.uk