London Convention/Protocol Scientific Groups Science Day Symposium 2024
good morning delegates and welcome to the 2024 science day welcome also to those attending online my name is is Jessica Manz and I’m a specialized environmental officer at the South African Department of Forestry fisheries and the environment I’m responsible for the assessment and of dumping at se permit applications under South Africa’s integrated Coastal management act it is a privilege for me as Vice chair of the scientific groups to welcome you to the science day we have prepared an interesting program for you today with speakers from six different countries and 10 different organizations the LC LP regime promotes a balance between marine environment protection and measures intended to address climate change the Contracting parties for the LC and LP have taken groundbreaking steps to mitigate the impacts of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and to ensure that new technologies with the potential to cause harm to the marine environment are effectively controlled and regulated today we have the unique opportunity to hear about how CCs is being researched assessed and regulated in various countries we will also get an overview of global CCS activities and ship design for CO2 Transportation this promises to be an exciting day of knowledge sharing and intellectually stimulating discussion we encourage you to participate and to ask questions I will now hand over to Dr Yan Chang the second Vice chair for his introduction and the logistical arrangements for the day good good morning and also good afternoon and good evening to the online participant I am yon Chang and I am currently a research scientist in the Korea institute of ocean science and technology I am honored to have the privilege to participate in the science scientific group meetings as since uh 2018 as part of the delegation of the Republic of Korea I feel very opportunity to work with the vice chair Miss aesh commans and the chair Dr Christian munai of the scientific groups uh before to start I uh we wish to provide some information for today’s event uh this Symposium is being held in hybrid mode in both on online and offline so the audience in this room are invited to use your headset to have a better hearing uh we have one online presentation and a pre-recorded video will be played to avoid any unpredictable uh connection issue and all presentations except for the online pres present will be followed by live Q&A session but the Q Q&A session will be only open to the uh pre-registered participant who received a link to the science day uh it is also noted that the science day is to be live streamed to the public through IM YouTube channel and the slide will be unloaded onto the public IMO website after the Symposium therefore those who have not been registered can still watch the Symposium in real time or even later through the YouTube channel uh today’s Symposium is coordinated by the Vice chairs of the scientific group and I would like to briefly introduce the presenters and the mage m m Jessica mans the first VI Vice chair will lead the Q&A session after each presentation and also the discussion session after all of the presentations and one more thing uh the camera to help the remote participant is located in the center of this room and cannot cover the podium over there so I would like to kindly request that the presenters do not have to stand at the podium but sit here next to me during the presentation and also during the Q&A session Al I would like to give some time to the presenters so that they can introduce themselves and while doing that the camera can have the chance to show the presenters to the online participant and also to those who watch the YouTube thank you for your understanding now now I would like to introduce Miss Jan park for the introductory talk Miss park has been working as a senior professional officer in the office of London convention and the London protocol and office ocean Affairs uh since to to 2023 before that she was a senior deputy director of the ship building and plant division of the ministry of trade industry and energy of the Republic of Korea now I will give the floor to miss Park so she can introduce her uh herself and start introductive talk with the topic of London protocol and CCSC please welcome Miss park for her introductory talk thank you [Applause] thank you y and thank you everyone yeah good morning everyone and good afternoon and good evening uh to all attendees online as well yeah welcome to science day Symposium today uh my name is Jan bar and as Yan just mentioned and um I’m the Secretariat of the IMO as the SPO in the office of London convention and protocol and ocean Affairs um it has been a while since the science day has been held at this IM headquarters London in 2017 actually for me this is the first time U participating in science day and I’m really um excited to be able to welcome you um to London and very pleas to deliver an introductory presentation so yeah before we get into uh the presentations I just wanted to provide a very brief overview of the London convention and protocol and CCSC today’s science day is attended by most of the delegates of the scientific groups uh meeting this week along with a lot of additional experts particularly in the topic we are covering today um we are really interesting presentations covering details today so I’m not going to explain everything in detail but I will just briefly introduce London convention and protocol and first because I’m aware that there may be people online who are not familiar with the treaties and then I will present the progress on the London protocol amendments to regulate ccss so London Pro convention and protocol they are two separate Global trees that prevent pollution from The Dumping of waste at Sea the first one was the London convention which was the one of the first Global conventions to protect the marine environment from human activities subsequently countries adopted the London protocol to modernize the London convention with the intention of replacing it and the protocol entered into force in 2006 and currently it has 54 member states the protocol provides a precautionary approach which means under the protocol on um all dumping is prohibited unless explicitly uh permitted so now now I want to show you that what types of waste can be considered for dumping a sea which is stipulated in anex one to the London convention a London protocol basically all forms of waste are prohibited from being dumped as SE however according to the London protocol anex one seven types of waste can be dumped at se under specific conditions also the conditions are outlined in anex 2 of the lp as most of us aware in 2006 Contracting parties decided to include CO2 streams within the rest of materials can be considered for dumping in anex one and as just mentioned as I just mentioned the anex two of the London protocol stipulates the circumstances or conditions that dumping permit can be issued with that the assessment the waste assessment guidelin they are providing a more detailed assessment process I don’t believe that I need to explain every St in this slide here but I just want to highlight two points just because they are similar to the case of CCS guidelines first um these are step eight steps of the guidelines they are aimed at minimizing the impact on marine environment and they are quite common stuffs um applied for the for other specific guidelines for assessment so you will find a similar process in the specific guidelines for CO2 streams second this process consists of eight steps but it’s not a step by step or a linear process as you can see from the diagram this is an iterative process with many feedback loops and now I’d like to move on to the background of why London protocol began to regulate carbon capture and storage Jessy CS technology is really not a New Concept it has been developed and utilized for quite some time however with recognition of its Lo for achieving the natural goals by the cop 17 meeting or IA report the deployment has gained momentum in recent years because the London protocol really aimed at protecting and preserving the marine environment from all sources of pollution Contracting parties have been responding to regulate the ccss so now here we can see the brief progress of the London protocol amendments for regulating ccss and CO2 export as I mentioned in 2006 Contracting parties adopted the amendment again uh decided to include CO2 streams in the lp anex one this was to provide Prov the basis for regulation of CO2 sequestration in subia geological formation and this amendment came into Force shortly in 2007 subsequently in 2009 Contracting parties adopted the amendment again and this enabled export of CO2 streams for ceration as of today there have been only 11 acceptances for this amendment and it has not yet entered into Force which means indicating that uh it’s still pending so in response uh parties adopted a resolution to allow the provisional application of the 2009 Amendment and it enables countries that declared provisional application to export CO2 streams for the purpose of a permanent sequestration is subad currently a parties have declared provisional application furthermore the first bilateral agreement between Belgium and Denmark um not was notified to the IMO in late 2022 even prior to the first amendment of LP in 2006 parties developed the developed the CCS guidance which is the risk assessment and management framework um subsequently parties established a special specific guidelines to further elaborate the assessment process ESS of CO2 streams according to the London protocol and these specific guidelines CO2 streams must undergo a rigorous a step process to receive a permit for dumping L than explaining is every steps detailed here um I just wanted to emphasize that these steps are developed to address the risks associated with CO2 cation in sub geological formations OCC Ross all time scales as a result this guidelines main focus is to deal with the potential effect on the marine environment near the receive informations in addition in 2013 parties established the guidelines on the export of CO2 streams so now countes interested in the export and receiving of CO2 streams between each other can do so by declaring the pro vison application of 2009 Amendment and signing an agreement or Arrangement and such an agreement or Arrangement should include confirmation and allocation of the permitting responsibilities between the exporting and receiving countries additionally parties that entered into Force such an agreement or Arrangement must notify the IMO and in this page I’m happy to inform you that we have have presenters from I a ghg and we can see him in the picture yeah he seems very focusing in the meeting yeah um yeah okay yeah so in conclusion um so far we’ve seen the rapidly increasing interest in ccs and the London protocol and his guidelines over the past years we have accumulated much more experiences in implenting CCS projects and guidelines compared to when the specific guidelines of of CCS were developed it was 17 years ago this accumulated experience is really important in determining what to do for the next step um in determining whether updates the guidelines are needed are needed with that we have been sharing the experiences and questions actively at the meetings of governing bodies and scientific groups meetings particularly last year parties established a correspondence group on experiences with the CCS guidelines coded by Australia and Japan and we also established the working group on CS during the meeting this week these groups and discussions have been facilitating further sharing of experiences in this regard I uh believe sharing and exchanging more exch experiences and questions on the guidelines at today the Symposium really matter as well and I hope we can get more insight from truly interesting presentations lined up today now I think I’ve covered everything necessary for um a brief introduction today I really hope you have an interesting day thank you for your attention and now I will hand back to the chair for today thank you Miss Park for that informative presentation which provided the important background to ccs under the London protocol I will now hand over to Yan to introduce the next presenter okay our next speaker and actually the first presentation of today is Mr Tom Dixon Mr Dixon is the director and the general manager of i e a ghg and the title of his presentation is review of global CCS development offshore and I expect Mr Dixon can introduce himself in more detail okay thank you very much chair and uh thank you for the organization of today uh greetings everybody uh and welcome uh Tim Dixon I’m the head of iagg uh and um my role today is to provide a uh overview and update on global CCS developments uh worldwide keyboard okay um first of all just to say that my organization iagg uh we’re an international research organization in CCS we’ve been around since 1991 one we were set up by the International Energy agency but we are not part of the International Energy agency so anything I say does not count as their views but we do we do use their material and they use our material um and our role is is is funding research uh in carbon capture and storage and just uh for those of you who may be new to this topic uh I’m going to give a very brief introduction to what carbon capture and storage is uh why we’re looking at it as a as a as a as a planet um and then some of the regulatory developments briefly Jan covered those well for the London protocol and then I’ll give an update on the global developments in projects so carbon capture and storage essentially is capturing carbon dioxide the main greenhouse gas capturing it from large Point sources um and injecting it deep beneath the ground so that it does not act as a greenhouse gas and so any large point source of carbon dioxide this can be applied to for example power generation from gas coal or from biomass uh from industrial processes such as gas processing um from industrial processes such as cement production where there is no low carbon alternative Iron and steel production and it can even capture CO2 from the atmosphere through direct air capture now that’s the cartoon that describes CCS one thing wrong with that cartoon is the scale of the storage because we inject at least 1,000 M deep and this is to scale this is a a real Project based in Canada onshore project capturing CO2 from a cold Power Station that’s injecting 3,000 M deep and it gives you an idea of the geology there’s many different geological formations between the reservoir and the surface some of which are potential reservoirs some of which are potential are trapping formations and understanding those is really important in the site characterization aspects of Permitting CO2 geological storage so why are we looking at it well we we go to the science of climate change and the intergovernmental panel on climate change ipcc and in all of their scenarios there is a role for CCS being applied uh as long with all the other uh CO2 mitigation and greenhouse gas mitigation Technologies and what they do point out as well in different reports is that if CCs is not in that portfolio of mitigation Technologies the costs of achieving the climate goals increase significantly uh this was was carried through into the most recent ipcc reports in the AR6 series um again highlighting the role for CCS along with other mitigation Technologies but also pointing out that on the planet the geological storage capacity is around 1,000 gigatons Which is far more than is actually needed for its role in these scenarios if we to achieve the more ambitious goal of 1.5° C but in their good work the draws upon just peer-reviewed literature they also point out that there’s not enough policy instruments in place to stimulate CCS projects my colleagues in the International Energy agency they produced their own scenarios and reports and in 2020 uh they produced a special report on ccus and I think they summarized nicely why would people are looking at this and trying to dep deploy it as a technology because it can be retrofitted to existing CO2 sources so you can tackle emissions from your existing energy assets it can be bolted onto the chimney basically also really importantly whilst in the power sector we have options for low carbon electricity generation from wind and solar hydro and nuclear um with some industry sectors there was very hard or no options to decarbonize as I mentioned cement and steel and there’s a possibility of decarbonizing Aviation through the creation of synthetic Aviation fuels as well hydrogen as an energy Vector has a potential lot of applications again in the hard to Abate regions uh and areas such as heavy transport ship transport domestic and Industrial Heating and CCS on natural gas can also provide low cost low carbon hydrogen and removing CO2 from the atmosphere through direct air capture or bio energy with ccs so that’s why people are looking at it along with the other mitigation options ready for the cop in um cop 26 in Glasgow the IIA produced a net zero road map for the energy sector because the energy sector is the main source of CO2 and in that that’s that got the headlines because you may remember it said about no new new developments of new oil and gas Fields within this should be needed if you do all of the things they uh they put in this road map but within that by 2035 for ccs and carbon dioxide removal 4 gigatons per year would be captured now the 4 gigatons a year is a 100 times more than we’re doing at the moment from the projects we have just bringing this up to the International Energy agency realized that we’re not on track in general in terms of mitigation um and so they produced their credible Pathways to 1.5 for actions to be done this decade by 2030 and there four pillars for Action decarbonize Electric decarbonizing electricity reducing deforestation to zero tackling methane emissions and carbon management through carbon capture and storage and carbon dioxide removal and this uh got encapsulated by an initiative that the US launched at the major economies Forum in April last year the carbon management Challenge and this was then launched at cop 28 in juai the unfccc cop and of note here it’s not so much the 19 countries that have signed up to scale up ccs and CDR but the fact that in the lead countries us UK Canada also Brazil and Indonesia leading that two developing countries so that’s the need my colleagues also updated their road map um the scale of CCS the role of CCs is participation has gone down because projects have not been built since they developed the last road map three years ago and whilst the project pipeline is increasing in terms of projects being assessed feasibility studies development if all of those projects that are in feasibility stages now would to reach investment decisions and construction and operation that would still only be a third of what’s needed in their Net Zero by 2050 road map so we’re not doing enough and the Ia world energy Outlook also summarizes on CCS that current policies are wholly insufficient so that’s a scene setting on why we’re looking at ccs the unfccc Paris agreement uh that we’re operating now uh globally for the climate targets based upon the national nationally determined contributions uh in those nationally those ndc’s which are looking to 2030 uh only 23 have explicitly got CCs in and you might think that’s low but these are ndc’s that are looking at mitigation actions just in this decade up to 2030 the Paris agreement also requires countries to put in place their long-term strategies to midcentury and here a lot more of these have CCs in 71 countries submitted 48 of ccs and that’s because countries are realizing that they’re doing the easier to do mitigation now they’ve got to go beyond that to achieve the Net Zero by mid century they’ve got to apply ccs to the hard to Abate parts of their economic activity so really importantly from the London convention London predals perspective how do we ensure Environmental Protection how do we ensure that geological storage is safe and secure and we now have a range of international regulations uh I have to say that the London protocol was the first in 2006 and Jan’s given a nice uh description of those um the unfccc included in the Kyoto Protocol from 2011 for developing countries and we now even have ISO developing standards for capture performance geological storage pipeline transport Etc and several countries have also got and regions have got regulations on geological storage the EU with the CCS directive the US with EPA storage regulations Australia Japan Canada have as well and all of these are based upon the ipcc’s greenhous gas inventory guidelines that updated its chapter with a new chapter in 2006 on co2 geological storage and I should mention here for countries that do not have regulations in place yet my colleagues in the International Energy agency have a handbook on how to develop legal and Regulatory Frameworks for CCS that was updated in 2022 so just go back a step to to why we’re looking at ccs and the ipcc did a special report in 2005 and they did uh conclude that it was worth pursuing as a mitigation option but for well selected well-designed and well-managed sites that’s the role of Regulation to ensure that project operators select sites well design them and operate them well they made reference to the IPC guidelines for greenhous gas inventories they looked at the they they they produced the guidelines that every country follows to report every greenhouse gas emitted in a country’s jurisdiction for CO2 geological storage they realized that an emissions factor-based approach would not work it has to be in the more rigorous tier three approach which is based upon measurement and monitoring and this is the methodology they came up with around sack characterization of the geological storage site assessment of the the risk of leakage simulation and modeling of the CO2 behavior in the storage Reservoir a monitoring plan and then reporting of both the CO2 injected and the CO2 should it leak from the storage site or from the injection processes and for appropriately selected managed sites this supports a zero leakage assumption unless the monitoring indicates otherwise and this basic methodology underpins all of the regul ations that were developed since including those of the London protocol J hun covered the London protocol developments very well so you know the history there and the amendment in 2006 to the annex and CCS the CO2 specific guidelines produced in 2007 and it moved relatively quickly and I I like using this slide it’s 2005 slide from Plymouth Marine laboratory but it’s in in the consideration then by the scientific group here we were looking at the risks to the marine environment of storing CO2 in the subc bed what happens if CO2 leaks into the marine environment that coincided with the realization about the impacts of the CO2 from the atmosphere being absorbed by the Earth’s oceans and the cause causing ocean acidification particularly in the surface layers of the oceans and this uh slide shows the range of C surface low PH over 23 20 million years and then in 2005 we were about 370 parts per million 380 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere and we’d already moved the surface lay pH out of its million 20 million year range obviously now uh we’re in 2024 we’re at 420 parts per million moving it further out that has significant implications on seawater chemistry and on the ecosystems and on things that form calcium carbonate bodies such as photop Plankton and there’s a photo cockal lithur there that if we get much further they will the seawat chemistry will work against the formation of their their bodies their shells so that realization about the damage we’re doing through atmospheric CO2 I think was a stimulus to the London protocol moving uh on this one particular technology that was in this context as well and also why we want to ensure there is no leakage of CO2 from the subc bed um so uh just to show you the detail of the the uh Amendment the term overwhelmingly was put in there to define the CO2 stream but acknowledging that there may be incidental Associated substances from The Source material uh and uh other factors involved in the process and really really importantly no other waste can be added for the purpose of dumping the level of incidental Associated substances should be based upon their impacts both on the marine environment and human health but also their impacts potential impacts on the Integrity of storage sites and the transport infrastructure and that’s reference there to the scientific group meeting that developed those ospar is the Reg translation uh of the London protocol uh for the Northeast Atlantic that moved very quickly afterwards following the similar requirements for permit uh issuance um and actually going a bit further to explicitly prohibit storage in the W column um and both London and ospar have their guidelines for issuing permits a basically an environmental impact assessment process Jun mentioned these and show this slide as well showing the CO2 specific guidelines requirements um uh conclude with an impact hypothesis that should be produced before a site is permitted so um coming to what iagg my organization uh does in this arena is refund research and provide evidence base uh around carbon capture storage and carbon dioxide removal but it involves geological storage of the CO2 and being a participant in these meetings um we heard regularly the requests from Greenpeace in particular for sharing of experiences for sharing of the permitting information from the offshore projects that were being developed or were operational so our contribution was to look at what one project site that had been permitted and that was in the Netherlands for the road CCS project um using the p8 for field offshore they’d got their permit from the Dutch regulator the European commission had given them approval or an opinion positively as well um now the European so I mentioned the London protocol requirements the ospar requirements are very very similar and because most of the ospar parties are European member states the European CCS directive also reflects the ospar requirements which reflect the London protocol requirements so our logic was if they’ve got approval under the European CCS directive they should be meeting many of the the requirements of the London protocol but how do we know so we commissioned tno the Dutch agency to look at the per permit documents for the road project site uh there’s 1,100 pages in Dutch and they went through and they assessed those against the 56 requirements of the London protocol CO2 specific guidelines um to see whether these 56 requirements were met um this was a qualitative assessment U more than a quantitative but the specific guidelines requirements themselves are also qualitative in nature and not quantitative and in their conclusions then uh looking at this they did conclude that of the 56 requirements um about 80% were met there was sufficient information to make a reasonable decision that there was a positive uh conclusion and that the Dutch regulator was involved in this uh process this this this study as well as well as the Dutch operator of of the project but there was about 18% of the London protocol CO2 specific guidelines requirements were only partially met or incomplete so we’ve separated them into the consideration of the RTE uh physical and chemical properties the action list characterization of the subsurface assessment of potential effects monitoring and mitigation and the permit conditions and there was a small number that would not met of the CO2 guidelines requirements uh in this so um what obviously is most interest is the partial or the Nonet requirements of the 56 and the report highlights these um it includes the looking at other disposal options but if I uh remind you that the London protocol concluded that the decision on which CO2 streams should go for offshore storage is really up for a country’s energy and climate policy not for the London protocol so that’s why that was not in in included here the um second one on the toxicity and potential for Bio accumulation the storage site that the p18 field is is um I think it’s about 20 kilm offshore but it’s 3,000 M deep it’s a depleted gas Reservoir under pressured because of the the natural gas has been produced with a single weal for Access and they concluded in the site characterization and the risk assessment that that there was NE negligible risk of leakage and so their environmental impact assessment aspects were only partially uh covered because they just could not see a scenario for the CO2 getting into the marine environment from the storage for um and that’s that’s part of the explanation for why that information was not provided to the Dutch regulator within the environmental impact assessment that was provided and undertaken for this specific project um the one thing that was not included uh was the requirement for permits to be reviewed at regular intervals uh so that’s on the on the on the regulator to require that and also the National Action list aspect this the development development of a screening tool again that was on the national regulator to have that in place for the Netherlands they didn’t make reference to it um in the documents for this particular project so anyway I recommend this report um we had it presented by tno in the annual meeting of the Contracting parties to the London protocol um lc38 I think it was in 2016 it’s freely available um and I uh wish it would uh be included in the considerations for the ongoing correspondents group work on permitting experiences and also because this work is whil the road project did not proceed uh the same storage site as the one that’s being used for the Portos project in the Netherlands that is proceeding so once it would have to be rep permitted because the CO2 streams would be different going to that the basic facts around the storage site um would would stay the same so its relevance is still there for the Dutch Regulators to to draw upon or for the wider world to draw upon it did produce some recommendations in the report um like uh it should be more explicit about meeting the London protocol requirements it should highlight um the impact hypothesis at the end although they did say also in the report that the conclusions of the risk assessment process in effect are the impact hypothesis but it needs to be more explicit because they considered that there was negligible risk of leakage they didn’t do a site specific uh impact assessment on the marine environment but whether the data that we’ve got from others projects sites such as stem CCS could be used uh in its place uh and the question of the action list and updating permits on there also in the London protocol CO2 specific guidelines is a requirement for an economic feasibility aspect and they they queried what really was need that background to that and the role for public participation could be clearer although that’s a really important off aspect of offshore projects um jukun mentioned the export Amendment as well uh thanks for that update and that’s the details of that and um just wanted to thank my colleagues here at IMO and um uh for co-authoring a report because we realized also that for the wider world the guidance documents that were amended for export and for transboundary CO2 storage they’re buried in the in the annexes of uh London protocol meeting reports so we’ve drawn them out into an IHG report that’s available with the full references back to the uh London pedical documents themselves in terms of export of CO2 um juhan mentioned the first bilateral agreement between Denmark and Belgium uh also this year there has been a bilateral agreement between Denmark and France and on Monday this week there was a bilateral agreement announced between Netherlands and Norway and also in this context sorry I don’t have a slide on this but the European commission did its own analysis in 2022 and concluded that the CCS directive worked as an appropriate Arrangement because there needs to be an arrangement or agreement in place to make sure that all the permit conditions are met the CCS directive in Europe serves as an appropriate CCS Arrangement and it’s just that other aspects not covered by that should be covered by these bilateral agreements and that’s essentially around the permitting responsibilities between the two parties and to my reading of those three M us each one of those does specify the three the the permitting responsibilities so the last thing I’ll say in in five minutes is just a quick Global update then um my colleagues in the global CCS Institute produce a great report every year on the global status of CCS um yes there’s any one 41 projects in operation but there’s three over 300 in different stages of development many in Europe and North America but what we do as iagg we do have a specific Workshop series looking at offshore CCS offshore geological storage in particular and this was uh set up with the University of Texas um and stimulated by a recommendation from the carbon sequestration leadership forum and we held our sixth Workshop in this series in September last year hosted by the University of aine here in the UK so this was set up uh as a request from the carbon setion leg Forum around International knowledge sharing uh why are people looking offshore for geological storage well this is a geological map of sedimentary thickness showing the potential storage globally but what’s significant there are several benefits including that the ownership of the poor space is more straightforward offshore in many countries compared to onshore also the proximity of the storage geology to major major industrial sources of CO2 that are often along coastlines as well so in this Workshop series I won’t go through these in detail but the first one we had uh in uh Texas in 2016 13 countries attended and these workshops are about sharing knowledge between those countries doing the offshore projects operationally and those countries who are interested so we had four projects operational offshore in Norway Japan and the Netherlands and so it was about sharing their experience and knowledges with other countries the second Workshop the following year was also in Texas and IHG we produced reports of these workshops we try and draw conclusions recommendations at the end and the public reports on our website the third Workshop uh was hosted by Norway the fourth Workshop was also hosted by Norway in 2020 and was uh in conjunction with the EU stem CCS project which was a large uh controlled release of CO2 in the North Sea uh seabed um to test monitoring sensors and techniques and mounts and methods for detecting leakage of CO2 and It produced a lot of really good work and we do have confidence now in offshore leakage monitoring and quantification through the results of the stem CCS project for that meeting we did a quick map this was thanks to an intern at the University of Texas um who just put on the map countries who are active in offshore storage so Brazil as well um and also the countries in blue are the ones interested and the US very much wanting to learn from other countries in this scenario uh next Workshop was back in the US in New Orleans uh just after uh covid that’s a range of topics we looked at um similar for many for each of these including an International project Roundup where we get updates from projects and the last Workshop as I mentioned was in abedine last September uh where we had the project round up we looked at monitoring developments we transport developments interaction with other users of the seabed in the UK North Sea perspective in particular with offshore winds legal and Regulatory and accounting developments uh environmental aspects as well and that report is is available from us I think we had 60 people in person and 130 people online for that hybrid meeting um the projects we looked at uh we had updates from in that meeting from the UK Greece USA Portugal Norway South Korea Netherlands Australia Taiwan um Australia and Timor Ley in Southeast Asia we had updates some all of those from those organizations on the right hand side and we also provided summary updates from other projects who were not able to give updates um including the two long running projects in Norway SL and snow Vite but also the ones being developed in Denmark of notable notable importance there so uh with those uh projects that’s a lot of activity there’s only four of those are currently operational and the others are in different stages of development and feasibility study or construction um my uh we had a colleague naami Clark and intern IHG they kindly produce uh this map of the projects under development that was shared at this meeting uh the colorcoded dots if you can see those are uh yellow for use in for storage in deep salil informations red is for use of depleted oil and gas Reservoir brass and purple where there may be both or gray where it’s uncertain but that’s the distribution of projects operational or in development uh around the world at the moment and Naomi also looked at the characteristics of those uh about 30 projects about uh a third are using deep celling formations 53% using depleted o oil and gas fields in terms of transport of the CO2 to the storage site about half are through pipeline and about a third through ship and Pipeline and about 10% planning on ship only use terms of the infrastructure uh 55% were going to reuse existing infrastructure and about 16% said it was going to be new infrastructure so some characteristics there of the storage uh project side and in the conclusions from that particular meeting um we you know interesting number of projects in development but we come back to that’s still not enough projects in order to meet the scenarios that the iea and ipcc have for CCS rolling climate targets spatial resource allocation is an strategic issue around uses of the seabed and the and the subsurface there so collaboration between the different users is really important it does take time to apply for licenses and permits and in the UK case with the North Sea transition Authority in their permitting operations they’d worked out a way through issuing a few permits on an ad hoc basis to improve the process to take a year off that permitting process the fact that the just transition for uh environmental justice in terms of human population and Workforce is being recognized within CCS projects especially in the US where it’s a requirement of the US Department of energy the monitoring plan are maturing and being approved by regulators and that sets a precedent for the level of detail and requirements that are needed and we you I personally noted we noted that some of the mmv plants now are making use of the tools developed by the stem CCS project uh Community benefits are key still even with offshore storage the fact that we’ve got the tools for envir environmental monitoring but the Gap is some development of some monitoring techniques for use around wind farms where geological storage formation may have a wind farm on the seabed above that it makes using seismic techniques more difficult and just to end with um the next Workshop in this series um will be in Texas again at Port Arthur in September this year you’re all very welcome to attend and more than that we welcome suggestions for agender items that we can address in this meeting and so the points made by Green piece on Monday um I would like those again I made a good note of those and we’ll look at those uh areas and see whether we can make a gender items to discuss those in more detail based upon the experiences that we’ve got or the gaps that there may be and how we can address those so that’s a quick uh review of global CCS developments of sure and happy to take any questions thank you very much [Applause] chair thank you Mr Dixon for the overview of global CCS developments which serves to set the scene for the day I would now like to open the floor for any questions on Mr Dixon’s presentation green please you have the floor thank you chair and uh thank you Tim for uh such a a comprehensive opening presentation uh we’re particularly pleased that you raised again the uh the tno study we were very grateful at the time that that was something that had been organized uh because we felt that there was uh almost an assumption that everything would go right um and therefore certain things in the assessment weren’t perhaps so necessary uh but we always feel we should be asking not just what do we think but how do we know and what happens if we’re wrong and I think that those kinds of questions do get at um at those uh those issues and I think I would agree with you that it would be great to have um that report as part of the uh the CCS um discussions going forwards because I think it did have some very important um guid and and lessons going forwards I had um three questions quickly firstly you mentioned the uh the four pillars uh among which were decarbonizing the energy sector uh and um carbon capture and storage as part of that if we don’t find a way to limit the application of ccs to hard to Abate sectors rather than um retrofitting to uh fossil fuel power how do we um ensure that we’re not working against decarbonization as a as a priority um because I think if if it remains a possibility that uh any source of CO2 is possible we may not be able to to break the the link with uh with with fossil fuels secondly as things stand and I I’m glad you also raised the the global CCS um Institute reports they’re a very valuable source of of information on on global developments um but at the moment what those show is that still the majority of CCs is used for enhanced oil recovery now that M balance may change in the future but is there a way in which um that there can be a clearer break between uh enhanced oil recovery and the kinds of uh of approaches that you were focusing on today um or is it always going to be the case that uh uh that enhanced oil recovery and therefore more exploitation of fossil fuels is going to be linked to ccs and the final thing is although we understand of course that that CCS relies on the Assumption of of zero leakage um what can we do if it does leak other than controlling the well pressure or perhaps uh stopping injection are there other uh opportunities that are that are emerging or being investigated as to what could practically be done if there was a leak that was not associated with the well itself but something further away uh from the injection site what what are our options at that stage in order to uh um to to stop the leak getting worse thank you thank you Green Peace uh Mr Dixon would you like to respond uh yes thank you chair thank you Green Peace for those questions um on the on the hard to Abate topic um I think there’s there’s two two aspects to that we want to decrease the use of fossil fuels in general um but even with the most optimistic renewable electricity provision with variable sources of wind and solar there needs to be some counterbalance balancing and of supply of electricity and so many economies are looking to gas with ccs or if you’re going to use gas power generation you need to decarbonize that to achieve Net Zero and so that’s the potential for it being used there um and really it’s up to countries um to decide on how they decarbonize and what’s important is the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere because that’s what’s causing global warming and climate change um with the E projects historically the operational projects were e based but um most of the new projects around the world are not e based they straight storage based and the incentives for new projects are very much steered to straight storage and if you look at the US incentives for example their 45q tax credits um just don’t CRP me on the numbers but I think it’s about double for straight storage compared to storage through enhanced o recovery and all of the new projects under development in the US my understanding is they’re all straight storage for that reason um and all of the offshore projects the 30 projects we just described um they are all straight storage as well so the future is not e as far as I can see it’s enhan it’s straight storage and on your last question this is this is a really important question that we’ve been looking at with others for over 20 years about if there is Le Le AG so firstly the most likely leakage path should it occur will be through the engineered um barrier in the capat Rock the well um we do have good experience in well fault remediation um for the oil and gas industry experiences we have confidence in that being able to be undertaken for CO2 leakage through Wells but it is the major focus in the risk assessment on every CO2 geic storage project um absolutely for non-well leakage that is much harder as you imply to deal with but when we’re looking at CO2 in the subsurface what we’ve realized is that it is a reactive compound um the likelihood of it reaching the surface through other Roots is is very minimal there’s many things that will happen to it on the way between the storage Reservoir 3,000 MERS deep in the surface um such that it’s very hard to create a scenario where it does reach the surface um nonetheless we need to be ready for that and the monitoring techniques and tools have been developed uh including for large area surveys should that be needed using auvs um and the scale of such leakage would be um you know minimal because of all the processes that would happen to the CO2 between the reservoir and the surface as well um so that that was that was partly in the conclusions of the ipcc inventory guidelines work in 2006 um but it is you know there right questions to ask and there’s a lot of research dollars have gone into that area um including as I mentioned on Monday uh we’ve had to engineer and create leaks in order to test these theories onshore and off offshore uh so that we can have confidence in the monitoring in particular thanks thank you Mr Dixon Kenya you have the floor thank you very much and uh thank you for the good presentation uh uh my question uh would be on the use of CCS on ships and uh uh kindly if you could advise how do you see CCS being used on ship as one way of addressing climate change and meeting our decarbonization targets and uh also what would be the requirements for the ships transporting the captured carbon um uh to the site thank you okay uh thank thank you for that interesting question uh CCS on ships um is actually um a topic that’s been looked at because of the emissions the CO2 emissions from from ships um and techniques are being developed and there is the potential for CO2 capture of the CO2 and then when the ship gets support it can then unload uh the CO2 at um an appropriate facility for geological storage and in fact the one of the projects being developed at the moment is the Northern Lights project in Norway which is designed specifically to receive CO2 by ship from other sites in northern Europe um it’s very good because it’s enabling CO2 capture to be fitted at industrial sites that might not have wanted to develop their own site specific storage and then the two ships that are being constructed for that transporter C at the moment but the next th those are those ships have just been launched in the last two weeks still being fitted at the moment but the next series of ships they’re looking at would have CO2 capture built onto them and I don’t know the technique yet but that is a serious consideration by that project um and in terms of requirements of the ships for transport uh we do have a presentation later this morning um from Shan bond from ABS Europe about ship transport so he he’s better place to answer those questions thank you thank you Germany you have the floor yeah good morning good morning to all and many thanks to uh to Tim for your uh very informative in uh presentation I would like to keep on discussing this issue of how to Abate emissions and my question is um actually so you you did not really gave an give an answer to to um the the question by Green pce you said that um we need to see that uh it’s hard to trans transpose um the production Supply by of electricity from now fossil fuel to really Renewables in a in a very quick uh period of time so this is difficult so we need uh CCS for the sequestration of emissions from uh electricity electricity production and then it’s also an issue for the national policies but I would I would like to ask ask is this not one of the most important questions with regard to carbon capture and storage for what emissions we would like to use this technology we have two we have three options for all emissions we have the um uh the option to to use this technique to sequester um hard toate emissions and we have also the option to use it to achieve negative emission so we have three options and how to deal with these options in order to come up with a clever and reasonable climate change policy is this not uh an issue which need needs to be scientifically investigated and so this is my the answer to this question is yes or no but maybe you can elaborate a bit more on that so this is my first question and secondly um you did not really mention so much the the option of CCU so um in your that you you you talked about one strategy and with four compon with four components but in this strategy CCU was not mentioned but how do you see the relationship between ccs and CCU in the in the next years many thanks okay than thanks for those questions um again I I I would start with you know it’s up to each country on how it decarbonized its economic activity industrial and power generation um my point on on the renewable energy supply of electricity of getting the maximum electricity from Renewables is obviously ideal I think when we were here on Monday I don’t know if you know but the UK had 72% of its electricity from Renewables on Monday it was very windy and it was very sunny but we have to have something supplying electricity for when it’s not sunny and when it’s less windy and and that’s the role of power generation from fossil fuels then there’s still likely to be a role and that needs to be decarbonized and you can’t say that it’s well um hard rebate sectors you know you need to decarbonize those but it’s no better to say don’t fit ccs to fossil fuel power generation that CO2 is just as harmful uh to the to the atmosphere and as I think we had in some of the discussion on Monday the negative emissions aspect um the ipcc and the Ia do say that we do that there are some greenhouse gas emissions that we do not have ways of mitigating particularly from agriculture for example to achieve Net Zero we do have to be able to go negative with some technologies and so CCS uh it forms a way of doing that through direct air capture or biomass with ccs specks um but it really is up to each country’s climate policy on how they achieve Net Zero within the the emissions that they can control within their jurisdiction uh on CCU carbon capture and utilization that’s um not all CCU results in mitigation of CO2 emissions um our as our an organization our remid is around the mitigation of CO2 emissions and the role of CCU also in whether CO2 is locked up in products or in processes the question is the permanence of that CO2 removal because the CO2 removal needs to be from the atmosphere kept from the atmosphere 4,000 years plus but its storage in products uh doesn’t necessarily guarantee that at all and the permanence issue is called to that so that is why CCU is less addressed maybe in all the analysis that I’ve mentioned is that it doesn’t result in large scale mitigation of CO2 and that’s what we’re here to do thank you Mr Dixon seeing no further questions I will now hand over to Yan to introduce our next presenters thank you the title of next presentation is Australia’s implementation of the London protocol under its sea dumping act for op CCS project and we have uh three presenters Dr Andrew Ross Dr Linda stal and is Heather agu from Australia and I would like to invite Miss agu to introduce herself and her colleagues for the presentation thank you thank you um good morning uh good afternoon and good evening to those uh who are also online um I’m Heather agu the director of the sea dumping section at the Australian government Department of climate change energy the environment and water and uh my team at the department is responsible for administering the London protocol including establishing the sea dumping permitting arrangements for the offshore carbon capture sequestration regulatory framework in Australia I’m here today with my colleagues from Australia’s national science agency the Commonwealth scientific and Industrial research organization also known as csro or cro we will talk about the development of Australia’s national action list for offshore CCS projects um this great um so firstly I’ll just give a brief overview of the content of our presentation I’ll give a brief snapshot of CCs in Australia um including some of the projects that are under development uh I’ll then provide some of the Australian context and the material that we used to form the requirements for the National Action list and including our recently uh released interim National Action list and then I’ll pass over to my colleagues from Sara who will talk to you about the project to develop that action list before touching on the next steps uh for offshore CCS um in Australia so um just to provide a brief introduction to CCs in in Australia in the offshore space um the demand for CCs is increasing globally as more countries are looking for ways to decarbonize and meet their emissions reduction targets as we just heard from our IA ghg colleague in Australia we have a Target to reduce our emissions to 43% below 2005 Levels by 2030 and to reach Net Zero by 2050 CCs is seen as an important part of our portfolio of approaches to reduce Australia’s emissions and Achieve Net Zero particularly for hard to oate sectors such as cement and chemical production Australia has vast areas both onshore and offshore where there is potential to store large amounts of carbon dioxide underground and there is considerable interest both domestically and internationally in using these reservoirs for carbon dioxide sequestration the figure to the left of the slide um is from Australia’s national carbon mapping and infrastructure plan 2009 and it shows the availability um of suitable regions for carbon dioxide storage um for those of you who might be at the back of the room those are the green regions um so you can see it’s quite a broad range of um areas in Australia and the figure on the right shows a selection of offshore CCS projects that are currently under development um there’s various stages of development there and wouldn’t worry if you’re at the back of the room and can’t see the details the idea is just to give you a sense of the regions of the country where these projects are be being considered we’ve also included the one project that is operational that’s the Gorgon CCS project although I do note that that is actually an onshore project um it’s on an island and therefore it’s not within the London protocol scope um and given Australia’s suitable um significant suitable areas for offshore CCS we expect to see an increase in CCS projects in line with the global shift towards emissions reduction and decarbonization so in terms of the domestic regulatory side um we have a sea dumping act in Australia that regulates the loading and dumping of waste at Sea this includes carbon dioxide and the other London protocol waste as listed in the annexes um proponents wanting to dispose of carbon dioxide in Australian Waters um using offshore CCS will require a sea dumping permit in accordance with that legislation there’s also other legislation in Australia that will regulate um these projects and approvals may be required underneath the environment protection and biodiversity conservation act which protects and manages nationally and internationally important plants animals habitat and places and also our offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage act which provides for the exploration of offshore geology for injection and storage of carbon dioxide and also regulates in carbon injection and storage activities so we’ve got a range of different um regulations for that and just for context the National Action list we’re talking about today is very specific to the London protocol and the Sea dumping act so in terms of that um we’ve been preparing um the National Action list for some time now to implement the new CCS permit category underneath the protocol we identified the need of the action list in accordance with Annex two of the protocol and we’ve also used input from the 2012 and the 2006 documents and guidance that the London protocol has provided and um noting the technical nature of that work I have sro’s Representatives Linda and Andy here today who will expand on on that in just one moment um but just for context for everyone we released that interim National Action list in February this year and it will allow our applic permit applicants and also our assessments teams within government to use it as a screening tool to assess the suitability for carbon dioxide streams for disposal into subed geological formations the interim list sets out substances for which the waste will need to be screened and sets the upper limit thresholds for each substance um the complete um list is under development by syro at the moment and it will build on the interim list by considering more types of capture scenarios and it will specify lower level substance concentrations where they may be appropriate um there is a QR code there for anybody who wants to go straight to the Department’s website and see the permit application forms and this document but we will um put them up again on the last slide so that people can have a look at them if they want to ask questions in the meantime I’ll hand over to my colleagues from Sy all right thank you hether um so I’ll just uh start to talk about the the rationale and the logic around how we’ve been constructing the N interim National Action list um and then I’ll hand over to to Linda who will go into the the technical detail so in in construction of uh the interim National Action list we really wanted to consider the the the carbon capture and storage value chain uh and to help guide us with the National Action list development and Tim’s already talked a little bit about the uh value chain uh this morning um but early on more traditional projects comprised a single Source uh to sync approach where the proponent was essentially managing their own emissions and storage location with no external or additional CO2 sources um and and I think good examples of that are the S known snit projects in Norway as as examples Uh current CCS con Concepts include integration of multiple Industries each with their own capture systems feeding into a common user or CO2 gather system I.E a hub uh and these might have single or multiple storage locations such as the work that we’re doing in Northern Territory on a low emissions hub and oft takers May provide CO2 via pipelines or ships and I think talking thinking about Northern Lights uh for that is a good example for the latter and of course Tim’s talked about this that this morning also understanding the different examples of CCS value chain um helps identify how incidental Associated substances or ais’s may become entrained in the CO2 stream or reduced or removed during capture compression and conditioning and this helps develop the CO2 specifications for the interim National Action list so as Heather has already so as Heather has already stated the interim National Action list sets out the upper limit threshold for specified incidental Associated substances within CO2 a CO2 stream to be stored we Define which substances are to be included and propose where the upper limits come propose upper limits uh and these are proposed coming from a range of information as we’ve already said on the previous slide some of the data are from operational assets of actual CCS value chains um and we we uh demonstrate that we’re we’re trying to um demonstrate the value chain on the right hand side of this slide here and we’ll just keep coming back to that as we go forward join the design development of uh CCS projects there been uh the development of standards and again Tim talked about that earlier on and as well as proponent specifications uh for uh binding agreements for oft take uh to manage the risks uh engineering risks particularly for their projects the specifications from ISO and proponents alike have been compared uh in our work with published values for human health short-term exposure limits STS and Linda will talk about that later on in addition um we’ve also had to consider how uh in incidental Associated substances uh are measured uh and understand their limit the limits of detection of those substances um as they together will influence the substances under consideration and the limits to which they can be Quantified under different circumstances so let’s walk ourselves through the value chain so in tracking CO2 and Associated incidental substances uh concentrations through the value chain we start by looking at the initial sources from which CO2 can be derived this includes a range of combustion and Industrial process emissions in Australia we have focused on Industrial and energy emissions that may cap capture CO2 in the near term however there is limited data and particularly limited data in Australia so we’ve used the available literature examples for Relevant emissions Source types from around the world the emission sources from combustion considered include coal gas biomass and waste and the emission sources from industrial processes include cement and lime Metals melters chemicals ammonia fertilizer production and and future capture processes and sources will be reviewed as they come online it’s important to note that this list cannot Encompass all sources of emissions that may be captured but is intended to comp encompass the major most quantitatively significant sources of emissions from which CO2 streams will be derived and the related range of a IAS anticipated in these CO2 streams at the input side of the process IAS within the emission sources are generally much higher than post capture and the relative concentration of IAS are picked represented by the width of the arrows on the right hand side of the flow chart and I apologize for those at the at the back of the room that may not be able to see that very well so let’s move through to the next part of the uh CO2 value stream so this is uh the capture and conditioning steps in the value chain facilities sorry the capture and conditioning steps in the value chain uh facilitates the removal of IAS that have negative impact on the process itself or where are efficiencies gained as a result of early removal of of certain IAS typically preconditioning steps include the removal of compounds such as nox and socks and also Mercury the capture process produces High concentration CO2 streams and also eliminates other IAS such as acids which are neutralized for the purposes of the interim action list national action list only Li only liquid aine capture processes as Illustrated in the figure at the right hand corner of the slide were considered as these processes have the greatest number of Prior studies available to us however other capture technologies will be considered in the offshore CCS National Action list the full list uh noting that it’s not possible to consider emerging Technologies where data is simply not available we’re trying to use publicly available data here postc capture conditioning of CO2 streams is often also employed prior to transport and storage and will also remove incidental Associated substances that were either part of the original emissions Source or imparted as part of the capture process these post conditioning steps typically can include but are not limited to gas dehydration and amine removal the main point here is that the end of the the value chain the CO2 that is provided for transport and storage is of high concentration and many of the AIS have been removed as engineer as an engineering necessity to pres prevent corrosion embrittlement and reductions in efficiency of operations EG things like non-compressible gases which will reduce efficiency so how is the data that been colled and collected uh how does it inform the development of the National Action interim National Action list the concentrations of the a a IAS sorry a bit of a mouthful in dried CO2 post capture and purification and the ranges of IAS concentrations in carbon dioxide streams found in the literature from projects in progress have been brought together and you can see an example of this in the table um shown these data sets have allowed an appreciation of the likely range of CO2 stream compositions and commonly occurring IAS that may be expected from a range of projects and that allows us to start to understand what needs to go into the interim action National Action list what I’m going to do now is hand over to Linda and uh she can take the the floor on the more technical uh work um so I’m going to walk you through what the um the graphics look like that’s helped us actually put together the the the rationale for what we got to so um this this um image here you can see a couple of things um for the how-to to read um because it’s quite complicated when we pull it all up so what you can see is that there is examples of um data where um you can see like pfc1 14 um on the the top row there or socks as a an amalgamation of different chemistries um that we use and they’re sometimes measured or monitored by um uh they’re brought together in sort of like analytical method methods that that sum up everything so those are those are in black um you’ve see um the the letters in uh the red are the data points that are um for the industry in the the the gas stream um and they’re we got to yeah so um and then the the blue is the numbers for the Post capture stream where we we’ve got to so we can see that in some cases we got 27 data points for socks in the pre like in the the capture stream before you’ve had them um changed along the bottom is um the values in um parts per million up to um a percent in a log scale and they’re all presented in ppmv the orange bar on the graph is the pre-capture concentrations whereas the blue gray bars represent the post capture concentrations of the compound so you start to see how there is a reduction um in the post capture the extent of the bars represent the maximum concentration of the compounds identified across the selection of industry and combustion emissions identified the dots on the graph um that we’ll have which we probably impossible to see back there um are actually from all the Project Specific data points that we have or from the iso database the vertical bars um that will also be difficult to see from the back are actually represent the Stell limits which we talk about in a moment so here’s the actual um table that we’ve put together as I said it was a little bit comp complicated so it presents both the pre and postcombustion capture IAS concentrations and you can see there’s a significant arrange across the compound classes from parts per trillion um all the way through to percent for many of the compounds there are actually no data available on their concentrations post capture or these compounds have not been sought nor detected also for some of the compounds included on the graph there’s limited publicly available data on their presence and concentration of these compounds within emission sources or c two streams um as uh the industry develops um so it is important to note that this graph does not represent all possible IAS that could be in the streams but represents the most studied and probably the most quantitatively significant at this point in time now we did want to Benchmark some of this against um uh real world examples and pull it all together so we wanted to show you where some of this data came from and our first data point was um the is 27913 um pipeline standard which presents a series of potential options for um what might be a new gas stream and um we’ve also talked to project proponents who have got um data in development um where proponents are defining specifications for either off-take agreements um with other emitters or for um development and design of your um uh operational equipment so we’ve collected from 14 publicly available and confidential CO2 specs so far uh including um uh sler uh highet uh wurn and acorn Northern Territory low emissions Hub Northern Lights porthos project and deep sea store so the data from all of these been brought together included in the graph as previously shown so with the dots PL plotted on those horizontal bars they show the different specifications for both on and offshore CCS projects uh S1 to S6 are provided confidentially and the remainder are actually open- Source data the specs are either proposed CO2 specs for future offshore projects current projects and active or projects under construction or others relate to the international standard we know that um some projects have actually very recently updated their specifications um after we actually prepared this material and we’ll go back and revisit that as part of the F now so generally the combined graph does show that there’s actually strong alignment within orders of magnitude between the iso and the proponent CO2 specifications and the captured CO2 um which is does provide some some degree of comfort um that uh we’re on the right track when we then cross reference that to Stell limits or the um short-term exposure limits um we we start to see this all uh start to come together so the a stelle is a Time way to average concentration of a substance over a 15minute period after which it may be injurious to health where we have no stale data we’ve used the corresponding tww values time weighted average values which run typically over an 8 hour period the logic here being that the is concentration should not exceed these exposure limits not withstanding that the CO2 concentration or high CO2 concentrations would actually constitute the primary health risk um at that point in time um as well as comparing these compounds um to the Stell limits and we also considered contaminant toxicity Pathway to harm risk to workers and risks to the environment um and I’ll draw your your your attention to um the graphic showing the considerations of the CO2 phase because that becomes important in a second as well um because Stell limits for each of these compound or compound classes which are considered both in the gaseous face but also the liquid phase and it’s anticipated that CO2 will be mainly transported and stored in the liquid phase um and that has an impact on the relative concentration of the St that for the stells and for what um the I concentrations might um be um recorded as but noting all of the above we need to be able to measure these things and measure these things in CO2 um so that we can actually um assess a risk so uh prior to build buing the final list we did want to make sure the compounds identified and their upper limits are actually measurable so we’ve Run part of a a review looking at this measurement methods that could be used to identify and quantify IAS as evidence by the table or the clip from the table the review identified a variety of inline and offline uh measurement methods including mobile methods instrumentation and laboratory based techniques but many of these methods have been yet to be adapted for measurement of compounds of interest within a background of CO2 frequently we can measure these to quite low values in a background of helium um but uh this is not all being done for CO2 so that means there’s further technology development opportunities for inline measurements and sensing approaches um the other note that of caution that we have is that when uh you’ve got to be really careful when you’re actually sampling um these these and uh degassing them um or dropping down the pressure from measurement uh from the liquid CO2 state to the gaseous and not cause any uh artifacts um for the samples so in construction of that interim now we’ve used similar methods to that used by divisar in 2008 where the maximum concentration levels of IAS and CO2 streams were determined using the exposure limits and the expansion ratio of liquid CO2 of a ratio of 1 to 535 um and we’re going to sort of like explain that using one of the um uh ies’s um carbon monoxide to try and sort of walk you through this part it’s a bit complicated um so that we use the co upper level and liquid CO2 shown in the table there and so how we’ve calculated this is that we’ve taken um CO2 and we assume like full loss of containment at 100% which is equivalent to 1 million parts per million the Stell limit is 10,000 parts per million from this we just derive at the time of relate the stale of CO2 is exceeded by a factor of 100 so it’s 1 million parts per million divid by 10,000 parts per mil get 100 the caveat here is most pipeline CO2 specifications that we’re seeing so far typically consist of over 95% CO2 by volume not the 100% but this factors then applied to the stells of incidental Associated substances um to obtain a maximum concentration which hasn’t been corrected but then we’ve applied a safety factor of 5 % to determine a threshold value to reach the recommended values um so therefore being quite conservative it’s assumed that the dilution of all substances is proportional to that of the CO2 that is it’s assumed that the diffusion pattern of these substances is equal to the CO2 um diffusion the maximum level of dissolved Co allowed in liquid CO2 in a pipeline is set at 2,000 PPM so in the worst case of a catastrophic rupture to air however the liquid CO2 will immediately expand in a by that expansion ratio by divisor of 1 to 535 to GES CO2 that is one liter of liquid CO2 will actually expand to 535 L of gas consequently that 2,000 PPM of dissolved Co in the liquid CO2 becomes 3.7 PPM by volume in the expanding gaseous CO2 cloud or in liquid or in in the ocean this is due to the expansion ratio of press Iz liquid CO2 which is um one of the the challenges working with CO2 anyway um it doesn’t factor in any subsequent dilution of the expanding gasius CO2 at this stage which we know will diffuse um in air or in water um and so that CO2 or incidental Associated substances will actually be even lower another caveat most compositional values for IAS the results are in PPM by mole obviously when the CO2 PPM by mole expands the mole amount doesn’t change um but because the phase changes are so extensive um between liquid CO2 and G CO2 expressing um these changes and the the limits in volume is actually much more um pragmatic and realistic and this is also partly due to the fact that if we do see leakage and it converts from liquid to gasius CO2 for human health purposes we breathe gas not liquid um so on this slide here again with ‘ve got the interim now um uh um QR so that you can look at it in more detail and I encourage you to read the background materials and not just uh the uh table in summary for the the interim Nile it requires that the um CO2 streams for storage has to comprise at least 95% CO2 STS with a safety Factor are included and used to define the upper limits of the IAS uh IAS that don’t have stells are included um to relate those compounds which could have other impacts and these include infrastructure Integrity so uh if you’ve got too much water there you’ve got carbonic acid which could lead to some corrosion um we don’t want too much oxygen in there because that can react with the mineral phases and we want as few uh non-compressible gases to maximize storage capacity and efficiency um as the name suggests this is the interim now uh we will make adjustments as part of the complete now and we’d be delighted to receive any other um CO2 concentrations and specifications from any other um projects going on so quickly just to wrap up there and thank you very much to Andy and Linda for their uh more technical side of the presentation um as Linda mentioned um they are uh SRO is undertaking the remainder of the project to get the full complete um action list for Australia this includes some literature review and um we will have a draft um that we will do consultation on that will combine the consultation from that document and any feedback we receive from releasing the interim now and also allowing um some of our applicants well future applicants to start using it and uh providing us feedback on whether or not it meets um their requirements of understanding their their expect our expectations sorry what they need to provide us as a regulator um and then we will release the final now and um as Linda mentioned uh here are the contact details if you have any data to contribute um or question followup questions including QR codes for anybody who’d like a a closer read of that material thank you to the presenters from Australia for your informative presentation on how Australia’s interim National Action list was developed I would now like to open the floor for questions Green Piece you have the floor thank you chair and thank you to Australia um for for that presentation uh some of the slides were a little difficult to see from the from the back so my apologies if if one of my questions is easily answered but um one thing that you mentioned uh were was the possibility of some of the a um from the capture process uh being carried through into the the CO2 stream um I I know that there is a a process of trying to remove that a uh before it becomes a CO2 stream for for disposal but I didn’t see aine then listed um in some of the subsequent slides as being one of the contaminants that was was considered so could you tell us a bit more about the potential for um the a the capture a to be part of those uh the uh the associated substances and secondly when it comes to the um bringing together the the existing data on co2 streams uh with the proposed action levels and the the stells and these kinds of things you mentioned that there looked to be a good degree of um of overlap between those but I wondered to what extent that’s just because we were seeing things on a logarithmic scale it looked like there was quite a spread of points even on that log scale so if you were looking at individual contaminants not on logarithmic scale would we be seeing um CO2 stream characterization that would be much more widespread uh as a uh um as as a a baseline for understanding the The Coincidence of the two thank you thank you Green Peace for your questions would you like to respond uh thank you for your questions um I believe that the amings um weren’t considered specifically at this point because they’re actually sort of like droplets that come out separately and so there are um there will be consideration as we follow up on the um the full n about whether there are specific or new a means will be uh looked up um uh to answer your second question um all of the data is log on that log scale so it’s not like those um bars are a different um scale so they are they actually are all sort of like scaled appropriately and yes there there are variations between them all because some of the data are from different capture sources and the different capture sources have different combinations of co-contaminants and so as um things like cement and steel Works come online they will have a different series of IAS to say um an LG plant so they’re all going to have very different sort of amounts and so uh again uh the call to action for more data please everyone um is is absolutely beneficial to trying to get this um uh uh more clarified and uh more reasonable um for all thank you thank you Linda seeing no further questions we will now break for a short coffee break the session will continue at [Music] 11:35 welcome back everyone I will now hand over to Yan to introduce our next presenter thank you Jessica our next speaker is Mr Joe Malone from us Bureau of ocean Energy Management the title of his talk today is United States carbon storage assessment methodology Mr Mal thank you thank you chair um sorry thank you thank you chair uh yes my name is Joe Malone I’m a geologist with the Bureau of ocean Energy Management uh located in Washington DC um I’m a uh I’m leading a team right now to develop a methodology and subsequent assessment on carbon storage resources on the United States outer continental shelf um I just wanted to quickly cover the mission of the Bureau of ocean Energy Management uh like I said we’re an agency under the US Department of interior uh our main focus is to develop uh the Intercontinental shelf for energy mineral and geological resources in a environmentally and economically uh responsible way uh one of the main guiding uh regulations for bom and especially with resour source of valuation is uh the outer continental shelf uh lands act uh I’ll be talking a little bit about how that’s changed over the past few years in regards to uh carbon storage uh and just a quick overview of kind of our jurisdiction uh we we manage the submerged land seaward of state waters in uh roughly 26 planning areas uh that would be off the coast of our Atlantic our Atlantic Coast uh which would be the US East Coast Pacific Coast uh our Gulf of Mexico region and uh offshore Alaska uh some of the topics I want to cover today uh I’d like to go over quickly over the regulatory background for uh OCS carbon storage resources sort of the history and how we’ve gotten here today to our assessment uh our national OCS carbon storage assessment uh the project I’m leading um Regional studies which help build into our national OCS assessment um some of the current products we have live on our website which you can access today if you would really like to uh and fut deliverables I also forgot to add in here we have a few slides on um Department of energy uh projects happening right now um so some of our regulatory background uh some of the earliest uh offshore carbon uh projects that sparked up was in the uh 2000s uh there was a proposed project offshore Atlantic City which is New Jersey on our East Coast um that fell flat it never happened uh which was a shame um and after that uh carbon sequestration and carbon storage have been kind of uh present at bone but not in the capacity that we’re seeing uh right now uh it wasn’t until 2020 uh where our Gulf of Mexico office uh specifically with the resource evaluation division down there started some subsurface characterization of depleted reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico and their uh potential for storing carbon uh carbon in 2021 the bipartisan infrastructure law amended the outer continental shelf lands act uh to Grant the carbon offshore carbon storage uh authority to the Department of interior that Authority was then granted to uh Bureau of ocean energy management and our sister agency uh the Bureau of safety and environmental enforcement or Bessie uh once that Authority was delegated down to us uh we began a rul making effort uh we’re still working on the rule uh uh we still need to uh have some intern agency review and and then a proposed rule where we’ll open up the rule for public comment um and then we’ll release a final Rule and uh hopefully down the road have uh potential commercial opportunities for carbon storage I also wanted to note in 2022 uh the inflation reduction act uh increased the 45q tax credits uh which are those are under the authority of the Department of Treasury through the Internal Revenue Service uh 2022 before 2022 it was $50 per ton stored of carbon um that’s just for uh dedicated Secure Storage that’s not for e um after 2022 that uh price per ton increased to $85 uh with that increase uh we saw a lot more interest in the offshore for carbon storage um so things have really been kicking off since 2022 for us um moving on to kind of the ru making process like I said we’re doing a joint development of the uh Ru making uh we’re relying heavily on our existing expertise uh with regards to uh leasing the the seabed um we have some uh experience working with oil and gas leasing as well as renewable leasing um and so we we’re going to be utilizing some of that um in our rule making as well as uh we’re doing an extensive Outreach effort uh one example is our presence here at the London protocol and London convention uh at the bottom of the slide you can see uh what would be sort of a mock uh timeline for uh leasing off uh carbon storage this isn’t in any way what we see in the rule or um this is more just a general professional expertise based on how we’ve been leasing energy in the past um so we would have a pre-sale and site selection uh where we’d have Regional scale assessment of carbon resources we’d get stakeholder input that includes public and private entities uh we would take in consideration any multiple use so if there’s something else happening in that region we would we would take that into consideration as well as doing a analysis we’d move on to the lease s stage where we would set terms and conditions for holding a lease um offer various sizes of uh uh area for review and then we would get um plan and permit uh submissions from potential leses um at the project review stage is where we would do uh more in-depth site characterization which includes risk management um and we would do more St static and dynamic modeling of the carbon storage res Source upon approval of a project uh we would then injection monitoring would start and that’s where our friends at Bessie would probably take the reins a little bit more uh and be involved with the environmental mon monitoring of the project as well as pressure monitoring and uh monitoring of the CO2 plume migration once uh towards the end of the Project Life uh life lifespan sorry um we would ensure that there was Containment of the CO2 as well as stability of the plume um and then close it out uh with the regulations done uh I wanted to talk about the assessment which is more my uh realm of expertise um so the bomb storage assessment uh was an internal effort that started in 2022 um it was kind of just an internal drive there was no Congressional mandate for us to do it uh our friends at USGS back in 2012 were congressionally mandated to assess carbon storage resources onshore um we decided that it would be a good idea to get ahead of the curve on this one um so we’re going to be doing a national OCS assessment which builds upon smaller Regional assessments from each of our Regional Offices I’ve noted economic and modeling cost analysis here this assessment doesn’t include that now but it’s something we want to build upon in the future once we’ve done this initial assessment um our final bullet is kind of the main main line we’ve been saying recently when it comes to carbon storage uh which is uh we do the best we can with the data we have uh in some regions we have a lot of data in some regions we don’t and so uh our our assessment reflects that um like I said our effort launched in mid 2022 we’re using a statistical approach to estimate uh potential carbon storage resources resources uh this is a static model um so we aren’t taking into account pressure we do want to include a pressure assessment down the road um we also will include more spatial recognition where we have data areas like the Gulf of Mexico are more data prone to allowing for that spatial recognition um we’re we’re leveraging our um existing oil and gas assessment um we have a wealth of data associated with that um especially considering um values for paracity thickness area uh we’d like to use that um in the carbon assessment uh we’re doing a phased approach uh we our first phase was developing a methodology and model for the for the assessment we’re done with that we’ve developed a model I talk about that in a little bit we’re currently in the storage assessment unit development phase so the storage assessment unit is the base unit for our assessment um our next slide we’ll talk about that a little bit um and then uh once we develop the geologic inputs from those storage assessment units and Run Regional assessments we’ll then aggregate those up to a national level assessment for National um level carbon storage resources um I’ve noted that uh again we’re leveraging our geologic play framework for those of you who are unfamiliar with the geologic play that’s just an oil and gas formation uh you can call it a petroleum system if you’d like where it’s just a combination of a top seal a reservoir and a source um we feel that we can utilize some of that information uh and we’re we aren’t burdened by the um presence of oil if if oil is not there we can still use it um so that’s great uh I mentioned storage assessment units this is a modified diagram from our friends at the United States geologic survey or USGS um what we have here is uh our ceiling rock at the top and then um the Green Layer would be considered our saline aquifers which we’re assessing and then the blue areas within the storage assessment unit are what we’re uh considering physical traps we have a subset of physical traps uh considered depleted reservoirs uh if you can notice the two uh well heads on the right um those are identifying what we would consider a depleted Reservoir and we would would do a recovery replacement for carbon storage resources there um so all in all one our one storage assessment unit in our assessment would be built up of three different Reservoir types our saline aquifers physical traps and depleted reservoirs um and we each handle those in similar but slightly different ways what does this look like for our model framework um on the right we kind of have a flowchart of how we we we visualized uh how it might work so at the top we would identify the area of a storage assessment unit this is based partially on um our pressure temperature window to keep carbon in a super critical State um we also take into account any uh tectonics or um uh cap Rock to make sure that we’re fully encompassing what may be a storing unit after that uh we move into assessing each of the three uh Reservoir types uh for physical trap sing graphers and depleted reservoirs we have to calculation a distribution of reservoir size for each of them um and then we’ll calculate a distribution of number of physical traps and a calculated distribution of a number of Salan aquifers for depleted reservoirs we already know how many there are so we just use that number when we in our calculation uh we’ll combine the two distributions of size and number to get a overall estimate of trapping storage um within each Reservoir type and then aggregate those three types together to get a full-blown storage assessment unit calculation uh we’re we’re utilizing two different statistical models we’ve built a model within atrisk um which then feeds into our in-house oil and gas model grasp um most of the work and calculation volumetric calculations done in at risk uh we were just using grass for aggregation purposes um you can see on the left our framework for grasp and where that red box is outlining where our atrisk model comes into play so our calculations um we’re using kind of a basic volumetric calculation that’s been modified for for carbon storage this is based on a uh Department of energy paper um so we’re doing area times thickness times paracity and then adding in uh carbon density and uh efficiency factors to our uh calculations for both physical traps and saline aquifers um the calculation is essentially the same for physical traps we’re using net area and thickness Salan oers we’re using more of a gross area and a thickness um and we’re uh we’re modifying the area and thickness in Salen oers with our efficiency factor for depleted reservoirs we just have a a recovery replacement Factor um so we know what’s been produced we just want to refill that poor space up with carbon um so we uh apply a formation volume Factor again use a CO2 density and um efficiency Factor Associated uh I noted efficiency factors real quick um our physical trap and depleted Reservoir efficiency factors are based mainly on the irreducible water content um our saling aquifer uh efficiency Factor uh again includes our effective area and thickness uh irreducible water content and a volumetric displacement factor which is more how much of the poe space we anticipate to be touched by the uh plume injected uh so this is what our users look at when they want to use our atrisk model uh we’re in for each of the values uh of our equations we are imple uh inputting a distribution of values um I have it blank um but down the road we would have our users either put in a mean and standard deviation if they’re using logarithmic scale or a Min most likely and Max if they’re using the beta per um but uh this is just kind of to show that what we’re what we’re using when it comes to at risk um I wanted to touch on Regional studies um the back going back to our uh lovely line of we do the best we can with the data we have um we have a wealth of data in the Gulf of Mexico as you can see in this map right here um and we’re relying heavily on it uh bom is in a prime position to utilize a lot of oil and gas data mainly because we get it um through regulation whenever seismic survey is done we get a copy of that data at reproduction um on the map you can see pink lines which represent our 2D seismic lines uh the blue boxes are 3D uh seismic surveys and then the green dots if you can see them they look more like blobs on the screen um would be each of our oil and gas exploration Wells each of these we’re utilizing for our carbon assessment uh it is a bit of a double-edged sword when it comes to the Wells uh they provide a lot of good information but they also provide an Avenue for uh risk of leakage um the other part of the double-edged sword with the amount of data we have is because there so much it’s going to take us a long time to work through it um so we have to prioritize areas of the Gulf of Mexico uh currently our assessment is focused on the shallow shelf of the Gulf of Mexico which is located more towards the Central and Western of the of the OCS region so that’s offshore Louisiana and Texas mostly um they’re mainly cazic formations that we’re looking at uh they’re highly compartmentalized by salt and falting um we’re also focusing on this area mainly because there’s been a lot of onshore studies that can bleed offshore and we can kind of join the two um our next area or Frontier we’d like to we’d like to visit is potentially the Eastern Gulf of Mexico it’s a little little less drilled um we don’t have as much Strat information uh there’s also usage concerns especially when it comes to the military um after that uh our two our two kind of lower priority areas would be the deep water uh back in the Central and Western Gulf um there’s a lot of active salt uh tectonics going on there which would allow for seepage so so we we we don’t really see that as a high priority for us and then finally the Abyssal plane which is kind of our uh lowest known area within within the Gulf of Mexico um moving back to the data uh our friends at Fairfield geotechnologies allowed us to use this line and we have uh one of my colleagues in the Gulf of Mexico who uh has been hard at work doing his interpretations this is more of a hypothetical interpretation of what it may look like in the subsurface um so the green areas are what we’re considering to be uh Salen oers uh orange areas are buoyant traps or are physical traps and the red would be uh considered reservoirs our blue are uh Sultan intrusions and uh you can see it’s heavily faulted in this area which is kind of helping delineate a lot of our um trapping our our compartments um the main takeaway from this uh slide I wanted to share is that uh we’re estimating a lot of our resources to be coming out of the Salan oer side of things um very minimal from the depleted reservoirs um and this kind of is better seen with a kind of overview map um here’s a satellite image of Louisiana and we’re looking offshore this is kind of a work in progress this has changed multiple times since this map was made but um as you can see it’s it’s very heavily green for Salan aquifers um uh the total area that we’re looking at about 69% is attributed to Salan aquifers whereas uh physical traps make up about 25% and the final 6% uh Falls within the salt realm um we took this one step further we have a lot of fault data we have a lot of well data um and we went to see what we could fit in one of these like risk-free areas um so the red lines represent our shallow faults um the black dots are wells the blue is salt um we’ve built a hypothetical CO2 plume which is roughly 12.7 square kilometers that’s that Green Dot um and we wanted to allow for some pressure mitigation so we built a uh pressure plume area of review which is roughly 114 square kilometers um for reference we have a 23 Square kilm OCS block uh for those of you who don’t know we we tend to lease our OCS in the form of blocks um and so this is just kind of showing for reference how many of OCS blocks we could fit in that big white space You see there um so there is potential for um fairly significant uh uh site characterization within the gulf despite the number of Wells we can avoid the wells and we can avoid the shallow faults so was a more mature area um we have three other regions in under our purview um and a lot of them are a lot more Frontier um I’d like to focus on the map on the right side of this where we only have four Wells drilled as opposed to the 50,000 in the Gulf of Mexico the Eel River Basin off of offshore California and Oregon has four Wells drilled and uh they’re old um we also have a lot of old seismic data in that area so at this point we’ be like well what do we do well we’re using our undiscovered oil and gas assessment to drive a lot of the inputs for the carbon assessment um so like I said we’re just using our oil and gas assessment uh our inputs are coming from um are are already listed somewhat in our regional reports um for the oil and gas assessment which you can find on our website um I the the main point I want to draw here is um the two maps on the right uh the one on the bottom is our uh oil and gas basins that we’re we’re looking at we will have to modify those somewhat for again for pressure um our pressure window just doesn’t apply to the entirety of that area um but the map overlaying it uh is from the Department of energy and that’s a map of their uh assessed Salen AER basins and so we felt it was a feel-good moment for us just because uh it seemed to line up well with our oiling gas basins and so we felt confident to use our oil and gas basins in our Pacific uh carbon assessment our East Coast or the Atlantic region is also very Frontier um I think there’s some 50 Wells total in the entire OCS um so we’re leveraging a lot of the work that’s already been done there’s been a lot of um outside work done either through the USGS uh with their 2012 assessment uh the Bureau of economic geology has done some uh heavy Assessments in the south Georgia Basin as well as the upper and lower Cretaceous Batel has been running assessments up uh further north in the Central and Northern Atlantic regions and then the department of Energy’s uh Southeast offshore uh Regional assessment has been uh estimating some uh 9 and 32 gigatons of storage in their upper uh Cretaceous both local and Regional uh with all these studies combined we can get with upwards of uh almost, 1400 gigatons estimates offshore uh we’d like to leverage those studies along with the data we have to add to that or refine it somewhat and then finally our more what we consider our most Frontier area would be Alaska um we still have a lot of data but there’s a lot of land um and our region has delineated some sediment layers as a first step in identifying potential storage assessment units offshore um but again our geologic input is going to rely heavily on our oil and gas assessment uh our current products uh I mentioned that uh we we already developed our methodology and model that is uh you can read more about that with our methodology report that’s live now uh it goes more in depth and more technical than what I’ve said today as far as uh how our model works and how our methodology was built um we also have two talks that have been given um I had mentioned very early on our depleted Reservoir study uh we actually presented the results of that work in 2022 um and we’ve also presented some of our uh Atlantic CS assessment that’s been ongoing last year um some things we want to do in the future uh so right now we’d like to finish the storage assessment analysis we’re doing right now uh once those are done we’d like to uh finalize and uh publish uh technical reports with geologic uh assumptions and final estimates uh both at the regional and National level um Broken Out by storage assessment unit um but that’s dependent on how fast we can get this done um along with technical reporting and once that’s done um we we want to jump right back in and get into more Dynamic modeling including pressure fronts and um refining the model where we can um with with more data uh I did want to touch briefly on the department of energy they have been kind of the front runner in the carbon game in the United States um so uh this is their carbon store which is their uh assessment and storage evaluation project um they’re mainly focused on uh data associated with operating and uh performance um there’s also the regional initiatives that build into all of the Department of Energy Products um those Regional initiatives out of I think there’s 16 uh there’s two that bum are specifically um focused on which is the Mid-Atlantic offshore carbon storage Hub which is led by battel um um and then the Texas Louisiana Hub which is led by the University of Texas at Austin uh both of those are uh good good initiatives to um help build uh more capacity in those regions for carbon storage either Outreach or actually just building a hub um so I just want to thank you I also for the colleagues at home who are watching I want to thank them for the amount of work they’ve been putting in uh a lot of this wouldn’t be done with the long hours they’ve been putting in um like I said our assessment projects are in progress um we’re continuing to collaborate with the Cs community so if you have any tips for us as far as assessment goes we’re happy to take them um our draft regulations are under development um you will know when I know when they’re live um and there will be a public comment period upon publication of the r making and uh as always uh if you need more technical information we have a website which is listed here um and you can also email me which is up on the screen um I’m happy to talk about our project um I’m very proud of it so thank you thank you Joe for your presentation on the methodology which will allow for better understanding of potential carbon storage resources in the US I would now like to open the floor for questions Green Piece you have the floor Flor thank you chair and uh our thanks to the United States for the uh presentation um it’s quite remarkable to see the the number of wells in the the Gulf of Mexico area I I I kind of know those data but each time I hear them for the the number of Wells it’s a it’s a yeah a sobering reminder um you mentioned that in part because of the uh uh you know the the limitations that presents that uh you’re looking especially at sine aquifers as being a a good proportion of the storage in that area do you know yet where the S line will go that’s that’s displaced is that something that’s part of the assessment what happens to the to the S line the second um you said that you were refining models going forward and and looking at getting more Dynamic models and I wanted to ask if that would therefore include consideration of uh induced seismicity is is that something that you’re going to be looking at what what uh the implications are for the the pressure increases the pressure changes over time the pressure front is that something that can be factored into understanding the potential for induced seismicity and thirdly and finally uh it sounds as if the majority of the uh the the the storage capacity that you’re currently confident in or or or have greater confidence in uh would result in the CO2 remaining as a a liquid rather than reacting with uh with the the the rocks and forming more of a a solid uh reactive Matrix um but I wondered if you could say a little bit more about the long-term fate uh especially for the um the CO2 would that would go into those saline aquifers thank you yes thank you um so on your first question uh what happens to the S line uh we we haven’t done that assessment in in this project um we do we have been running um more um engineering based scenarios that uh would be included in later assessments that would take into account what happens to the S line as it gets moved around um whether pressure allows for it to stay or if pressure um would require to be uh relieved out um as far as rining models um we don’t include it in again we don’t include induced seismicity in this assessment but yes we would include it in future models um just because it is something that uh would impact the storage capabilities of of those units and then um finally [Music] um so um yeah uh can you repeat the question for the third one I’m so sorry that’s okay there were there were there were lots of questions uh no we we’ve heard in the past about the fact that in some cases the CO2 is likely to um form carbon Ates you know become more of a solid uh storage but it sounds like most of what you’re looking at would remain as liquid CO2 if I just wanted to check if that was the case yeah sorry about that um so we uh anticipated to be liquid at the start uh we do say we do assume that over time it will react and uh calcify when it can um due to the just uh chemical nature of the super critical carbon and it it also depends on the Rockets being injected to and how reactive that is uh we haven’t done a assessments on how quick that may happen or at what scale but we do assume that o over time that will that will occur thank you Green Peace and thank you Joe seeing no further questions I will hand over to Yan to introduce our next presenter uh sorry uh our next speaker is the Mr Sean bond from American Bureau of shipping and the title of his presentation is a ship designed for CO2 Transportation Mr B thank you very much thanks very much thanks for the organization of this event and uh thank you very much for the invitation to come and speak to you about some of the things that we’re seeing on on the shipping side and the project development side specifically related to ships and how the carriage of of CO2 will likely be carried out um I’m Sean Bond I’m the director of global gas Solutions based here in the London office uh we sit inside of a larger group called sustainability within abs and abs is a classification Society uh I believe most or many of you are aware of what classif classification societies do uh however I would like to just for those who uh are outside of that particular group and we have such a diverse group of people potentially watching this I thought I would just quickly go over what it is that we do and why we’re engaged with CO2 on shipping so what we are is we’re independent Arbiters of Standards um and our mission is essentially to promote the security of life and property and preserve natural natural environment uh that with regard to Marine structures and and offshore structures uh typically ships and Offshore platforms uh we’re involved in other areas as well things like rural development and uh you know discussions in forums like the to try to find out how we can assist at least on the on the shipping side and these where those those seams integrate into the shipping Solutions uh the way we do this we we achieve this by establishing and and and administering standards known as rules uh and these are applicable to to just about every type of marine equipment you can imagine uh and we are we have requirements specifically for gas carriers and that’s where these CO2 carriers is would would fall we also have a role uh within the international organization and the application of uh International regulations through our our status as Ros for particular flag administrations in that capacity we apply on their behalf the requirements of the IMO uh and we deal with the flag administrations directly with regard to any uh Alternatives or or waivers to to the requirements that might be necessary in looking at at how projects move forward uh the statutory activity is is distinct from the classification activity uh there there is a lot of overlap in there the the remits are very similar um but there are things that classification societies put together that are not necessarily in the international regulations and how we operate is we work with all the various stakeholders in the Marine uh industry to uh ensure this Maritime safety and to apply ensure that the um the compliance is met with regard to the requirements and and the rules and you can see here the list of you know sort of the the dial of of various stakeholders uh and because of this you know interaction between all these parties this is where we start to get questions when it comes to particular CO2 projects and how things are going to be uh developed specifically with regard to moving the cargo we’ve seen uh uh from some of the earlier presentations that there’s going to be a lot of CO2 how that’s going to get either sequestered or taken to sites for use is going to depend on uh specific projects but some of these may have what we call mid-stream legs that involve shipping and those ships are going to have to be capable of carrying the cargos that they’re intended uh within the sets of criteria that that are out there for for ships and with equivalent levels of safety I’m going to go quickly over the drivers you’ve seen a lot of these this morning and in fact you’ve seen this slide already so I won’t go into it in too much detail but uh I think the the takeaway Point here is that the clients that we talked to and and The Operators of ships that that may be carrying these cargos are also aware that there’s likely to be and all the scenarios we looking forward towards uh decarbonization most paths have a large amount of uh CO2 carbon carbon capture uh and there’s going to be a lot of CO2 to be to be dealt with right so they they see that this is a a possible area where they’ll need to get involved and the shipping component will have to be fully developed so the captured carbon as you guys are all aware uh it can either be reused in which case it would be a you know a CCU uh situation or it can be locked in a reservoir which would just be the the sequestration piece um we’ve heard from both well at least one end of of these these sides of things um but we we tend to be in the middle part which is the transport part that can take a lot of different forms um the ships themselves have to be able to deal with what’s at both ends of the chain so they they have to be designed in order to handle what’s being put on at the Upstream end and they have to be designed to suitably offload at the downstream end and how the ships have to handle the the cargo that they actually take on board and and you know there there are things like relative pressures between the the ships and the and the the terminals that that can have impacts on what the ship designs have to do and you know responsibilities for for who has to handle which piece of the processing of the cargo is something that needs to be developed but but when looking at these projects the you know the ship designers have to understand what it is that they’re responsible for what kind of pressures they’re going to expect uh to be taking Cargo in at and how they’re going to have to offload it and what the cargo is likely to be uh containing uh on the ReUse side CO2 is a key input for many Industries feed stock for Ura manufacturing on fertilizer industry uh small quantities of food and food and beverage production uh cooling system and water treatment uh and there’s new demand anticipated as feed stock for producing things like green me and green methanol is new a new generation low carbon Fuel and as far as the capture storage uh I know that everyone here is very aware of of these kinds of things but but essentially long-term storage is expected by injection into natural porous rock formations such as depleted oil and gas reserves reservoirs sorry coal beds and sine aquifers uh and that allows both sequestration and enhanced uh oil gas recovery uh for a lot of years CO2 has been injected into hydrocarbon production such as enhanced oil recovery and and enhanced cold bed methane recovery uh and the area where we sort of engage with the with the current group is that the London protocol convention sits out there and this is something that our clients run into when they’re looking at projects you know in this regards both the movement of waste internationally between countries and The Dumping of of waste uh of course the 2009 amendments proposed for allowing transboundary Transportation under agreement uh for CO2 uh is not yet ratified by the right number of signatories to uh to go into effect uh so this is something that that we uh that comes up with regard to every project there may be International trans shipment of uh of CO2 because depending on how the uh the sequestration sites are located there may be countries that don’t have suitable sites that have to move their CO2 in other ways or to other countries and locations in order to do the sequestration um and there may be other other issues as well um including offshore uh deposition into the into the seabed which would then fall under also the sort of The Dumping criteria of annex of sorry of the of the lenon protocol and I’ll skip this and just focus directly on the carbon value chain um the uh again this is this is the this is the part where we get involved at the transport section right there in the middle uh and and as I mentioned the you know the upstream and downstream ends are important for determining how the mid-stream portion develops and we sit here in the Middle with the transport so there may be needs for Innovative shipping infrastructure uh and it has to be established based on how however these um individual projects form right so getting into the sort of the meat of the the discussion with regard to the transportation vessel design itself um just a little bit bit of background on the CO2 shipping uh current CO2 Transportation relies heavily on Pipeline networks uh on the shipping side uh liquefied CO2 is mostly used for food and beverage industry uh in very small ships uh at what at a particular pressure depends on what group you talk to whether this is considered high pressure or medium pressure I’ll get into that in a second um but those uh those vessels operate around 15 bar minus 25c uh the need for Li the liquified CO2 trans report is expected to increase based on those um sort of Demands that you saw uh in the previous graph uh and that may involve scaling up Fleet sizes or scaling up vessels um we’re seeing mainly uh moves towards uh proposed larger ships uh there are different challenges depending on how you carry the CO2 that Define what how big those ships can get and and how exactly they’re designed uh the main challenge um for the high operational pressure is is that larger capacity tank construction complexity gets gets difficult uh and the thicknesses go up as the pressure goes up and the size goes up so you wind up with tanks that can be very heavy so in order to avoid that we have seen people move towards a little bit lower pressures around the8 to 10 bar range uh in order to carry the CO2 um at a lower pressure and and reduce the amount of Steel required for the weight of the tank and the weight of the ship uh and then one of the other important issues is composition varies for captured CO2 we’ve seen uh already a couple presentations on this this morning um and the impurity impact has to be taken into account in in designing these vessels so whatever is going to be in these in these cargos has to be accounted for in the design and looking at the just sort of where things stand at the moment this is maybe not exactly up today I think there’s a couple new ships but uh you can see here in fact some of the northern light ships have delivered as we heard earlier this morning uh but there’s sort of four um know there’s there’s six vessels in the larger range than the existing uh existing Fleet uh and the the existing Fleet includes one research vessel and the several of the the small uh beverage quality CO2 carriers uh in those higher pressure ranges how we deal with these depends largely on the CO2 characteristics um the CO2 properties that we’re mostly dealing with is the fact that it’s non-flammable uh it’s an as fient it’s heavier than air and it has a a phase diagram as indicated here on the right and with a triple point at around minus 56 C uh and 5.1 Well 5.18 Bar absolute for for pier CO2 uh there are things about U impurities that can can change that a little bit and those have to be accounted for and how you set up for example the the safety systems on board to do shutdowns when you start to get near the triple point as someone mentioned it’s likely that that these the CO2 will be carried as liquid uh and so the you know there are certain limitations because it atmospheric you there is no liquid phase so you you have things happening on the sublimation line if you go below the triple point so this has to be avoided when the when the cargo is being carried as a liquid right so what and what pressure you you know you wind up carrying that um that liquid at its saturation will Define the temperature and it may have impacts on how you decide to you know do the the uh the cargo cooling or the cargo handling there are toxicity concerns at higher concentrations again these are here’s a list of some of the uh the references of 5,000 PPM under OSHA 30,000 uh for for uh AIG and 40,000 uh for is immediately dangerous to to life for health uh and these are things that that need to be considered as currently outlined in the igc code which is the Imo requir ments that would apply to the ships that would carry the liquefied CO2 it’s currently defined as an asphyxiant uh there’s there’s movement of foot to to change that to toxic uh but there’s no then you can see in this table certain other features of the ship that have to be followed in order to to comply with the requirements a type 3G ship is is a ship that typically carries has the least strict requirements when it comes to uh to certain requirements um the toxicity aspect won’t change that particular but there will be additional requirements that we get pulled in uh by the definition of the of the cargo if that goes through so some of the risks in in Carriage there’s the risk of the cargo solidifying uh freezing rather than sublimation but um what in order to deal with this the way that the the codes have been written is to have low pressure alarms at 005 U megap pascals above the triple point this should help then and at that level you would wind up shutting down all your systems if you if you had a you know sudden pressure drop that would could potentially wind up with with some solidification or freezing of the of the vapor or the liquid phase um and on low low pressure you’d automatically close all the valves shut everything down um stop the cargo compressors stop stop the pumps and you know put the ship in a static state in order to to make sure that things can be maintained at that level um means of isolating the the cargo tank uh cargo tank safety valves need to be provided one of the issues is if you’re if you’re carrying the the cargo which you will be at a at a pressure above the triple point um if you have Vapor releases the you know the the cargo cooling associated with the gas expansion can result in things like ice formation and if that happens in a relief valve you can wind up with a with a valve that’s stuck open so there’s a particular requirement specific to CO2 that that calls for the uh the relief valves to be able to be isolated uh so that they can be cleared if they were to happen to pop and then and then stick open right other aspects related to that there are certain things where on a on gas carries you typically would see you know screens in the in the events but those wouldn’t be permitted on a CO2 they’d be required in fact in the case of of many cargos but on the CO2 care they would be required not to be included for this for the very reason of this uh this freezing issue uh in the case of reclaim quality CO2 the materials of construction need to be considered so they can handle whatever the the impurities are now there’s there’s a huge ug list of imp parities I I have a list that’s smaller than than our colleagues from Australia showed earlier this morning um but uh but I will put it up and and I would second Linda’s request for data to keep coming in on this one of the things that we see from the uh project developers or at least a certain segment of project developers uh is a is a need to shrink that list and identify what kind of limitations um ought to be placed on on uh the cargo so that the ships can operate suitably in and again it depends on how the projects are developed and how closely the uh the shippers are working with the the terminals um as to who has the responsibility to you know remove or handle um you know particular elements of the of the cargo um so again the the density CO2 is heavier than air so if you do have uh releases they will they will drop right um depending on the ship type uh you you’d need to then have suitable ventilation and suitable detection to understand that you’ve got a leak and to be able to control it uh it it can also be as as I mentioned before it’s an Asian Hazard and there there are toxicity levels associated with carbon dioxide that would need to be considered um and this is this is not something entirely new because we do see it with regard to firefighting systems for example which use CO2 but uh but it’s an issue that we need to address in the design and if you look at the uh sort of typical operating range you can see these are sort of the the two pressure areas that we see the most uh interest in at the moment there are other considerations that that different pressures than these even higher um but these are the areas where you would see uh the typical two um ranges shall we say where one would be for the you know the very what we call High pressure tanks at around 18 bar and the other the lower pressure tanks just near the triple point at the at probably 8 to 10 bar the igc code does refer to uh reclaim quality CO2 it’s but it doesn’t give any very specific uh information about it it just indicates that it has to be addressed by you know the the designer and the Ros would be you know checking what’s being done so typically you would need to see additional work around those impurities done on a ship by ship basis uh nxb of iso 27921 provides some indic indicative uh impurity levels uh we’ve seen some industry standards as well we’ve seen several lists this morning and some of the other presentations um but the the car the cargo Pur composition depends on various parameters uh the carbon capture technology and process uh the CO2 online onshore handling and storage facilities uh and the impurities effects can be things like thermophysical effects corrosivity that makes you have to you know may potentially rethink some of the materials uh how the reliquefaction plan is able to handle some of the non-condensables uh and the health and safety considerations of certain certain of the impacts or the the impurities uh and corrosion depends on water content and solubility CO2 dissolves in water and forms carbonic acid and those effects can also come from some of the other impurities and this is a list of just some some typical ones uh again in addition to individual impurities and the impact on some of the U physical properties of the of the cargo there may be interactions among them and this is one of the reasons that the bigger the list gets the more the difficulty uh increases because knowing the interactions between all the potential uh impurities can get fairly daunting uh so we try to focus on the most uh critical ones and the ones that are most likely to be in the in the Stream uh the the cargo tanks themselves um there there’s a lot of different well there’s three main tank types uh used typically and included in the igc code only really type-c tanks are suitable for carrying CO2 because of the pressures involved so you know type-c tanks are pressure tanks um and then at those pressures you know and and with the liquefied gases there’s there’s compliance with cryogenic requirements that are that are required and the the pressure that’s selected as the operating pressure and the maximum pressures are the ones that that drive what those temperatures are and then and in particular the the uh the lower pressure end that that also drives the the U the temperature selection for the for the design um impurities in CO2 can potentially POS pose material issues as as I already mentioned um there are considerations for development of new materials in progress for for larger larger tanks um the the typical tank types that we see are cylindrical Bob um type SE tanks the cylindrical tanks tend to be the the higher pressure tanks and the bobes tend to be the at the lower end of the pressure range uh but the geometries of those tanks tend to allow for more cargo for the same size ship uh and thick low temperature steel plates uh require special consideration and Welding so if you’re looking at it for example a steel tank with a with a very large you know multi-lobe configuration the the welding needs to be specifically considered to be suitable for the plate thickness uh and the temperatures um designing around the triple point um I think I’ve covered that already fairly well in the in the blockage of the pressure Leaf valves uh continuous monitoring of the pressure and emergency shutdown associated with low pressures is is something that we have to do on the on the ships uh permanent fix gas detection for car cargo tank hold spaces um the cargo control room and other enclosed spaces where CO2 can be accumulated needs to be provided uh and restricted level gauging system is is permitted oh it’s so looking at boil off gas management while sailing again we’re we’re sitting in this um uh this triple Point area right so there’s there’s a couple different ways that that uh boil off gas can be handled it can be either be handled by pressure accumulation uh or by reliquefaction or sub subcooling other some other kind of cooling so with if you go with the pressure accumulation route then you do have to have a holding time calculation that shows you can maintain the cargo for the period of time that it would be necessary in order to uh to get the cargo offloaded um operational environment and carging loading temperatures will will have an impact on that assessment and including the operating profile loading levels cruising range local restrictions some areas uh and tank pressure control during discharging is um is going to be important as I mentioned already the uh you know the compatibility with the loading facilities and the offloading facilities need to be considered and how those projects actually look uh also may have impacts on the ship design so if you have a you know what you could you could either be having a ship delivering to a Shore based terminal and sending it off to a you know to a treatment center before injection into the ground or or some other kind of storage facility uh there may be offshore uh you know floating terminals taking CO2 and which case the interaction between those Terminals and the ship has to be considered uh there’s several configurations that that that we’ve seen uh being discussed and in each case uh you know these discussions tend to be very fairly bespoke at this stage um so just just getting into the conclusions um carbon captures generating interest in CO2 Carriage by ship uh this will develop depending on the actual carbon projects we’re seeing quite a few uh designs require special specif sorry require project specifics from the upstream and downstream end uh to define the vessel specifications the regulatory framework including the London protocol need to be well understood by the stakeholders the technical requirements and standards for ships are mature I mean we the we already have vessels carrying CO2 uh there may be some new technologies that that come into this and there may be risk assessments around the the project overall that have to have to happen uh understanding how the additional requirements of of localities ports um you know Coastal States uh may have impacts on on how those requirements uh apply and and what applies uh but but by and large most of the Technologies are mature impurities Drive the cargo definition and are highly relevant to the ship design so again um you know collecting that information and and understanding what the carbon capture streams are producing and how the how much treatment will be done on Shore and and what’s going to go on board the vessel will be important to getting these projects to to happen uh suitably uh and early cooperation among stakeholders in the full chain is the optimal path uh because then you can understand up front how you’re you know what you have to deal with and we we’ve been seeing a lot of that so I will leave it there and thank you for your attention and your time and open for questions [Applause] thank you Sean for your interesting presentation explaining the role of shipping in the CCS value chain I will now open the floor for questions Green Piece you have the floor thank you chair and thank you for that uh very interesting present a I think it gives us an insight into an aspect of this that we’ve not really talked about so far uh within these bodies so it’s it’s extremely useful I had uh three questions firstly in relation to contaminants that uh that may be associated with the the CO2 that would be loaded on board and to understand whether there’s a possibility of separation and condensation of any of those contaminants during the the transport and and what the implications of of that would be um for then loading up with a the next cargo you know could there be um interactions that could limit the number of different sources of of CO2 that could be loaded in uh into one vessel over time secondly are there any circumstances where you would need to be looking at venting um one or more of the tanks on board a vessel uh while it’s see I mean are are there any safety conditions where that would be would become a necessity and thirdly in the unlikely event perhaps of a a casualty a shipping casualty where the vessel is damaged is there anything that can be done in order to recover the cargo from one of these things um or would it inevitably be in a situation where you would just be managing the release of that uh that CO2 on the uh on the vessel thank you yeah thanks very much all very excellent questions um when it comes to uh contaminants uh yeah there could be interactions uh between co2’s from if if you were were going to be a very flexible ship and move from from you know terminal to terminal with different uh specifications that would be something that would have to be considered in the um in the design well would be best considered in the design phase so understanding how flexible the ship needs to be um would be important but but again cargo definition would be the the key right so the you know the ship designer is kind of the end user of the uh of the information about what the the cargo contains and so they would need to collect that from from either the the various sources and and do that kind of an assessment and or or otherwise somehow specify two terminals potentially what they have to do on on you know on Shore uh the there are other permutations of this you know if we we saw a slide someone else put up about a sort of a sort of a hub and spoke collection situation where you have multiple uh you know emitters possibly with different emission uh you know streams uh and how that would be you know controlled in at the at the Hub where it all comes together if it’s if it’s going to be moved at that point by some by a a shipping solution uh that would be the the where the cargo definition part would have to to happen right now there may be things that you can do in ship design depending on you know I think there’s there’s going to be a cost associated with how much cleaning you do on on co2 when it’s on Shore there’s going to be a cost associated with the ship depending on how much of of their own control they have to have on it if for example if they have to change their you know their their cargo handling equipment in order to handle the impurities that aren’t being removed then then that that would shift to the ship and then what happens at the other end is is important as well but that isn’t so much related to the to the um the impurity content of of of the cargo though there can be issues with at at the downstream terminal if they aren’t prepared to take the the CO2 impurities that the ship has we we’ve sat in some projects where the uh you know all the all the players were together and those are the ones that tend to work the best especially if they’re developing together because because then they can you know they can jointly have those discussions and say you know you need you know we need to design our our terminal to be able to handle this and and so the ship can you know there are these kind of uh multi-party multi-stakeholder discussions to be held right so the more um uh jointly the uh the project develops the the better the the more um accurate the the uh the final outcomes would be um when it comes to venting it sea the the there are a lot of safeguards within the within the written codes to avoid releases that’s the that’s the intent the reason that you might have emissions that that fell outside of that would be some kind of other event that that resulted in for example pressure rise in the tank and and a lifting of the relief valves um they’re they’re Hazard scenarios that in which that can happen but the but but the the intention is not not to release right not to release at all and then and then in addition to have the additional safeguards on the relief valve so that if one were to open you know it would either close or would be able to be isolated and with the with another active um uh relief valve available while that’s while that valve is cleared um there are in an extreme case the you know the ultimately the the safety of the crew and the is is um what would take precedence so if there were you know if there were an event in which it was a matter of you know life on on the vessel then you know that would be where you know a release Could Happen um within within the understood parameters of how the how the uh the codes cover the design right the uh the casualty case um I I can’t really answer that unfortunately but I I don’t see a way in you know of of recovering the CO2 uh easily right the there there may be controls in in accident situations that that could be available and put in place but um but once it’s released it would be fairly difficult to to uh recover unless it’s unless it’s on board right thank you Green Peace and thank you Australia you have the floor thanks Sean for the interesting uh presentation um I use I know it’s very early on but are you starting to see alignment on co2 specification within vessel design right now we um I think the industry was waiting for someone to take the first step right so we’re seeing a lot of projects now that that there are projects that are defining their own um you know cargo specifications but we’re seeing a lot of people default to some of those existing you know competitors or or I don’t know if competitors is the right word but the the you know the existing industry developed uh specifications at least as starting points right um as you said it’s fairly early so that may be a starting point for design but but once things drill down and the and the uh the projects are better defined and the actual emissions are identified you you’ll probably see you know changes tweaks tweaks to that unless unless uh members of the project commit themselves to treating the the stream so that it contains whatever’s in that that spec so yeah we’re seeing we’re seeing people like as as a first point looking at what others have done thank you Australia and thank you Shan seeing no further questions we will now break for lunch and we will reconvene at 2 [Music] p.m. thank you welcome back everyone hope everyone had a nice lunch I’m just briefly going to hand over to Jun who wants to give a brief um administrative announcement uh okay thank you Jessica um I also hope you had a nice launch with the great view from the cafeteria and I’m really happy to see that you we are having truly interesting presentations and questions yeah before starting afternoon session I just wanted to let know as on administ administrative information as the Secretariat we have a plan to share all presentations with you in due course yeah surprisingly you know we have uh the science day web page on the IMO website so you can um search it with simply typing science day IMO on the uh internet and we will unload all presentations as the PDF for ma um in course um with with brief abstracts as well I hope this will beneficial for all of you and even if you can approach the materials later uh I think this Symposium is really valuable opportunity to ask uh some Cas in person in a real time so don’t be hesitate to raise your hand if you any have any questions and I uh just wanted to remind that all aend is online pre-registered they can ask they can participate in the Q&A session after every presentation also lastly um considering uh the progress I think we will have another coffee break in the afternoon and I’d like to suggest for all presenters to come forward to this Podium before we dismiss for a coffee break so um that we can take a good photo yeah that’s all thank you okay our next speaker is Dr Francesco asori from Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and research the title of his presentation is Italian legislation and first experimental project of CO2 geological sty sty in a depleted gas field Dr as thank you thank you chair uh thanks to all delegates here in presence and everyone attending the meeting remote mode as well and uh thanks to the Secretariat for giving us the opportunity during this science day to describe and share information information and experience on the first application of Italian regulation system on a project dealing with carbon caption and storage on subseed geological formation I introduce myself I have been working in isra the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and research for 25 years I’m an environmental inspector uh I have an extensive expertise environment m al inspection and in Safety Management System inspection on those plants that can cause a major accident and are subjected to servic U directive regulation additionally I have actually a coordinating role with did the CCS National Technical Secretariat especially in evaluating this Italy first experimental projects of uh CO2 capture and storage that I’m going to % this afternoon what will we discuss this afternoon so we will provide you with an overview of the current legislation in Italy regarding the geological storage of carbon dioxide additionally we will offer a brief description of the approach used to evaluate Italy first experimental CO2 subit geological storage project uh for this second item the focus will be on Environmental Protection measures and the prevention measure against accidental releases and the monitoring Strate strategies to be implemented as well in Italy the low decree 162 of 2011 the so-called Moder decree transposes almost completely the CCS European directive number 1 of 20 and9 and establish the first framework of measures to regulate the permanent geological storage of carbon dioxide in geological formation it regulate administrative and Technical procedures for identify suitable storage areas issuing exploration licensing and storage permits Define monitoring rules inspection interventions in case of accidental release or irregularities detected obligation for the operator for closure and for post closure of the site transfer of responsability and guarantees Financial contribution further law decree issued in 2020 in 2021 introduced some important amendments to the mod decree in order two simplified procedures for experimental storage of programs referring to deated gas or oil filled reservoirs two of them was respectively that an experimental project were excluded from submission of a monitoring plan and the pr the programs involving an injection volume of carbon dioxide less than 100,000 tons of CO2 were excluded from the submission of an environmental impact assessment as well the last low decree issued on December 2023 so-called energy decree states that depleted offshore Reservoir are suitable storage areas for every CCS programs in the same decree procedural process on experimental sto storage programs were also well defined the distinction between experimental program and ordinary program Falls away with regards to the submission of the monitoring plan in practice that is that the monitor plan now must always be submitted by the operator also in case of experimental programs Financial guarantees it example the criteria for the establishing the fees the operator must put up to cover any damage to environment where better defined and the fees for administrative and Technical evaluation of the project were well defined the decree try also to determine two important aspect by means the activation of two research lines the first one aimed to define the ital CCS Supply Chain by passing through the estimation of cost involved in CCS project identification of cluster of facilities considered as source of CO2 and cluster of storage sites as well defined in terms of storage potential capabilities and third identification of prefer preferential corridors for the development of Transportation facilities principally uh pipelines the second one item line of research regarding facts the implementation of technical rules for pipeline transports now we will explore how the process of issuing storage permits operates in Italy it’s not a simple process we will Begin by examp exing what the Italian regulation Define regarding this process and which authorities are involved in Italy the ministry of environment and energy security acts as the unique competent Authority responsible for issuing storage permits these administrative authorities issues permits based on the Judgment of a technical National Committee for the management of European directing number 87 of 20 and3 and for supporting Kyoto Protocol project activities this committee is tasked with providing technical evaluation of every CCS project to assist in the evaluation process the committee is supported by a technical secretar Additionally the technical Secretariat can enlist the expertise of various National Technical bodies such as my Institute ispra uh ingv the Vina and The sismic Institute in Italy National Institute um the old Institute and other technical bodies how do we control permit requirements after issuing process through the coordinated efforts of three designated technical bodies and the implementation of various inspection procedures compliance with storage permit requirements is effectivity monitored and ensured contributing to Environmental Protection and safety these designated technical bodies are UNM the national public offices for mining activities that controls the implementation of mining policy regulation and provides technical support to the committee within the technical Secretariat ispra my Institute that supervises environmental monitoring action carried out by the operator on the storage complex also utilizes Regional agencies for Environmental Protection ispra also offers technical support to the committee within the technical Secretariat and collaborates with regional environmental pration agency National Fire Bri National fire brigade body that verifies the adoption of Technical and management measures aimed at risk control and management of emergency situation inspection may be ordinary or scheduled at intervals of one three or five years extraordinary inspection occur in case of significant irregularities or accidental C2 releases if no compliance with permit condition is identified and following reers of azard to the environment or public health and safety what the operator must submit to obtain a storage permit and and what must be proven in accordance with the Moder decree the 962 uh 121 the operator of the plant must include the following details in the project application submitted to the competent Authority a characterization of the storage site that is a comprehensive evaluation from various perspective including geological geotechnical struct Cal seismic and environmental aspects an assessment of Storage security that is documentary evidences such as studies and research demonstrating the Integrity of the cap Rock and the monitoring mission on potential migration Pathways for injection CO2 included active fold and fractur syst uh systems as well as the injection well itself or other abandoned Wells this might be done by means also the application of simulated models of diffusion and behavior of CO2 in the reservoir Rock a monitoring plan now mandatory for experimental programs below 100,000 tons that is the implementation of an environmental monitoring system for identify parameters to monitor deviation from simulation results and intercept any adverse effect from to release a plan for corrective actions include measures to prevent significant release and Technical plant irregularities procedures to minimize CO2 Licor risk and measure to medicate haral after resulting from release a plan for the Post closur phase that describe control measure to be implemented on closed WS after injection is completed and demonstration of the applicant’s technical and economic capacity so the project the first experimental CO2 geological starage project in Italy was authorized on January 2023 the duration of the permitting process was less than one year the project consisted on capture of the CO2 from emission in an offshore plant transferred by means of existing Sealands to onshore to Offshore platforms in the northern Adriatic Sea injection and permanent storage in a deated level of a natural gas Field located at a dep over done 2,000 M for a total volume of injection CO2 of 50,000 tons with a maximum duration of two years about 25 tons per years the thck and of the water column in the affected area range from 0 to 18 M that it is important to note that injection will be carried out by reconditioning an old well to a depth of 315 M and then continuing in Sid track mode until the reservoir geological formation is intercepted at a dep of more than 2,900 M as this is the first s storage project a precautionary approach was adopted under which further aspect of environmental pration not only concerning the security of the storage complex were also analyzed first of all the operator was called Don the Reconstruction of the static geological model the generation of of the three-dimensional Dynamic model that is the simulation of CO2 injection condition the implementation of a geophysical monitoring of soil deformation Network the implementation of microsys monitoring Network the evaluation of tsunami risk the implementation emergy management procedures the computation of emission of pollutants in the offshore and onshore environments generated during during construction of plant also accidental leakage of CO2 were also considered through model simulation of the dispersion and transport of CO2 and Analysis of the potential effent on the marine environment two different CO2 release worst scenarios were investigated in different climate condition the first one was a pipe Breck caused by a ship anchor on the seabed the second one a pipe leak caused by the Rapture of the pipe in a flanged fitting or by corrosion then an analysis of the consequence on aquatic organism due to water acidification and tar shock has been carried out considering the following Target species phop planton bentos Z planton fishes marine reptiles and marine mammals although at the time of the project application and authorization regulation did not request a mandatory monitor monitoring plan because it was an experimental Project Specific monitoring activities were planned both offshore and onshore potential CO2 leakage to the surface even if not likely will be detected through well monitoring and environmental mon monitoring while monitoring must verify that the performance of the injection process in terms of injection rate physical and chemical condition of the injection stream expected fres and pl migration occur according the model prediction and at the same time CO2 confinement is guaranteed these monitoring action are planned both before and during the injection to measure the effect at the Reservoir level in the cover or at the surface environmental monitoring HS to detect any CO2 leakage through a series of multidisciplinary surveys they includes geophysical surveys of the seab and the water column acoustic surveys Leak Detection physical and chemical and biochemical service of water and sediments monitor monitoring activities will also consider the impact to Marine FAA potential attributable to changing the chemistry of marine water mainly originating from the reduction of pH values as we saw on one of this in the pr previous slides so this slide shows just some outcomes from evaluation process and the most significant requirements report in the storage permit some of this responds to the question that uh our colleague of uh Greenpeace uh rised last uh last uh Monday the injection facility must be equipped with automatic injection shut off systems in case of deviation of fluid composition from the authoriz authorized limits detected by continuous CO2 and Co measurements as a maximum pression limit at the bottom of well the operator shall not exceed 24 megap Pascal about uh uh 240 bar approximately the operator shall play at the bottom of well dedicated instrumentation for continuous detection of pressure and temperature of the injection fluid the operator shall Implement a microsys network considering realistic estimates of background sismic noise preventive monitoring at the beginning of the activities will also have to be carried out in order to be able to verify un perturbated condition anti operam requirement with regard to the ground deformation monitoring the operator shall in Stand new GPS station part of shore on each existing platform C currently liking such instrumentation in order to better track deformation at the CO2 storage Ser Reservoir if no level potentially impacting the spaces T trat and karaa are exceeded during this operation appropriate meeting measurement will have to be applied such as the use of bubble curtain or other acoustic mitigation measure until temporary shifting of operation to protect the most sensitive periods of the spes involved so the conclusion the L decree one other 62 of 12 11 outlined the issuance of several ministerial decrees to regulate specific aspects of the activ of the activities which however remained unimplemented in subsequent years despite the efforts made by the last decree 181 of 2023 to address some of these shortcomings there are still provision awaiting implementation presently in the short term as we described before in the the slide number one initiative such as the CCS Supply Chain study and the development of CO2 trans technical regulation in pipeline are being developed thank you for your [Applause] attention thank you Francesco for your interesting presentation on the environmental and Technical assessments conducted to evaluate potential impacts and risks of the project I will now open the floor for questions Green Piece you have the floor thank you chair and uh thank you for yet another interesting presentation and it’s good to see the information being shared at a very early stage of the development of the CCS uh infrastructure Within within Italy uh we had three questions uh the first related to the justification and the implications of the 100,000 ton cut off for uh requiring an environmental impact assessment on the face of it 100,000 tons already sounds like a lot so we wonder and and would of course would is is bigger than the current uh test project that that’s being done so it’s it’s a it’s a large quantity so could you say something about why that that cut off was made at 100,000 tons and looking ahead whether that could be exploited uh to apply for lots of small permits in order to keep below that threshold for an environmental impact assessment the second question you mentioned about measures to contain the harmful effect resulting from releases and I wondered if you could describe what what they could be what in in practice could be done if there is a a release and the third related to the environmental monitoring so just to understand what the expected periodicity would be how frequently the monitoring would be done and how far post closure that would be expected to continue thank you thank you uh please for the question uh the the first was the reason of the uh 100,000 limit so uh I the limit is um considered why is considered in relation to the storage capacity of the uh reservoirs for instance these two level in which we are carrying out this uh experimental project have a capability of uh from range that range from 5 Millions to 7 Millions uh standard met meter cubic meter so uh 100,000 million 100,000 uh tons are very small uh quantity of CO2 that we can uh inject another consideration is that uh this uh Reservoir already um contained gas and so they were well monitored uh yet so the the request was just the implementation of um integrate the uh micr symic Network and the microsys mic and the zps for uh detect any other uh soil deformation uh this is considered a limit in which uh for experience is not necessary to make an environmental impact assessment because the quantity are very small respect to other authorization that uh implies um more quantities to um inject in the future and more quantity that we can uh take from or oil or gas uh uh material uh the the second question was uh the I don’t remember if you can repeat please regarded the yes thank you it was you you had a mention on your slides of measures to contain harmful effects resulting from releases yes yeah okay okay I remember yeah yeah yeah uh but the the main um measure to uh our of um oil industry on the oil con ruction um uh industry and so uh they are principally uh vves like uh that prevent from blow up uh because the D the ma the major uh dangu is of and eventually are problem and troubles that could arrive from the injection well because uh uh in the case of uh the pled reservoir uh have been never registered problems of release from uh uh fault and fractur systems for instance and the only problem that we can register is uh uh uh the probability of occurring a blown up accident from the injection well so many monitoring uh system uh we can Implement and so they are from experience of oil gas uh extraction industry so we not consider a problem and the third question was some example of monitoring uh uh uh measure I if I remember it was more the the frequency with which environmental monitoring would take place and how far beyond closure of the injection ah okay okay thank you uh there is the monitoring uh measure are in the are aimed to detect the zero condition so before the injection of the CO2 during the injection of the gas and after the post closure and uh we um they we consider considered uh a frequency of four survey every years in during all the period of the injection of the CO2 thank you Green Peace and thank you Francesco um mrss you have the floor thank you uh just a quick question um thank you for presenting the outcome and the results but for engineers and scientists is always good to dive a bit more into the details and is the full report publicly available anywhere can we have the full uh so the a part of the um judgment the of the was issued by the ATS committee and the authorization permit uh is uh um uh you have to have is not uh on internet you have to apply uh a foral request to the competent Authority that is the ministry of environment and um or at directly to the uh Koto protocol committee because uh in the permit I reported just the requirements that are 20 20 requirements ments 20 Provisions but the um the entire document are 189 pages so uh you have to apply a formal request but um the normal channel of of requests you can uh every citizen can do thank you thank you thank you seeing no further question questions I will hand over to Yan to introduce our next speaker thank you Jes our next speaker is Dr eunan and he’s a professor in kongju National University in the Republic of Korea Dr Quan will introduce the current status and vision of ccus in the Republic of Korea one good afternoon I’m Yun Kuan professor of kongju National University uh I’m a geologist and researcher for CO2 stoy my major is a sedimentology and stapy and I have a technical experience on ccs and oil and gas development I was a principal researcher of kegam Korean Geological Survey and director general of the Korea ccus Association I’m stud studying on securing CO2 storage sites uh improving storage efficiencies and Innovative monitoring Technologies I would like to warmly thank I Amo London protocol for extending an opport opportunity to present at this 2024 science day today I will talk about current status and vision of CC Us in Korea uh most of today’s presentation are about par law institutional and Technical aspect uh but so I’m worried about my presentation alone consist of an introduction of Korea ccus which is inconsistence with the purpose and interests of the meeting however I will proceed with my presentation in the hope that the Korea’s ccus related status will serve as good reference for the lp scientist group these are contents of my presentation my presentation contents are divided into current status and Future Future Vision as entering the new centry Korea has recognized the importance of ccus and has made efforts to develop and commercialize the technology Korea’s technological development has been carried out according to a three stage development strategy the first is a phase of securing basic technology and the second phase can be defined as technological demonstration the current phase is expressed as a step of large scale integrated demonstration and commercialization of ccus Technologies in addition to technological development the cous R&D activities include issues regarding safety social acceptability lows and economics the Korea’s capture technology has been focusing on post combustion capture for core filed power plant the the post combustion wet absorption and dry absorption capture technologies have completed successful demonstration of capture of more than 200 tons of CO2 per day in terms of cost the capture cost is estimated to be around $70 us including comp compression and recupe cost and the Purity and process efficiency also are also evaluate to be the worldest highest level Korea has Diversified its capture sources following the polish change into a phase out of core filed power plant and is actively developing Technologies for capture of CO2 in natural gas reforming process for hydrogen production so-called blue hydrogen and capture of low concentration CO2 from uh ARR power generation recently the technical attempts and interest for extremely low concentration capture are expanding to direct a capture as negative emission Tech Technologies for implementation and commercialization of ccus in Korea securing storage formation is one of the most fundamental pre is it the analysis on storage cacity and prospective for CO2 storage formation in Continental Shelfs around the Korean Peninsula have been conducted intensively in the early 2020s the result can be summarized that the storage capacity is expected approximately 700 million tons in offshore Korea the Korean government expects to be able to secure storage s with the storage capacity of approximately 1 billion tons through additional exploration for offshore storage prospects technological enhancement of storage capacity and Improvement of storage efficiency in the near future however this expected storage capacity is not sufficient to meet Korea CCS goals and is corresponding only to approximately 50% of Korea’s goals and therefore Korea has high expectations for transboundary CCS project using overseas storage formations the level of CO2 storage technology of Korea is relatively low because Korea has a limited experience in oil and gas development however the Korean government strongly supported the technological development fors CO2 sty by 20110 and consequently the small Scale Pilot project for CO2 sty was successfully carried out in 2017 the poang CCS project stored only about 100 tons of CO2 underground in this in the Southeastern sea of Korea very close to Shoreline through this project carried out offshore in pohang city we can secure the basic Technologies for CO2 storage and experience the almost full chain of storage process including offshore survey and drilling Reser selection and characterization storage design Drilling and completion of injection well injection facility construction CO2 injection on the offshore platform and operation of the injection facilities and offshore monitoring the experience and knowledge from this project enable us to have the basic capabilities to plan and design the large scale offure CCS project in Korea However unfortunately Korea’s CCS faced the crisis due to the pohang earthquake that occurred near poang City at the end of 2017 as this earth earthquake was interpreted as a triggered earthquake caused by a geosar power generation project carried out inland area of poang City a crisis of public acceptance also had an impact on the pohang CCS research project the Korean government quickly and actively responded to the crisis and took steps to ensure a systematic and detailed investigation into the cause of the earth earthquake through this investigation it has been proven that there was no scientific caal relationship between the poang earthquake and the CCS research project the Korean CCS researchers also publicized the necessity and safety of CCS project making continuous senses sinere Communications with civil societies through such persuasion and Communications the crisis come down gradually and Korea can get the momentum to restart ccus again vigorously due to the poang earthquake several CCS research project in the 2010s have faced the CR crisis of public acceptance and H of project but through the efforts of the Korean government and CCS researchers described above Korea’s ccus can start a new it is also true that the tremendous historical trend for Global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon neutrality during this period helped Korea’s ccus relaunch from now I will introduce the vision of ccus in Korea Korea announced carbon neutrality pre in 2020 and carbon neutral neutrality framework act in 2021 this Act made Korea the 14th nation in the world to legislate vision and plan for carbon neutrality the ACT set Korea’s NDC at 40% emission reductions by 2030 from 2018 Rebels subsequently in rate 20 2021 Korea released carbon neutrality scenario and Andis goals the scenario suggested the natural paway way containing an important role for ccus in the NDC goals and carbon neutrality scenario Korean government emphasized the significance of Market entry and expansion of business of ccus in the goals and scenarios ccus separately positioned as a sector of emission reduction Technologies with renewable energy electrification hydrogen Energy Efficiency Etc in Korea’s NDC goals Korean government aims to reduce 11.2 million tons of CO2 emission through ccus this goal is very challenging and ambitious and some some people criticize it as unrealistic considering that there has been almost no actual sequestration of CO2 through ccus in Korea Korea’s carbon neutrality scenario is so much more challenging and ambitious according to the scenario Korea has to sequestrate more than 85 million tons of CO2 annually through ccus about 60 million tons of CO2 should be reduced annually by carbon capture and storage the remaining more than 25 million tons of CO2 would be processed by CCU technology in Korea this ambitious goal would be an expression of the Korean government’s strong will for emission reduction of greenhouse gases through CC Us in order to realize these ambitious goals there are two urgent missions one is to secure large scale storage site in the offshore Korea and the other is to demonstrate large scale CCS project Korean government plans to launch offshore CCS project using the depleted gas depleted Reser of the East SE gas Fields the project aims to repurpose the existing gas production infrastructure into CCS facilities and upscale po sequest rate 1.2 1.2 million tons of Co to annually Korea also has a CCU road map it is a long-term strategy for CCU technological progress and commercialization according to the road map it seeks to achieve technological competitiveness through technical improvements and Innovation by next year uh by 2030 uh it aims to to achieve commercialization of kccu technology and finally the road map set a goal of Co coost competitiveness by 2040 this means moving from the research stage to the commercial stage where CCU product products can compete on price in the open market the other key strategy by Korean government government is to build the ccus legislative framework the draft legislation was introduced to the National Assembly last year and a single integrated ccus law was passed early this year the subordinate legislation will be followed within this year the legislation will be comprehensive and streamline covering all aspects of the ccus value chains and focusing on regulations for safety and environmental protects and promoting policies such as economic incentives and industrial expansion the Korea CC US law proposed creation of CO2 Hub and clusters as an essential strategy for commercialization and expansion of Korea The Hub and crusters will be characterized based on reasonal and Industrial condition and Circumstance and will be expanded to a Nationwide ccus Network transboundary CCs is a critical component to achieve Korea’s uh carbon reduction goals together with the ccus development Within Korea due to limited national storic capacity there is a need to explore and secure alternative storage options outside of Korea in this regard Korea’s private sectors have made active efforts to advance transboundary CCS Korean governments completed the IMO depos at April uh 2022 and are preparing agreements or arrangement with the partner countries such as Australia and Malaysia in accordance with the procedures proposed by IMO London protocol as the significant examples of Korea’s transboundary CCS Corporation from the private sectors I would like to mention payou unan CCS project with Australia and sheer CS project with Malaysia Santos as Kens and other partners are working to convert natural gas production projects of the pan gas field into the CCS project uh Samsung engineering Consortium is also pursuing an implementation of the Malaysia offshore CCS project with the concept of transboundary CCs in order to realized transboundary CCs in the near future there is a time when a lot of efforts by the international communities are needed and required together with the efforts of individual countries and private sectors once again I would like to thank for listening my presentation to IM London protocol leaders and all offline and online delegations and The Honorable presenters thank you very much [Applause] thank you Dr Quan for your presentation on how CCS will be legislated in Korea going forward I will now open the floor for questions Green Piece you have the floor thank you chair and uh once again thank you for a a very interesting presentation uh we have just two questions the first uh we understand in relation to the uh the poang uh trial that uh no causal relationship was found between the CCS activities and the the seismic event but could it be that the natural seismic events could present a longer term risk for CCS within uh the Korean uh area is that something which uh needs particular focus and will you be uh nonetheless uh having a system for monitoring for induced seismicity is that something that uh uh that will be part of the plans going forward because we noticed that in the document presented to this meeting uh it was still very much the case that uh that no countries had uh a lot of um experience with how to deal with induced seismicity so maybe if you can say a little bit more about nonetheless how that would be going forward and secondly we note that one of the arrangements for uh transboundary movement of uh of CO2 streams in the future would be uh with Malaysia and with Malaysia not being a party to the London convention and protocol we wondered if you could say anything about the way in which uh Republic of Korea will ensure nonetheless uh that the storage is done in a way that is compliant with the uh rules of the lclp thank you thank you Green Peace Dr Quan would you like to respond okay uh I agree your uh comments on the r of earthquake uh we are well aware of risk of leakage and earthquake resulting from CCS project the most important thing is careful selection of storage site Korea will verify the safety of the reservers through detailed Marine J car exploration and Jal surveys over next five years and we uh specialize we are focusing on the stress field analysis for uh predicting the possibility of natural earthquake and uh minimize the risk of uh induced the size mistake the next important thing is Rus from the injection wear or monitoring wears the advancement of well completion technology and the application of an uh Advanced monitoring system will be required to prevent this Raks and uh induced seis miic C uh in addition basing monitoring of marine pollution and environmental change due to leakage are also being sincerely prepared um uh restly I would like to emphasize the importance of a pressure condition uh to minimize the uh possibility of induced SI seis Misty we are comprehensively reviewing a Vari variety of pressure control method including uh water water production and pressure control method applied to Australian gon project uh and second question is about uh uh transboundary uh CCS uh with Malaysia okay now we understand the uh we are we are know we know the Malaysia is not a party of London protocol is right but uh London protocol uh uh applied the All Nations all countries uh to have a transboundary CS with uh London Pro protocol parties or not [Music] okay okay um yeah I’m sorry to dis disrupt and maybe I can I can I can answer to the second question and May maybe we need to for the second question we need to discuss with the our delegation and other delegations so maybe we can hopefully get back to you with the answer thank you okay thank you Green Peace and thank you Dr Quan okay I don’t see any further questions so I will hand over to Yan to introduce our next presenter uh thank you just uh next presentation will be provided by a pre-recorded uh video the speaker is Mr Bon Christensen from the Norwegian environment agency uh please understand uh that there will be no room for questions or commented today because the presentation was pre-recorded however the presenter provides a contact email on the last slide for any followup questions now let me introduce Mr Chris tensen because he’s not here with us today uh Mr Chris Chris tensen is a senior advisor in the Norwegian environment agency working in the section for petroleum and new Marine industry Industries his agency is uh responsible for granting environmental permits for CO2 injection and storage in subc geological structures in Norway and this is what he will focus on his presentation today in Norway all activities related to full scale storgy of CO2 takes place upshore on the Norwegian Continental SHP uh the topic of today’s presentation is environmental regulation of suby geological sto stoy of CO2 in Norway now let’s uh start the video hello everybody and uh thank you for the opportunity to give this presentation my name is B Christensen and I am a senior advisor in the Norwegian environment agency in slow in my presentation I will talk about how we regulate subc geological stru storage of CO2 in Norway from an environment perspective so uh this is what I’ll be focusing on I start by giving a short introduction to the regulatory framework for CO2 storage in Norway then I will say something about two ongoing storage projects at the Norwegian continental shelf and the last part of my presentation will be dealing with the so-called longship project where the goal is to establish a fullscale value chain for CCS that includes capture of CO2 at industry plants transport injection and storage in geological formations in the northc uh n lights is the name of the company respons responsible for everything in this project except for the capture of CO2 at the industry plants as many of you will know Norway is not an EU member but through the European economic agreement we accepted to take on board EU directives related to for instance environmental issues we have therefore transposed the EU directive on CCS story into Norwegian legislation uh we have also joined the EU ETS and we are Contracting party to the ospar convention and the London protocol then a few words about the competent authorities involved in Su storage in Norway uh the ministry of energy plays a key role in this context since they are responsible for research management at the Norwegian continental shelf and since the geological structures suitable for CO2 storage are regarded as National resource nor region environment agency where I work is a directorate under the ministry of climate and environment and overall is to be the central Authority for environmental regulation of CO2 storage as indicated on my last slide a CO2 storage operator will need permits from both the ministry of energy and Norwegian environment agency before startup permits to be granted by the ministry of energy include the exploration permit including certain work obligations and um exploitation permits in addition operators have to make plans for development and operation of the necessary facilities which have to be approved by the ministry permits to be granted by us in the environment agency includes permits for drilling exploration Wells and injection Wells permits for injection and storage of CO2 and ETS permits with the requirements for how CO2 emissions and leakages are to be Quantified then my next slides will be about the ongoing CO2 storage at Scher and snit which are two gas and condensate fields at the Norwegian continental shelf where CO2 is separated from wellstream and permanently stored in subc geological structures a there uh in the North Sea CO2 has been separated from the wellstream and stored in a selan aquifer called the UT formation since 1996 the injection rate used to be around 1 million tons per year but is reduced drastically over the last years due to declining production around 19 million tons have been stalled so far and no leaks or major problems have been encountered it’s n it which is a gas and condensate field in the bar sea uh CO2 has been separated from the wellstream and stored subc since 2008 since there are no Offshore platforms at nit the wellstream is transported to an onshore lmg plant close to the city of hamfest through a 100 45 km long pipeline uh the CO2 separation takes place at the lmg plant and CO2 is then transported back to snit through a separate P pipeline for permanent storage subc the uh injection rate at snit is about7 million tons per years and 8 million tons to of CO2 has been stored so far the picture you can see shows the part of the parts of the LG plant where the processing of the wellstream and the separation of CO2 takes place in contrast to uh the conditions on schap there there have been some problems with the CO2 injection and storage at snit the CO2 injection started in the so-called tubor formation back in 2008 that due to Rapid pressure build up and lower capacity than predicted the injection in this formation was stopped in 2011 the injection point was then moved upwards in order to use the shallow s formation for uh storage however after a few years The Operators operator found it necessary to once again move the injection point to avoid contamination of the producing gas Reservoir by the injected CO2 and new wells were therefore drilled and since 200 16 the CO2 plume has behaved as predicted and no major problems have been encountered then a few about the environmental permits for SL nit since both of these permits were granted before the EU storage directive was adopted they had to be reviewed and updated when the directive was implemented in Norway some new provisions on for instance Financial Security and the procedure for transferring the responsibility to for the stor the site from the operator to the state were then included in the per permit uh in the slide I also put up some other the requirements uh in the permits um CO2 stream must uh contain more than 96% CO2 uh the maximum allowed uh injection rates and stored volumes are defined a reservoir simulation model must be used to predict how CO2 behaves in the reservoir and for these sismic studies must be conducted every 3 to four years the monitoring plan must uh be updated and approved by uh us every five years uh we have also accepted parent company guarantees as Financial Security for these two uh locations in addition to this we have granted uh separate ETS permits with requirements for monitoring and quantification of CO2 emissions this includes both ventilation when CO2 injection for some reason is closed down and leakages which might occur then we come to the long ship project as I mentioned initially the aim of this project is to establish a full scale value chain for ccs and demonstrate that CO2 capture and storage in geological structures at the Norwegian continental shelf is feasible and [Music] safe this is an important issue for the Norwegian government and um the project is therefore supported financially by the Norwegian state for a period of 10 years the project includes capture of CO2 at a cement plant and a waste in ceration plant in eastern Norway and the volumes from each of these two sides is expected to be around 400,000 tons per year the project also includes transport of liquid CO2 from the capture plants to a terminal in Western norb by ships and from there injection into sine aquifer in the North Sea through a 100 km long pipeline this picture illustrates what the Northern Lights uh is responsible for within the longship project as indicated inside the Violet box this includes transport injection and storage but not operation of the capture plants then a few words about the storage complex to be used by nites the black circle indicate roughly where the storage complex is located primary injection well is marked with a green arrow at the top of the image and the position of a contingency well which can be used if needed is marked with a red AR CO2 will be stored in the cook and formation on Johanson formations indicated in yellow color while the cap Rock which shall prevent CO2 from migrating upwards is shown in dark gray uh since the formation slope slightly upwards to the right in this image it is expected that the CO2 pleas will eventually move slowly in this direction but not cross the boundary to the neighboring license within the next 25 years which is uh the period the license for uh uh n lights will be valid for uh status for the nalized part of the Longs project is that most of the infrastructure includ including the onshore terminal with injection facilities the pipeline and the injection Wells are in place and four ships dedicated to CO2 transport are under construction nor light’s goal is to be ready for operation by the end of this year and it is expected that the first volumes of CO2 can be delivered early next year then a few words about the application we have received from n lights uh it came to us in December 2022 and uh included among others things uh injection and storage of up to 1.5 million tons per year over 25 years period uh operational limits based on on uh acceptance criteria for CO2 stream composition pressure and temperature and uh proposed plans for monitoring for corrective measures and also a preliminary plan for post closure activities in addition to this a proposal for Financial Security Arrangement was also included so where are we now in the permitting process in line with the provisions in our legislation the application was sent to the EA surveillance agency the ISA for competance check against the storage directive we have also run a public consultation in Norway and obtained the supplementary information from Northern Lights On request uh and recently we sent a draft permit to ISA for completeness and compliance check against the EU directive uh hopefully the final permit will be ready by the end of this year then a brief summary CO2 has been separated from natural gas and stored in geological structures at the Norwegian Continental shelves since 1996 uh permits for these activities have uh been granted in accordance with requirements in the U Storage directive and the EU and London protocol guidelines no leaks have been observed at new injection BS had to be drilled at snit to avoid CO2 contamination of producing gas reservoir uh and nor lights will probably be ready to operate by the end of this year and to receive the first volumes of CO2 in uh 2025 that was everything from me so uh thank you for your attention and please don’t hesitate to contact me on this email address if you have questions okay as Yan mentioned um unfortunately um Dr Mr Christensen couldn’t be available to answer questions but we have his email address if anyone would like to email him questions directly we will now break for a quick coffee break um and we’ll recommence at 3:40 just a reminder for the presenters to come to the front please for a group photo welcome back everyone hope you had a good coffee break I will now hand over to Yan to introduce our last speaker for the day thank you Jessica uh our final presentation today will be provided by Mr masayuki fuoka from the ministry of environment in Japan and he will make a presentation on permitting system for CO2 SE cation in sub geological formations and related trend on CCs in Japan Mr Huka thank you for your introduction hello everyone my name is masayuki Huka from the ministry of the environment Japan I’m a assistant manager of the Marine envir M division uh in our ministry and our division is uh managing the ACT uh which contains a permitting system for dumping waste at Sea and also permitting system for CCS project at Sea area so our information is sometimes uh available only in Japanese so uh I hope this presentation can be helpful to for other countries to understand our domestic regulations so let’s start so the first SL is about rondom protocol but this is uh this was already explained by zum the Secretariat so I’ll skip this slide so this is a a basic concept of the permitting system for dumping waste at Sea in Japan so we has already developed the permitting system for dumping waste based on the London protocol so in PR principle uh almost all all of the types of waste are prohibited for dumping at sea but uh we have some except exceptional types of waste which can be permitted for dispos that sea and in recent years uh only almost only Dred materials were permitted for disposed at se in the current permitting system and also this exceptional types of waste is included ining CO2 for the purpose of ccs and we have some specific regulations and specific stipulations on each types of waste which can be permitted for this poos and this uh this box is showing the examples of the regulations of CO2 for the CCS uh such as the oily matters uh resulting from exploration of mineral resources in the subet and uh CET and the subs B can be permitted for this post and also gas seeds which will be injected into the subs geological formation need to be consisting overwhelmingly of CO2 this means uh the concentration of CO2 need to be more than 99.99% in the current permitting system and also CCS project need get approval by the minister of the environment uh as well as other types of waste so this is a basic concept so next slide is a uh permitting criteria and processes for CCS project at C area uh we have some basic Criterion for CS project described above the first one is geological structure should prevent negative impact on their marine environment and second one uation should be monitored to identify pollutions the third one is an important point there is no possibilities H sorry uh there’s no possibilities to affect the environment in the disposal area the fourth one is a basic important principle of the Rondon protocol so there is no alternative appropriate disposal ways other than disposal under the C and also applicants should have Technical and financial capability to implement disposal and monitoring continuity uh this is also assessed in the permitting process by the government and the specific permitting process is described at the left side the first one is applicants need to submit application documents to the government and the government check whether those application documents meet the requirements uh described above and after the check uh the government will uh invite public comments for one month and then uh the insurance uh disposal permit will be issued to the applicants and during the uh project operation The Operators need to conduct environmental monitoring and submit report to the government and under the current permitting system The Operators need to apply for renewal of disposal permit in every five years including the monitoring plan so or the project Crosser phase is not covered in the current permitting system and current registration the right one right figure is showing the monitoring phases uh we have three phases for environmental monitoring uh in the environmental monitoring the project operators set up some kind of parameters for or to detect the RIS of CO2 and the parameters exceeds the threet hold the phase will be transitioned from regular monitoring to precautionary monitoring and in this phase two the monitoring should be conducted to judge whether negative effect occurred or occur and the parameters further exceeds the thre F the phase will be transitioned to phase three contingency monitoring under this phase the monitoring should be Contin until no negative effect is confirmed so this is a basic concept and processes for permitting CCS project at C area so next slide is the uh specific requirements for CO2 streams uh we have also some specific regulations and uh requirements for CO2 stre the first one is uh I mentioned in the first SL the conent conation of CO2 is uh need to be more than 99.99% but uh we are regulating the also we are also regulating the methodologies to capture CO2 uh in the current system only chemical absorption absorption using aiming is permitted and also we have regulations for impurities so the concentration of impurities such as H2 N2 n uh H22 N2 Co and hydrocarbon need to be measured and reported to the government by project operators the last one is other oils rather than CO2 should not be included but uh there are some cases that other types of impurities will be included in the CO2 streams uh in that case the project operators need to report about which types of impurities will be included in the CO2 streams but uh the those types of impurities won’t have any negative impact on the marine environment the the concentrations of those impurities uh doesn’t need to be measured and reported to the government and also during the uh project operation uh the CO2 stream need to be measured and reported but the applicant can select any points for measuring CO2 if it is bued that CO2 concentration does not change throughout the transportation process in the current ongoing project the CO2 stream is measured at one point that is before the injection uh this is because the uh injection site and the uh the uh CO2 capture site is very near very close so the transp the length of transposition proess process is very short in the current ongoing project so the next slide is a a CCS demonstration project which has been started from 2016 uh this is also introduced by the iea in the morning session so oh I’m sorry for very little uh little letters uh please you see the light figure in this project CO2 is uh captured and collected from gas supply facility and inject it into the subet geological formations through the pipeline from landbased facilities you know this is a uh important interpretations of London protocol and we have uh two types of geological formations the first one is mbit formation which is consisting of mut stones and and the another one is a taking formation which is consisting of sandstones and we found that uh found out that it was difficult to inject CO2 in the takino formation uh because we have observed the increase of the pressure when the uh CO2 was injected in this formation so the most of CO2 was injected and St in the mbit formation the upper one the total amount of CO2 uh which has been injected in this project is now 300,000 tons and this project has started in 2016 and uh the permitting period was renewed in 2021 so at the current plan this project will be continued until 2026 and during this project operation uh we have experienced large scale earthquakes near the project site but uh we have not observed any Els of CO2 from the uh storage site and this is a examples of environmental project in the tomak project so in the tomak project the relationship between pco2 and do was selected as a parameters for Environmental monitoring so reason why these two parameters were selected to uh described in the left side you know there are some potential parameters for environmental monitoring such as for example that DIC uh pco2 and P pco2 and do but uh DIC is uh relatively affected by other factors in the ocean environment and that makes it difficult to detect the exact RS of CO2 so we selected pco2 and d and also when we select just only one parameter for environment monitoring it is also difficult to detect the r of CO2 because the parameter is always changing uh depending on the uh other factors in the ocean environment so we we selected the relationship between PC2 and D for the parameters and right figure is showing the result of the environmental monitoring in tomak Project the blue line is the normal condition of each parameters and blue circle is showing the result of the monitoring during the project the r line is a 95% prediction intervals which was calculated based on the blue line and this is also used as stretch fold for environmental monitoring and when the blue circles continue to exceed this red line the monitoring phase which I explained in the previous slide will be transition phase two and phase three so the next two slides are explaining about ccs policy in Japan so this SL is Japan’s medium and long-term Target for GHC reduction as you know we are aiming to reduce ghg emission by 46% compared to 2013 by 20130 and also we are aiming to realize Net Zero emission by 2050 and we consider C CCS technology is important technology to realize Net Zero by to especially to realize net zero emissions by 2050 so next slide is a more specific uh policies related to CCS as I mentioned uh the to realize net Z CCs is a uh important Technologies uh to reduce CH emissions but in principle uh we are aiming to promote renewable energies and energy saving Technologies and but there are some areas where ghg emission is unavoidable so for those areas uh we will introduce CCS technology so that is a basic concept and uh design for introducing CCS Technologies to tackle the uh tackle against climate change and the uh uh expect expected amount of CO2 which will be captured and stored in Japan by 2050 is about 120 to 240 million ston based on iea report thanks to IA and also we have already developed GX promotion strategy which was uh decided by cabinet in July 2026 and in that in this strategy it is stipulated that uh to develop business environment for starting CCS by 2030 uh it is important to develop legal frame legal relevant legal Frameworks uh for expanding the CCS business from 2030 to 20 2050 the bottom figure is showing the uh image of introducing CCS uh which I explained as a uh first point so the next slide is a uh potential CCS projects in Japan uh we have seven potential projects uh CCS project at C area the Euro area was already selected as potential storage site by jmch the jmch is a Japan Organization for metal and energy security under the ministry of economy trade and the industry and they are always uh usually dealing with gas and oil facility so they have knowledge about the geological formation uh kind of that and please see the project number six and seven uh bottom two project uh these two project are aiming to capture CO2 and Export the CO2 to the other countries so project number six is aiming to export Co two to the Malaysia and seven is for oania so we are now discussing whether we can ratify 2009 Amendment of the London protocol in the diet but uh we don’t have enough discussions about the bilateral agreement and any other specific rules for Import and Export of CO2 so this is a a future our future consideration I’m sorry for many letters so far I have explained about the current permitting system under the current act but uh actually we have already developed the new updated act on carbon dioxide storage business which was already decided by the cabinet in February 2024 the main objective of this uh this new Act is to develop the business environment to expand the C CCS business by 2030 so the main point is that the uh this role is mainly managed by the ministry of the economy trade and Industry the current permitting system is mainly managed by the uh Ministry of the environment but uh that was changed uh but uh the protecting marine environment is still uh important point of view so the minister of the environment will jointly manage necessary measures with the minister of the economy trade and Industry from the point of view of the marine environment conservation uh this is a kind of keeping the balance between the promotions of CCS project and the protecting marine environment and there are some points but uh I will explain in the pre next slide so this is a uh basic concept and processes for the C permit permitting processes for CS project at see and the new act on CCS so in this new act the minister the left one the minister of economy trade and Industry called M will designate the specific area as a potential storage site and after the designation they will open call for exploratory excavations and CO2 storage and then uh the applicants need will submit application documents which include uh uh kind of uh base studies and after that uh the meti will uh select the most appropriate applicant as a uh project operators and after the selection The Operators need to submit implementation plan then after the approval the project will be started and during the project operation this is not changed by the current permitting system so or project operators need to conduct monitoring and submit report to the government and the last two phases uh these two phases are not covered in the current act but uh this is newly added in this new act so post injection The Operators need to submit uh closure AC uh sorry need to submit closure plan to the government and after the approval by the government the responsibility of the project will be transitioned from Project operators to the uh jch the jch is which I mentioned and and JM will continue to conduct environmental monitoring and submit report to the government and also minister of economy trade and Industry need to get agreement with minister of environment in each steps of this uh permitting system so this is a uh whole of the design of this new act but we need to develop more detail in the future so maybe this is our last slide so about the schedules and the future considerations about the schedules as I explained the uh we have already developed and submitted the new updated act and this is uh now under discussion in the diet so if the this new Act is successfully passed in the diet the uh this new act will be fully operated within two years and also we are discussing whether we can ratify 2009 Amendment uh of the London protocol in the diet so or maybe we can share the updated information in the next lclp meeting and also there are some future considerations in terms of marine Environmental Protection the first one is uh we need to develop the uh detailed permit criteria and processes for project croser uh this is newly added in the in the new act and second one is uh we need we we need to continue to brush up methodologies for environmental impact assessment especially in the designations of specific area the last one uh not least but not least uh it is also important point in the waste assessment guidelines of the London protocol we need to seek for more appropriate and effective ways to promote public consensus around project sites so that’s it from my presentation so thank you for your kind attention if you have any questions or comment please give [Applause] me thank you Masa for your presentation on Japan’s permitting criteria and process for CCS I now open the floor for questions Green Piece you have the floor thank you chair and uh thanks to Japan for such a a comprehensive overview of the the system uh in place and and the new developments um we had uh three questions so the first uh the conditions that are placed uh for the site selections seem to be very uh stringent very very strict uh with one condition being that there is no possibility to affect the environment in the disposal area so I just wondered if you could say what type of evidence would be required to support report the conclusion that there’s no possibility and also what is meant by the disposal area so if that’s just in the the injection site or if that’s the whole area of the of the reservoir the second question uh again the the 99.99% Criterion for CO2 is uh uh is impressive and we wondered whether that uh for practical reasons might rule out some potential sources of of CO2 streams because the energy that would be required to reach 99.99% would be so high and the third question relates to that very clever system that you’ve proposed for not just looking at uh pco2 but the relationship between PC2 and dissolved oxygen that looks very sophisticated and I wondered if you could say uh how far the limit value would need to be exceeded or on how many occasions would it need to be exceeded to trigger the extended monitoring thank you thank you for your questions about the first point uh you know about the conditions for the CTO rections uh we we will conduct the uh kind of studies and surveys for the uh kind of active geological formations around project site and we have uh you know we have many earthquakes in Japan so we have many informations uh related to the geological formations and also active geological formations and we will check those kind of informations uh in the uh permitting processes and also about the uh your next question about the inject injection site or Reser uh we will cover the including the reservoir and injection site and second point the concentration of CO2 uh yes uh there are many opinions to decrease con of this regulations from the project operators but uh the important point is to prevent the uh kind of negative impact on the marine environment and the concentration is just one indicators so maybe in the future project uh we will accept uh several sources of CO2 and uh there are many other types of methodologies uh in place in the future so we need to consider uh so the uh concentrations and impurities uh in details and then uh we will uh update update this regulations and the last question is environmental ah so so okay environmental monitoring so we we set up the uh threat for for environmental monitoring and uh actually the parameters will exceed when parameter exceeds the stret fold the uh monitoring phase will be transitioned into precautionary monitoring and uh they keep they continue to monitoring with cautiously and then uh the negative impact is not confirmed sorry negative impact is not confirmed after negative impact is not confirmed uh the pro the monitoring phase will be transitioned from two to one so we have not so we we don’t have any specific levels of uh what you mentioned but uh uh we have such kind of system so thank you thank you Green Peace and Masa Yuki Australia you have the floor thank you for interesting talk um just coming back to the do and pco2 measurement um so I know that was partially set by a baseline uh characterization uh in the marine environment in which uh Tam makamai project is in um what would you consider a an appropriate Baseline uh length for environmental monitoring thank you thank you for your questions so yes uh blue line is a kind of baselines for environmental monitoring and this is a ordinary conditions of each parameters and if the the CO2 leaks from the storage site the parameters will be may maybe May exceed this red line and this red line is just calculated by the 95% uh prediction intervals and this means there are any possibilities of CO2 leaks so this is a kind of concept of uh developing the stress fold for environmental monitoring does it make sense okay thank you thank you I E A ghg you have the floor uh thank you chair thank you very much for the presentation uh and the updates uh and thank you also in general to the tacam my project for sharing the learnings from that project uh a CO2 project in a seismically active area and the uh the work around the pressure interfaces there and the stress is very useful I think for others to learn from but my question actually is very similar to Green pieces second question about the 99.99% uh CO2 in the CO2 stream and are there any plans to revise that because um it does limit the CO2 sources uh you can just about achieve that with aiming capture as you point out your regulation is only for aiming capture but for air separation units to do with integrated gasification projects or oxy fuel or even the sler project in Norway with gas oparation on platform uh and injecting with a bit of nitrogen uh it would exclude all these other sources if it remains at 99.99 so are there plans to revise that in the regulations being developed thank you thank you for your good questions yes we are uh now discussing whether we can accept other types of uh methodologies and other types of uh sorry the is there any possibilities to change the concentrations of regulations but uh we are now collecting the informations and experiences for those point so maybe in the future uh this regulation will be updated I hope thank you thank you acops you have the floor thank you chair and um thank you for very informative um presentation um I just have a question on the uh uh the reference you made to the fact that one of the many um measures or regulations that you’ve put in place relates to unav unavoidable uh carbon dioxide streams and so I was wondering how this is um in practice uh put in place so um I understand from the presentation that for the moment you’re primarily considering uh sources that are uh sources of cabar site streams that would be from Japan so I suppose that it’s easier to trace but so have you what are the mechanisms that you put in place and uh Are there specific sources that you have already identified that you would consider to not be acceptable and um Etc thank you thank you question yes it is very difficult point and uh we don’t have any standards and regulations for judging whether the CO2 emission is avoidable or not but uh we will check uh the such kind of sectors and processes where the G ghg is emitted you know in the uh G Supply facilities there are many processes and some for some part we can reduce GH emissions by uh switching the uh from uh fossil fuel to the renewable energies and also sometimes uh it is possible to introduce other energy saving techniques but uh and we check uh those types of possibilities of introducing other types of measures to G dedu ghg emission uh that is uh the current our kind of assessment for this point okay thank you thank you masuki we will now just allow a moment for the chair of the scientific groups to come to the podium e moving on to our final agenda item of the day discussion and closing remarks today we had the opportunity to hear about how CCs is being researched assessed and regulated in various countries thank you to the presenters for giving us all the opportunity to learn from your valuable research and experiences around this important topic as we have heard the London protocol is crucial in facilitating and managing the disposal of CO2 streams at Sea as well as the crossb transport of CO2 streams the LC and LP have so far been the most advanced International regulatory instruments addressing carbon capture and sequestration in subseed geological formations interest in the lclp is increasing rapidly as the number of CCS projects worldwide increase the scientific groups have done immense work in the field of ccs to ensure that new technologies with the potential to cause harm to the marine environment are effectively controlled and regulated it is hoped that the information shared today could lead to further ratifications of the 2009 Amendment the information shared today will also inform the work of the correspondence group on experiences with the carbon dioxide streams assessment guidelines going forward specifically allowing them to further elaborate their questionnaires I would encourage everyone to read the summary report of responses to the questionnaires on CCS experiences submitted by the correspondence group if you have not already done so I would now like to open the floor for further comments and reflections Green Piece you have the floor thank you chair and we’re aware that we’ve taken the floor many times today so we’ll be we’ll be brief but we just wanted to uh to thank all of the the speakers uh and to say that um genuinely we feel this has been one of the most focused and useful science groups uh science days that that we’ve had so far uh I think all of the presentations were directly relevant to the issue uh and also directly relevant to the work of the uh the scientific groups and also of course to the governing bodies so I I I really appreciate the uh the attention that’s been taken by all the presenters to uh make their presentations uh so relevant uh and useful to the the work of these bodies so uh that was all and just to say thank you to you chair for um very effective uh organization of us today um and uh keeping us on track and uh uh yeah it’s been a very useful exercise and we hope that it’s been uh as valuable also for online participants thank you thank you Green Peace for your comments IE a GG you have the floor okay thank you chair um and I just wanted to add our thanks also to the leads in the correspondence group um I think the paper uh SG 474 uh was really interesting the survey idea was interesting and their assimilation and summary of the responses to the questions uh very interesting uh document and we look forward to participating in this correspondence group going forwards and sharing what we can from IHG based upon the the learnings that we gained from our own activities and workshops so thank you very much to the two leads uh for that correspondence group thank you IE a ghg any further comments from the floor okay in that case I will hand over to the chair of the scientific groups for his closing remarks thank you Vice chair and chair for today so you did very well and also to the other the second Vice chair distinguished delegates colleagues and all attendees to this science day impress remotely of by the online streaming it was such a pleasure to have you in this Symposium of the ccs and experience with 202 uh 20 12 specific guidelines for the assessment of carbon dioxide for disposal into CED geological formation this topic on CCS was a pushing up in the last year and today it was recorded that it was first introduced by the governing bodies in 2006 when the Contracting parties adopted the amendment to anex one of the London protocol to regulate this matter and this amendment I want tolight once again that created a legal basis in the international environmental law to regulate carbon capture storage in subet geological formation and they were extensively highlight into today’s presentation and also then uh I want to recall that in 2009 the amendment or part article six concerning the export of waste of dumping purpose but as to enter still to enter into Force because today only 11 parties as accepted this amend so I underline the need to promote the absent of this amend but in this regard I want to thank as other um attend these delegates highlighted the importance of the work of this week during the the scientific group meeting in the item four and the work of the correspondence group and the working group on ccs and guidelines and also I want also to recall the um 2019 uh provisional application of the amendment article six in order to advance the ccs transboundary project but I believe that all the presentation of today were very useful to highlight the status of development of the CCF from lclp searing for domestic legislation the and its implementation methodological application and permitted system in different countries across the world I also appreciate today the contribution by the American BAU of shipping EU own ship designed for CO2 Transportation as the chair of the scientific group of the London convention London protocol I wish to thank all the speaker who provide a remarkable contribution to the science day I want to express my warm gratitude to Miss Jessica man and Dr y Chang respectively the first and second Vice chair for your excellent work done in the organization chairing and the science day you suceed very well yeah I also want to stand my best thanks to LC LP Secretariat and the IMO staff o for the value support to the vice chair a special mention to M Jan Park who has been so helpful focused and competent the preparation and support of the Symposium as well giving the introductory talk with this morning I want to remind that all the presentation of today will be made available in the web page dedicated to S day in the IMO website as well as the YouTube stream in order to be assessor that spread over the wider audience finally I want to highlight the importance of the science day as a full day Symposium to provide in sign a contribution on it important topic chosen by parties of the lp in a more informal pencil down setting the resume of pH tof face meeting after the covid is preferable to announce the interaction but as well as the hybrid infrastructure and the online stream accessible to public provided the vi wider audience notably student and other interested stakeholder among them I want to mention the student of Graduate School of the London protocol engineering master of project Administration LPM from the Korean Institute of ofan science and technology so I wish once again to thank you all for attending and all all the speakers and of course all to the chair of today back uh to you chair to conclude okay I would like to officially conclude the science day thank you everyone for your attendance and [Music] [Applause] participation e e for
The Science Day symposium took place during the 47th meeting of the Scientific Group under the London Convention and the 18th meeting of the Scientific Group under the London Protocol, under the topic “CCS and experiences with the 2012 Specific guidelines for the assessment of carbon dioxide for disposal into sub-seabed geological formations”, on Thursday, 18 April 2024, at IMO Headquarters in London
Add A Comment