Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Updated Gap Analysis – Legal, Regulatory and Economical Issues
related to Carbon Capture and Storage
The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy Norway
DNV Report no 2008-0185
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 3 of 65
Table of Contents Page
CONCLUSIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................... 4
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 7 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Objective ....................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Rationale ....................................................................................................................... 8
2 LEGAL ISSUES................................................................................................................. 9 2.1 London Convention and its 1996 Protocol ................................................................... 9
2.2 OSPAR Convention .................................................................................................... 11
2.3 EU regulatory framework ........................................................................................... 14
2.4 UK regulatory issues ................................................................................................... 24
2.5 Norwegian regulatory issues ....................................................................................... 26
2.6 Transboundary Issues.................................................................................................. 29
3 INCENTIVES .................................................................................................................. 33
3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Schemes.............................................................. 33
3.2 EU incentives .............................................................................................................. 38
3.3 National incentives...................................................................................................... 41
4 LONG TERM LIABILITY ............................................................................................ 44
5 DRIVERS AND INITIATIVES...................................................................................... 47
5.1 Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET) ................................................................... 47
5.2 EU ZEP ....................................................................................................................... 48
5.3 The ACCSEPT Project................................................................................................ 51
5.4 The Need for Development of CCS Guidelines.......................................................... 54
5.5 The need for guidelines for MVAR of CO2 stores in the North Sea.......................... 56
6 COMPARISON – PLANNED ACTIVITIES UNDER PHASE II AND THE UPDATED GAP ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 57
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 61
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 4 of 65
CONCLUSIVE SUMMARY
This updated gap-analysis builds upon the Det Norske Veritas (DNV) report “North Sea Basin
Task Force on CO2-injection and Permanent Storage in Sub-Seabed Geological Structures: Legal
and Regulatory Issues. Gap Analysis” /1/ which was carried out on behalf of the Ministry of
Petroleum and Energy in work phase I of the North Sea Basin Task Force (NSBTF). This report
was completed in January 2007 and findings included in the main report from the NSBTF in June
2007 /2/. The updated gap-analysis is updated as per January 2008.
As for the phase I report, traffic lights (red/amber/green) have been assigned to classify short-
term and long-term gaps in expected results from initiatives outside of the NSBTF with respect to
the objectives of the NSBTF. Red means “not solved in the time period” (i.e. a barrier). Amber
means “will probably be solved” (i.e. follow-up). Green means “solved” (i.e. an enabler). Barriers
and enablers are classified as international, regional or national.
The most significant gap-closing activities identified to have happened since the first gap-analysis
were: the amendments made to the OSPAR Convention to allow CO2 storage in sub-sea soil, the
energy proposals package launched by the European Commission including a proposal for a
directive on CO2 storage, and the national CCS projects launched in both UK and Norway. These
are all considered to be substantial efforts towards removing legal, regulatory and financial
barriers for CCS.
However, there are still issues that are assigned with red traffic lights, considered as barriers to
CCS deployment. In order to prioritize its further actions, DNV recommends that the NSBTF
should emphasize on the short-term gaps marked as ‘red’, such as liability issues and risk
acceptance criteria. Moreover, trans-boundary movement of CO2 should also be given emphasis.
Table 1 provides an updated assessment of gaps identified from phase I of the project, with
references to the gap-closing activities and the corresponding discussions in various parts of this
report. The time periods categorized as short (<2 years) and long-term (2-5 years) in the gap
matrix take account for the fact that one year has passed since the initial gap analysis was
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 5 of 65
undertaken. The “expected time till solved” has been updated to go from January 2008 since the
phase I report already is one year old. The “potential barriers or enablers” where the traffic sign
has changed since phase I are coloured “blue”.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 6 of 65
Table 1: Updated Gap Analysis Expected time till solved
< 2 years 2-5 years
Potential barriers or enablers PHA
SE I
UPD
ATE
PHA
SE I
UPD
ATE
International (I)
Regional (R)
Nationa
l (N)
Gap closing activity
Reference
UNFCC-IPCC National Inventories N, I OK /20/Kyoto Protocol (CDM and JI) I Kyoto Protocol conferences in Nairobi, Bali Section 3.1.1
UNCLOS I OK http://www.unclos.com/London Convention and Protocol I Amendments in force from February 2007 Section 2.1
OSPAR R Amendments to OSPAR Convention Section 2.2
Trans-boundary movement and/or damage I London Protocol, EU CCS regulations (International law, Basel Convention) Section 2.6
The Aarhus Convention I OK http://www.unece.org/env/pp/EU ETS R Proposal for revision of EU ETS Section 3.1.2
EU enabling legal framework R Proposal for an EU directive on CO2 storage Section 2.3Norway regulations and CCS N Mongstad/Kårstø projects Section 2.5
UK regulations and CCS N UK CCS Demo competition Section 2.4Long term liability N, R, I Proposal for an EU directive on CO2 storage Section 4
Risk assessment methods I Section 2.2, 4, 5.3, 5.4, 6Risk acceptance, site approval criteria I Section 2.2, 4, 5.3, 5.4, 6
Monitoring and verification I Section 2.3, 3.1.2, 5.5Public support (stakeholder acceptance) I Section 5.3
Accounting and certification of credits I Section 3Costs and economics I, R, N Section 5
Incentives I, R, N Revised EU environmental state aid guidelines/ proposal for revised EU ETS Section 3
Technology maturity I Section 5
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 7 of 65
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The North Sea Basin Task Force on CO2 injection and permanent storage in sub-seabed
geological structures was established between Norway and UK November 2005. The NSBTF is
composed of public and private bodies from the participating countries. The aim of the
cooperation is to develop common principles as guidelines for managing and regulating
transmission, injection and permanent storage of CO2 in sub seabed geological formations in the
North Sea. The NSBTF has now from September 2007 embarked on phase II of the collaboration.
Besides UK and Norway, the Netherlands and Germany have joined the NSBTF in phase II.
In relation to the first phase of this collaboration, and on behalf of the Ministry of Petroleum and
Energy, DNV carried out in 2006 a gap analysis on issues related to legal and regulatory
frameworks, public acceptance, on emissions accounting, monitoring, verification and risk
management /1/. The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy has in this context requested an update of
the gap analysis on legal and regulatory issues from 2006. The update is per January 2008.
1.2 Objective Based on the previous gap-analysis, our primary objective has been to identify recent
developments and efforts made in order to:
1) establish a legal framework;
2) give incentives; and
3) handle liability issues
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 8 of 65
1.3 Rationale The first three sections of this report focus on gap closing activities where substantial measures
have been taken in order to remove legal and financial barriers for CCS since the first gap
analysis /1/. All traffic lights assigned as amber or red from phase I have been reviewed and
updated based on recent and expected results and initiatives from national, regional and
international authorities. The fact that one year has passed is also taken into account.
There is a diversity of emerging projects, networks and organizations working with CCS world-
wide involving various stakeholders. Some of these initiatives and efforts are important drivers
in promoting the implementation and demonstration of CCS on an industrial scale. However,
their formal influence is for the purpose of this report not considered substantial due to their lack
of mandate or a clear role. Nevertheless, we recognize their importance and Section 5 discusses
initiatives and drivers for CCS that not necessarily have closed any of the gaps identified from
phase I of the project. However, these initiatives have been important instruments on for instance
issues like public acceptance and to be influential, to some extent; on the policy developments
related to CCS and are for these reasons included in this updated gap-analysis.
Finally, in Section 6 we delineate where the NSBTF could focus their future efforts in order to
accelerate the process of large-scale deployment of CCS, taken into account the ongoing
discussions on Terms of Reference for phase II of the NSBTF.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 9 of 65
2 LEGAL ISSUES
The development of an efficient and properly harmonised regulatory system for capture, transport
and long term storage of CO2 is the first step towards developing confidence in CCS. Moreover, a
regulator must also ensure that effective risk assessment strategies, as well as monitoring and
mitigation strategies, are incorporated.
Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 cover the recent development of two important marine environment
protection instruments; the London Convention and its Protocol and the OSPAR convention,
respectively. The London Convention requires the Contracting Parties to be guided by a
precautionary approach to environmental protection of marine environment, whereas OSPAR is
markedly stricter and its decisions are legally mandatory as opposed to politically binding to its
Contracting Parties /3/. The remaining sub-sections consider the recent legislative developments
in the EU, Norway and the UK.
2.1 London Convention and its 1996 Protocol Contracting Parties to the London Protocol, at their first meeting held in London from 30th of
October to 3rd of November 2006, adopted amendments to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention
on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (London
Convention). The amendments regulate the sequestration of CO2 streams from CO2 capture
processes in sub-seabed geological formations. Storage of carbon dioxide under the seabed is
allowed from 10th of February 2007, under amendments to an international convention governing
the dumping of wastes at sea /4/.
With the new amendment to the Protocol, CO2 streams from CO2 capture processes for
sequestration can be stored if they meet three criteria:
(1) Disposal is into a sub-seabed geological formation; and
(2) They consist overwhelmingly of carbon dioxide. They may contain incidental associated
substances derived from the sources material and the capture and sequestration processes
used; and
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 10 of 65
(3) No wastes or other matter are added for the purpose of disposing of those wastes or other
matter.
The parties also agreed to develop guidelines for sub-seabed geological sequestration of CO2. A
Risk Assessment and Management Framework1 was adopted at the joint session of the
28th Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties under the London Convention and the 1st
Meeting of Contracting Parties under the London Protocol (30th of October – 3rd of November
2006).
In this draft guideline, six stages of a Risk Assessment and Management Framework is delineated
and can be summarized as follows:
1 Problem Formulation is a critical scoping step of risk assessment as it defines the
bounds of the assessment, including the scenarios and pathways to be considered.
2 Site Selection and Characterization concerns the collection of data necessary for
describing the physical, geological, chemical, and biological conditions at the site.
3 Exposure Assessment is concerned with describing the movement of the CO2
stream within geological structures and the marine environment. The processes
and pathways for migration of CO2 from geological storage reservoirs and leakage
to the marine environment, during and after CO2 injection, can be assessed.
4 Effects Assessment assembles the information necessary to describe the response
of receptors within the marine environment resulting from exposure to the CO2
stream if leakage were to occur. The main effects of concern to such an
assessment include effects on human health, marine resources, relevant biological
communities, habitats, and ecological processes, and other legitimate uses of the
sea.
5 Risk Characterization integrates the exposure and effects information to provide
an estimate of the likelihood for adverse impacts. Risk characterization should be
considered using site-specific information.
1 http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D19064/CO2SEQUESTRATIONRAMF2006.doc
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 11 of 65
6 Risk Management includes both monitoring during and after CO2 injection,
planning and mitigation actions.
The Guidelines for assessment of CO2 capture and storage in sub-seabed geological formations
were subject to completion at the 2nd meeting of Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol (5th – 9th
November 2007).
Remarks
• CO2 storage in sub-seabed geological formation was allowed according to the
amendments to the London Convention and its 1996 Protocol from February 2007. The
legal position of CCS under the London Protocol is now clarified.
• The London Convention and its 1996 Protocol therefore continue to be considered as an
enabler rather than a barrier to CCS implantation in this updated gap analysis.
• Since then, we recognize that the work of the London Convention and its 1996 Protocol is
adapted and forms the basis for [proposed] guidelines for Risk Assessment and
Management Framework for CO2 Sequestration in Sub-Seabed Geological Structures.
2.2 OSPAR Convention Two major reports on Ocean Acidification and CO2 Capture and Storage were made available
from the OSPAR Commission in 2006 as a result of the work of its Offshore Industry Committee
and Biodiversity Committee:
The OSPAR report Effects on the marine environment of ocean acidification resulting from
elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (2006) /5/ contains an overview of ecosystem sensitivity
to CO2 exposure. Increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere leads to CO2 uptake across the air-
sea interface and increased carbon concentrations in the ocean. This increases the acidity of the
seawater and a pH reduction of 0.2-0.3 by 2100 are expected and even larger reductions may
occur thereafter depending on future emission scenarios. Moreover, an increased concentration of
dissolved CO2 in seawater also implies reduced concentration of carbonate ions. This has
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 12 of 65
consequences for the carbonate saturation state of the seawater and implies that it is becoming
gradually more difficult for marine organisms to build carbonate shells. Corals including those
living in cold water coral reefs in the OSPAR maritime area, are likely to be significantly
negatively affected by the ongoing acidification. Also, the report expresses that changes in ocean
carbon chemistry are rapid, at least 100 times more rapid than any experienced over the past
100,000 years. Individual species which may be especially vulnerable have little possibility to
adapt, but some species which may exist in different forms e.g. with and without carbonate shells
may shift towards dominance of the latter.
The second report, Placement of CO2 in Subsea Geological Structures (2006) /6/ looks at the
technical aspects of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in geological structures under the seabed.
The report concludes that CCS in sub-seabed geological structures is technically feasible using
existing tried and tested technology. The North-East Atlantic offers significant potential for
CCS: it could take most of the European Union’s CO2 emissions from major point sources for
several centuries. With well selected, designed and managed sites, retention of CO2 for several
thousand years (or even longer) could be achieved. Evaluation of any proposed sites needs to
take account of the risks to the marine environment as well as the benefits in mitigating climate
change and acidification of the oceans. Monitoring will be important and the report describes
how seismic and gravimetric techniques can be used. The report concludes that guidelines or a
framework for risk management for the storage of CO2 are needed.
On the 28th of June 2007 a press statement on New Initiatives on CO2 Capture and Storage and
Marine Litter was released from the OSPAR Commission /7/:
“The OSPAR Commission has taken decisive action towards reducing the negative effects of
climate change at this year’s Commission meeting in Ostend by adopting amendments to the
Annexes to the Convention to allow the storage of carbon dioxide in geological formations under
the seabed. This follows publication last year by OSPAR of reports on ocean acidification, which
confirmed that high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are changing ocean carbon
chemistry at least 100 times faster than at any time in the last 100,000 years, and detailed
consideration of technical aspects of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in geological formations
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 13 of 65
under the seabed. In association with this OSPAR has adopted a Decision to ensure
environmentally safe storage of carbon dioxide streams in geological formations and OSPAR
Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management of that activity. The Commission has also
adopted a Decision to legally rule out placement of CO2 into the water-column of the sea and on
the seabed, because of the potential negative effects”.
The amendment to the OSPAR Convention2 /8/ was done under Annex II and III and will permit
the storage of CO2 provided that:
i. disposal is into a sub-soil geological formation;
ii. the streams consist overwhelmingly of carbon dioxide. They may contain
incidental associated substances derived from the source material and the
capture, transport and storage processes used;
iii. no wastes or other matter are added for the purpose of disposing of those
wastes or other matter;
iv. they are intended to be retained in these formations permanently and will not
lead to significant adverse consequences for the marine environment, human
health and other legitimate uses of the maritime area.
The wording of the amendment is very similar to what is found under the amended London
Protocol. However, the OSPAR amendment has an additional requirement of permanently
retaining CO2 in the geological formations.
Whilst adopting the amendment, OSPAR also put in place a requirement to use the OSPAR
Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management of Storage of CO2 streams in Geological
Formations /9/. The Framework for Risk Assessment and Management of storage of CO2 streams
in geological formations (FRAM) is an integral part of these guidelines. This Framework has
made use of relevant developments within the framework of the London Convention and its 1996
Protocol, including developments relating to the draft Risk Assessment and Management
Framework for CO2 Sequestration in Sub-Seabed Geological Formations (see section 2.1 on the
London Convention and its 1996 Protocol).
2 http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/convention/
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 14 of 65
Note that OSPAR requires ratification by seven contracting parties before the amendments will
come into force. The timing of ratification is uncertain as this is likely to be influenced by
national and European regulatory developments, but the process is expected to take at least two
years.
Remarks
• Amendments to the OSPAR Conventions are made in accordance to the prior
amendments made for the London Convention, permitting storage of CO2 in sub-soil
geological formations.
• These amendments, together with the announced guidelines for risk assessment and
management of CCS activities are significant developments.
• A requirement on adopting an OSPAR developed guideline for risk assessment and
management of storage site is developed along with the amendments.
• The UK CCS Project launched by the UK Government in November 2007 states that
regulations for injection and storage of CO2 will take account of the content of these
OSPAR guidelines. Moreover, the UK Department for Business, Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform (BERR) will seek to ensure that the OSPAR Convention is ratified as
soon as possible.
• The OSPAR Commission has ruled out storage of CO2 in the water column and on the
seabed because of potential negative effects.
Assignment of traffic light on OSPAR:
Short term (1-2 years): GREEN
Long term (>2 years): GREEN
2.3 EU regulatory framework On 23rd of January 2008 the Commission proposed a significant Energy and Climate Change
legislative package /10/, which amongst others, included:
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 15 of 65
• A proposal of a directive on geological storage of CO2 (the CCS Directive), included several proposed amendments to existing directives
• A Communication on supporting early demonstration of sustainable power generation
from fossil fuels
• Renewable energy targets for EU member states
• Proposal for revision of the EU emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) for the period
beyond 2012
• Revised Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection
The Commission's proposed directive on geological storage of CO2 /11/ with proposed
amendments to existing legislation, provide an enabling legal framework for CCS and a
comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure the safety of CCS deployment. With risks
mitigated, legal barriers to CCS can be addressed and the proposal includes the appropriate
provisions. The proposal of the CCS Directive covers issues such as exploration licences to
search for suitable storage sites, monitoring of stored carbon and financial guarantees to cover
liabilities.
It is recognized that if no action is taken, many pieces of existing legislation on waste, water and
industrial emissions could apply to CCS and the situation would be legally uncertain. The
proposal intends to clearly establish what provisions of existing legislation should apply to which
aspects of carbon capture and storage. Rather than having to adapt transposing legislation for
water, waste and industrial emissions to regulate CO2 storage, one single framework is
considered to be sufficient. Moreover, the proposal is intended to ensure that CO2 capture is
regulated under the IPPC Directive 96/61/EC (Integrated pollution prevention and control) and
that both CO2 capture and pipeline transport are regulated under the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC
(Environmental Impact Assessment). However, its main scope is the regulation of CO2 storage
and the removal of barriers in existing legislation to CO2 storage.
Moreover, the intention behind the CCS Directive is that the EU ETS Directive 2003/87/EC
(Emission Trading Scheme) will provide the main incentive for CCS deployment. CO2 captured
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 16 of 65
and safely stored according to the EU legal framework will be considered as not emitted under
the ETS. In Phase II of the EU ETS (2008-12) CCS installations can be opted in. For Phase III
(2013 onwards), under the proposal to amend the Emissions Trading Directive, capture, transport
and storage installations would be explicitly included in Annex I of the EU ETS.
The main key issues from the CCS Directive proposal are extracted and presented below:
• The Directive should apply to the geological storage of CO2 within the territory of the
Member States, their exclusive economic zones and on their continental shelves. The
Directive should not apply to research projects. It should, however, apply to demonstration
projects with a total intended storage of 100 kilo tonnes or more. This threshold would also
seem appropriate for the purposes of other relevant Community legislation. The storage of
CO2 in geological formations extending beyond the territorial scope of this Directive and the
storage of CO2 in the water column should not be permitted.
• Member States should determine in which cases exploration is required to generate the
information necessary for the site selection. Such exploration should be made subject to a
permit requirement. Member States should ensure that the procedures for the granting of
exploration permits are open to all entities possessing the necessary capacities and that the
permits are granted on the basis of objective, published criteria. In order to protect and
encourage exploration investments, exploration permits should be granted for a limited
volume area and for a limited time, during which time the holder of the permit should have
the sole right to explore the potential CO2 storage complex. Member States should ensure that
no conflicting uses of the complex are permitted during this time.
• The geological storage of CO2 shall also be made subject to a permit requirement. The storage
permit is the core instrument to ensure that the substantial requirements of the Directive are
met and that geological storage hence takes place in an environmentally safe way. All draft
storage permits shall be submitted to the Commission for review. The Commission will be
assisted by a scientific panel or technical experts, and issue an opinion on the draft permits
within six months of their submission. The national authorities shall take this opinion into
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 17 of 65
consideration when taking a decision of the permit and shall justify any departure from the
Commission's opinion. The final permitting decision shall remain with the national competent
authority, according to the Subsidiary principle. The review at EU level shall help to ensure
consistency in implementation of the requirements of the Directive across the Community and
also enhance public confidence in CCS.
• Monitoring is essential to assess whether injected CO2 is behaving as expected, whether any
migration or leakage occurs, and whether any identified leakage is damaging the environment
or human health. To that end, Member States should ensure that during the operational phase,
the operator monitors the storage complex and the injection facilities on the basis of a
monitoring plan designed pursuant to specific monitoring requirements. The plan should be
submitted to and approved by the competent authority. This monitoring plan shall confirm
expected behaviour of CO2 in site and detect leakage. The monitoring plan shall be integrated
with monitoring and reporting guidelines under EU-ETS (see section 3.1.2) in order to
quantify any leaked emissions (currently under preparation; proposal expected end 2008). The
Commission may review the permits but final decision on permitting remains with competent
authority
• The key issue regarding the risk of leakage is the appropriate selection and management of
sites. The requirements on site selection are designed to ensure that only sites with a minimal
risk of leakage are chosen, and the review of draft permit decisions by the Commission –
assisted by an independent scientific panel – will provide additional confidence that the
requirements will be implemented consistently across the EU. A monitoring plan must be set
up to verify that the injected CO2 is behaving as expected. If, despite the precautions taken in
selecting a site, it does leak in practice, corrective measures must be taken to rectify the
situation and return the site to a safe state. Emissions Trading Allowances must be
surrendered for any leaked CO2, to compensate for the fact that the stored emissions were
credited under the ETS as not emitted when they left the source. Finally, the requirements of
the Environmental Liability Directive (Directive 2004/35/EC) on repairing local damage to
the environment will apply in the case of leakage.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 18 of 65
• The responsibility for the storage site, including all ensuing legal obligations, should be
transferred to the competent authority, if and when all available evidence indicate that the
stored CO2 will be completely contained for the indefinite future. To this end, the operator
should prepare a report documenting that the criterion has been fulfilled and submit it to the
competent authority for approval of the transfer.
• Financial provision should be made provided in order to raise confidence that closure and
post-closure obligations, obligations arising from inclusion under the EU ETS Directive
2003/87/EC, and obligations under this Directive to take corrective measures in case of
significant irregularities or leakages, can be met. Member States should ensure that financial
provisions, by way of financial security or any other equivalent, are made by the applicant
prior to the submission of the permit application.
Amendments to existing directives are proposed as follows:
Amendment of Directive 85/337/EEC
(1) Annex I is amended as follows:
(a) Point 16 is replaced by the following:
"16. Pipelines for the transport of gas, oil, chemicals and pipelines for the transport of carbon
dioxide streams for the purposes of geological storage with a diameter of more than 800 mm and
a length of more than 40 km, including associated booster stations."
(b) The following points 23 and 24 are added:
"23. Storage sites pursuant to Directive XX/XX/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council.”
“24. Installations for the capture of CO2 streams for the purposes of geological storage pursuant
to Directive XX/XX/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council from installations covered
by this Annex, or where the total yearly capture of CO2 is 1.5 mega tonnes and more.”
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 19 of 65
(2) In Annex II, the following point (j) is added to point 3:
"(j) Installations for the capture of CO2 streams for the purposes of geological storage pursuant
to Directive XX/XX/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council from installations not
covered by Annex I of this Directive.”
Amendment of Directive 96/61/EC
In Annex I to Directive 96/61/EC, the following point 6.9 is added:
"6.9 Capture of CO2 streams from installations covered by this Directive for the purposes of
geological storage pursuant to Directive XX/XX/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council”
Amendment of Directive 2000/60/EC
In point (j) of Article 11(3) of Directive 2000/60/EC, the following indent is inserted after the
third indent:
“- injection of carbon dioxide streams for storage purposes into geological formations which for
natural reasons are permanently unsuitable for other purposes, provided that such injection is
authorised under Directive XX/XX/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council”
Amendment of Directive 2001/80/EC
In Directive 2001/80/EC, the following Article 9a is inserted:
" Member States shall ensure that all combustion plants with a capacity of 300 megawatts or
more for which the original construction license or, in the absence of such a procedure, the
original operating licence is granted after the entry into force of Directive XX/XX/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council, have suitable space on the installation site for the
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 20 of 65
equipment necessary to capture and compress CO2 and that the availability of suitable storage
sites and suitable transport facilities, and the technical feasibility of retrofitting for CO2 capture
have been assessed.”
Amendment of Directive 2004/35/EC
In Annex III to Directive 2004/35/EC, the following paragraph 14 is added:
"14. The operation of storage sites pursuant to Directive XX/XX/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council;”
Amendment of Directive 2006/12/EC
Point (a) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/12/EC is replaced by the following:
"(a) gaseous effluents emitted into the atmosphere and carbon dioxide captured and transported
for the purposes of geological storage and geologically stored in accordance with the provisions
of Directive XX/XX/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;”
Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006
In Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, the following point (h) is added:
"(h) shipments of CO2 for the purposes of geological storage in accordance with the provisions
of Directive XX/XX/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.;”
Figure 1 below is an attempt to illustrate the roles of the operator, competent authority of a
member state, and the EC (possibly assisted by independent external experts as verifiers)
throughout the life cycle of a CCS project according to the CCS Directive /11/.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Figure 1: Roles and steps under the CCS Directive. For comparison Figure 2 illustrates the roles and steps under the EU ETS. If there are emissions
from a CCS project including from the storage site, this is expected to be the procedure to be
followed.
Figure 2: Steps in the EU ETS process.
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 21 of 65
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 22 of 65
Remarks
The Commission launched an energy and climate change legislative proposal package in January
2008, where a proposed directive on geological storage of CO2 was included, as part of the EU’s
goal to abate its carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2050.
According to the proposal for a directive it seems likely that the Member States will grant permits
for exploration and operation of storage sites through dedicated competent authorities on a
national level, whereas the role of the EC will be to help to ensure consistency in implementation
of the requirements of the Directive across the Community. Note that the Commission’s opinion
from reviewing the draft permits is not expected to be legally binding on member state
authorities.
The main argument for the review procedure by the Commission of draft storage permits (Article
10), is to secure sufficient environmental integrity across Europe, and to avoid or reduce risks of
distortions on competition. Since geological storing of CO2 is proposed to be linked to the
European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the carbon market, the issue of securing
confidence in and trust to a high, overall level of environmental integrity is of vital importance. It
is, however, not clear how this review procedure will be carried out. The role of a third party
verifier of the review done by the Commission needs to be considered. Under the proposal, no
substantial changes and updates of storage permits does qualify for a second review by the
Commission. Who makes the judgment whether a change is substantial or not? Is this sufficient
for the carbon market in order to securing trust in geological storage projects?
Why is verification important: a) demonstrate compliance (EU ETS Directive requires
verification, EU Reporting and monitoring guidelines set objectives, criteria, methods); b) avoid
loss - or liabilities resulting from unjustified gain (over-reporting or underreporting have financial
consequences); c) fairness in competition.
It is also anticipated that the Commission will let the member states to decide how to support
their own CCS projects and can consider options including feed-in tariffs, direct grants and CO2
price guarantees.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 23 of 65
The draft proposal do not impose CCS technology on coal or gas-fired power plants from a
specific date, however, it stipulates that any large fossil fuel combustion plants built after the
entry into force of the directive must "have suitable space on the installation site for the
equipment necessary to capture and compress CO2". This means the Commission has chosen to
use the ‘Capture-Ready” concept rather than making CCS mandatory.
The proposal is at the moment on its first reading in the European Parliament and in the Member
States in parallel. Several modifications are being discussed by the Parliament including making
CCS mandatory. The aim of the European Commission is to have finalized the reading by
December 2008, and issue the final directive at the spring Council 2009.
The Monitoring plan under the CCS Directive shall be integrated with monitoring and reporting
guidelines (MRG) under the EU-ETS in order to quantify any leaked emissions (see section
3.1.2). These guidelines are currently under preparation and a proposal is expected first towards
the end of 2008.
The Annexes of the CCS Directive are useful to make it operational, but the implementation
process will be even more efficient when supported by publicly available and recognized
reference documents. Recognized guidelines have a role in demonstrating compliance, managing
and minimizing risks (and uncertainties), avoiding future loss or liabilities, providing assurance
to stakeholders and the public, as well as in securing a transparent, consistent and cost-effective
implementation process. Such recognized guidelines could also play an important role in
harmonizing the implementation of the Directive among the various member states and regions.
Assignment of traffic light on EU CCS legislation:
Short term (1-2 years): AMBER
Long term (>2 years): GREEN
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 24 of 65
2.4 UK regulatory issues A project information memorandum /12/ for the competition for a CO2 capture and storage
demonstration project in the UK was released 19th of November 2007 by The Department for
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR). From this project information
memorandum there are indications on how regulatory issues in UK could apply for the winning
of CCS project(s) and how current hurdles could be solved.
The storage of CO2 is currently prohibited, unless as part of an EOR process licensable under the
Petroleum Act of 1998. BERR intends to seek powers in the Energy Bill 2007-2008 that will
enable licences to be issued for the regulated storage of CO2 below the surface of the UK seabed.
In addition to obtaining a licence to explore for suitable storage sites, and actually store CO2
BERR anticipates that it will also be necessary for an operator to obtain a lease or licence from
the Crown Estate, in a similar arrangement which already apply for offshore wind farms.
The UK Government published its Energy Bill 2007-2008 on 10th January 2008 /13/. The Bill
covers the following main areas: offshore gas infrastructure, renewables obligation,
decommissioning of energy installations (nuclear, renewables, oil & gas), offshore transmission
and geological storage of CO2. The principal objective of the Bill is to update the legislative
framework to make it more appropriate for today’s energy market.
The Energy Bill establishes a framework for the licensing of geological storage of CO2 and the
enforcement of the licence provisions. It also applies existing offshore legislation (for example
the decommissioning legislation in the Petroleum Act 1998) to offshore structures used for the
purposes of CO2 storage. The framework is limited to the offshore area. This is due to the fact
that this area is likely to be of primary interest to developers in the short-term. Moreover, storage
of CO2 onshore requires amendment of existing EU Directives.
According to the Bill, a licence for storing CO2 may include the following type of provisions:
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 25 of 65
• provision about the circumstances in which financial security (which may be provided by way
of a trust or other arrangements) may be required before a licence is granted and the form of
any such security;
• provision about the circumstances in which financial security may be released (in whole or
in part);
• provision enabling the Secretary of State to review the licence in specified circumstances or
at specified intervals;
• provision enabling the Secretary of State to modify the licence in specified circumstances
(with or without the consent of the licence holder);
• provision preventing or enabling the Secretary of State to prevent a licence holder, in
specified circumstances, from carrying on an activity in respect of which the licence was
granted;
• provision about closure of a carbon storage facility;
• provision about obligations of a licence holder between closure of a carbon storage facility
and termination of the licence;
• provision about termination of the licence (which may include provision about financial
arrangements).
The approach the UK Government is following could put the UK in a position where it is able to
regulate the storage of CO2 before EU legislation is finalised, which means that any steps taken
nationally are likely to be interim measures, pending the introduction of an EU-wide regime.
BERR intends to keep any differences between UK and future EU legislation to a minimum by
using the experience of developing a domestic regime to influence what finally applies in the EU.
Remarks
• The UK is working closely with the European Commission in order to establish a national
CCS regulatory system that is consistent with the legislative proposals from the
Commission in order to minimize delays on national CCS legislation. The Energy Bill
2007-2008 proposes primary legislation that will lay the foundations for a regulatory
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 26 of 65
framework for CCS projects in the UK, and is likely to get Royal Assent by summer
2008.
• The UK has indicated that the regulations for injection and storage of CO2 will take
account of the content of the OSPAR Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management of
Storage of CO2 streams in Geological Formations requirement (see section 2.2), and seeks
to enable a ratification of the OSPAR Convention as soon as possible.
Assignment of traffic light on UK CCS legislation:
Short term (1-2 years): AMBER
Long term (>2 years): GREEN
2.5 Norwegian regulatory issues The Norwegian government considers emission trading to be an important tool in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. The Norwegian emission trading system will cover more than 35% of
the greenhouse gas emissions from Norwegian sources. In addition, the Norwegian government
has high ambitions regarding the role of CCS as a mitigation option in the overall portfolio in
Norway. Hence, the Pollution Control Act opens up for issuing emissions permits with
technology requirements, and the government issued some years ago emissions permit for the
energy plant at Snøhvit field in the northern part of Norway with the “capture ready” concept,
e.g. “have suitable space on the installation site for the equipment necessary to capture and
compress CO2 and assess the availability of storage sites and transport networks, as well as the
technical feasibility of retrofitting for CO2 capture “.
StatoilHydro plan to build a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant at Mongstad. As a
consequence of the government’s policy on CCS, the Norwegian State and StatoilHydro have
signed an agreement to establish a full-scale CCS project in conjunction with the CHP plant. The
project will develop in two stages:
1) The first stage of the project, the technology development stage, will be in place at the
start-up of the cogeneration facility in 2011. In this first stage, different technological solutions
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 27 of 65
will be tested in parallel at the European CO2 Test Centre Mongstad (TCM). The purpose is to
develop the technology in order to bring down capture costs and risks. This testing activity could
be of considerable interest also to owners of other fossil-fuelled power plants. In order to abate
the carbon emissions from the test facility, the government intends to include the CO2 emissions
in the national emission trading scheme. This will give an annual reduction in global emission
equivalent to 100,000 tons of CO2.
2) In stage two of the project, a full scale CCS facility will be constructed. This should be
operational by the end of 2014, capturing 1.3 million ton of CO2 per year from the CHP plant.
The government is also planning a retrofit CO2 capture facility at the Kårstø gas-fired power
plant, named CO2 Kårstø. The aim is to have a full scale capture and storage plant in operation as
soon as possible. Preparatory work shows that a full-scale carbon capture plant at the earliest
could be operational by 2011/2012.
Gassnova SF3 was established in July 2007 and is a subsidiary of the Norwegian Ministry of
Petroleum and Energy. It was established to stimulate the development of technology for natural
gas power generation with CCS. Gassnova is now responsible for the government’s involvement
in both CO2 Kårstø, TCM and the project preparing for full scale transport and storage of CO2
from Kårstø and Mongstad.
Remarks
• The regulatory framework in Norway is under development /15/ /16/.
• The Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT) has so far issued two permits under the
Pollution Control Act. This act applies to geological storage of CO2:
- injection and storage of CO2 from Sleipner West in the Utsira formation (issued 13
December 2002).
- injection and storage of CO2 from Snøhvit in the Tubåen formation (issued 13
September 2004)
3 http://www.gassnova.no/
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 28 of 65
• CCS as part of petroleum activities (whether for the purpose of EOR or permanent storage
on the continental shelf) can today be regulated under the ordinary legal regime for
petroleum activities:
- The Petroleum Act and Regulations (including HSE),
- The Pollution Control Act and Regulations, and
- The CO2-levies Act.
• CCS for permanent storage on the continental shelf, but not part of petroleum activities:
- Onshore capture plant: Energy Act/Planning Act/Pollution Control Act
- Permit to inject CO2 on the continental shelf: Pollution Control Act
- Building and operation of pipelines: No applicable legislation at present.
- Exploration for and use of offshore reservoir for permanent storage: No applicable
legislation at present.
• Issues that need to be regulated (on the basis of existing petroleum legislation) – not
exhaustive:
- Permit to:
Explore for and use subsea geological structures for permanent storage of CO2
Build and operate pipeline for transportation of CO2 from capture plant to offshore storage
site
- Plan for use of an offshore geological structure for permanent storage of CO2 – subject
to approval by competent authorities
- Obligation to carry out EIAs
- Safety issues – risk analyses
- Responsibility for long term monitoring of storage reservoir
- Third party access to CO2 pipelines and storage reservoirs – division of responsibility
for injected CO2?
A possible obstacle to the coming major CCS projects in Norway could be restrictions in allowed
state aid involvement in these types of projects. This is handled by the EFTA Surveillance
Authority (ESA). The Norwegian government argues the importance of the State to be allowed –
also legally – to contribute to financing the investment and operational cost of a full-scale CCS
facility to prove and verify the technology. ESA is expected to decide medio July 2008 on the
TCM project.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 29 of 65
Assignment of traffic light on Norwegian CCS legislation:
Short term (1-2 years): AMBER
Long term (>2 years): GREEN
2.6 Transboundary Issues
From the initial discussion paper (June 2008) circulated by the NSBTF’s sub-group on trans-
boundary issues /17/ /18/: (quote start) This paper briefly sets out progress to date on putting in
place the right international regulatory framework for CCS. It identifies outstanding legal and
practical issues in order to facilitate discussion in a proposed North Sea Basin Task Force sub-
group on trans-boundary issues.
2.6.1 Regulation for storing CO2 in the North Sea A significant amount of progress has already been made on getting the right international
regulatory framework in place to allow CCS and in particular storage in the North Sea. In
November 2006, after two years of work the global marine environment convention, namely the
1996 Protocol to the London Convention, was amended to allow carbon dioxide to be stored in
geological formations below the sea. The amendment came into force 10 February 2007 to allow
carbon dioxide capture processes for sequestration. Then in June 2007, following a proposal
from Norway, the UK, France and the Netherlands, the OSPAR Convention was also amended to
allow all routes for storage of CO2 in the sub-seabed geological formations (i.e. extending what
is already permissible to allow the re-use of existing infrastructure, such as oil and gas
platforms, in the transport and storage of CO2, and to allow ship borne transport of CO2). This
amendment will come into force once seven Contracting Parties to OSPAR have ratified. At the
same time a decision was taken by OSPAR countries to prohibit CO2 storage in the water
column, and to use specially developed guidance on how to permit CO2 disposal.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 30 of 65
2.6.2 Regulation for transboundary transport and storage of CO2 in the North Sea Last year, the North Sea Basin Task Force commissioned a report into the development of a CO2
transport and storage network in the North Sea, which was published in November 2007 /14/.
This has been well received and pointed towards many areas for future work.
In January 2008, the European Commission proposed a new EU Directive on the geological
storage of CO2 as part of its Climate Change and Energy package /10/ /11/. This contains
provisions for trans-boundary co-operation between Member States, who are also required to
take steps to ensure open access to CO2 transport and storage networks. It is clear that the
Commission would like to encourage cooperation in this area and in its recent communication on
Early Demonstration of Sustainable Fossil Fuels, it also proposed considering the use of TEN-E
budget to undertake further infrastructure studies on the maximisation of EU storage capacity.
On 25-27 February 2008 the first meeting of the London Convention legal and technical working
group was held on trans-boundary movement of CO2. The conclusion of this meeting was that
Article 6 of the Protocol prohibits the export of CO2 streams from the jurisdiction of one
contracting party to any other country, whether that is a contracting party or not. This means
that an amendment is needed to permit such movements. A possible amendment has been drafted
but as yet no-one has proposed this amendment.
Remarks
Outstanding concerns on transboundary CO2
Thus, whilst progress has been made on a number of fronts towards enabling transboundary
transport and storage of CO2, a number of legal and practical issues still remain to be resolved.
As the European Commission’s proposed EU Directive on the geological storage of CO2 is silent
on some of the more detailed points, this provides an opportunity for the North Sea Basin Task
Force to show leadership in a number of areas. The main issues are detailed further below.
• Legal issues: Cross-border export prohibition under London Protocol
As explained above, until an amendment to Article 6 of the London Protocol is proposed, and
subsequently ratified, cross-border export of carbon dioxide for disposal into a sub seabed
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 31 of 65
formation will be prohibited. This will need to be resolved if we are to maximise the potential of
storage sites in the North Sea by encouraging co-operation. Clarity is needed on how any
amendment is to be taken forward and according to what timescales.
• Developing a network: role of industry and Government intervention
Article 20 of proposed EU Directive on the geological storage of CO2 requires Member States to
take the necessary measures to ensure that potential users are able to obtain access to CO2
transport networks and to storage sites for the purposes of geological storage. The North Sea
Basin Task Force (NSBTF) is also minded to develop a network for CCS activities in the North
Sea, but how this might work in practise needs further consideration. In the absence of detail in
the proposed Directive, this is an area where the NSBTF can show leadership. This will include
the determining the extent to which a network might develop naturally through the market and
the level of Government intervention that might be required. The recent report to the NSBTF on
CCS infrastructure listed among its conclusions the need for Government to play an active role to
help gather data, prioritise and co-ordinate sink availability.
• Dispute settlement
The proposed EU Directive on geological storage of CO2 requires Member States to have in
place dispute settlement arrangements, including an authority independent of the parties, to
enable disputes relating to access to CO2 transport networks and to storage sites to be settled
swiftly. For cross-border disputes, the dispute settlement arrangements of the Member State
having jurisdiction over the CO2 transport network or the storage site to which access has been
refused shall be applied. Where more than one Member State covers the CO2 transport network
or storage site concerned, the Member States concerned shall consult with a view to ensuring
that the provisions of this Directive are applied consistently. Is there a need for new
arrangements or can we build on existing practices used elsewhere?
• Practicalities of co-operation: Contingent liabilities
Under the proposed EU Directive on geological storage of CO2, it is clear that following transfer
to the state of the responsibility for a closed site, all ensuing legal obligations shall be
transferred to the competent authority. This means that if there was a leak following transfer of
the site to the State, the competent authority would be responsible for taking corrective measures
and would also be responsible for any ETS liabilities. However, the proposed Directive is silent
on dealing with stores that have been receiving CO2 from more than one Member State.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 32 of 65
Consideration should be given to how we deal with this issue – should liabilities be shared
between those Member States using the store? How might this be enforced? (quote end)”
Assignment of traffic light to Transboundary Issues: Short term (1-2 years): YELLOW Long term (>2 years): YELLOW
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 33 of 65
3 INCENTIVES Widespread deployment of full scale CCS projects is not a commercial option today. The capital and
operating costs associated especially with capturing CO2 typically represent the largest single cost
element of a CCS life cycle. Additional incentives are necessary, especially in the near term, if CCS
is to play a significant role in reducing global GHG emissions.
The inclusion of CCS in greenhouse gas emission trading schemes is an important incentive that
is currently being considered, and is described in section 3.1. EU CCS incentives are discussed in
section 3.2, whereas issues concerning incentives for national CCS demonstration projects in the
UK and Norway are covered in section 3.3.
3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Schemes
3.1.1 The Kyoto Protocol: CCS in CDM and JI In November 2006, at the second meeting of parties to the Kyoto Protocol /19/ in Nairobi, parties
decided that more work is required before allowing CCS projects to qualify as Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) project activities. Organisations were given until May 2007 to
submit views in legal, policy and technical issues that need to be addressed before CCS is eligible
under the CDM. Parties to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol were given until September
2007 to submit views. Moreover, it was agreed that the discussions on CCS in CDM should
continue at the fourth meeting of the Kyoto Parties in the fall of 2008.
In December 2007, the United Nations Climate Change Conference at Bali /21/ took place. From
this meeting it was evident that there is a split opinion among the Parties whether CCS should be
included in the CDM. The parties agreed to do further work on this topic and established a work
plan for 2008 that will include receiving and considering input on technical, legal, policy and
financial issues associated with CCS. This input will be considered at the Climate Change
Conference in Poznan in 2008.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 34 of 65
Remarks
There are still ongoing discussions among the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on the issue of
including CCS in the Clean Development Mechanism, which will continue at the Climate Change
Conference in Poznan in late 2008. The resistance to CCS in the CDM seems more related to
more fundamental issues associated with the introduction of new and risky technology which not
yet has been fully implemented in industrialised countries. There are also concerns related to
CCS crowding-out investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy and other project types in
the CDM. It is therefore great uncertainty whether CCS projects will be approved as CDM
activities within the next 1-2 years.
The implementation of CCS projects in the CDM is not relevant for the North Sea, but CCS as JI
projects could become.
Assignment of traffic light on CCS in CDM:
Short term (1-2 years): RED
Long term (>2 years): AMBER
3.1.2 CCS in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) The role of CCS under the EU ETS will be addressed in the proposal of improving and extending
the EU greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system related to post-2012. Also, a working
group on ETS has been set up under the Commission to address to what extent to recognise CCS,
considering the need for comparable treatment of low or non-CO2 emitting activities and a level
playing field both between various CO2 storage options and across the EU for investment in CCS
technologies /3/.
The Commission has expressed its intention to recognise CCS in Phase II of the EU ETS (2008-
12) through voluntary Member State opt-in under Art 24 of the Emissions Trading Directive.
Under the present Directive, Art. 24 opt-in would require the whole chain of CO2 source, capture,
transport, injection and storage to be included in the ETS as one installation, and appropriate
monitoring and reporting guidelines (MRG) to be established. The installation will be allocated
allowances in line with similar installations (CO2 sources) not employing CO2 capture.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 35 of 65
A discussion paper /22/ to the European Commission discusses two main future options, taking
into account that multiple operators in the future will be using common carriage networks:
1. Consider elements of the CCS chain (source and capture; transport; injection and storage) as
separate installations in their own right, and establish appropriate MRGs for each (excluding
the CO2 source which would already be subject to incumbent MRG provisions). The capture
plant in this case is assumed to form part of the source installation, which transfers CO2 to
the pipeline installations (and subsequently the storage installation). Pipelines and storage
facilities would be allocated zero allowances (EUAs) in order to incentives minimal loss of
CO2. This has the advantage of severing links between different components of the chain,
facilitating multiple-operator developments, and clearly allocating the risk and liability for
emissions to each element across the chain of operations, and would create a “chain of
custody” for the CO2 from source to storage.
2. Consider the CO2 source and capture plant as one installation, and apply transfer provisions
for this installation to licensed transport and storage facilities. The EU ETS monitoring and
reporting guidelines or a licensing or permitting regime would include provisions for pipeline
and storage site operators to monitor and report emissions back to the transferring
installation in order that they reconcile these emission against their inventory of exported
CO2 (i.e. creation of a “chain of custody” for CO2 via the EU ETS monitoring and reporting
guidelines). Risk and liability for reconciling emissions would likely need to spread amongst
operators through private contracts between exporting installations, pipeline operators and
storage site operators; this would be an entirely commercial matter.
The Option 1 is in essence a more transparent and certain way of regulating than Option 2, the
latter relying on private contracts which could be open to dispute, litigation and lack of
transparency. As such, Option 1 is recommended as the preferred policy option for the EU
beyond Phase II (beyond 2012).
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 36 of 65
The proposal for amending Directive 2003/87/EC /22/, published January 2008, states that it
intends to set out a predictable trend line for the EU emissions trading system to contribute to
achieving the EU’s long-term objective of 30% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020
compared to 1990 levels. In the proposal it is stated that the EU-wide quantity of allowances
issued each year starting in 2013 shall decrease in a linear manner compared to the average
annual total quantity of allowances issued by Member States pursuant to Commissions Decisions
on Member States’ national allocation plans for the period 2008-12.
In view of the long-term potential for emissions reductions from CCS, and pending the entry into
force of Directive XX/2008/EC on the geological storage of carbon dioxide (the CCS Directive /11/),
installations undertaking the capture, transport and geological storage of greenhouse gases should be
included in the Community system. While Article 24 offers the appropriate legal framework for
unilateral inclusion of such installations pending the entry into force of the said Directive, activities
concerning capture, transport and geological storage of greenhouse gas emissions should be explicitly
mentioned in Annex I of the Directive, in order to provide clarity. Consequently, Appendix I of the
proposed directive is now amended to include capture, transport and geological storage of
greenhouse gas emissions.
From 2013 onwards, the capture, transport and geological storage of greenhouse gases should be
covered by the Community scheme in a harmonised manner.
Also, it is stated that at least 20% of the proceeds from the auctioning of allowances should be
used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to adapt to the impacts of climate change, to fund
research and development for reducing emissions and adaptation, to develop renewable energies
to meet the EU’s commitment to using 20% renewable energies by 2020, to meet the
commitment of the Community to increase energy efficiency by 20% by 2020, for the capture
and geological storage of greenhouse gases, to contribute to the Global Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Fund, for measures to avoid deforestation and facilitate adaptation in
developing countries, and for addressing social aspects such as possible increases in electricity
prices in lower and middle income households.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 37 of 65
At least 20 percentages of the proceeds from the auctioning of allowances should be used to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by funding of research and development of renewable energy,
measures to avoid deforestation and carbon capture and storage.
Remarks
• CCS can be opt-in under Article 24 of the current EU ETS Directive (2003/87/EC)
• According to the proposal of the revised ETS, stored CO2 will be accounted for as ‘not
emitted’ from 2013 onwards. It is also indicated that a percentage of the proceeds from
auctioning of allowances will de dedicated to funding of CCS projects.
• The Monitoring plan under the CCS Directive shall be integrated with the coming
monitoring and reporting guidelines (MRG) under the EU-ETS in order to quantify any
leaked emissions (see section 2.3). These guidelines are currently under preparation and a
proposal is expected first towards the end of 2008.
Assignment of traffic light on CCS in the EU ETS:
Short term (1-2 years): AMBER
Long term (>2 years): GREEN
3.1.3 Linking EU ETS with CDM and JI
The EU's "Linking Directive" (2004/101/EC) amends the Emissions Trading Directive
(2003/87/EC) and provides for the use of credits from the Kyoto Protocol's project mechanisms
in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme during 2008-2012.
The mechanisms provide for projects to be carried out in other countries and to receive credits for
emissions reductions or limitations:
• Joint Implementation (JI) operates in countries which are Parties to the Protocol and
which have a quantified emissions reduction or limitation target (Annex I Parties).
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 38 of 65
• Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) operates in Parties which do not have a target
(non-Annex I Parties).
3.2 EU incentives The European Commission has assumed the EU ETS to provide the main incentive for CCS
deployment. CO2 captured and safely stored according to the EU legal framework will be
considered as not emitted under the ETS. In Phase II of the ETS (2008-12) CCS installations can
be opted in. For Phase III (2013 onwards), under the proposal to amend the Emissions Trading
Directive, capture, transport and storage installations would be explicitly included in Annex I of
the ETS (section 3.1.2). There are also voices in the Parliament wanting CCS to be mandatory.
The conclusion is not given at the present stage.
The Communication on Supporting Early Demonstration of Sustainable Power Generation /24/
sets out the Commission's commitment to early effective demonstration of CCS and calls for
timely and bold industry and public initiatives. In view of the importance of early demonstration
of CCS in power generation and given that a number of those projects may require some public
funding, the Commission is ready to view favourably the use of state aid for covering the
additional costs related to CCS demonstration in power generation projects. This commitment is
reflected in the revised Environmental State Aid Guidelines adopted with the package, described
in section 3.2.1. Moreover, the 'Framework programmes' (FPs) have been the main financial tools
through which the European Union supports research and development activities covering almost
all scientific disciplines. CCS R&D projects are currently supported under the FP7, described in
section 3.2.2.
3.2.1 Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection in the EU Support for CCS projects at the Member-State level will require amendment of the Community
Guidelines for State Aid for Environmental Protection. In view of the importance of early
demonstration of CCS in power generation and given that a number of those projects may require
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 39 of 65
some public funding, the Commission is ready to view favourably the use of state aid for
covering the additional costs related to CCS demonstration in power generation projects.
The Commission adopted new guidelines on State aid for environmental protection, published
23rd of January 2008 /25/. The relevant points covering CCS are found below:
69. Finally, some of the means to support fossil fuel power plants or other industrial
installations equipped with CO2 capture, transport and storage facilities, or individual
elements of this Carbon Capture Storage chain, envisaged by Member States could
constitute State aid but, considering the lack of experience, it is too early to lay down
guidelines for authorising any such aid. Considering the strategic importance of this
technology for the EU in terms of energy security, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
meeting its agreed long-term objective to limit climate change to 2°C above preindustrial
levels and its stated support for the construction of industrial-scale demonstration plants
up to 2015, provided that they are environmentally safe and contribute to environmental
protection, the Commission will have a generally positive attitude towards State aid for
such projects33. Projects could be assessed under Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, or
eligible as important projects of common European interest under the conditions set out
in Article 87(3)(b) and point 147 of the present guidelines.
In point 147 of the guideline the criteria of ‘important project of common European interest’ is
further elaborated:
147. Aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest which
are an environmental priority may be considered compatible with the common market
according to Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty provided that the following conditions are
fulfilled.
(a) The aid proposal concerns a project which is specific and clearly defined in respect of
the terms of its implementation including its participants, its objectives and effects and the
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 40 of 65
means to achieve them. The Commission may also consider a group of projects as
together constituting a project.
(b) The project must be in the common European interest: the project must contribute in a
concrete, exemplary and identifiable manner to the Community interest in the field of
environmental protection, such as by being of great importance for the environmental
strategy of the European Union. The advantage achieved by the objective of the project
must not be limited to the Member State or the Member States implementing it, but must
extend to the Community as a whole. The project must present a substantive contribution
to the Community objectives. The fact that the project is carried out by undertakings in
different Member States is not sufficient.
(c) The aid is necessary and presents an incentive for the execution of the project, which
must involve a high level of risk.
(d) The project is of great importance with regard to its volume: it must be substantial in
size and produce substantial environmental effects.
Remarks
• The Guidelines for State Aid for Environmental Protection states that Member State
support will be allowed provided that the project is substantial in size and environmental
effect and is of common European interest. Also, the project must involve a high level of
risk, which will be the case for the first large-scale CCS projects to be launched across
Europe. Therefore, it is likely that a handful of projects, launched as the first large-scale
pioneer CCS projects in will qualify for state aid within the short term perspective.
• Also, according to the guidelines, it can be interpreted that once CCS is established as a
viable technology for the reduction of CO2 emission and the level of risk is reduced based
on the experience gained from the first prove-of-concepts plants, member state aid will
not be granted.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 41 of 65
3.2.2 The EU 7th Framework Programme (FP7)
'Framework programmes' (FPs) have been the main financial tools through which the European
Union supports research and development activities covering almost all scientific disciplines. It
has been proposed for FP7 to run for seven years. It will be fully operational as of 1 January 2007
and will expire in 2013. In the Commission's amended proposals for FP7, it was proposed that the
maximum overall amount for Community financial participation in the EC Seventh Framework
Programme should be EUR 50 billion for the period 2007 – 2013, where 2.3 billion is allocated to
energy research.
CCS projects are supported under the ‘Energy’ theme where the objective is to pursue research,
development and demonstration of technologies to drastically reduce the adverse environmental
impact of fossil fuel use aiming at highly efficient and cost effective power and/ or steam
generation plants with near zero emissions, based on CO2 capture and storage technologies, in
particular underground storage.
Priorities have also been determined in accordance with those identified by the work of the
Technology Platform for zero emission (see section 5.2), with a view to getting to the vision
established by the ZEP platform of having integrated solutions for zero emission fossil fuel based
power available by 2020. This requires large scale demonstration in place by 2015 at the latest.
Whilst the Commission cannot aspire to financing significant investment costs from FP7, a
limited financing of preparatory stages may be provided to a few most deserving projects, e.g. the
most innovative or promising early risers. In the first call for proposals under FP7, the
Commission opened the possibility of supporting feasibility and engineering studies for large-
scale CCS demonstration projects. In the 2008 call for proposals, a similar topic will be open.
3.3 National incentives
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 42 of 65
3.3.1 Norwegian State Aid issues for the European CO2 Test Centre Mongstad (TCM) The Norwegian Royal Ministry of Government Administration and Reform submitted their
comments to the first draft on Community Guidelines for State Aid for Environmental Protection
in June 2007 /26/.
In this consultation, the Norwegian Government stresses the importance of the State to be
allowed – also legally – to contribute to financing the investment and operational cost of a full-
scale CCS facility to prove and verify the technology. Furthermore, the importance of gaining
the Commission’s acceptance that the early CCS projects in Norway and Europe may qualify for
the exemption under the EC Treaty, as indicated in the draft Community guideline (section 3.2.1)
is underlined.
In July 2007, the Norwegian Government submitted a notification to the EFTA Surveillance
Authority (ESA) regarding the investment in European CO2 Test Centre Mongstad (TCM). In the
notification the Government argues primarily that the investment does not constitute state aid
within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA in that the Market Economy Investor Principle (MEIP)
is fulfilled. Recently, the Norwegian Government submitted a Second Reply to the Information
Requests4 from the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA). Here, the government states that the
TCM investment is made from a commercial point-of-view, where they are acting as an investor.
The ESA is expected to decide medio July 2008 (cf. section 2.5).
3.3.2 The UK CCS competition incentives According to The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) the
payment mechanism for the operational support to the UK CCS competition Project (described in
section 2.4) will most likely be based on the tonnage of CO2 abated (i.e. CO2 not emitted in
4
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/OED/pdf%20filer/Mongstad%20ESA/301107%20Andre%20svarbrev%20til%20ESA%20vedr%20Mongstad.pdf
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 43 of 65
comparison with a suitable benchmark), and may involve a contract for difference between a
fixed carbon price in the Project Contract and the market price of European Union Allowances
(EUAs) under the EU ETS. BERR considers this payment system as likely to be the most suitable
form of operational support because:
• It will provide an incentive to operate the power plant and capture facility efficiently;
• It avoids any perverse incentive for the production of CO2 which might arise if the
payment was based on actual tonnage of CO2 stored; and
• The level of support from the Government will decrease when the market price of EUAs
increases and vice-versa.
BERR believes that structuring the payment mechanism as proposed is most likely to incentivise
the Project Developer to deliver the development, construction and operational elements of the
Project efficiently, within the Government’s overall objectives and constraints, and ensures an
appropriate allocation of risks to the parties which are best able to manage them.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 44 of 65
4 LONG TERM LIABILITY The allocation of liability and risk is crucial to the development of a commercially and
environmentally sound legal regime governing CCS. Of particular importance is striking the right
balance in the liability regime between government and private entities. It is improbable that a
private company would be prepared to embark on a CCS project without certainty as to whether it
may be liable for the release of CO2 decades or centuries into the future. The legal regime must
address the appropriate scope of liability for private companies, ensuring high procedural
standards for maintaining the integrity of storage sites, while at the same time guarding against
dis-incentivising CCS project development.
In the UK Competition for a Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Demonstration Project
Memorandum /12/ the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)
states that it would be unreasonable for operators to retain permanent responsibility for stored
CO2 and that it will be necessary for the state to take responsibility for the store once it has
reached the end of its operational life.
The model that BERR is proposing is designed to provide for the transfer of the long-term
responsibilities and liabilities relating to the store from the licensee to the State, whilst ensuring
that for the period the licensee is in charge of the store it is incentivised to manage the store with
regard to its long-term management, and that the transfer arrangements do not pass undue risk to
the public purse.
In order to ensure that operators have the funds in place to meet any liabilities that might arise
during the injection stage, and any responsibilities and liabilities that may arise post-injection
while the store is being monitored to ensure its safety and stability, it is envisaged that the
licensee will be required to provide an appropriate form of financial security. The security would
be financed or accumulated in the course of the injection phase. In addition to its responsibilities
for the store, the operator will also be required to provide for the decommissioning of the
structures and pipelines used to inject the CO2.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 45 of 65
In the proposal for the directive on CO2 storage (see section 2.3) from the European Commission,
an Article on the transfer of responsibility to the Member State is included:
Where a storage site has been closed (….), the responsibility for the closed site, including all
ensuing legal obligations, shall be transferred to the competent authority on its own initiative or
upon request from the operator, if and when all available evidence indicates that the stored CO2
will be completely contained for the indefinite future. To this end, the operator shall prepare a
report documenting that this criterion has been met and submit it to the competent authority for
the latter to approve the transfer of responsibility.
As for the financial model proposed by BERR for the UK CCS competition project, the proposal
of the EU directive adapts the same approach on financial security:
Member States shall ensure that adequate provisions, by way of financial security or any other
equivalent, on the basis of modalities to be decided by the Member States, are made by the
applicant prior to the submission of the application for a storage permit to ensure that all
obligations arising under the permit issued pursuant to this Directive, including closure
procedures and post-closure provisions, as well as any obligations arising from inclusion under
Directive 2003/87/EC can be met.
Remarks
There is an emerging consensus that agreed terms and conditions for decommissioning
requirements and longer-term monitoring must be in place before liability can be transferred from
the operator to the State.
According to draft directive proposal from the EU Commission on geological storage of CO2 -
the time of transfer of liability should be set to the point when all available evidence suggests the
long-term security of the storage site. Moreover, the operator shall prepare a statement
documenting the assessment of this criterion which on approval by the competent authority shall
be made public. Details on how this assessment should be performed by the competent authority
on a national level are unclear, and issues concerning third party verification upon transfer of the
storage site to the state are not covered in the draft proposal.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 46 of 65
It is up to the member states to put in place appropriate financial security/insurance to ensure that
obligations under the permit can be met by the operator. Furthermore, it is stated that financial
provision must be made by the applicant prior to the submission of the permit application. It is
unlikely that these instruments will be in place in the short-term perspective. However, we
consider that on a longer term perspective the post-closure liability issues now is likely to be
solved faster as a framework of how it should be done is delineated and the implementation is
passed on to the national governments.
Assignment of traffic light on long-term liability
Short term (1-2 years): RED
Long term (>2 years): AMBER
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 47 of 65
5 DRIVERS AND INITIATIVES In addition to the gap-closing activities identified and described in the preceding sections, there a
several initiatives that we consider to some extent to be influential. Some of these are briefly
described below.
5.1 Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET) Recently, the European Commission proposed a Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan /27/
with the goal of boosting research into the new, low carbon technologies which Europe will need
if it is to meet its climate change targets.
The new plan sets out a number of actions to tackle the fragmented nature of European energy
research. These include the creation of European Industrial Initiatives, which will bring together
the relevant resources and actors in a particular sector such as wind, solar, bio-energy and nuclear
fission. How these initiatives work will vary from sector to sector, but it is likely that some could
be set up as Joint Technology Initiatives. The Commission also proposes the establishment of a
European Energy Research Alliance, which will boost cooperation between the many scientific
disciplines engaged in research that impacts upon energy technologies, such as physics,
chemistry, materials science and engineering.
In order to ensure all policy makers and stakeholders in the energy sector are aware of the latest
technologies and ideas, the Commission will set up and run a European Energy Technology
System. This will provide the latest information on new technologies and barriers to uptake and
further development.
Switching Europe's energy infrastructure and networks to a low carbon system will require
massive changes entailing significant investments in a wide range of sectors. Planning how to
carry out these changes as efficiently as possible is therefore a major priority, and the
Commission will develop its ideas in this area in 2008. For example, the Commission proposes
to initiate in 2008 an action on European energy infrastructure networks and systems transition
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 48 of 65
planning. It will contribute to optimise and harmonise the development of low carbon integrated
energy systems across the EU and its neighbouring countries. It will help the development of
tools and models for European level foresight in areas such as smart, bi-directional electricity
grids and CO2 transport and storage and hydrogen distribution.
5.2 EU ZEP The EU established a European Technology Platform (TP) for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power
Plants (ETP-ZEP) in 2005. Its aim is to enable EU fossil fuel plants with zero emission of carbon
dioxide by 2020. In September 2006, the Zero Emission Technology Platform presented its
Strategic Research Agenda and a Deployment Strategy. After the approval in September 2006,
the ETP-ZEP has set up 4 taskforces /28/ to make the recommendations of these documents
happen. The different taskforces and their term of references are listed below:
• Taskforce on Technology
Taskforce Technology is responsible for accelerating technology development in order to bring
current CO2 capture technologies (together with improved power plant efficiency) to commercial
readiness by 2020; and validating new concepts for implementation beyond this date. This
includes implementing the following tasks:
1 Organise R&D
1.1 Map R&D needs & landscape, identifying gaps and priorities
1.2 Initiate a higher level of R&D activities & expertise
1.3 Provide input reflecting the strategies of ZEP for next update of the FP7 CCS Work
Programme
1.4 Improve coordination between national programmes and FP7, and international
R&D initiatives
1.5 Maintain SRA & working group papers, e.g. through a technology assessment group
2 Secure public funding
2.1 Map the need for additional finance for R&D
2.2 Via public bodies (EC, member states), jointly with Taskforce Policy & Regulation
2.3 Initiate public-private-partnership(s), e.g. JTI
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 49 of 65
3 Network and disseminate
3.1 Organise technical days aimed at networking researchers and industry
Taskforce Technology will closely work with Taskforce Policy & Regulation regarding task 2
(secure public funding).
• Taskforce on Demonstration and Implementation
Taskforce Demonstration & Implementation is responsible for identifying and implementing
10-12 demonstration projects as quickly and effectively as possible in order to facilitate the wide-
scale deployment of CCS in Europe and beyond.
This includes implementing the following tasks:
1 Organise and finance demonstration projects
1.1 Define process for specifying the 10 -12 demo projects, incl. choice of technology,
location and contractors
1.2 Initiate projects in eastern & southern Europe, India & China, if possible
1.3 Map the need for additional finance of these demonstration projects
1.4 Initiate public-private-partnership(s) to ensure adequate funding
1.5 Establish cooperation between industrial partners for sharing knowledge/experiences
and reducing costs.
1.6 Clarify cost estimates of technology
1.7 Assess project models, e.g. Mongstad
2 Disseminate the knowledge
2.1 Ensure close cooperation, facilitate a discussion by organising events
2.2 Communicate best practice
3 Map regulatory problems, e.g.
3.1 Develop a framework for the risk analysis of CCS projects
3.2 Map existing legal barriers to CCS projects
N.B. The revision of the regulatory framework should be done in close cooperation with
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 50 of 65
Taskforce Policy and Regulation.
• Taskforce on Policy and Regulation
Taskforce Policy & Regulation is responsible for establishing a long-term policy framework and
economic incentives in order to promote the wide implementation of CCS, including all new and
existing projects.This includes implementing the following tasks:
1 Working closely with the EU in order to identify regulatory issues
1.1 Regulatory work DG TREN, ENV and other relevant DG’s
1.2 Public funding for R&D (e.g. FP7, JTI, EIB)
2 Coordinate and interface between ETP-ZEP taskforces and EC, related institutions & national
governments
3 Developing commercial incentives as outlined in the SDD (e.g. EU ETS, Early Mover Fund)
4 Ensure that CCS is introduced under the ETS
5 Propose necessary regulation corresponding to greenhouse gas avoidance costs
6 Map Member States’ involvement and disseminate best practice to national governments Taskforce Policy and Regulation will take the lead in the dialogue with the European
Commission to improve the regulatory framework.
• Taskforce on Public Communications
Taskforce Public Communication is responsible for developing a communication strategy for
gaining clear public support for CCS as a vital solution for combating climate change. This
includes implementing the following tasks:
1 Develop and execute a communication strategy for gaining public support, including
1.1 The educational task
1.2 The political debate/parliament
2 Advocate and push implementation of CCS in Member states
3 Involve NGO’s, e.g. through organizing workshops
4 Ensure transparency & communication of results
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 51 of 65
5.3 The ACCSEPT Project The Acceptance of CO2 Capture, Storage, Economics, Policy and Technology (ACCSEPT)
project /29/ was completed December 2007. The project was carried out under contract with the
EU Commission, DG Research, by a multidisciplinary project consortium consisting of: Det
Norske Veritas, Energy Research Centre of the Nertherlands (ECN), Insititute for European
Environmental Policy (IEEP), Baker & McKenzie, Manchester Business School and University
of Cambridge. The overall aim of the project was to contribute to timely and responsible
application of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in the EU.
The key messages and findings, from which a set of recommendations has been developed for
relevant decision-makers in the EU, are summarized as follows:
1. Geological storage capacity in the EU: There are numerous potential geological storage
sites for CO2 in Europe, though as yet there is no robust methodology for calculating CO2
storage volumes, particularly in saline aquifers. Estimates of storage volumes can differ by a
factor of 30. Nevertheless, even using more conservative assumptions, storage volumes for
different reservoirs range from millions to billions of tonnes of CO2. Hence, there is sufficient
storage volume for CCS to be regarded as a major option even if the larger estimates of
storage volumes prove to be over-optimistic. Some of the reservoirs are within reasonable
transport distance of major sources of CO2, but other sources of CO2 are not in close
proximity of suitable storage formations. Until more reliable methodologies are available, it is
prudent for the geological community to err on the side of caution when presenting estimated
storage volumes.
2. Risk assessment and management: The growing body of knowledge about the
implementation of CCS should be guiding our initial decisions about site location and
exploitation, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation should be robust enough to draw further
conclusions. Management decisions about storage are as important as, if not more important
than, physical risks. Because geological sites can be found and managed safely in such a way
as to all but rule out leakage, does not mean they will be found and managed in that way if the
proper guidelines, incentives and oversight are not in place.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 52 of 65
3. Legal issues: There are no insurmountable legal barriers to CCS deployment in the EU.
However, a number of issues or 'gaps' in the present international and European framework
need to be addressed. In particular, although each stage of the CCS process raises potential
legal concerns, the long-term storage of CO2 and the need to implement a robust liability
regime for that storage presents the most significant challenge for legislators. Appropriate risk
allocation between government and private entities, together with the need to incentivise CCS
projects, means that a bespoke legal instrument is likely to be required. In this context, it is
vital to strike the right balance between encouraging investment and maintaining the high
procedural standards necessary to ensure the integrity of the environmental rationale for
developing CCS technologies.
4. Poor data on costs: Existing information on the costs of implementing CCS is poor and
potentially misleading. Much of the detailed information is held by the private sector and is
confidential. Analyses in the academic literature tend to be based on just a few sources, and
have not been updated to take account of rising fuel and material costs.
5. Economic incentives: The European Commission’s own analysis suggests that there is a risk
that CCS will not be deployed at a sufficient scale sufficiently rapidly to meet climate change
objectives without the implementation of economic incentives and/or regulation (in addition
to the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)). EU-level policies under consideration to
complement the ETS include a portfolio standard (a requirement to source a minimum
percentage of electricity from a specific kind of sustainable energy source or fuel, probably
combined with tradable certificates), an emission standard for power production, or an
obligation to capture and store CO2 from all fossil-fuel-fired power production and other large
point sources. Member State policies that could enhance the economic feasibility of CCS
include investment support for demonstration projects, guaranteed CO2 prices to enable
domestic implementation, or feed-in subsidies for CCS-based electricity supply.
6. Stakeholder opinions: The majority of the ACCSEPT stakeholder survey sample (n=512)
was moderately supportive of CCS and believed that it had a role to play in their own
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 53 of 65
country’s plans to mitigate carbon emissions. The respondents tended to regard the risks of
CCS as being moderate or non-existent and did not perceive there to be highly negative
impacts arising from investment in CCS upon efforts at improving energy efficiency and
reducing energy demand. However, 44% of the sample did think that there might be some
negative impacts arising from CCS for investment in other low- or zero-carbon energy
technologies (LZCT), compared to 51% who did not think that there would be any negative
impacts or thought that impacts might even be positive. Environmental NGO respondents
were much more concerned about the risks associated with CCS and the implications for
renewable energy than energy industry and governmental stakeholders.
7. Public opinions and communication: Comparative information on public perceptions of
CCS in the EU27 countries is not available. A couple of country-level studies exist, e.g. for
the Netherlands and UK. For some projects, where storage is offshore, it is likely that CO2
pipelines may elicit the greatest concern, whereas for onshore storage, it may be the storage
site itself that emerges as the focal point for opposition. If CCS is perceived as being
responsible for rises in consumer electricity bills, then one might expect that CCS will be
perceived more negatively. Existing efforts at communicating CCS to the public have in
general not been well coordinated or effective. A more proactive and interactive approach to
public communication and engagement would be desirable and will require additional
resources to be devoted to developing more accessible materials.
8. Coal supplies: It is commonly stated that coal supplies are sufficient to last for ‘hundreds of
years’, but recent re-evaluations of supplies in several countries indicate that there is more
uncertainty over the longevity of supplies than has been generally acknowledged. Given a
likely increase in the demand for coal, furthermore, supplies might diminish even more
rapidly. The uncertainty surrounding coal supplies does not imply that CCS should not be
implemented, however, because many hundreds of coal-fired power plants will likely be
constructed worldwide over the next several decades, and CCS can be deployed progressively
and more efficiently with the build-up of know-how.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 54 of 65
9. Negative externalities of CCS: CCS has potential negative externalities, e.g. greater
utilisation of coal with associated impacts, greater demand for water for cooling and running
the capture process, an extensive CO2 pipeline infrastructure with space claims and risks,
potential conflicts with other users of geological storage reservoirs, etc. The nature and cost
of these externalities are not currently well understood and more research is therefore needed.
10. CCS and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): The debate around CCS in the
CDM has so far mainly focussed on technical and procedural issues, which can be resolved
relatively easily. The resistance to inclusion of CCS in the CDM is related to more
fundamental issues, however, which have their origin in different beliefs and convictions.
These include the conviction that new and risky technology should be tested first in
industrialised countries before it is implemented in developing countries, the belief that CCS
might displace adoption of more sustainable project types within the CDM, such as renewable
energy, and the appreciation of scientific, technological and economic uncertainties.
11. CCS and renewables: There is no necessary conflict between CCS and other low- and zero-
carbon energy technologies (LZCTs). CCS could, however detract from LZCTs by diversion
of funding for Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) from other LZCTs to
CCS, diversion of government incentives, diversion of private sector investment and
diversion of attention by government and policy makers. As yet, however, there is little actual
evidence that funding or policy attention has been diverted to the detriment of other options,
though it is really too early for such an effect to have been detected.
5.4 The Need for Development of CCS Guidelines
A barrier to effective large scale deployment of CCS is a lack of recognized standards and
guidelines. There is a need for guidelines for capture, transport and storage. This gap must be
closed to assure a transparent and consistent process that guides in managing and minimising
risks; provides confidence and trust to stakeholders; simplifies demonstration of compliance with
legal and regulatory requirements; and explains how to obtain credits under CDM, JI, ETS, etc.
To this end, it is crucial that the large base of knowledge gained in R&D and demo projects (see
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 55 of 65
for example is transferred and translated into standards and guidelines. Recognition will then
come gradually as ownership grows among stakeholders.
The Annexes of the CCS Directive (section 2.3) are useful to make it operational, but the
implementation process will be even more efficient when supported by publicly available and
recognized reference documents. Recognized guidelines have a role in demonstrating
compliance, managing and minimizing risks (and uncertainties), avoiding future loss or
liabilities, providing assurance to stakeholders and the public, as well as in securing a transparent,
consistent and cost-effective implementation process. They can play an important role in defining
procedures for qualifying new technological solutions. Such recognized guidelines could also
play an important role in harmonizing the implementation of the Directive among the various
member states and regions.
Remarks
• Efficient implementation of legal and regulatory frameworks for CCS need publicly available
and recognized guidelines as references.
• Guidelines can assist in assuring harmonised implementation in compliance with conventions,
regulations, directives.
• Industry will benefit from guidelines where current knowledge and experience from R&D and
Pilots are converted into recommended practice and guidelines.
• Stakeholders and the public confidence in geological storage of CO2 as a trustworthy option
to mitigate global warming to requires that transparent and consistent procedures are
available.
• Guidelines can be efficient in assuring proper management of risks, uncertainties and
liabilities throughout a CCS project’s life cycle
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 56 of 65
5.5 The need for guidelines for MVAR of CO2 stores in the North Sea.
There is a need to develop specific environmental Monitoring, Verification, Accounting &
Reporting (MVAR) requirements for individual storage sites in the North Sea. MVAR should
only be for as long as deemed necessary to ensure long-term security from CO2 emissions to the
atmosphere and to fulfil reporting requirements under the EU ETS and other relevant Directives.
MVAR requirements should be the responsibility of an appropriate competent regulatory
authority, for which a broad framework of guiding common principles is required (and which
should be developed in line with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories).
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 57 of 65
6 COMPARISON – PLANNED ACTIVITIES UNDER PHASE II AND THE UPDATED GAP ANALYSIS
Some critical issues recommended for solution within the next years to enable CCS were
identified in the gap analysis to the NSBTF in phase I of the project.
In January 2008 a proposed work programme for NSBTF in phase II was discussed and
objectives and terms of reference for the NSBTF were revisited /36/:
Phase II of the Task Force’s work will build on the findings of Phase I and address the critical
issues identified, share knowledge and follow up on the infrastructure study. The Task Force will
ensure that its activities are fully complementary, compliant and consistent with other ongoing
international activities in these areas. In particular with the European Union’s work on CCS and
international treaties like OSPAR and the London Convention.
The objective of the Task Force is for its member countries to work together with the intention of
finding mutually agreeable common solutions to issues which arise around the transport and
storage of CO2 beneath the North Sea over the longer term (i.e. up to and possibly beyond the
establishment of a mature CO2 transport and storage infrastructure in the North Sea) Outputs
from the European Commission related to the transport and storage of CO2 will also have an
interest to the work of the Task Force. The member countries of the Task Force will work
towards developing a collective strategy to influence the European Commission and other
international levels.
These issues will cover a number of areas of common interest, including:
• CO2 Transport and storage Infrastructure
• Geological aspects
• Legal and regulatory issues
• Trans-boundary issues
• Economic and market issues relating to CO2 management
• Political issues where relevant
• Technical and knowledge transfer where this does not infringe Intellectual Property.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 58 of 65
Five areas of work have been identified:
1. Legal and Regulatory Frameworks: (a) Trans-boundary Issues and principles for access to CO2 transport and Storage
(b) Long Term Liability & Stewardship
(c) Criteria for Risk Acceptance & Site Qualification (permitting & licensing)
(d) Monitoring, Verification, Accounting & Reporting (MVAR) Requirements
(e) Joint Projects (e.g.
2. Financial and Other Incentives
3. Stakeholder Acceptance
a. Leakage monitoring workshop
b. Other workshops as identified.
4. Knowledge Sharing
5. Collaboration
(a) International
(b) Regulatory collaboration
Table 2 below indicates how the activities within phase II of the NSBTF correspond to the
updated gap analysis in terms of solving the most critical gaps.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 59 of 65
Table 2: Proposed activities for NSBTF in phase II compared with findings in this gap analysis.
NSBTF phase II: Terms of
Reference
Updated gap analysis
Phase II activity Potential barriers or enablers < 2 years 2-5 years Trans-boundary issues and principles
for access to CO2 transport and Storage
Trans-boundary movement and/or damage
Long Term Liability & Stewardship Long term liability
Risk acceptance, including site approval criteria
Criteria for Risk Acceptance & Site Qualification
(permitting & licensing) Risk assessment methods
Monitoring and verification Monitoring, Verification, Accounting & Reporting (MVAR) Requirements Accounting and Certification of
credits
Incentives
Costs and economics Financial and Other Incentives
EU ETS
Stakeholder Acceptance Public support (stakeholder acceptance)
Technology maturity Cross cutting issues for CCS deployments
Knowledge Sharing
Environmental monitoring and baseline data International conventions
(National inventories, UNCLOS, London, OSPAR, Aarhus) =
N/A
Kyoto Protocol (CDM and JI)
EU enabling legal framework
Norway regulations and CCS
UK regulations and CCS
Collaboration
Dutch regulations and CCS ? ? Joint Projects Priority geological storage structures
Most of the planned work in phase II of the NSBTF seems to be in accordance with the critical
gaps identified in this report, as shown in the above table.
However, in order to prioritize its further actions, the NSBTF should emphasize on the short-
terms gaps marked as ‘red’, such as liability issues and risk acceptance criteria. There is an
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 60 of 65
emerging consensus that the liability should be transferred from the operator to the State when
the storage site has reached the end of its operational life, when all evidence suggests the long-
term security of the storage site. Although this principle seemingly has gained recognition as a
viable methodology for transfer of liability, work remains on establishing a common
understanding on defining acceptable risk criteria associated with this liability transfer.
The development of guidelines for consenting offshore storage sites for captured carbon dioxide
has identified a need to clarify the availability and capability of monitoring techniques to detect
and quantify potential leakage of CO2 from sub-seabed storage sites into the marine environment
and to monitor the impacts of CO2 leaks in the seabed or in the overlaying water column.
Moreover, as already indicated trans-boundary movement of CO2 should also be given emphasis.
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 61 of 65
REFERENCES
/1/ DNV (2007) North Sea Basin Task Force on CO2-injection and Permanent Storage in
Sub-Seabed Geological Structures: Legal and Regulatory Issues. Gap Analysis, Report
No 2006-1738, revision No 1, 19 January 2007
/2/ The North Sea Basin Task Force (2007) Storing CO2 under the North Sea Basin. A key
solution for combating climate change, A report by the North Sea Basin Task Force,
June 2007, DTI/Pub URN 07/1023, http://www.nsbtf.org/
/3/ IEA (2007) Legal aspects of storing CO2, OECD/IEA 2007,
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1928
/4/ The London Convention,
http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1463
/5/ OSPAR (2006). Effects on the Marine Environment of Ocean Acidification Resulting
from Elevated Levels of CO2 in the Atmosphere.
http://www.ospar.org/eng/doc/Ocean%20acidification.doc
/6/ OSPAR (2006) Placement of CO2 in Subsea Geological Structures
http://www.ospar.org/eng/doc/Placement%20of%20CO2%20in%20subsea%20geologi
cal%20structures.doc
/7/ OSPAR (2007) New Initiatives on CO2 Capture and Storage and Marine Litter, Press
Statement of 28th of June 2007 from the OSPAR Commission
http://www.ospar.org/eng/doc/Press%20Statement%202007%20real.doc
/8/ The OSPAR Convention, http://www.ospar.org/eng/html/convention/
/9/ OSPAR (2007) OSPAR Guidelines for Risk Assessment and Management
of Storage of CO2 Streams in Geological Formations, including Framework for Risk
Assessment and Management of Storage of CO2 Streams in Geological Formations
(FRAM), OSPAR Reference Number: 2007-12
http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/decrecs/agreements/07-
12e_CO2%20GL%20and%20FRAM.doc
/10/ European Commission (2008). “Climate action and renewable energy package”,
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/climate_action.htm
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 62 of 65
/11/ Commission of the European Communities (2008.) Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on the geological storage of carbon dioxide
and amending Council Directives 85/337/EEC, 96/61/EC, Directives 2000/60/EC,
2001/80/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2006/12/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, Brussels,
23 January 2008, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/ccs/eccp1_en.htm
/12/ BERR (2007). Competition for a Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Demonstration
Project; Project information memorandum, 19 November 2007,
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file42478.pdf
/13/ BERR (2008). UK Energy Bill 2007-08,
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/energy.html
/14/ BERR (2007) Development of a CO2 Transport and Storage Network in the North Sea,
Report to the North Sea Basin Task Force, by Element Energy Ltd, Pöyry Energy and
The British Geological Survey (BGS), http://www.nsbtf.org/documents/file42476.pdf
/15/
Strøm (2008) Principles for licensing, Norwegian Pollution Control Authority,
Workshop on Legal issues related to Carbon Capture and Storage, 8 February 2008,
University of Oslo, Oslo
http://www.jus.uio.no/forskning/grupper/naturressurs/Workshop/Workshop%20on%20l
egal%20issues%20related%20to%20CSS.html
/16/ Gravdahl Agerup (2008) Legal issues related to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Need for new legislation?, Workshop on Legal issues related to Carbon Capture and
Storage (CSS), 8 February 2008, University of Oslo, Oslo
http://www.jus.uio.no/forskning/grupper/naturressurs/Workshop/Workshop%20on%20l
egal%20issues%20related%20to%20CSS.html
/17/ Solheim (2008) Transboundary movement of CO2 for storage– legal obstacles?,
Workshop on Legal issues related to Carbon Capture and Storage (CSS), Norwegian
Ministry of the Environment, 8 February 2008, University of Oslo, Oslo
http://www.jus.uio.no/forskning/grupper/naturressurs/Workshop/Workshop%20on%20l
egal%20issues%20related%20to%20CSS.html
/18/ North Sea Basin Task Force (June 2008) Transboundary sub-group: initial discussion
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 63 of 65
paper (internal document).
/19/ UNFCC (2008) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (CDM, JI),
http://unfccc.int//20/ IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhose Gas Inventories,
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html/21/ UN Climate Change Conference. Bali 2007,
http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php
/22/ ECN et al. (2007). Discussion paper; Choices for regulating CO2 capture and storage
in the EU, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/ccs/pdf/policy_options_paper.pdf
/23/ Commission of the European Communities (2008.) Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to
improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system of the
Community, Brussels, 23 January 2008
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/ccs/eccp1_en.htm
/24/ Commission of the European Communities (2008.) Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Supporting Early
Demonstration of Sustainable Power Generation from Fossil Fuels, January 2008
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0013:FIN:EN:pdf
/25/ European Commission (2008). Community guidelines on state aid for environmental
protection, January 2008 http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2001:037:0003:0015:EN:PDF
/26/ The Royal Ministry of Government and Administration (2007). Commission draft
community guideline for state aid for environmental protection, Letter to the European
Commission,
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/state_aid/reform/comments_environmental_prot
ection/35517.pdf
/27/ Commission of the European Communities (2007.) Communication from the
commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, a European Strategic Energy
Technology plan (SET-Plan). “Towards a low carbon future”, COM(2007) 723,
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/setplan/communication_2007_en.htm
DET NORSKE VERITAS
Report for the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy - Norway, as input to the North Sea Basin Task Force, Phase II Updated Gap Analysis
MANAGING RISK
Date : <2008-10-15> Page 64 of 65
/28/ European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plants (ETP-
ZEP), http://www.zero-emissionplatform.eu/website/organisation/index.html
/29/ Acceptance of CO2 Capture, Storage, Economics, Policy and Technology (ACCSEPT),
http://www.accsept.org
/30/ CO2STORE (2007) Best Practice for the Storage of CO2 in Saline Aquifers - Observations and
guidelines from the SACS and CO2STORE projects, http://www.co2store.org.
/31/ IEA GHG (2007) Role of Risk Assessment in Regulatory Framework for Geological Storage of
CO2 – Feedback from Regulators and Implementers, IEA GHG Technical Study, Report No.:
2007/2, http://www.ieagreen.org.uk and www.co2captureandstorage.info
/32/ IEA GHG (2008) Collection of documents from the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
including the R, D & D Projects Database, the coming CCS best practices database, etc.
http://www.ieagreen.org.uk and http://www.co2captureandstorage.info.
/33/ Myhrvold,T., Helle,K., Nouri,S., Firing-Hanssen,K. (2007) Guideline for Qualification
of CO2 capture technology (DRAFT), DNV Report No.: 2007-0619.
/34/ Eldevik, F., Carpenter,M., Fowler,T., Flach,T., Selmer-Olsen,S. (2007) Coarse Risk
Assessment of Two Sub-Seabed Geological Formations for Storage of CO2 – the
Johansen and Utsira Formations, DNV Report No.: 2007 – 0825.
/35/ J. E. Aarnes, M. Carpenter, L. P. Gundersen, S. Selmer-Olsen, S. Solomon (2008) Selection and Qualification of Sites and Projects for Geological Storage of CO2 – Draft Guideline, DNV Report No. 2007-1780.
/36/ NSBTF (2008) Overarching, Long term objectives for the Task Force and Terms of Reference - Phase 2, February 2008.
- o0o -
DNV Energy DNV Energy is a leading professional service provider in safeguarding and improving business performance, assisting energy companies along the entire value chain from concept selection through exploration, production, transportation, refining and distribution. Our broad expertise covers Asset Risk & Operations Management, Enterprise Risk Management; IT Risk Management; Offshore Classification; Safety, Health and Environmental Risk Management; Technology Qualification; and Verification. DNV Energy Regional Offices: Americas and West Africa Det Norske Veritas Ltda Rua Sete de Setembro 111/12 Floor 20050006 Rio de Janeiro Brazil Phone: +55 21 2517 7232
Nordic and Eurasia Det Norske Veritas AS Veritasveien 1 N-1322 Hovik Norway Phone: +47 67 57 99 00
Asia and Middle East Det Norske Veritas Sdn Bhd 24th Floor, Menara Weld Jalan Raja Chulan 50200 Kuala Lumpur Phone: +603 2050 2888
Offshore Class and Inspection Det Norske Veritas AS Veritasveien 1 N-1322 Hovik Norway Phone: +47 67 57 99 00
Europe and North Africa Det Norske Veritas Ltd Palace House 3 Cathedral Street London SE1 9DE
Cleaner Energy & Utilities Det Norske Veritas AS Veritasveien 1 N-1322 Hovik Norway
United Kingdom Phone: +47 67 57 99 00 Phone: +44 20 7357 6080
- o0o -