CCS under the CDM |decisions & timelines

1
CCS under the CDM update of progress and
issues Grant A. Kirkman Team Leader CDM
Methodologies Carbon Capture and
Sequestration Tuesday, 1445 - 1545 Carbon
Forum AmericaFebruary 26 - 27, 2008San
Francisco, CA
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change
2
CDM Regulatory Bodies the basics
COP/MOP
approves
supports
supervises
elects
accredits
supports recommends
EB
RIT
MP
AP
UNFCCC secretariat
DOE
SSCWG
A/RWG
supports recommends
3
CDM Project Cycle flow
4
CDM global reach, international mandate

• CDM the largest CO2 offset system in the world
• gt 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

5
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 inca.
  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 lthttp//unfccc.int/resou
rce/docs/2007/cmp3/eng/03p01.pdfgt, page 4.
6
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
• Long-term physical leakage (seepage) levels of
  risks and uncertainty
• 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)
• Long-term responsibility for monitoring the
  reservoir and any remediation measures that may
  be necessary after the end of the crediting
  period
• Long-term liability for storage sites
• Accounting options for any long-term seepage
  from reservoirs
• Criteria and steps for the selection of suitable
  storage sites with respect to the potential for
  release of greenhouse gases
• Potential leakage paths and site characteristics
  and monitoring methodologies for physical leakage
  (seepage) from the storage site and related
  infrastructure for example, transportation
• Operation of reservoirs (for example,
  well-sealing and abandonment procedures),dynamics
  of carbon dioxide distribution within the
  reservoir and remediation issues
• 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).

7
CCS under the CDM views Parties, IGO/NGOs

• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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

8
Summary of 2 large scale proposed methodologies
9
Summary of the small scale proposed methodology
10
www.cdmbazaar.net
11
Linksthank 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