**4. Policy and regulation**

Governments play an essential role in CCS, by setting safety standards and other requirements for operation and obtaining public support. The deployment of CCS projects relies on the approval of civil society, who must believe that the injected CO2 will stay stored in the reservoir for thousands of years. To this end, the analysis of possible risks associated with the escape of CO2 is an essential stage in the life cycle of the storage system and aims to promote and ensure the safety of the activity to the environment and to human health, contributing to the technology's acceptance.

Carbon Capture and Storage – Technologies and Risk Management 257

emitting countries and the coastal ones that can provide this service may agree with it. However, only a few countries are involved in the development of CCS schemes and fewer still in offshore storage with cross-border transport of CO2. Therefore, ratification is far from

Another important international maritime accord is the OSPAR (Oil Spill Preparedness and Response) Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. It has also been amended to permit injection of CO2 in sub-seabed formations, an amendment that is also awaiting ratification. Since this agreement only has 15 member states, only two more ratifications are necessary for it to take effect. The greater ease of ratification is also due to the fact that the Sleipner project – the largest offshore CCS project –

There are proposals, accepted even by the World Trade Organization (WTO), to create differentiated import taxes for products from countries with policies and commitments to reduce various emissions. The aim of this policy is to level the competitive playing field for products whose costs include environmental taxation in the country of origin

International accords and mechanism such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was created in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (Rio 92), have an important role in fostering CCS. Among the Kyoto Protocol's features is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which permits developing countries, which are not required to have emission reduction targets, to develop projects to reduce GHG emissions and in return acquire Certified Emission Reduction (CER) certificates. These CERs can be traded with developed countries to enable them to meet their emission reduction goals. But due to the still-existing doubts about the capacity to guarantee the effectiveness of geological sequestration of carbon, CCS projects are not yet eligible to receive CERs. Another reason for this lack of eligibility is the political and economic dispute between consolidated fossil fuel industries and environmentalists and researchers. The first group advocates the use of CCS as a viable way to reduce emissions while the second believe this will just prolong the use of fossil fuels, thus discouraging investments to develop renewable energy

At the Sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 16), in Cancun, Mexico, it was determined that CCS should be included as eligible under the CDM, and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice, which had proposed the decision, was tasked with preparing the procedures for inclusion of CCS in the CDM, to be decided upon at the COP 17 in Durban, South Africa (in December 2011). The final report enumerates a series of issues about CCS that must be considered before final approval of its inclusion under the

assured in the short term.

is located in this region.

(WTO&UNEP, 2009).

sources with smaller carbon footprints.

Robust and rigorous criteria for selecting the storage site;

Strict plans for monitoring, aiming at adequate risk management;

The items that follow illustrate the current state of CCS legislation in some countries.

Inclusion of the possibility of dissolving CO2 in groundwater.

CDM, among these are:

Study of migration routes; and

One of the main sticking points for the expanded use of carbon sequestration, mainly in densely populated areas, is the acceptance of the people living above or nearby the reservoir that will be used. The same situation exists for the location of sanitary landfills, prisons, power plants or any other large project with potentially negative impacts. While society at large agrees on the need for such undertakings, those most closely affected generally feel otherwise, often because of a lack of knowledge of the real risks involved. This is the wellknown "not in my backyard" conundrum. In the case of carbon sequestration, the benefits accrue to the population of the entire planet, not just a region or state, making this contrast between the general welfare and local concerns as stark as it possibly can be. Winning public support thus requires a major effort to educate the public about the real risks of geological storage of carbon. A real example of the public acceptable importance is the project of Shell in Barendrecht, Holland. This project planned to store some 10 MtCO2 over a period of 25 years, captured from Shell's hydrogen gasification plant at the Pernis refinery near Rotterdam. The CO2 would be transported by a pipeline about 20 km and injected in two depleted natural gas fields over a mile deep under the city of Barendrecht. Despite many public hearings held by the city council and strong support of the central government, through approval of by the Dutch Senate, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning & the Environment, the project faced strong opposition from the citizens of Barendrecht and it finally had to be canceled.

The geological storage in saline aquifers and other formations located on continental shelves is the best option. The study carried out by Dutch researchers (Broek et al., 2009 shows the technical and economic feasibility of a network of carbon pipelines linking power plants and industries that emit high amounts of CO2 to the Utsira aquifer. This aquifer is located below the North Sea, between Great Britain and Norway. Testing has been conducted there since 1996, including through the Sleipner CCS pilot plant run by Statoil. The study took into consideration the perspectives for growth of emissions due to increased energy demand and for growth of taxation on emissions from €25/tCO2 in 2010 to €60/tCO2 in 2030.

In most countries the regulation of CCS is the responsibility of the central (federal) government. In the United States, Australia and Canada there is shared responsibility among the federal, state (provincial) and local spheres. The specific legislation to regulate the activities involved in CCS should start from existing laws on extraction and processing of fossil fuels. Countries like Norway, Canada and Spain are involved in this process of formulating the CCS regulation based on the regulatory powers under existing legislation on exploitation of oil and gas or through amendment of those laws to extend their scope.

Another consideration is the fact that many likely places for CO2 injection lie in international waters and many such schemes involve emissions from multiple countries. Hence, international agreements come into play. Maritime treaties such as the London Protocol limit the exportation of trash or other materials and also the dumping or incineration of such materials on the high seas. Because the Protocol had been interpreted as prohibiting the export of CO2 from one contracting state to another for injection into sub-seabed geological formations, it was amended in 2009 specifically to permit this. To take effect, this amendment must be ratified by at least two-thirds of the contracting states. Without this ratification, densely populated countries not located on coastlines, such as those in Central Europe, are prevented from using the option of sending CO2 for offshore storage in geological formations beneath the continental shelf, even though the populations of the

One of the main sticking points for the expanded use of carbon sequestration, mainly in densely populated areas, is the acceptance of the people living above or nearby the reservoir that will be used. The same situation exists for the location of sanitary landfills, prisons, power plants or any other large project with potentially negative impacts. While society at large agrees on the need for such undertakings, those most closely affected generally feel otherwise, often because of a lack of knowledge of the real risks involved. This is the wellknown "not in my backyard" conundrum. In the case of carbon sequestration, the benefits accrue to the population of the entire planet, not just a region or state, making this contrast between the general welfare and local concerns as stark as it possibly can be. Winning public support thus requires a major effort to educate the public about the real risks of geological storage of carbon. A real example of the public acceptable importance is the project of Shell in Barendrecht, Holland. This project planned to store some 10 MtCO2 over a period of 25 years, captured from Shell's hydrogen gasification plant at the Pernis refinery near Rotterdam. The CO2 would be transported by a pipeline about 20 km and injected in two depleted natural gas fields over a mile deep under the city of Barendrecht. Despite many public hearings held by the city council and strong support of the central government, through approval of by the Dutch Senate, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning & the Environment, the project faced strong opposition from the

The geological storage in saline aquifers and other formations located on continental shelves is the best option. The study carried out by Dutch researchers (Broek et al., 2009 shows the technical and economic feasibility of a network of carbon pipelines linking power plants and industries that emit high amounts of CO2 to the Utsira aquifer. This aquifer is located below the North Sea, between Great Britain and Norway. Testing has been conducted there since 1996, including through the Sleipner CCS pilot plant run by Statoil. The study took into consideration the perspectives for growth of emissions due to increased energy demand and

In most countries the regulation of CCS is the responsibility of the central (federal) government. In the United States, Australia and Canada there is shared responsibility among the federal, state (provincial) and local spheres. The specific legislation to regulate the activities involved in CCS should start from existing laws on extraction and processing of fossil fuels. Countries like Norway, Canada and Spain are involved in this process of formulating the CCS regulation based on the regulatory powers under existing legislation on exploitation of oil and gas or through amendment of those laws to extend their scope.

Another consideration is the fact that many likely places for CO2 injection lie in international waters and many such schemes involve emissions from multiple countries. Hence, international agreements come into play. Maritime treaties such as the London Protocol limit the exportation of trash or other materials and also the dumping or incineration of such materials on the high seas. Because the Protocol had been interpreted as prohibiting the export of CO2 from one contracting state to another for injection into sub-seabed geological formations, it was amended in 2009 specifically to permit this. To take effect, this amendment must be ratified by at least two-thirds of the contracting states. Without this ratification, densely populated countries not located on coastlines, such as those in Central Europe, are prevented from using the option of sending CO2 for offshore storage in geological formations beneath the continental shelf, even though the populations of the

for growth of taxation on emissions from €25/tCO2 in 2010 to €60/tCO2 in 2030.

citizens of Barendrecht and it finally had to be canceled.

emitting countries and the coastal ones that can provide this service may agree with it. However, only a few countries are involved in the development of CCS schemes and fewer still in offshore storage with cross-border transport of CO2. Therefore, ratification is far from assured in the short term.

Another important international maritime accord is the OSPAR (Oil Spill Preparedness and Response) Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. It has also been amended to permit injection of CO2 in sub-seabed formations, an amendment that is also awaiting ratification. Since this agreement only has 15 member states, only two more ratifications are necessary for it to take effect. The greater ease of ratification is also due to the fact that the Sleipner project – the largest offshore CCS project – is located in this region.

There are proposals, accepted even by the World Trade Organization (WTO), to create differentiated import taxes for products from countries with policies and commitments to reduce various emissions. The aim of this policy is to level the competitive playing field for products whose costs include environmental taxation in the country of origin (WTO&UNEP, 2009).

International accords and mechanism such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was created in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (Rio 92), have an important role in fostering CCS. Among the Kyoto Protocol's features is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which permits developing countries, which are not required to have emission reduction targets, to develop projects to reduce GHG emissions and in return acquire Certified Emission Reduction (CER) certificates. These CERs can be traded with developed countries to enable them to meet their emission reduction goals. But due to the still-existing doubts about the capacity to guarantee the effectiveness of geological sequestration of carbon, CCS projects are not yet eligible to receive CERs. Another reason for this lack of eligibility is the political and economic dispute between consolidated fossil fuel industries and environmentalists and researchers. The first group advocates the use of CCS as a viable way to reduce emissions while the second believe this will just prolong the use of fossil fuels, thus discouraging investments to develop renewable energy sources with smaller carbon footprints.

At the Sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 16), in Cancun, Mexico, it was determined that CCS should be included as eligible under the CDM, and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice, which had proposed the decision, was tasked with preparing the procedures for inclusion of CCS in the CDM, to be decided upon at the COP 17 in Durban, South Africa (in December 2011). The final report enumerates a series of issues about CCS that must be considered before final approval of its inclusion under the CDM, among these are:


The items that follow illustrate the current state of CCS legislation in some countries.

Carbon Capture and Storage – Technologies and Risk Management 259

the pump prices of gasoline and diesel in Norway are among the highest in Europe (equivalent in July 2011 to US\$ 2.30). But because of the many exceptions, Norway's carbon

Regarding specific regulations on CCS, the Ministries of Petroleum and Energy, Labor, and the Environment as of May 2011 were still working on new regulations on the transport and storage of CO2 in subsea reservoirs under the country's continental shelf. The work was being delayed due to the conflicts of interest within and among the ministries, and no draft

Both the European Commission and the governments of the state members are involved in regulating the geological sequestration of carbon. The member states are required to put into practice the directives and regulations issued by the European Union, including the Emission Trading System (RTS) and the CCS Directive, which function as framework legislation. The CCS Directive has to be transposed to the law of each member state by June 2011. This process permits each country to develop its own legislation on CCS to fit the

In the United States, the Clean Air Act of 1970, which was substantially amended by Congress in November 1990, with further small alterations since then, entrusts

Specifically regarding GHG emissions, in December 2009 the US EPA issued a note indicating it had concluded that the current and projected atmospheric concentrations of

Due to some projections made by the US EPA and the United States Energy Information Administration (US EIA), such as slow growth of electricity demand, low natural gas prices and strong gas supply, the only projects for new coal power plants other than those already under construction are a small number of medium-sized plants subsidized by federal programs for carbon capture and storage. As seen in Figure 15, the projections indicate that the growth of electricity demand of approximately 700 TWh (tera watt hours) between 2015 and 2030 will be almost all met by the entrance into operation of combined cycle natural gas

Another aspect that can be observed from Figure 15 is that nearly half of the 4.1 million GWh (giga watt hours) forecast for 2015 will be generated by traditional coal-fired plants with turbines driven by steam. As can be observed in Table 3, of the current 1,266 coal power plants in the United States, more than one-third are classified as large, with average capacity of 532 MW (mega watts), which together account for 76% of the energy

Based on these projections, in December 2010 the US EPA announced the preparation of rules to cover GHG emissions from power plants that burn fossil fuels and that generate more than 25 MW. The rules will establish performance standards for new emission sources (New Source Performance Standards - NSPS), applicable both to new plants and revamped ones.

particular circumstances of each one, within the overall European Union framework.

responsibility for CO2 emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).

GHGs jeopardized current and future public health (US EPA, 2009).

plants, utilizing gas and steam turbines in the same cycle.

generated by coal-fired plants.

tax has not managed to reduce emissions as much as envisioned.

regulations had been put out for public consultation as of that date.

**4.4 European Union** 

**4.5 United States** 
