Presentation given by Dr David Santillo from the Greenpeace Research Laboratories as part of the Plenary Session: Challenges Facing CCS at the UKCCSRC Biannual Meeting - CCS in the Bigger Picture - in Cambridge, 2-3 April 2014

1. Issues in international
regulation of CCS...
...the case of the London Protocol
David Santillo & Paul Johnston
Greenpeace Research Laboratories
@ The University of Exeter
3rd April 2014 1CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda | UKCCS Research Centre

2. The London Protocol (1996)
• Developed from the 1972 Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes
and Other Matter (London Convention)
• Convention evolved from permitting regime to
instrument for marine environment protection
– Ban on radioactive waste disposal (1993)
– Ban on industrial waste dumping and incineration at sea
(1996)
• London Protocol designed to consolidate progress and
ultimately replace Convention
– Precautionary approach
– Reverse list of wastes
– Explicit protection for seabed and subsoil
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 2

3. 3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 3
Source: www.imo.org

4. The “sea” includes the seabed
ARTICLE 1 (definitions): For the purposes of this Protocol:
7 "Sea" means all marine waters other than the internal waters of States,
as well as the seabed and the subsoil thereof; it does not include sub-
seabed repositories accessed only from land.
4 .1 "Dumping" means:
.1 any deliberate disposal into the sea of wastes or other matter from
vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea;
.2 any deliberate disposal into the sea of vessels, aircraft, platforms or
other man-made structures at sea;
.3 any storage of wastes or other matter in the seabed and the subsoil
thereof from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at
sea; and
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 4

5. “Ocean Disposal/Sequestration of
Carbon Dioxide” Greenpeace 1999
• Raised concerns for
marine environment
regarding CCS, as well as
direct ocean disposal and
ocean fertilization
• Led to LC Scientific Group
conclusion that “fossil-
fuel derived CO2 was an
industrial waste”
• Conclusion not endorsed
by Meeting of Parties
later in 1999
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 5

6. “Mitigating the environmental impacts on the oceans
of climate change” UK, 2004
“With the London
Convention
responsible for
protecting the marine
environment in
relation to deposits in
the sea, it has a key
role to play in the
legal and scientific
assessment of the
option of CO2
sequestration there”.
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 6

7. Timeline to amendment of Annex 1
(“reverse list”)
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 7
2004
Parties consider
challenges
presented by
climate change
and acidification –
included issue on
work programme
2005
Significant
disagreement
among Parties
about approach to
take – meeting
nonetheless
agrees to regulate
2006
Amendment to
include CO2
streams for sub-
seabed CCS put to
vote – 12 in
favour, 5 abstained
Scientific
Group
Scientific
Group
Working
Groups

8. Resolution LP.1(1) amending Annex 1
Additional waste stream added to “reverse list”:
1.8 Carbon dioxide streams from carbon dioxide capture processes for
sequestration
4 Carbon dioxide streams referred to in paragraph 1.8 may only be considered
for dumping, if:
• .1 disposal is into a sub-seabed geological formation; and
• .2 they consist overwhelmingly of carbon dioxide. They may contain
incidental associated substances derived from the source material and the
capture and sequestration processes used; and
• 3 no wastes or other matter are added for the purpose of disposing of
those wastes or other matter.
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 8

9. Timeline to develop Assessment
Framework for sub-seabed CCS
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 9
2005
Parties note need
for assessment
tools for sub-
seabed CCS, to
ensure protection
of marine
environment
2006
Parties adopt Risk
Assessment &
Management
Framework for
sub-seabed CCS
(CS-SSGS)
2007
Parties adopt
Specific Guidelines
for Assessment of
CO2 streams for
disposal into sub-
seabed
formations
Scientific
Group
Scientific
Group
Working
Groups

10. Specific Guidelines for sub-seabed CCS
Required considerations include inter alia:
• Waste prevention audit
• Other waste management options
• Chemical characterisation
• Site selection & characterisation
• Effects assessment
• Monitoring & Risk Management (incl. mitigation
or remediation)
• Permit & permit conditions
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 10

11. Export of CO2 streams for
sub-seabed CCS?
ORIGINAL ARTICLE 6: EXPORT OF WASTES OR OTHER MATTER
“Contracting Parties shall not allow the export of wastes or
other matter to other countries for dumping or
incineration at sea”.
• Viewed as a barrier to development of CCS, especially in
Europe (cf Directive 2009/31/EC)
• Efforts by some Parties began in 2008 with aim to
“overcome legislative barrier”
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 11

12. Timeline to amendment of Article 6
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 12
2008
First proposals by
some Parties to
amend Annex 6 to
allow export of
CO2 for CCS –
many Parties felt it
was too early
2009
Proposed
amendment put to
vote – 15 in
favour, 1 against, 6
abstained – deep
concerns amongst
many Parties
2013
Parties adopt
additional
guidance on the
interpretation of
Art. 6 amendment
– to date, only 2
Parties ratified
Scientific
Group
Scientific
Groups
Correspondence
Group

13. 2009 amendment to Article 6
1 Contracting Parties shall not allow the export of wastes or other matter to other countries for
dumping or incineration at sea.
2 Notwithstanding paragraph 1, the export of carbon dioxide streams for disposal in accordance
with annex 1 may occur, provided that an agreement or arrangement has been entered into
by the countries concerned. Such an agreement or arrangement shall include:
2.1 confirmation and allocation of permitting responsibilities between the exporting and
receiving countries, consistent with the provisions of this Protocol and other applicable
international law; and
2.2 in the case of export to non-Contracting Parties, provisions at a minimum equivalent to
those contained in this Protocol, including those relating to the issuance of permits and
permit conditions for complying with the provisions of annex 2, to ensure that the
agreement or arrangement does not derogate from the obligations of Contracting Parties
under this Protocol to protect and preserve the marine environment.
A Contracting Party entering into such an agreement or arrangement shall notify it to the
Organization.
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 13

14. 2013 guidance on interpretation of
amendment to Article 6
• Provides clarification on content of agreements,
permitting responsibilities & consistency with
other international law
• In the case of export to non-Contracting Parties,
stresses that the obligations under 6.2.2.2 remain
fully with the Contracting Party exporting the
waste stream
• 2 Parties have ratified Art. 6 amendment, 2 more
in process...approx. 30 needed for entry into
force before export is allowed for sub-seabed CCS
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 14

15. Reporting on application of guidelines
• LC-LP Meetings receive updates on progress of
CCS projects, including…
– Norway (Sleipner, Snøhvit, Mongstad)
– UK (Peterhead, White Rose)
– Netherlands (CATO-2)
– Brazil, Denmark, Japan
– EC, IEA
• BUT to date no reports on the application of the
guidelines (which should guide CCS project
development, including site selection)
• Reporting is essential for transparency and trust
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 15

16. Summary: key concerns re LP amendments
to facilitate sub-seabed CCS
• Both CCS–related amendments to LP required adoption
by vote - no consensus of Parties
• Definition of CO2 streams in Annex 1 remains
ambiguous and open to interpretation
• 2009 amendment to allow export of CO2 for sub-
seabed CCS was hasty and not properly thought
through (especially with regard to export to non-
Contracting Parties)
• So far no reports on application of the guidelines,
despite rush to adopt and amend them
• Waste Prevention Audit generally ignored in the case of
CCS, despite obligations on Parties under the LP
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 16

17. Wider concerns regarding CCS
• Safety of capture & transport
• Security and integrity of storage
• Ability to monitor and verify
• Impacts of monitoring techniques
• Ability to detect and intervene to control leaks
• Transboundary migration post-disposal
• Displacement and dispersal of brines
• Lock-in to fossil fuel with further energy penalties
• Cost of infrastructure and implementation
• Timescales too long for urgent emissions cuts
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 17

18. 22/08/2012 18Oxford Geoengineering Summer School 2012

19. NGO joint statement on coal and
carbon capture and storage (2008)
• focus on renewables and
energy efficiency;
• introduce greenhouse gas
emissions standards;
• introduce emission standards
for existing plants from 2020;
• keep a clear focus in any CCS
demonstration programme;
• introduce strong legislation
on CO2 storage and transport.
3rd April 2014 CCS in the Bigger Picture Agenda 19