Transcript CCS under the CDM |decisions & timelines

CCS under the CDM – update of
progress and issues
Grant A. Kirkman
Team Leader | CDM Methodologies
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Tuesday, 14:45 - 15:45
Carbon Forum America
February 26 - 27, 2008
San Francisco, CA
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
CDM Regulatory Bodies| the basics
approves
COP/MOP
elects
accredits
DOE
supports
supervises
supports
EB
MP
recommends
RIT
AP
UNFCCC
secretariat
A/RWG
SSCWG
supports
recommends
CDM Project Cycle| flow
CDM | global reach, international mandate
• CDM the largest CO2 offset system in the world
–
–
–
–
–
> 948 projects registered to date
49 countries
192,724,874 certified emission reductions (CERs) issued
approx. additional 3000 projects in pipeline
2.7 billion CERs expected to end of 2012
• The mechanism has a legal basis in the Kyoto Protocol
– Regulated by an Executive Board (EB) answerable to KP Parties
– EB back-stopped by UNFCCC secretariat with support for:
• Registration of projects & issuance of CERs
• Accreditation of third-party validators
• Methodologies for project emission reductions, baselines &
monitoring
CDM general overview | investment, financial flows
• CDM projects that entered pipeline in 2006 are
expected to result in $ 25 billion in capital investment
(almost double the 14 billion USD in total investment leveraged through GEF
in the climate change area since it started)
• CDM renewable energy & energy efficiency projects
registered in 2006 are expected to result in
ca. $ 6 billion in capital investment
(about triple the ODA support for energy policy and renewable energy projects
in the same countries. Almost as much as private investment in renewable
energy and energy efficiency (USD 6.5 billion in 2006) in the same countries)
Condensed from the report of the CDM Executive Board to the COP/MOP 2007 <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cmp3/eng/03p01.pdf>, page 4.
CCS under the CDM |decisions & timelines

SBSTA 24 2006: workshop on CCS as CDM project activity – boundary, permanence & leakage

CMP.2: considered the public call, workshop report & EB recommendation of proposed methodologies – laid out a
road map to CMP.4


EB to continue to consider proposals for geological storage – approve only after guidance from CMP

Encouraged Parties, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and others to organize
global and regional workshops

Parties considered inputs from IGOs, NGOs & Parties, at SBSTA 27, on:
1.
Long-term physical leakage (seepage) levels of risks and uncertainty;
2.
Project boundary issues (such as reservoirs in international waters, several projects using one
reservoir) and projects involving more than one country (projects that cross national boundaries);
3.
Long-term responsibility for monitoring the reservoir and any remediation measures that may be
necessary after the end of the crediting period;
4.
Long-term liability for storage sites;
5.
Accounting options for any long-term seepage from reservoirs;
6.
Criteria and steps for the selection of suitable storage sites with respect to the potential for release of
greenhouse gases;
7.
Potential leakage paths and site characteristics and monitoring methodologies for physical leakage
(seepage) from the storage site and related infrastructure for example, transportation;
8.
Operation of reservoirs (for example, well-sealing and abandonment procedures),dynamics of carbon
dioxide distribution within the reservoir and remediation issues;
9.
Any other relevant matters, including environmental impacts;
Consider a synthesis report at SBSTA-28 and another at SBSTA-29 recommended to CMP.3 (Bali) with a view to a
decision at CMP.4 in Poland (end 2008).
CCS under the CDM |views Parties, IGO/NGO’s
•
•
•
Fourteen (14) submissions
– 6 from Parties (Japan, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Norway, EU and Korea)
– 8 from intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations (Greenpeace, WWF,
Bellonas, NFED, WCI, IRGC, IPIECA and IETA)
Highlight technical, methodological, legal & policy issues related to the consideration of CCS
as CMD project activities.
Technical views expressed:
–
–
–
–
•
Methodological issues,
–
–
–
–
•
a range of criteria and steps for site selection are outlined
reservoir numerical simulation modelling will be a critical element
project boundaries can be defined by emission sources
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG Inventories provide a useful basis for monitoring
methodologies for leakage caused by /seepage from reservoirs
Legal Issues expressed:
–
–
•
CCS is feasible in a range of different storage types
potential leakage pathways are identifiable
remediation of sites is important
environmental impacts should include assessment of purity & effects on benthic organisms
2006 IPCC Guidelines provide useful guidance for cross-border CCS projects
long-term liability could by a “seller/host country” liability model
Policy Issues expressed:
–
–
–
some consensus that CERs from CCS projects should be equal to other CERs
some NGOs proposed that alternative mechanisms
no major issues or consensus where identified for acceptable levels of risk or uncertainty
Summary of 2 large scale proposed methodologies
White Tiger Field (Vietnam)
NM0167
Petronas (Malaysia)
NM0168
Description
CO2 capture from NGCC plants,
pipeline transport, storage in
offshore/ onshore oil field, EOR
CO2 and H2S co-capture
from offshore gas well,
storage in aquifer, no EOR
Project
boundary
Capture, compression, transport &
storage reservoir
Compression, transport,
storage reservoir
Leakage
Pipeline leakage identified
No leakage identified
Seepage
levels
0.7% p.a. during crediting period,
model based
very likely < 1% in 100 yrs,
model based
Monitoring
3D & 4D seismic
3D seismic
Pre-project
Seawater EOR
No EOR
Site Selection
Criteria
Defined by IEA publication on CCS
Defined by IPCC special
report on CCS
Permanence d > threshold, replace with other units
Permanence a Beyond scope of methodology, but
continue monitoring
PP’s replace the CER’s
Discount factor for 1000 yr.
prediction
Summary of the small scale proposed methodology
Anthropogenic Ocean Sequestration by Alkalinity
Shift (SSC_049)
Description
Dissolving concentrated CO2 (power station flue
gas) in sea water & neutralising the carbonic acid
formed with calcium carbonate. The process
stores carbon in the form of bicarbonate.
Project boundary
Capture, compression, transport. Excludes power
station flue & limestone transport
Leakage
No leakage identified
Seepage
Not discussed
Monitoring
Monitoring of energy consumption & alkaline
change
Pre-project
Not discussed
Site Selection
Criteria
Not discussed
Permanence
Not discussed
www.cdmbazaar.net
Links|thank you
CDM website:
http://cdm.unfccc.int
CDM Bazaar:
http://www.cdmbazaar.net
Catalogue of decisions (beta):
http://test.cdmis.net/catalogue-test
CDM UNFCCC website:
cdm.unfccc.int
UNEP RISOE:
http://cdmpipeline.org