Permitting issues for CO2 capture, transport and geological storage: A review of Europe, USA, Canada and Australia
Introduction
This paper presents a range of permitting considerations for CO2 capture and storage (CCS) activities across the full geographical chain of operations (capture → transport → storage → stewardship) and the temporal dimension of the CCS operational life-cycle (planning → construction → operation → decommissioning). The paper highlights some key additional environmental, health and safety regulatory permitting issues associated with each element of the chain across the temporal cycle. It also reviews a selection of existing environmental, health and safety permitting regimes for large-scale infrastructure projects, and considers their appropriateness given the nature of the permitting issues for CCS highlighted. Effective regulation of CCS operations will be critical in ensuring that such activities can proceed in a safe and environmentally sound manner, and that appropriate responsibilities and liabilities are in place for any impacts associated with CO2 leakage along the chain, and in particular at storage sites, across the full project life-cycle.1
Section snippets
Permitting issues
The analysis undertaken suggests that the installation of a CO2 capture plant at a power plant could trigger additional permitting considerations through several new characteristics of the plant, including, inter alia: changes in the overall thermal efficiency of the plant triggered by the energy penalty imposed by the CO2 capture plant; changes in the exhaust parameters of the plant, which can change the nature of the flue gas plume; changes in the concentration of various compounds in the
Applicability of existing permitting regimes
Taking into consideration the issues outlined in Table 1, a review of existing permitting regimes in different jurisdictions – namely the EU (with the UK as a Member State case study), the USA, Canada and Australia – was undertaken. The analysis provides an insight to where existing regulations might apply to the CCS chain, and where gaps largely exist that may need to be filled by regulators to ensure safe and effective control of CCS operations. The analysis found the following for each
Gap analysis
An overview of the extent of gaps in permitting regulations and legislation is shown in Table 5 above. Darker shaded areas have fewer issues than those, which are clear. The general conclusion is that permitting systems for capture and transport require little modification but major developments are needed for the subsurface element. Furthermore, there are significant issues, which already have to be addressed at the planning stage.
Role of EIA
The study identifies Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a key process in regulatory and permitting procedures. The large scale deployment of CCS through multiple projects could raise additional considerations for which Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) might be useful to assist in determining policy. The results of SEA could ultimately feed through into legislation and thus affect permitting of CCS. A further study on the role of EIA in CCS is currently underway and aims to compare
Safety
CO2 is handled routinely by industry and extensive pipeline systems are in operation with a good safety record. Whilst safety is an issue, which has to be addressed during the permitting process, it has not hitherto been regarded as presenting any special difficulties. However, it is becoming clear that the scale of CCS operations, the possibility that CO2 will be present in more populated areas and operation in the offshore environment will break new ground. During permit applications the
Conclusions
On the whole, no major additional regulatory developments are required for the permitting of above-ground installations and operations associated with CO2 capture, transportation and injection activities. The analysis suggests that many of the issues highlighted for this part of the chain could be accommodated through minor adjustments or amendments of existing permitting regimes. This included items, such as preparation of statements, permissions for seismic surveying, routing considerations
References (0)
Cited by (34)
Analysis of CO<inf>2</inf> pipeline regulations from a safety perspective for offshore carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)
2024, Journal of Cleaner ProductionRb-Ni/Al<inf>2</inf>O<inf>3</inf> as dual functional material for continuous CO<inf>2</inf> capture and selective hydrogenation to CO
2023, Chemical Engineering JournalCarbonation rate and microstructural alterations of class G cement under geological storage conditions
2021, Applied GeochemistryEffects of matrix permeability and fracture on production characteristics and residual oil distribution during flue gas flooding in low permeability/tight reservoirs
2020, Journal of Petroleum Science and EngineeringCitation Excerpt :It can be seen that the greater the permeability, the faster the initial gas production rate (Fig. 17I(a), I(b)) in fracture low permeability/tight cores. Different from the fracture-free low permeability/tight cores, the variations of maximum gas production rate in fracture cores in the process of flue gas flooding were limited even under the tight core with permeability of 0.38 × 10−3μm (Paul and Mike, 2007). This is because the existence of fracture contributed to the formation of effective permeation channels, and weaken the process of “squeezing breakthrough”.
Experimental study on the fracture behavior of sandstone after ScCO<inf>2</inf>–water–rock interaction
2019, Journal of Natural Gas Science and EngineeringCitation Excerpt :Among them, CO2 sequestration technology in deep non-mining seam with enhanced coalbed methane mining (CO2-ECBM) is considered to be one of the most attractive CO2 sequestration technologies (Bachu et al., 2007; Busch and Gensterblum, 2011; Tao et al., 2011). Internationally, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, Japan and other countries have carried out pilot tests of enhanced CO2 injection to improve coalbed methane (CO2-ECBM) (Zakkour and Haines, 2007; Gentzis et al., 2000; Hamelinck et al., 2002; Faiz et al., 2007; Fujioka et al., 2010). In China, the reserves of CBM resources are concerning 3.06 × 1012m3, which can store approximately 2.2664 × 1010 t of CO2, mainly concentrated in Shanxi, Shaanxi and Guizhou provinces (Yi, 1997; Zhang et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2007; Jiang et al., 2016).