IPCC SPECIAL REPORT ON CARBON DIOXIDE … · Montreal, 22 -24 September 2005 ENGLISH ONLY IPCC...

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

WMO

UNEP

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

IPCC Secretariat, c/o WMO, 7bis, Avenue de la Paix, C.P. N° 2300, 1211 Geneva 2, SWITZERLAND Phone: +41 22 730 8208/8254/8284 Fax: +41 22 730 8025/8013

E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ipcc.ch

IPCC WORKING GROUP III WG-III: 8th /INF. 1 Eighth Session (15.IX.2005) Montreal, 22-24 September 2005 ENGLISH ONLY

IPCC SPECIAL REPORT ON CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE

COLLATED COMMENTS FROM GOVERNMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS ON THE FINAL DRAFT SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

RECEIVED BY 15 SEPTEMBER, 2005, 16:00 hours

(Prepared by the Technical Support Unit of Working Group III on behalf of the Co-chairs of Working Group III)

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

2 Canada 0 0 A reader of the SPM would be greatly helped by a Foreword, to set the SPM in context and make clear the scope of the report. Some reviewers commented that the context of what was being scoped in and out of "Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)" was not clear. Some suggested text for such a Foreword/Introduction is submitted by Canada in addition to this compilation of comments.

3 Canada 0 0 The document appears a bit disjointed and difficult to read from a policy makers perspective. The flow of the document could be dramatically improved if the section "What is the Current Status of CCS Technology?" were broken into sections: "What is the Current Status of CO2 Capture Technology?", "What is the Current Status of CO2 transport technology?", "What is the Current Status of Geologic Storage Technology?", "What is the Current Status of Mineral Fixation and Industrial Applications Technology?" "What is the Current Status of Ocean Storage Technology?". This would allow a logical flow for the policy maker to consider, rather than lumping this all into one section. This structure is also more consistent with the presentation of the underlying Special Report. This would allow technological and cost information to be presented with environmental, risk and legal considerations to provide the policy maker with a complete picture of each of the critical components of the technology. In addition, possible directions for future research could be incorporated under each of these questions.

4 Canada 0 0 If the recommendation in Comment #3 cannot be implemented, then it is highly recommended that subheadings be used where appropriate to highlight the differences between geological storage and oceanic storage in terms of the status of technology, the gaps in knowledge, the environmental risks, and the legal/regulatory issues.

5 Canada 0 0 The document is too detailed and technical (refer to table 8.1 and issue # 23 on ocean sequestration on page 16 for example) to allow policy makers to identify those findings which are the most relevant for them. The language should be simplified.

7 Canada 0 0 A glossary to the SPM is highly recommended.

8 Canada 0 0 This draft is far better than the previous version reviewed, particularly in better explaining key concepts, acronyms and data around CCS, however it is still a strain to read in places. For the earlier sections (up to Section 21), some of the linkages or connections can appear contradictory and the transition between sentences leaves open interpretations that a policy person would find confusing (e.g. idea of biomass and CCS suddenly introduced - never heard of this one before, can't even imagine it exactly). Also, given the need for the SPM to summarize the important, the SPM should be reviewed at times to ensure that it focuses on the most important, and if need be, exclude the minor things.

9 Canada 0 0 Transitions between paragraphs are at times still rough (the fill in the blank factor is still high). Perhaps simply using appropriate sub-headings under each section would focus the flow of the paper and make it easier to follow for a policy analyst.

10 Canada 0 0 When the ‘cost’ of various approaches is discussed, it isn’t clear whether they are talking about dollars or carbon, although I assume it is the former. But doesn’t a “carbon cost” need to be defined? The footnote on SPM-11 does define costs as being in 2002 US$. Consider making this info more prominent to the reader.

IPCC Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage Government and Organization comments on SPM Final Draft (September 15, 2005)

Confidential, do not cite or quote

Page 2 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

11 Canada 0 0 Our preference for the layout of the report would be to have the environmental and legal considerations sections re-inserted into the various topic sections (geological and ocean sections) similar to the layout of the technical summary rather than having them in a separate section at the end of the report that may get over-looked. By having these sections later, the summary report makes it seem like these are side considerations rather than the primary concerns of the report writers. (See also related Comments #3 and #4).

198 Norway 0 0 Since there are important differences between storage of CO2 in geological formations as opposed to ocean storage (e.g. leakage/time horizon, and ecological impacts), it would benefit the report if a clearer distinction was made between the two options in the text.

223 Australia 0 0 The SPM needs to consider the questions to which policymakers need answers, and needs to be a stand alone document. Policymakers are interested in the feasibility of CCS, when it is likely to be viable, what the risks, barriers and challenges are; in order to make decisions on whether and how to implement CCS. Currently the SPM presents various statements but lacks a storyline, and does not draw together conclusions on the viability, practicality and ability of the CCS system to significantly contribute to mitigation of climate change. In the SPM's current form, policymakers must also read the Technical Summary (TS) and/or the Chapters to draw conclusions on the key issues.

224 Australia 0 0 It would be desirable for the SPM to provide more conclusions (with necessary caveats) about the development prospects for CCS technologies. Policymakers need to know what is possible in the next 10-20 years, technically and economically. Relative statements (e.g. cost of plant with capture X times more expensive than plant without capture) are often more informative than specific costs, and are preferred over specifics in cases where the specifics have large error bars.

226 Australia 0 0 There is a strong bias to emphasise EOR as a storage option. The argument put forward is an economic one rather than a technical or mitigation one (ie. positive economic value of US$15-20 tCO2). It is referred to many times in the main Report and is even used as a comparison/alternative to geological storage in Table S3 (pg.12 of the SPM). The distinction between EOR and geological storage is blurred. EOR's primary purpose is an economic one (utilisation of depleted oil wells without particular regard to the ultimate fate of CO2). Geological storage's primary purpose is a mitigation one ('isolating' CO2 from the atmosphere). The SPM needs to clarify the extent to which EOR involves permanent storage of CO2 compared to temporary storage of CO2 to enhance oil production.

227 Australia 0 0 The SPM should clearly identify when it is referring to the whole CCS system, and when it is referring to specific components or combinations of components.



Page 3 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

228 Australia 0 0 It is important to ensure the separation of ocean storage and geological storage throughout the SPM, as the related science, risks and issues are distinct.

229 Australia 0 0 The SPM contains many instances of qualifications such as 'under specific conditions' and 'under specific circumstances'. Without explanation of these qualifications, the claims they are attached to are largely meaningless. Request further clarification and consistency wherever possible.

230 Australia 0 0 Abbreviations should be defined in the SPM on their first use e.g. 'ppmv' (pg. 2), 'SRES' (pg. 15).

231 Belgium 0 0 1/ Overall the text, figures and tables are well written, well presented, and at the level of technicality that is accessible to Policy Makers and a wide audience. Congratulations to all the authors and contributors.

232 Belgium 0 0 2/ Being not a CCS specialist, most of my comments deal with clarity and with questions about the arguments where they are not fully clear to me as a non-specialist. One general comment refers to acronyms. I agree with the use of the common ones (such as IPCC and UNFCCC) and with some specific ones of this report (such as CCS and EOR), but would suggest to replace most other ones by the full names (because they are used no more than 5 times and because the text/table formats allow for the full name). So: full names for ECBM [also because the R of recovery is missing in this acronym to be on equal footing with EOR], and also for NGCC, IGCC, PC [the latter acronym is so common for something else I am working on now].

233 Sweden 0 0 The SPM of the IPCC SRCCS reflects well the factual material of the underlying full report. However, there are some key messages that are highly important to policy makers that need to be highlighted. Firstly, Sweden stresses the importance of further emphasising. Geological storage of CO2 is more realistic compared to other storage alternatives, as geological storage combines long retention times, relatively low cost and a advanced knowledge concerning possible environmental effects. Secondly, with respect to the legal aspects presented, the SPM needs to point out that the information provided is biased towards Anglo-Saxon conditions. Within the Germanic legal tradition the situation is quite different. In many countries within the Germanic tradition there is no legal basis for CCS at all. Thirdly, the data presented concerning the cost of CO2 avoided and the cost of electricity are presented in a highly aggregated manner which could easily lead to misinterpretation. The full range of costs presented represents a variety of technologies, processes and underlying assumptions - some more realistic or relevant than others. It is unfortunate that wide ranges of costs, representing promising as well as less promising concepts, are presented without further elaboration.



Page 4 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

205 Norway 0 0 The SPM and the report cover the most important issues and the report represents a thorough and comprehensive assessment of importance to the policy makers. However we have some specific comments to how issues like cost, legal questions and accounting are presented in the SPM.

206 Friends of the Earth

0 0 Fossil fuel use has more environmental and social problems than just climate change, especially in extraction and transportation. CCS asks for greater investments in fossil fuel infrastructure, therefore promoting continuation of the fossil fuel economy and our dependence on these fuels. The disadvantages of the use of fossil fuels associated with CCS should be reflected in the SPM. Also the real costs of fossil fuel use, including environmental and social disruptions resulting from coal extraction, processing any transportation should be reflected in the cost numbers.


0 0 CCS technologies call for greater centralisation of power generation for reasons of efficiency. Such centralisation comes with centralisation of economic power and often also political influence. Especially in developing countries with sometimes unstable political conditions, sustainable energy systems must be based on small-scale, decentralised power generation and leave communities independent from natural resources over which others have control.


0 0 CCS must not divert the scarce public money that is available for climate-efficient technologies, such as readily available renewable energies or efficiency measures. The IPCC report may be regarded by many governments as the go-ahead to prioritise investment into CCS as a technological fix for climate change. Public finance to CCS would be yet another subsidy to fossil fuels. The world is not even close to exhausting the existing potential for efficiency or renewable, and consequently, public money should not be spent on CCS Research or even deployment, as it will always mean less money is invested into existing clean technologies.


0 0 Renewable energies and efficiency measures will deliver much more greenhouse gas reductions much faster and for much less money, especially public money. CCS requires a long-term programme and will not become commercial until 2020 or 2030. FOEI believes that emissions should begin to decline by 2020 and that the real solutions are therefore not CCS.

212 UNFCCC 0 0 The special report provides a comprehensive and balanced assessment of the different aspects relating to emission sources of C02 and their suitability for capture and subsequent storage both currently and in the future, assessing the characteristics of technologies to capture, transport and storage of C02, including their costs and economic potential. The report provides also useful information regarding the implications of CCS for greenhouse gas inventories and accounting.



Page 5 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

214 UNFCCC 0 0 It may be useful to include in the SPM information on international collaborative efforts focused on development of improved cost-effective CCS technologies and on their potential role to make these technologies broadly available internationally, For example, keen interest in this option has been demonstrated by international collaborative efforts such as the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum.

215 UNFCCC 0 0 The SPM raises pertinent legal questions regarding storage within the territory of a State and the international waters that are a common heritage of mankind. On this matter, interested Parties to the Convention may wish to identify' and suggest concrete actions, taking into account ongoing work by other international organi1.ations and existing regional and global accords,

216 UNFCCC 0 0 While the SPM indicates that CCS could have a significant contribution to mitigation from deployment in the electricity sector, if the price of carbon emission reduction would exceed 25-30 USD/tC02, it fails to provide information on how the generation costs of this technology compares to other technologies such as renewable and nuclear.

217 UNFCCC 0 0 Possible implications of CCS on GHG emission inventories and accounting is a very important matter relating to the integrity of the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol and any future regime that may be considered under the UNFCCC process. The information contained in the full report together with the forthcoming 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories will provide very useful input for the future consideration of this issue by governments under the UNFCCC.

762 Republic of Benin

0 0 BENIN highly appreciates the efforts that lead to the preparation of the report and would like to thank the IPCC Working Group III team and the authors for this interesting and useful material dealing with an emerging technological option for climate change mitigation. With regard to the draft SPM, it lacks an introduction (framework and context of preparation of the report, its scope, major issues or concerns addressed …etc). A Glossary of terms is also needed since the material contains many scientific and technical terms which are not familiar to decision makers.

763 Switzerland 0 0 The sections of the SPM should be numbered

765 UK 0 0 The UK welcomes the Special Report on Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage and congratulates the IPCC and WGIII on a very impressive and useful report.



Page 6 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

766 UK 0 0 The UK has provided comments on the SPM along with small editorial changes where we have noticed them and some comments on other chapters

767 USA 0 0 This draft is much improved, though there are still a number of shortcomings. A general view regarding the SPM is that it does not accurately reflect conclusions that are provided in the main report. We feel that a concise summary of conclusions from each chapter of the report should be included in the SPM. The SPM fails to convey the importance of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a major option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the cost of doing so.


0 0 Testing and verification of leakage remains limited. The draft report accepts uncertainty that impermanent storage has very important policy consequences, but it does not show how very long term liabilities could be solved in the future, before deployment. Signals from private companies show they will aim to get rid of liability as soon as possible after the injection phase. They do that because they know they cannot guarantee permanent storage over thousands of years. CCS that does not put full liability for the entire storage period would be a huge indirect subsidy given to private companies.


0 0 CCS is not well known or understood amongst the public. A significant task will be to communicate this technology and consult wit the wider public. Unless it can be proven that carbon dioxide can be safely and permanently stored underground, for the long term, the wider public will not accept or support this technology. Further, for a solution raising the question of inter-generational equity, where this technology has implications for future generations, wider public debate is essential, to ensure greater public disclosure.

234 Japan 1 1 1 1 2 Original text: "CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is separation of CO2 from anthropogenic sources, transport to a storage location, and isolation from the atmosphere." Proposed text: "CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is a process consisting of separation of CO2 from anthropogenic sources, transport to a storage location, and isolation from the atmosphere." Reason: The original text is not accurate.

158 Norway 1 2 1 2 2 We propose that the text is changed as follows: CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is separation of CO2 from anthropogenic emissions, transport to a storage location and long-term isolation from the atmosphere.



Page 7 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

235 Australia 1 2 1 2 25 In order to address this question heading, the text beneath it should provide the following: A concise definition of CCS that is broken up and fully explained in the subsequent paragraphs; together with scientifically-backed conclusions about why CCS could be an attractive mitigation option in the portfolio of options (large scale reductions possible during period of dominance of fossil fuels); how long CO2 would need to be isolated from the atmosphere to deliver a favourable greenhouse outcome (as discussed at Chapter 1, Section 1.6.4); the relevant timescales for which CO2 would be isolated from the atmosphere for different storage option; when CCS might be a substantive practical option; and whether or not the scale of mitigation and the timeframe for implementation will contribute to the deep cuts in emissions needed to meet atmospheric stabilisation of CO2. Any necessary caveats to these conclusions should be included.


1 2 1 2 3 Replace “ stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations” by “ greenhouse gas mitigation” for a consistency with the next paragraph.

237 UK 1 2 1 Suggest "What is carbon dioxide (CO2) capture…."

218 UNFCCC 1 2 3 2 Add "in the atmosphere" after greenhouse gases (line 3). Continued fossil use?

13 Canada 1 2 4 2 4 Revise statement in line 4 to be: CO2 from anthropogenic EMISSION sources,….

159 Norway 1 2 4 2 14 We think that the scope of the report (geological-, ocean- and mineral storage) should be explained at this stage.

186 Norway 1 2 4 7 In the report CCS also include biomass energy plants. This might be included here in some way, since the term "anthropogenic sources" not necessary include bio energy.

199 Norway 1 2 4 14 In paragraph 1 (SPM-2, 4) “CO2 from anthropogenic sources” is mentioned. However, it is not clear if net emissions from land use and land use change and forestry (LULUCF) are seen as an anthropogenic source.

238 Australia 1 2 4 2 4 Suggest change first sentence of Section 1 from '...(CCS) is separation...' to '...(CCS) is a system that involves separation...'. Further, suggest changing the word 'anthropogenic' to 'industrial' to reflect a more accurate source of CO2 used in CCS.

239 Switzerland 1 2 4 2 4 Write “…anthropogenic sources burning fossil fuels, transport …”

240 UK 1 2 4 suggest "Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS)…"

241 UK 1 2 4 Suggest insert space between CO2_from

242 New 1 2 5 "could be an option" may be more appropriate here than "would be an option".



Page 8 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

Zealand

243 Switzerland 1 2 5 2 7 Delete this sentence because it is political prescriptive

244 USA 1 2 5 2 5 Replace the second sentence of the italicized section with the following: Use of CCS in conjunction with a portfolio of other measures could significantly reduce the cost of achieving stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations and would increase flexibility in achieving these reductions. (in italics)Justification: A key consideration for policy makers is that development of CCS will reduce GHG mitigation costs, as well as enhancing flexibility in fuel choice as well.

14 Canada 1 2 6 2 7 While allowing for the cleaner use of fossil fuels.

145 Germany 1 2 6 2 7 Delete "while allowing for the continued use of fossil fuels" as this statement is, in this short form, misleading - taking into account the limited technical and economic potential of CCS (and high uncertainty with regard to the value of the upper limit), it cannot be stated that use of fossil fuels can be continued as in a business-as-usual-scenario, so this statement would have to qualified appropriately. It is not necessary to make such a statement here, as this para just introduces the concept of CCS. In addition, it can also be used with biomass as the source, not only to continue use of fossil fuels."

245 UK 1 2 6 Suggest redraft "…portfolio of mitigation actions for stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations…"

246 Australia 1 2 9 2 25 To improve flow of this section and provide a stronger argument, suggest the following: First, group the 'other mitigation options' together by moving the sentence on lines 9-11 'Other mitigation options...' to the end of the fourth paragraph (i.e. after 'However no single technology option...'). Second, without explanation, the statement 'CCS has value to mitigation...' is a motherhood statement and misses the main point for CCS to achieve large scale reductions given current dependence on fossil fuels. Revise the argument for why CCS is valuable for mitigation by moving the sentiment of the sentence on lines 20-21 (domination of fossil fuels) up to the start of the second paragraph. Then provide a statement about the scale of mitigation that CCS could provide and the timeframe within which this could be possible.

247 New Zealand

1 2 9 2 10 We believe it would be useful and appropriate to explicitly mention of use of biofuels in the list of "other mitigation options". The phrase "renewable energy resources" may only mean solar, wind and wave power in the minds of some readers. I.e. you could say "renewable energy sources including biomass".

248 Switzerland 1 2 9 2 9 Introduce the sentence “CCS is one mitigation option. Other mitigation options …”



Page 9 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

219 UNFCCC 1 2 9 2 10 Second sentence - 'all options mentioned are technology related. You may wish to mention also behaviound changes as another option to mitigate emissions.

15 Canada 1 2 10 2 10 "biological sinks" should be defined or clarified with parenthetical examples - suggestion for a glossary.

249 Belgium 1 2 10 Swap to: “renewable energy sources and nuclear power”

250 Belgium 1 2 10 2 10 change the order to "increased use of renewable energy sources and of nuclear power", because this is the order of importance of the two non-carbon sources

251 Belgium 1 2 10 2 10 Change the order of "nuclear power, and increased use of renewable energy ...“ to „increased use of renewable energy, and nuclear power“ because the scenarios show that the global potential for power generation and emission reductions through the use of renewable sources of energy is higher than that of nuclear power.

252 New Zealand

1 2 10 The current phrase "increased use of nuclear power and renewable energy sources" makes it sound as if the two necessarily have to go together. It may be more appropriate to say "increased use of nuclear power and/or renewable energy sources", or delete the phrase "increased us of" and simply say "..., nuclear power, renewable energy sources, ...".

191 Norway 1 2 11 We propose that the wording "has value to" is changed to ""adds value to".

253 China 1 2 11 2 12 It is suggested to delete “…as it may reduce overall mitigation costs…”

254 IPIECA 1 2 11 This sentence is stated in such a way that it does not really indicate anything (CCS may, or may not?). Suggest changing "has value to mitigation as it may" to "has the potential to".

255 Switzerland 1 2 11 2 13 Delete the sentence “CCS has value …” because consistently with our previous proposed change, CCS is already presented as a mitigation option

256 UK 1 2 11 2 13 Suggest shorten sentence by deleting "…has value to mitigation as it…".

257 USA 1 2 12 2 12 Add the following sentences to this paragraph: The literature indicates that there are no insurmountable technical obstacles to large-scale deployment of CCS, and that it could be a significant aspect of the portfolio of emissions mitigation activities in many parts of the world over the course of this century (Sections 2,3, 2.4, and 8.3). Including CCS in a mitigation portfolio could reduce by 30% or more the cost of stabilizing CO2 concentrations. Justification: These are key general summary conclusions of the SR for policy makers that are best included in response to the question of how CCS can "contribute to mitigating climate change."



Page 10 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

258 Australia 1 2 13 2 13 Add 'commercial' before the word application. Further, recommend explaining that the application of CCS will also depend on how all mitigation options achieve emissions reductions (eg. mandatory regulations, market based incentives, voluntary measures).

259 Belgium 1 2 13 “... costs, relative potential and risks, regulatory aspects, ...”

260 Finland 1 2 13 Add after the word "reductions": "and extent the total emission reduction potential".

261 UK 1 2 20 suggest change "will" to "is likely to"

262 Australia 2 2 16 2 18 Suggest better reflecting the TAR, and providing context for mitigation, by adding the reason for CO2 avoidance. For example, reword to: '…. substantial amounts of CO2 emissions would need to be avoided in order to prevent negative impacts on global environmental and socio-economic systems.'

263 China 2 2 16 2 25 These two paragraphs may be omitted because they are departure from the topic under the issue.

264 Belgium 2 2 18 2 18 With regard to the statement: "Substantial amounts of CO2 emissions would need to be avoided." Firstly it should be clarified what substantial amounts of CO2 emissions are. Secondly, the literature to date has always talked about emission reductions not emissions avoided. This should be the preferred terminology as discussion on emissions avoided is confusing and the TAR talks about emission reductions. The term "CO2 avoided" is specific to CCS because it expresses the net balance between volumes pumped into the ground and emissions coming out through oil being pumped at another end (at an EOR operation) and leaked CO2 from other sources. In general, the preventing a ton of CO2 from production is preferable to avoiding it being emitted to the atmosphere by storing it underground. Emissions reductions are clearly the more common and more appropriate term because it refers also to volumes of CO2 and other GHGs never produced.

265 New Zealand

2 2 18 It may be more appropriate here to say "may need to be avoided" than "would need to be avoided".

266 UK 2 2 23 2 25 Suggest simplify text as follows: '...such as 550 ppmv, 450 ppmv or below over the next 100 years or more. Implementation would require associated socio-economic and institutional changes and no single technology option will provide all of the emissions reductions needed.'

267 UK 2 2 23 For SPM suggest technical terms/units such are explained (at least for first usage) e.g. "…550 parts per million by volume (ppmv), 450 ppmv..."



Page 11 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

268 USA 2 2 23 2 23 Delete "or below" from this sentence. The body of the report does not discuss or support modeled scenarios achieving atmospheric stabilization levels lower than 450ppmv. The Sections referenced in Chapter 1 do not make any references to scenarios below 450 ppmv, nor does any other part of the document. In addition, general outcomes of the TAR are not directly relevant to the very specific question posed at the outset of this section and the 4th Assessment Report is currently underway. The AR4 will update the analysis conducted and include CCS in modeled scenarios.

269 Australia 2 2 24 2 24 Replace 'associated socio-economic...changes' with 'major socio-economic...changes' to reflect the large effort that would be required to achieve atmospheric CO2 stabilisation levels. The present wording gives the impression that it will not be too difficult to achieve these stabilisation outcomes.

270 IPIECA 2 2 25 Footnote 2: Technical potential omits more than just costs. Suggest adding to the end of 2nd sentence "and other barriers to implementation."

271 Australia 2 2 26 2 26 Recommend Section 4 precede the current Section 3 (and preferably be located under the first question heading) given that Section 3 and Sections 5-11 deal with the components of CCS, whereas Section 4 deals with the whole CCS system and how it relates to reduction of emissions to the atmosphere.

272 Australia 3 2 28 2 28 This question heading could be renamed to 'What are the components of…?'

16 Canada 3 2 30 2 30 "point sources" should be defined (localized, large volume emitter) - GLOSSARY

273 Australia 3 2 30 The TS (pg. 7, lines 1-6) emphasises that in terms of climate change mitigation, it is 'vital' to analyse CCS as a full system, rather than the sum of all its components. This is due to the 'central importance that all resulting emissions…are known and can be assessed'. This emphasis is lacking in the SPM, which breaks the system up into its components, and only provides small caveats about 'the maturity of the overall system may be less than some of its components' (SPM pg. 4, lines 12-13). Recommend adding a sentence to this effect in this section.



Page 12 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

274 Australia 3 2 30 2 41 The following components should be listed and briefly described: capture (post combustion, pre combustion, oxyfuel combustion, industrial separation, compression); transportation (pipeline, shipping); geological storage (and distinguish between EOR, gas or oil fields, saline formations, ECBM); ocean storage; mineral carbonation; and industrial uses of CO2. Monitoring and verification should be discussed consistently throughout the sections. Relative storage times should be included for all storage options (with caveats on certainty if necessary), including better differentiation between ocean storage, geological storage and EOR. Currently, the first time the SPM mentions a relevant storage period is on pg. 8, lines 25-26, in the context of largely dismissing the ability of industrial uses to store CO2 for long enough to contribute to emission abatement (after discussion of all other storage options). This is currently a critical element missing from the SPM, given CCS is being considered in a mitigation context.

275 Australia 3 2 30 2 41 The wording of this section currently implies an equal weighting to the status, risk or feasibility of all the components and options raised. e.g. lines 30-31 '...storage could take place in...' and line 36 'Potential storage methods are…' suggests all options (except industrial uses, which is separated out) are as feasible and as safe as each other, whereas Table S1 indicates this is not the case. In particular, the current wording makes it sound like ocean storage has the same risk characteristics as other types of storage. Recommend change to statements such as 'Potential storage options are at different stages of development, and vary in factors such as length of storage, movement of CO2 etc. Options considered in this report are:...'. Further, this section should adequately reflect the sentiment of uncertainty from statements deeper in the SPM, such as 'while there is limited experience with [for example] geological storage' (pg. 16 line 10).

276 China 3 2 30 2 30 “Capture of CO2 would most likely be applied to large point sources, …” Reason: capture of CO2 could also be applied to small point sources, but the most economic application should be in large sources. Also, it is to be consistent with the technical summary.

277 EC 3 2 30 2 41 Lift up table TS-2 (or aggregated information extracted from it) from TS to document which sources and sectors are relevant.

278 Sweden 3 2 30 2 33 In order to highlight that geological storage is more realistic than other storage alternatives, the text should read "…and storage could take place primarily in geological formations. Storage in the ocean, in mineral carbonates, or by using the CO2 in industrial processes are other theoretical options."



Page 13 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

279 UK 3 2 30 2 32 Suggest redrafting to "CO2 could be captured from flue or feed gases of large point sources. It would then be compressed and transported for storage in geological formations, in the ocean or in mineral carbonates.". Suggest omitting comment on industrial processes as the limitation of this as a mitigation option is indicated in the following paragraph.

17 Canada 3 2 31 2 31 revise statement to be: storage could take place in geological formations, the ocean, mineral carbonates and by using the CO2 in industrial processes.

118 Germany 3 2 31 2 41 General remark: CO2 storage in the ocean bears fundamental ecological risks. Mentioning this option at the beginning of the SPM should be accompanied by a sort of critical rating.

280 Belgium 3 2 31 Cut “or by using the CO2 in industrial processes” - quantity very small, not needed in summary

281 New Zealand

3 2 31 2 32 Given that the SPM later finds that use of CO2 in industrial processes cannot make a relevant contribution to a significant extent, we don't believe it is useful to refer to industrial storage as an option in this chapeau.

18 Canada 3 2 34 2 36 Oil and gas extraction is not mentioned as a source, although it is shown in Figure S.1.


3 2 34 2 34 Insert “capture” between “CO2” and “include”

283 Australia 3 2 34 2 34 There are no 'large' biomass power generation facilities comparable to 'large' fossil fuel power generation facilities, so this sentence should be reworded to 'Large point sources of CO2 include large fossil fuel power generation facilities (including combined production of heat and power), biomass power generation facilities, major energy -using industry...'

284 France 3 2 34 2 34 Add "anthropogenic" after the first word; there may also be non-anthropogenic point sources.

285 UK 3 2 34 Statement about large biomass plant appears to contradict page 11 line 9 which says biomass plant is currently small scale.

286 Belgium 3 2 35 “... major energy -using industry, oil/gas wells (e.g. Sleipner West), synthetic fuel...”

287 Finland 3 2 35 Instead of the words "major energy-using industry" use the words "major CO2 emitting industry". This is because e.g. in manufacturing of cement and lime, the origin of emissions to a large extent is limestone, not fuel.

288 New Zealand

3 2 35 replace "industry" with "industries"



Page 14 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

160 Norway 3 2 36 We propose that "hydrogen facilities" is changed to "hydrogen production plants"

289 France 3 2 36 2 39 Replace the sentence by : "Potential storage methods are : - geological storage (in geological formation.....formation), a nearly mature option; - ocean storage (direct.... seafloor), a research subject, environmentally controversial; - and industrial fixation of CO2 into inorganic carbonates, a longer term research option."

290 Japan 3 2 36 2 36 Original text: "synthetic fuel plants and hydrogen facilities." Proposed text: "and synthetic fuel plants and hydrogen facilities using fossil fuel." Reason: The original text is not accurate.

19 Canada 3 2 37 2 37 Formations such as oil and gas fields confusing - should say depleted oil and gas fields, or as a result of enhanced recovery operations using CO2.

291 Australia 3 2 37 2 37 Unminable coal beds' should be defined.

292 UK 3 2 37 How is unminability defined for coal beds? Suggest insert footnote explaining.

293 USA 3 2 37 2 38 Global comment: The phrase "saline formations" should be used throughout the Report in the place of "saline aquifers" or "deep, saline water bearing formations". We recommend that "saline formations" be used throughout the SPM and the full text in place of the terms "deep saline water formations" and, especially, "saline aquifer". The first use of the term in the SPM should be accompanied by a footnote that states: "Saline formations are deep sedimentary rocks saturated with formation waters or brines, occurring at depths greater than 800 m, and containing high concentrations of dissolved salts. They are widespread and contain enormous quantities of water, but are unsuitable for agriculture or human consumption. (see 5.3.3)" This footnote provides the necessary information for a lay reader to appreciate the nature of these reservoirs and is taken directly from the definition of "saline formations' given in chapter 5. Reason for suggested change: The current text is inconsistent and uses "saline aquifers," "water bearing formations" interchangeably. It is recommended that "saline formations" be used consistently so as to avoid possible confusion that CO2 storage may occur in formations with potable water.

294 Australia 3 1 Figure S.1. is very useful as it shows how the components make up the CCS system, though we suggest adding natural gas being utilised in industrial processes. The text under this question heading should also provide brief descriptions of all the components of CCS, and the different ways they can be combined to make up the CCS system. (Currently the SPM leaps from naming the components [in Section 3] to describing the technical status of each component [in Sections 5-11], without explaining what they are or how they fit together into a system. Also the text under this question heading currently only deals with capture in any detail).



Page 15 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

161 Norway 3 1 3 4 Figure S1 We think that the figure could be more generalized regarding the fuels used as input. This could be done by referring all fuels (biomass, coal, natural gas and potentially oil) to all three categories of CO2-generating activities.

20 Canada 3 1 3 Figure S.1: should show EOR in addition to EGR, plus ECBM in too. Also, we suggest moving S.1 to the Introduction.

312 China 3 1 Figure S.1 Add “/oil” after natural gas in the upper part of the figure. Reason: Oil is also an important fuel for power generation, while is omitted in the figure.

313 China 3 1 Figure S.1 Add illustration of “coal gasification” in the figure, which is one of existing technologies.

298 UK 3 8 Figure S.1 Is the same as figure TS.1., it should similarly be referenced "(Courtesy of CO2CRC)". Also note that several figures are labeled "Courtesy XXX" rather than "Courtesy of XXX"

117 Canada 3 3 3 Paragraphs 3 and 4 are now the only paragraphs for the section on What are the Characteristics of CO2 Capture and Storage. Paragraph 5 in the Second Order Draft, which described some of the co-benefits of CCS, is no longer there. The deleted paragraph should be reinserted.

21 Canada 4 3 5 3 17 This whole paragraph needs far more clarity. For example, the sentence "Available technology captures about 85%-90% of the C02 processed in a capture plant" - what is meant by "Available Technology"? (what available technology is being referred to?, this reference comes out of nowhere). Then the para leads to "The CCS system needs......", again, is this CCS system above and beyond the Available Technology referenced earlier or does this reference the "Available Technology" itself? The paragraph starting from "Due to the associated C02 emissions, approximately 80%-90% of the emissions of the plant without CCS can be avoided" - I have no idea what this is referencing…..". Further, in following the first two sentences, I have no idea how this links or is related, thus in total is confusing, disjointed. Then subsequently, the para jumps into mineral carbonates and then fractions of fractions" - has no flow, logic from point to point..

295 Australia 4 3 5 4 17 Recommend Section 4 precede the current Section 3 (and preferably be located under the first question heading) given that Section 3 covers the components of CCS, whereas Section 4 relates to the whole CCS system and how it relates to reduction of emissions to the atmosphere.

296 Australia 4 3 5 3 5 Change 'influenced by' to 'dependent on' to make this statement more precise.

297 Australia 4 3 5 3 8 Potential leakage from transport or injection into the storage site should be included here.



Page 16 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

22 Canada 4 3 6 3 6 CO2 captured, the increased emissions resulting from loss in overall efficiency

23 Canada 4 3 10 3 10 …in capture plant. Suggest 'facility' instead of 'plant'.

24 Canada 4 3 10 3 17 Only the CO2 emissions from a typical power generating facility are considered here. Other emissions and efficiencies should be considered. Recommend pulling forward text from Technical Summary • TS-13, lines 9 – 14 “The increased fuel requirement results in an increase in most other environmental emissions per kWh generated relative to new state-of-the-art plants without CO2 capture, and, in the case of coal, in proportionally greater amounts of solid wastes. In addition, there is greater consumption of chemicals such as ammonia and limestone used by PC plants for nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide emissions control.”

299 Australia 4 3 10 3 14 There is confusion between the capture component and the CCS system (including also transport and storage and monitoring etc) (see general comment number 5 above). 'CCS system' should not be used unless referring to all components and storage options - it is not in this case as it goes on to comment separately on storage in mineral carbonation (lines 14-15). Lines 10-14 further conflate the efficiencies of capture plants and power plants. Suggest rewrite as follows: 'Current capture systems can capture about 85-95% of the CO2 produced in a power plant. Capture and compression, the most energy intensive component of CCS, uses roughly 10-40% of the energy of a power plant. The net result is that a power plant with CO2 capture (with access to a storage facility) could reduce CO2 emissions to atmosphere by approximately 80-90% compared to a power plant without capture'. Further, the SPM could identify here that current technology has not yet been demonstrated as capable of capturing 90% of CO2 for commercial sized power stations - present applications are 20-50 times smaller than scale that will be required.

300 Australia 4 3 10 3 10 States 'available technology captures about 85-95% of the CO2 processed in a capture plant'. Recommend a brief mention of other elements or impurities captured in the CCS stream, with a reference to the relevant part of the main body of the Report (Section 3.6.1.1 and Table 3.4).

301 Australia 4 3 10 3 14 This section should then go on to provide a clearer comparison of the energy penalty between the various storage options (geological, ocean, mineral carbonation, industrial uses). Currently it is unclear whether the additional energy requirement of 30-50% for mineral carbonation is in addition to the 10-40% indicated earlier in the section.

302 Belgium 4 3 10 Para 4 & Figs S2, S3: Note these figures (e.g. 80%) only applies at the time of capture, neglecting leakage or re-equilibration with the atmosphere later, some of which is inevitable especially for ocean storage. In the longer term CCS may even lead to higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.



Page 17 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

303 Belgium 4 3 10 3 10 "Available technology captures about 85-95% of the CO2 processed in a capture plant." This sentence is misleading in that it overstates the potential of existing technology. The corresponding section for further information says that the average is 80% captured as the capacity factors give percentages for coal plants and gas plants. This is not clear in the summary and the 80% average should be quoted here instead, corresponding to the information in the reference provided for this Section.

304 Chile 4 3 10 3 13 Additional need for energy, such as for CO2 capture and compression, reduces the total amount of CO2 avoided by CCS. Are there other emissions included in this balance, such as energy for pumping CO2 through pipelines, emission from shipping (transport of CO2) and emission related to steel production needed to build pipelines? If any of these emissions is not minor, it should be included in the overall balance.

306 Sweden 4 3 10 3 11 change to "A plant equipped with a CCS system needs roughly 10 - 40 % more energy than a plant of equivalent output without CCS

307 UK 4 3 10 suggest add sentence "Energy and resource requirement for CO2 capture is typically much larger than for other emission control systems." (based on page 3-48)

308 UK 4 3 10 3 11 Should be consistent with spacing between numbers and units throughout the report: ...95_%... versus ...40%…

183 Norway 4 3 11 The 10 - 40% range is large and covers several types of projects. It should be given examples of what kind of projects that is in the lower and the upper range, or two different estimates could be given e.g. one for natural gas power plants and one for coal power plants.

305 China 4 3 13 3 14 The expression is not clear. “Storage in mineral carbonates” is one of CCS system. The sentence “For storage in mineral carbonates the additional energy requirement is another 30 to 50%” would cause misleading.

309 UK 4 3 13 Should be consistent with the method of referring to figures and tables throughout the report i.e. "figure S2" or "figure S.2" or "figure S.2."?

310 USA 4 3 14 3 16 Delete the "In case of leakage from storage reservoirs," from the sentence and replace with "To the extent that leakage might to occur from a storage reservoir, ...". Reason for change: The SPM should not seem to be implying that leakage is a foregone conclusion. SPM -17, lines 11-14 state that leakage is apt to be a minor factor.

311 Belgium 4 3 15 Neither text nor figure S2 shows any quantitative indication of the fraction retained in the longer term. In previous draft of SPM, figure SP3 illustrated the timescales of storage – a similar figure should be included here!

321 Australia 4 1 4 Figure S2 is very useful as it provides a good representation of the concept of CO2 avoided. 'Plant with CCS' should be changed to 'Plant with capture'.



Page 18 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

25 Canada 4 1 Figure S.2: The text specifies ranges for capture fraction and additional C cost (p. 3 lines 10-11), while the figure clearly uses a single "best guess" value, but the figure caption doesn't state what it is.

26 Canada 4 1 4 Figure S.2: Why not show the same power generation facility with and without CCS? Show or talk about industrial applications as well, since the penalty is quite different.

314 Belgium 4 2 Fig S2 Caption: “The loss in conversion efficiency”: meaning not clear -conversion of what? “Loss of efficiency” implies we could improve the process, whilst actually capture implies a fundamental thermodynamic (entropy) loss. Maybe simpler just to insert “capture” before transportation

162 Norway 4 4 2 We propose that "The loss in conversion efficiency" is changed to "The loss in energy efficiency".

315 UK 4 4 4 Insert space '…product"_(lower…'

316 Australia 5 4 8 8 27 The text under this question heading should focus on the 'current status' of the technologies, rather than describing the components. The status of the 'CCS system' (namely, the three industrial-scale systems currently in operation) should be discussed first. Then, sub headings of: 'capture' (post combustion, precombustion, oxyfuel combustion, industrial separation, compression); 'transport' (pipeline, shipping); 'geological storage' (distinguishing between EOR, oil/gas fields, saline formations, ECBM); 'ocean storage'; 'mineral carbonation'; and 'industrial uses of CO2' would be useful. Monitoring and verification, and challenges to ongoing development (technical, economic, regulatory), should be covered consistently across the sections. Consistent language across the sections should be maintained to allow readers to compare the status of the components. Table S1 should appear after the text on the status of various components. Further, these sections should adequately reflect the sentiment of uncertainty from statements deeper in the SPM, such as 'while there is limited experience with [for eg.] geological storage' (pg.16, line 10).



Page 19 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

317 China 5 4 8 This section provides an overall picture of the current status for the three parts of CCS, that is, capture, transportation, and storage. However, the discussion of the current status of CCS technology is suitable for the developed countries. The status of CCS in the developing countries should be pointed out, and the needs for the capacity building as well as for technology transfer in the developing countries should be emphasized. It is suggested to add a paragraph at the end of this issue (after SPM-4, Line 27) “Current CCS technologies are in different stages in different countries. In particular, there are considerable differences between developed and developing countries. To achieve the potential of CCS technology majorly depends on its global application in the future.”

27 Canada 5 4 10 4 15 This section seems incomplete. There is no clarifying text to the global statement (in italics) on the maturity of various components of the CO2 capture and storage system. There is just Table S.1. Recommend pulling forward text from the Technical Summary • TS-4, lines 13 – 15 “It should be noted, however, that CCS has not yet been applied at a large (e.g., 500 MW) fossil fuel power plant, and that the maturity of the overall system may be less than some of its components.” Also, include reference to the 3 "large-scale CCS projects" that are referred to in line 13.

28 Canada 5 4 10 7 23 Enhanced Oil Recovery and Enhanced Coal Bed Methane could be more thoroughly explained in the text - in a summary for policy makers inclusion of this type of material is likely needed, perhaps around line 15 on page 3 or a more complete discussion at line 14 on page 7.

29 Canada 5 4 12 4 12 Although the maturity Should we rather say : Effectiveness? State of technology development?

318 Australia 5 4 13 4 14 This section should describe the 'three large-scale CCS systems' that exist. In addition, the references attached to this section do not adequately describe the three CCS systems. Section 1.4.1 only mentions one system (Sleipner); 3.3.2 and 3.5.2 do not describe any systems as the references are only concerned with capture; 4.2.2 does not describe any systems as the reference is only concerned with transport. Boxes 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 describe the three CCS systems (Sleipner, In Salah, Weyburn), although the boxes focus on the geological storage component rather than the system.

152 Germany 5 4 14 Examples for large scale applications should be pointed out

319 IPIECA 5 4 14 Other EOR projects in addition to Weyburn could be argued to be part of a "CCS system". Suggest changing "three" to "several".

146 Germany 5 4 15 4 15 Add: "There is still relatively little experience in combining CO2 capture, transport and storage into a fully integrated CCS system. The use of CCS for large-scale power plants (the application of major potential interest) still remains to be implemented. (TS -32 lines 14-17) - this is very policy-relevant information from the Technical Summary that therefore should be included in the SPM.



Page 20 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

322 EC 5 1 5 9 Table S.1 is unfortunate in its classification scheme in that it seems to imply that R&D on CO2 Capture and Storage is no longer required. This is contrary to what is actually happening - and needed. A great deal of money is being spent on R&D to reduce the cost etc of capture and to prove the safety and reliability of geological storage. If this table remains as is it could have an adverse affect on funding in these areas. It should therefore clearly indicate that further research is still needed to reduce the costs of capture, and prove the safety and reliability of storage.

30 Canada 5 1 A term like “Oxyfuel combustion” (example Table S1) needs a short explanation – I think once people understand what it is, why it is an advantageous mechanism for extracting Carbon dioxide from the “flue” is obvious.

338 Australia 5 1 Table S1: Is the 'economically feasible' status provided to 'pre-combustion' in Table S1 referring to natural gas processing or to the electricity sector? Given the electricity sector provides the greatest opportunity for global emissions reductions, it is important not to oversell the current state of development/experience of this technology (so that demonstration is possible for technologies such as IGCC).

339 Australia 5 1 Table S1 should include a line on the status of monitoring (perhaps as a subset of geological storage and ocean storage) as this is an important CCS component (as stated several times throughout the report, successful CCS operations rely on appropriate monitoring regimes).

123 Germany 5 1 5 Table S.1. : Assessment Oxyfuel combustion "research phase"

124 Germany 5 1 5 Table S1: Assessment Geological storage "economically feasible doesn't match with the text SPM 16 line 10 to 15.

125 Germany 5 1 5 Table S1: the assessment geological storage has to change into "demonstration phase

343 Belgium 5 1 Table S.1. Comments: 1/ do not introduce the acronym ECBM and do not use the acronym in footnote 7 but use the full name; 2/ in note a - first line of the comment - the word "currently" has no function there


5 1 Table S.1: The presentation of the first column which contains CCS components needs to be improved to enable a clear reading or identification of the corresponding technologies.

760 Austria 5 1 Table S.1, Industrial uses of CO2 It is proposed to include that the “X” refers to the use in horticulture industry but that there are other forms of CO2 utilization that are in the research phase.

323 Australia 5 3 5 4 Footnote (a) to Table S1: This definition of 'research phase' infers that the basic science for ocean storage is understood. This is not entirely true as ecological and biogeochemical implications are not fully understood, and related research is in its infancy. Recommend this definition of 'research phase' be amended (at least for the case of ocean storage) to 'basic



Page 21 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

science is currently being investigated with only some aspects understood'.

130 Germany 5 3 5 3 Table S1: The names of the categories "Demonstration Phase", "Economically feasible under specific conditions" and "mature market" could be misleading, it is therefore suggested to replace them by "application in pilot plants", "some commercial applications", "multiple applications".

143 Germany 5 3 5 3 Table S1 it is suggested to delete footnote 6 and shift footnoted X one column to the left, since these are the relevant applications for this SR..

163 Norway 5 3 Table S1 We propose that this table is moved forwards in the report, in such a way that the concepts are explained in the main text before the figure is presented.

340 Australia 5 3 Footnote 6 to Table S1 states that 'EOR is a mature market technology, but if applied as a climate change mitigation option, it is economically feasible under certain conditions'. This conflicts with Table TS1 (pg. 5 of TS), where the footnote says that 'EOR is a mature market, but is in the demonstration phase as a climate change mitigation option'. Request clarification.

341 Australia 5 3 Footnote 6 to Table S1: EOR assumes a context as a potential mitigation option. It should be noted that EOR application is not a mitigation option (it may offer a secondary benefit only) as its intended purpose is to optimise the exploitation of dwindling oil reserves, and the ultimate fate of the CO2 is not a 'condition'. The qualifying expression 'under specific conditions' is also wrongly applied - if the condition of 'permanency' is applied, it ceases to become EOR as traditionally deployed.

755 Austria 5 3 Table S1, Footnote 6. It is proposed to insert “only” after “feasible”.

759 Austria 5 3 Table S.1 Given the footnote 6 and the title of the SR it is proposed to move the “X” to the column “Economically feasible under specific conditions” and to change the text of footnote 6 accordingly. A wording might read as follows: However, EOR is a mature market technology if not applied as a climate change mitigation technology. Another option would be to use the language of footnote e) of the TS as a basis. This option could read as follows: EOR is in the demonstration phase as a climate change mitigation option but a mature market otherwise.

325 USA 5 4 5 5 Table S1 The size or scale of a pilot plant should be defined. For example, for CCS applied to a 1000 MW power plant, geologic storage at the scale of Sleipner or Weyburn (between one-quarter to one-tenth of full scale) could be considered a "pilot plant". Is this what is meant here? Please define.



Page 22 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

342 Australia 5 4 Footnote 7 to Table S1 is incorrect, as ECBM is not only used in unminable coal beds. Recommend rewording the footnote to: ECBM, if applied as a climate change mitigation option, involves the use of CO2 to enhance the recovery of the methane present in unminable coal beds through the preferential adsorption of CO2 on coal.

327 Australia 5 10 5 11 Footnote (d) to Table S1. The definition of 'mature market' states '… (5 or more) replications of the technology'. This statement requires an indication of scale, and we recommend 'commercial-scale' be added between 'replications of the' and 'technology'.

126 Germany 5 16 5 17 Post-combustion capture of CO2 in power plants today is not economically feasible….

337 USA 5 23 5 24 Footnote 6: The wording of this footnote is not clear. The phrases "if applied as...mitigation..., it is economically feasible..."seems to be saying the same thing as the first phrases "EOR is a mature market technology". Suggest change the footnote to read: "CO2 injection for EOR is a mature technology. It may or may not be economically feasible if the primary driver is CO2 mitigation."

330 UK 4 5 15 For SPM suggest technical terms/units such are explained (at least for first usage) e.g. in footnote "…least 1 million tonnes carbon dioxide (MtCO2) per…"

324 France 5 5 4 5 4 add after "plant" : ", nor correctly evaluated in term of environmental impact."

326 Australia 5 5 7 5 8 Economic feasibility typically means that the uptake of a technology is attractive from a national perspective and commercial feasibility typically means that the uptake of a technology is attractive from a private entity perspective. Recommend Footnote (c) to Table S1 that states 'economically feasible under specific conditions means that the technology is well understood and used in selected commercial applications, for instance in case of a favourable tax regime or niche market' be changed to 'commercially feasible under specific conditions means that the technology is well understood and used in selected commercial applications, for instance in a situation where support is provided for its uptake through some government action.'

31 Canada 6 5 12 5 12 replace sentence by CO2 emissions can be contained through four pathways utilizing specific capture technologies: post-combustion, pre-combustion, oxyfuel combustion and industrial processes

153 Germany 6 5 13 6 11 the necessary time frame for a technological availability for the power plant market should be expressed in years enabling an assessment if availability is given for ongoing power plant projects within the next years (this is especial crucial for the EU where many old power plants have to be substituted in the next two decades)

328 Australia 6 5 13 6 15 This section on capture should focus on the current status of the various capture systems, and it is recommended the description (lines 13-15 and Figure S3) is moved up and located under the second question heading. If compression is



Page 23 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

considered part of capture, a comment on its current status should be included in this section.

329 UK 6 5 13 "Oxyfuel" used in SPM, while "oxy-fuel" used in underlying report (chapter 3) - should be consistent

331 Australia 6 5 17 5 18 Is there an intended difference between 'economically feasible under specific conditions' (pg. 4 lines 11-12 and footnote c to Table S1) and 'economically feasible under specific circumstances' (pg. 5 lines 17-18) or do they mean the same thing? The interpretation of 'condition' can be very different to 'circumstance'. Request consistency in term usage if same meaning intended in each case; otherwise explain different terms when used.

332 France 6 5 17 5 17 The formulation is not clear and may give the impression that post-combustion capture does not require energy, in particular in comparison to pre-combustion and oxy-combustion capture, which is not true. For this reason, we propose to replace the sentence starting line 17 by: "Despite the energy penalty for CO2 separation from flue gases, post-combustion capture of CO2 in power plant is technically and economically feasible under specific circumstances."

333 Japan 6 5 17 6 5 Original text: "Post-combustion ......energy requirements (Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5)." Proposed text: "Post-combustion capture of CO2 is applied to the flue gases from a number of existing plants. Separation of CO2 in the natural gas processing industry, which uses similar technology, operates in a mature market. The technology required for pre-combustion capture is widely applied in fertilizer manufacturing and in hydrogen production. Oxyfuel combustion is in the demonstration phase and uses high purity oxygen resulting in high CO2 concentrations stream. The cost and energy requirements vary depending on various conditions, especially on efficiency of reference plants in which CCS is installed (Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5)." Reason: This section should address the current technological status only and should not mention about economic comparison with poor or too simplistic explanation on estimation conditions, which might (intentionally?) cause misunderstandings to decision makers. The costs are discussed in Tables S2 and S3.

334 Australia 6 5 18 5 20 Recommend changing the sentence on line 20: 'The technology required for pre-combustion ...' to: 'The separation technology required ....' for clarification.

335 Belgium 6 5 20 Insert “separation and ” between “pre-combustion” and “capture”

336 Belgium 6 5 20 Footnotes 5,6,7 could be added to the list a,b,c,d, to improve text-flow

32 Canada 6 7 6 Figure S.3: Like industrial block, the hydrogen stream in the pre-combustion block should be connected to the separation box because in the carbon capture process, it is the separation of hydrogen and CO2 in the downstream of shift converter.



Page 24 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

366 Belgium 6 7 Figure S.3. Because the basic set-up of this figure did not change compared to the previous draft, I have to repeat my comments: 1/ the figure can be reduced in complexity by avoiding repetition of symbols and names in boxes; 2/there are 4 boxes with the simple name "separation": three boxes relate to some process [equal or different ones? this is unclear] of CO2 stripping out of a gas flow - one box with the same name "separation" refers to 'oxygen separation from air'; this is not very clear and proper and should be improved; 3/ pre-combustion uses in the figure "Air / O2": two questions on this: i) in a context of carbon capture, does it make sense to use air in such a process, diluting the gas flows and making the carbon capture more difficult and expensive?; ii) [related to my comment #5] is the oxygen in pre-combustion different from the oxygen in the "oxyfuel" process? if yes: some more clarity is wished; if no: why do you need no "separation" plant ("separation" box in the picture) for the pre-combustion process where you need it for the oxyfuel process? I repeat my suggestion of an alternative structure/composition of figure S.3 in a separate annexe.

367 IPIECA 6 7 In Figure S.3, usually H2 would require separation from CO2 following a water-gas shift reaction. Suggest that the arrow for pre-combustion diagram have H2 as an arrow from separation rather than from gasification.

164 Norway 6 9 11 Figure S3 We propose that the sequence for mentioning of the technologies is made identical to the sequence in the illustration.

345 Australia 6 6 2 6 2 Request clarification and explanation of the phrase 'more elaborate and costly', eg. more costly than what?

346 Australia 6 6 2 6 3 Does the term 'more favourable concentrations of CO2' imply higher or lower concentrations? Request more specific wording.

347 Belgium 6 6 2 “more elaborate and costly” : more costly in terms of equipment or energy? – maybe depends on investment timescale

348 Belgium 6 6 3 “more efficient” : in terms of energy, or fraction retained, or what?

349 New Zealand

6 6 3 6 5 It would be useful if the use of the term "concentration" in this paragraph could be distinguished from the use of "concentration" elsewhere, where it usually refers to ambient atmospheric concentrations. We propose to use the phrase "concentration [of CO2] in the flue gas", while elsewhere the phrase "concentration in the atmosphere" could be used to avoid confusion.

350 Belgium 6 6 4 6 4 "high purity" oxygen: what is this? Is the oxygen in oxyfuel combustion of a higher purity than the oxygen in pre-combustion processes? Is such "high purity" expensive, necessary, …?

351 USA 6 6 4 6 5 Modify sentence to read: "This results in high CO2 concentrations, but also in increased energy requirements as do all other methods of CO2 capture".



Page 25 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

33 Canada 6 6 5 6 5 meaning of "high CO2 concentrations" unclear, presumably means in the waste stream. Add: 'in the waste stream" after "concentrations".

352 China 6 6 5 6 5 It indicates that oxyfuel combustion will increase energy requirement. However, pre-combustion and post-combustion also result in increase of energy requirement, and it is the one of the critical factors for these capture technologies. Therefore, the discussion on increase of energy requirement for both pre-combustion and post-combustion should be added.

353 UK 6 6 5 Suggest redraft to "This results in high CO2 concentrations, and hence more efficient separation, but also increased energy requirements."

354 UK 6 6 6 Suggest add "It is generally not yet clear which of these technologies, if any, will succeed as the dominant commercial technology for energy systems incorporating CO2 capture."

355 Australia 7 6 13 6 24 This section on transport should focus (and provide more conclusions) on the current status of the various transport systems, with the description (such as lines 17-18) moved up and located under the second question heading.

356 China 7 6 13 6 15 It explains that “pipelines are preferred for transporting large amounts of CO2 for distance up to around 1000km. For smaller amounts or larger distance overseas, uses of ships, where applicable, to transport CO2 is economically more attractive’. It is suggests to give a quantitative description not only for the distance, but also for the amount of CO2 here to let readers understand what scale of CO2 is “large amounts” .

357 USA 7 6 13 6 15 Delete the sentence: "Pipelines are preferred for transporting large amounts of CO2 for distances up to around 1,000 km. For smaller amounts or larger distances overseas, use of ships, where applicable, to transport CO2 is economically more attractive." Replace with: Ship transport becomes cost-competitive with pipeline transport over large distances. The break -even distance, i.e., the distance for which the costs for ship transport are equal to pipeline transport is about 1,000 km. However, the break-even point is not only affected by distance, but is also a function of other site-specific considerations. Pipelines, ships, trucks, and rail tankers are and will likely continue to be safe and economic means of transporting CO2.Reason for suggested change: The body of the Report does not support the conclusions that pipelines are preferred "up to around 1000 km" or any circumstances under which "use of ships . . . is economically more attractive". (4.2.1,4.2.2,4.3.2,4.3.3)

184 Norway 7 6 14 We propose that the sentence is changed to: "For smaller amounts and larger distant overseas …". Reasoning: We don't' think that there that large volume ever will be used for CCS for a distant beyond 1000 km, even with ship transport.

358 Belgium 7 6 14 6 14 The "smaller amounts" are smaller than what? When the answer is that they are "smaller" than the "large" amounts on line 13, I would think that 'smaller is always smaller than large', and that no information is conveyed in such text. Please, be as specific as with the 'distance' variable in this statement.



Page 26 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

359 UK 7 6 14 Suggest insert space between CO2_for

360 Belgium 7 6 16 6 25 There is no mention of the risks with regard to transportation of CO2, as this SPM is for policymakers they should also be informed of any potential risks associated with every part of the Capture and Storage including transport. The potential of localised catastrophic events in transport through tanker accidents or pipeline leaks are significant for any adjacent flora and fauna, including human beings, which could be asphyxiated.

361 Belgium 7 6 17 6 17 replace the word "have" by "need" and complete the statement with "when distances covered exceed XXX-YYY km" [it is up to the experts to insert a number or range of km]

362 USA 7 6 17 6 19 Delete the first 2 sentences of this paragraph - "In most gas pipelines, compressors…and to avoid the cost of constructing piles of corrosion-resistant material. The 1st sentence does not provide information relevant to the point made in lines 13-15. The second sentence is not supported by the body of the report. Replace with: "Carbon dioxide pipelines are not new. It is preferable for the carbon dioxide to be dry and free of hydrogen sulphide to minimize corrosion. However, it would be possible to design a corrosion-resistant pipeline that would operate safely with these constituents. Although pipeline design and operation requires attention to ensure safety, there is no indication that design challenges cannot be resolved." Reason for suggested change: This revision is supported by lines 11-20 on page 4-3.

363 China 7 6 18 6 19 It indicates that before transport, moisture should be removed. Apart from removal of moisture, the needs for the removals of SOx, NOx and etc., should also be pointed out.

364 China 7 6 20 6 21 It describes that CO2 pipeline transport is market mature technology. But does it suitable to the developing countries?

165 Norway 7 6 21 The use of the word "analogous" might indicate that the same ships could be use for both CO2 and natural gas - for example by transporting CO2 to reservoirs for EOR and gas on the return journey. We have some information indicating that this is not so easily done technically and if this is correct we propose that the wording is changed to reflect this.

185 Norway 7 6 21 We propose that the following sentence is added after the bracket: "Snohvit will get the first sub-sea pipeline for transporting captured large amounts ( 700 000 tonnes a year) CO2 for injection in an offshore empty oil reservoir 160 km from the onshore capture, starting in 2006."

365 Belgium 7 6 23 What about the relative energy costs?

393 Japan 7 1 Figure S.4. Proposed change: Delete production well in ocean. Reason: Storage in deep saline formations does not necessary accompany production well. Proposed change: Delete the scale in the left side of the figure unless the number of the scale is not specified in a paper.



Page 27 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

Reason: There is no description on the scale in Chapter 5.

756 Austria 7 27 Footnote 9.It is proposed to provide some examples of minerals that have such very low permeability to qualify as caprock.

6 Canada 8 7 4 The distinction between "ocean" and "geological" sequestration is not completely clear. There is a strong implication that sub-seafloor sequestration is "geological" rather than "ocean" (see Figures S.4 and S.6) but maybe this needs to be stated up front (e.g. in the proposed Foreward to the SPM). There are possible approaches that don't fit neatly into either category but these don't really need to be addressed here.

34 Canada 8 7 4 7 10 depleted oil and gas fields

368 Australia 8 7 4 7 22 Recommend the description of the geological storage options (lines 9-14 and Figure S4) be moved up and located under the second question heading, which could in turn more clearly explain the differences between geological storage in saline aquifers and oil/gas fields, and storage in unminable coal beds. Section 8 should focus on the current status of the technology of the geological storage options, being gas or oil fields, saline formations, ECBM and EOR. There should be comparable statements on the status of each technology, linking to Table S1. There should be a conclusion about the status of monitoring technologies for geological storage. Recommend including Figure 5.1 (Chapter 5; Location of sites where activities relevant to CO2 storage are planned or underway) in Section 8 as this shows what is happening worldwide. Further, Section 8 should ensure better consistency with the sentiment from the sections on risks e.g. the statement '... there is limited experience with geological storage...' (pg. 16, line 10).

369 France 8 7 4 7 5 Write : "Storage of CO2 in deep geological formations offers a wide range of options : deep reservoirs ( notably saline formations), depleted oil and gas fields, coal beds. The same technologies….are used and have been proven… (unchanged)

35 Canada 8 7 6 7 6 industry for enhanced recovery and has been



Page 28 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

370 Australia 8 7 6 7 6 The term 'economically feasible under specific conditions' is used to describe storage of CO2 in 'oil and gas fields and saline formations', to which only (as cited) three projects exist to substantiate this claim. While this small number of storage projects satisfies the spirit of the definition of economic feasibility on pg. 5 (i.e. < 5 replications worldwide) this headline statement (italicised) seems to exaggerate the current state of development/experience of CCS. For example, the second paragraph (lines 9-17) implies 'specific conditions' are globally uniform, however, the reality is economic feasibility will locally differ with tax rules, critical mass of storage demand and supply, the alternative mitigation and adaptation options, carbon penalties, applicability of conventional EOR etc. Recommend revision/further explanation of the term 'under specific conditions'.

371 Australia 8 7 9 7 9 Request explanation of the phrase 'stable saline formations'. Does this mean the formation is geologically stable (i.e.. no earthquakes); chemically stable (compositions stable or do not react with CO2 or do react but in a predictable way); flat or undulating sub structure etc?

372 Australia 8 7 9 7 11 This sentence is unclear and reads as though injection of CO2 below 800m is only required for oil or gas fields, while injection into saline formations is not required to be at depths below 800m. Suggest rewording this sentence to clarify that geological storage into all three media (saline aquifers, oil and gas fields) requires injection below 800m to stimulate the physical and geochemical trapping mechanisms that will assist in preventing the CO2 migrating upwards, and allow the injected CO2 to remain in a super-critical state.

373 Belgium 8 7 9 7 11 This section does not mention any risks for leakage. Policy makers should be informed of the potential risk as the language "would prevent" does not include the uncertainties with regard to trapping mechanisms.

374 Japan 8 7 9 7 11 Original text: "Once injected into stable saline formations, or oil or gas fields at depths below 800m, various physical and geochemical trapping mechanisms would prevent the CO2 from migrating upwards." Proposed text: "Once injected into stable saline formations, or oil or gas fields at depths below 800m, CO2 should start migrating upwards but various physical and geochemical trapping mechanisms would prevent or delay the migration." Reason: The original text is not accurate.

375 USA 8 7 9 7 10 "Once injected into stable saline formations, or oil or gas fields at depths below 800 m. . . .". Since a depth of 800 meters has sequestration significance and since it (800 meters) is mentioned early in this report, it may be beneficial to the reader to know that at around this depth (700-800 meters) CO2 can be maintained in a supercritical condition. This depth allows for effective and efficient operations as the CO2 is injected into a targeted reservoir. We suggest addition of a footnote on this point.

36 Canada 8 7 10 7 10 trapping mechanisms will tend to prevent the CO2



Page 29 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

37 Canada 8 7 10 7 10 Geochemical and geophysical processes are mentioned but not enough rationale/explanation is provided. It is important to make note of the different timeframes under which the different trapping mechanisms work. Recommend inclusion of text from Technical Summary that provides context around these trapping mechanisms.• TS-22, lines 4 to 9 "The mechanism known as geochemical trapping occurs as the CO2 reacts with the in situ fluids and host rock. First, CO2 dissolves in the in situ water. Once this occurs (over time scales of tens of thousands of years), the CO2-laden water becomes more dense and therefore sinks down into the formation (rather than rising toward the surface). Next, chemical reactions between the dissolved CO2 and rock minerals form ionic species, so that over millions of years, a fraction of the injected CO2 would be converted to solid carbonate minerals.”

376 New Zealand

8 7 10 The word "would" is not necessary here, as the sentence is simply a factual statement. Perhaps it would also help to replace "once" at the beginning of the sentence with "if".

38 Canada 8 7 11 7 11 Importance of caprock is highlighted but not enough. Suggest bringing the footnote #9 into the body of the text right at the end of the sentence on line 11 that ends with 'caprock' and rewording it as follows: "The caprock acts as an upper seal to prevent fluid flow out of a reservoir and therefore having a well-sealed caprock over the selected storage reservoir rock is important to ensure that CO2 remains trapped underground.”

192 Norway 8 7 11 We propose that the wording is changed as follows: “The most important trapping mechanism is achieved by the presence of a caprock. Trapping is further improved over time by dissolution of CO2 in the formation water and by precipitation of carbonate minerals in the pores.”

377 UK 8 7 11 7 12 Is cap rock required for storage in coal beds? If not clarify conditions under which caprock is needed. Also does adsorption of CO2 in coal displace CH4? If so what happens to it?

378 USA 8 7 11 7 12 Replace the sentence "Coal bed storage may take place… CO2 on the coal" with "Unminable coal beds that are deeper than 2,500 feet and less than 40 inches in thickness may be uneconomic for mining and could be considered for potential CO2 storage." Reason for suggested change. Coal bed storage would take place in unminable, deep coal beds, not shallow seams. (reflects text in TS-19 and Table TS-6)

379 Australia 8 7 12 7 12 Request clarification of 'shallow depth'.

380 China 8 7 12 7 13 It indicates that feasibility of storage of CO2 on coal depends on the permeability of the coal. Whether the permeability of the coal is the only impact factor?

381 Australia 8 7 13 7 14 The paragraph states that 'CO2 storage with EOR … could be attractive because of the additional revenues'; however, substantial amounts of CO2 under a conventional application of EOR could reach the atmosphere.



Page 30 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

382 USA 8 7 13 7 14 The combination of CO2 storage with EOR or ECBM could be attractive because of the additional revenues. This sentence is unclear.To clarify the sentence, suggest revising to read:"The combination of CO2 storage with EOR or ECBM could be attractive because of the additional revenues resulting from the production of valuable hydrocarbons such as natural gas and oil."

383 Belgium 8 7 14 7 14 ECBM: replace by the full name and add the word "recovery"

740 Austria 8 7 15 It is noted that the July-version indicates that computer simulation of storage reservoir performance are being adapted from existing applications. However, the January version (Second-order draft) indicated that “there is a further need to develop technology for computer simulation of long-term storage reservoir dynamics”. It is proposed to include the latter notion also in the SPM by combing the language of the Final Draft with that of the SOD.

39 Canada 8 7 19 7 19 Three industrial-scale storage…previously these were referred to as 'large-scale". Be consistent in reference to these 3 projects.

384 Australia 8 7 19 7 19 The new term 'industrial scale' needs defining. For example, Sleipner is 1MtCO2 per annum.

385 EC 8 7 19 7 20 A few more sentences should be added on the three existing industrial scale projects as they provide a very important reference. What is their purpose and/or the economic rational behind their existence? Since when are they operated? How much CO2 is stored annually?

386 IPIECA 8 7 19 Other EOR projects in addition to Weyburn could be argued to be part of a CCS system. Suggest changing this sentence to "Industrial-scale storage projects that are in operation include:…"

387 USA 8 7 19 7 20 Replace the phrase "saline aquifer" with "saline formation." The term "saline aquifer" (SPM, p.7, line 19) should not be used because it can lead to the possible misinterpretation that storage may occur in formations with potable water. The first use of the phrase "saline formation" in the SPM should be accompanied by a footnote that states: "Saline formations are deep sedimentary rocks saturated with formation waters or brines, occurring at depths greater than 800 m, and containing high concentrations of dissolved salts. They are widespread and contain enormous quantities of water, but are unsuitable for agriculture or human consumption. (see 5.3.3)"

388 EC 8 7 21 7 21 Give some examples of advanced plans for additional storage project and their economic rationale.

40 Canada 9 7 24 7 24 The fact that ocean storage is still in the research phase should be stated at the start of this paragraph to provide the appropriate context.



Page 31 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

131 Germany 9 7 24 8 2 Add in the beginning sentence based on TS-27 lines 6-7. "A potential CO2 storage option is to directly inject captured CO2 into the deep ocean where most of it would be isolated from the atmosphere for centuries" and from 1-21 "The fraction retained by ocean storage at 3000 m depth could be around 85% after 500 years. However, this process has not yet been demonstrated on a significant scale for long periods. ". Add: ". Effectiveness of storage is expected to be significantly lower than for geological storage. In the long-term ocean storage would lead to a higher concentration than withoug injections" It should be clarified somewhere that this option could have too low retention fraction to be a useful option, and that it therefore has a very different status than the option of geological storage.

389 Australia 9 7 24 8 11 Recommend the description of the ocean storage options (pg. 7, line 24-pg. 8 line 2 [excluding the sentence on 'research phase']; pg. 8, lines 4-5 'The transport...carbon cycle'; and Figure S5) be moved up and located under the second question heading. Section 9 should provide more discussion on the status of the technology. Table S1 mentions 'direct injection' and 'carbonate neutralization' and the status of these should be explained. In particular, the section should better explain the level of uncertainty associated with ocean storage, notably the time over which the CO2 would be isolated from the atmosphere and the impacts upon marine ecosystems.

390 Australia 9 7 24 8 11 The current language and structure of Section 9 implies that ocean storage options are more developed than they really are and is generally uninformative for the policy reader. The section needs to be explicit that ocean storage may not prove to be a technically viable option in all cases. As per our comment on footnote (a) of Table S1, we recommend the phrase 'research phase' be changed in the text (consistently) to note that ecological and biogeochemical implications of ocean storage are not fully understood, and that related research is in its infancy.

391 Belgium 9 7 24 8 8 This section does not include the significant environmental risks of ocean storage and with regard to ocean storage - these should be mentioned in this section of the summary.

392 China 9 7 24 8 2 This paragraph discusses ocean storage. It should be point out that different countries have different views on that.

41 Canada 9 7 25 7 25 or a moving ship, where it is expected to dissolve or by depositing

420 Japan 8 10 Figure S.5. Proposed change: Concerning the scale of the left side, move "3km" downward by 1cm, delete "6km" of the bottom and add "1km" in an appropriate place. Reason: SPM-7 has description on 1km and 3km but no description on 6km. Also, on the current scale "3km" is too high considering features of dissolution type. Proposed change: Delete "Sinking plume, Dissolution Type." Reason: There is no description on "Sinking plume, Dissolution Type" in SPM.



Page 32 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

394 USA 9 8 1 8 2 Change the end of this sentence to read "to form a 'lake' which is encapsulated by a CO2 hydrate layer that would act to delay dissolution into the surrounding environment (see Figure S-5.)Reason for suggested change: "hydrate" should be included in the headline.

154 Germany 9 8 2 It should be pointed out already at this point that compared to other options especially regarding ocean storage many questions (including in particular environmental effects) are still unsolved

395 France 9 8 2 8 2 We believe that the risks of ocean storage to the marine biosphere are not enough highlighted, considering that these risks are the main reason for giving today a priority to geological storage. We propose to add at the end of this line: "…and it its possible consequences on marine biology are still largely unknown"

119 Germany 9 8 4 8 5 "The dissolved and dispersed CO2 would become part of the global carbon cycle." A judgement of this option is missing. e.g., transport via currents and CO2-degassing could rapidly create an acidification of shallow waters, and consequently counteract the aim of long-term storage.

144 Germany 9 8 4 8 8 Add TS-28 line 27 to TS -29 line 14 (para on Ecological and environmental impacts and risks" as this is highly policy relevant for the assessment of the potential ocean storage option.

166 Norway 9 8 4 The degree to which the CO2 becomes part of the global CO2 cycle should be elaborated further.

396 Australia 9 8 4 8 8 The first sentence of this paragraph ('The transport method is determined by the injection technique used') is unnecessary as it is covered in the previous paragraph (pg. 7, lines 24-26). In addition, the first sentence does not flow with the remainder of the paragraph and makes it difficult to determine the key issues in the section. Suggest deleting the first sentence.

397 Belgium 9 8 4 8 5 The statement in Section 6.2.2.1 reads: "The dissolved and dispersed CO2 would become part of the ocean carbon cycle" and not "...global carbon cycle." as it reads here in the SPM. this should be changed to refer to ocean carbon cycle as is the above mentioned section. It should be further mentioned that retention time is limited and the injected CO2 will eventually be emitted to the atmosphere causing risk to climate protection.

398 EC 9 8 4 8 9 Add a short concluding sentence to this section. E.g.: "Though findings from these studies vary there is agreement that the negative environmental impacts of ocean storage are very likely to be significant."

399 USA 9 8 4 8 4 To help make sure that readers clearly understand that the SPM has now shifted to talking about ocean storage, please add "For ocean-based storage," to the start of this sentence.

400 Australia 9 8 5 8 5 Refers to the 'global carbon cycle'. Further explanation (or at least a reference to Section 6.1.2 which, while not fully explaining the global carbon cycle, does provide some background to the physical and chemical oceanography) would be



Page 33 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

beneficial for policymakers.

401 Belgium 9 8 5 After: “The dissolved and dispersed CO2 would become part of the global carbon cycle”: insert “and eventually re-equilibrate with the atmosphere, the timescale of such re-equilibration remains uncertain.”

402 USA 9 8 5 8 6 The beginning of the sentence "In laboratory, small-scale ocean experiments . . ." is slightly confusing. Recommend the following: "In laboratory experiments, small-scale ocean experiments, and model simulations . . .

403 Australia 9 8 7 8 7 This paragraph states various aspects of effects of ocean storage 'have been studied'. This is not accurate - rather there has been limited study. For example, refer to the recent (July 2005) Royal Society of London report 'Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide'. This Report draws together studies to date on ocean acidification and concludes that 'marine ecosystems are likely to become less robust as a result of the changes to the ocean chemistry and these will be more vulnerable to other environmental impacts. The increased fragility and sensitivity of marine ecosystems needs to be taken into consideration during the development of any policies that relate to their conservation, sustainable use and exploitation, or the communities that depend on them.'

404 Belgium 9 8 7 After “notably”, change to “increases in acidity (lower pH) and its effect on marine ecosystems”

405 UK 9 8 8 The SPM contains no comments on expected effects on marine ecosystems from ocean storage. Suggest adding extra sentence based on executive summary of chapter 6 "CO2 effects on marine organisms will have ecosystem consequences; however, no controlled ecosystems experiments have been performed in the deep ocean. Thus, only a preliminary assessment of potential ecosystem consequences effects can be given."

132 Germany 10 8 11 8 12 Add TS-31 line 1-6 (on extra energy requirements of 30-50%) and lines 9-13 (on mining and disposal volume and related environmental impacts of mining operations, as this is highly relevant for assessment of this potential option. Add reference to section 7.2.6

406 Australia 10 8 13 8 19 The treatment of mineral carbonation is superficial. The description of this component/option of CCS (lines14-15 'The reaction...produce stable carbonates') and a conclusion about mineral carbonation's potential contribution to abatement of CO2 emissions should be located under the second question heading, and Section 10 should provide more conclusions about the status of the technology.

407 USA 10 8 13 8 13 Change the statement "which are available widely" to "which are abundant." Reason for suggested change: "Available widely" might connote to a lay reader that it is cheap or easy to get these materials, whereas "abundant" would connote that these materials are not scarce and can be found in many locations around the world.



Page 34 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

114 Canada 10 8 13 Should follow SPM section 8

408 USA 10 8 14 8 14 Replace "would" with "could"

409 Switzerland 10 8 18 8 18 Introduce a footnote with numerical examples (tonnes of CO2 fixed per hour depending of temperature) illustrating the assertion “The natural reaction is very slow …”

410 Belgium 10 8 19 question to authors: –if this just catalyses the natural process of CO2 absorption by such minerals, wouldn't the the equilibrium effect on the atmosphere be rather small)

411 France 10 8 19 8 19 follow with : This technology could be developed either in-situ (e.g. basaltic traps) or ex-situ. Environmental impact of ex-situ options need to be studied.

412 USA 10 8 19 8 19 Modify line 19 to read "The natural reaction is very slow, and has to be enhanced by pre-treatment of the minerals, which is very energy intensive and therefore more expensive than other technologies at present."

413 Australia 11 8 21 8 28 The treatment of industrial uses is superficial and Section 11 does not provide information about the status of the technology for industrial uses. Recommend the description of 'industrial uses' and mitigation potential be moved and located under the second question heading. Section 11 should then provide conclusions on the status of the technology for industrial uses, linking to the 'mature market' definition in Table S1.

414 Australia 11 8 21 8 23 This sentence does not adequately reflect the conclusions presented in Chapter 7. Suggest rewording the sentence to: 'Industrial uses of captured CO2 as gas or liquid, or as a feedstock in chemical processes that produce valuable carbon-containing products are possible, but are not expected to contribute to significant abatement of CO2 emissions'.

415 Australia 11 8 21 8 21 Recommend 'feedstock' be included in the glossary.

416 EC 11 8 21 8 23 Negative statement - change sentence into: "Industrial uses of captured CO2 as gas or liquid in processes or as feedstock in chemical processes is possible and typically replaces primary fossil carbon. Its potential contribution to emission mitigation is limited.

115 Canada 11 8 25 8 30 One should not characterize all industrial use CO2 as retained over short periods. This is not necessarily the case. Even in EOR applications where some volumes are recycled and/or re-used, a certain volume (I think 1/3) will always remain down hole. Provide examples and shorten: The potential for industrial uses of CO2 is small and the CO2 is generally retained over short periods (usually months or years).

417 EC 11 8 25 8 27 Negative statement - change sentence into: "The potential for.. (usually months or years). Processes using captured CO2 as feedstock instead of fossil hydrocarbons do not always achieve net lifecycle emission reductions."



Page 35 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments


11 8 26 Last paragraph (line 2) Could available material provide precise information about the short periods (usually month or year) mentioned for CO2 retention?

220 UNFCCC 12 8 1 9 Paras 12 and 13: The section on "What are the sources of C02 and where are they located?" seems to fit better right after the first question on page SPM-2 with the addition of the first sentence ofthe last paragraph on page SPM-2 (lines 34-36), which provides an explanation of what are the large point sources.

418 Australia 12 8 30 10 6 The text under this question heading would possibly be better located between the current first and second question headings, so that the scale of the sources is understood before getting into the detail of how CCS might help with preventing emissions from these sources.

167 Norway 12 9 1 We propose the following change: "…in major industrial and urban areas…"

422 Australia 12 9 1 9 9 Section 12 should describe the sources as well as the locations. Currently it only talks of locations, with only a label of 'large point sources'. The TS (pgs. 7-8,) including Figure TS2, provides useful information on types of sources.

423 Australia 12 9 1 9 1 The first sentence of this section states 'large point sources of CO2 are concentrated in major industrial areas'. This is not accurate as many power stations are located in regional areas. Suggest clarifying this statement to 'Large point sources of fossil fuel related CO2 amenable to capture processes are concentrated in major industrial areas or near mine sites in regional areas. These sources tend to be located in industrialised countries...'. This would also provide a better link with the 'global fossil fuel CO2 emissions' at line 9.

424 China 12 9 1 9 2 Delete “...mostly in industrialized countries, but also in developing countries.”

425 New Zealand

12 9 1 9 2 We don't believe the distinction between developing and developed countries is relevant here, since large point sources are virtually always concentrated in major industrial areas, regardless of the development status of the country. Perhaps it would help to rephrase this sentence to say "Most large point sources of CO2 are concentrated in major industrial areas."

426 USA 12 9 1 9 4 Replace this paragraph with the following: "Over 7500 large CO2 emission sources (with emissions over 0.1 Mt CO2/yr) have been identified. They are concentrated in major industrial areas, mostly in industrialized countries, but also in developing countries. Globally, there is a good relationship between emission sources and geological storage opportunities. A substantial proportion of the emission sources lie either on top of or within a distance of 300 km from a site that has potential for geological storage" (based on information given in Chapter 2 ES and Table TS.2). Reason for suggested change: Current language does not address the question posed on SPM-8. The key point is that a many large point sources of CO2 have been inventoried.



Page 36 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

427 Australia 12 9 2 9 4 It should be noted that while major CO2 emission sites across the world may be within 300 kms of a viable geological storage site, that site may lie within another jurisdiction. Further, the statement '…are often close (<300km)…' should be changed to '…are often within 300km ….' since many people would not consider 300 km close.

428 UK 12 9 2 suggest redraft "…but also increasingly in developing…"

429 Japan 12 9 3 9 4 Original text: "Only a small proportion of large emission sources might be close to ocean storage locations. Proposed text: "Proximity to ocean storage locations depends on the geographic characteristics of a nation and its policy on preferable locations of industrial plants." Reason: The original text is misleading. For example, almost all of large emission sources are close to ocean storage locations in Japan.

430 UK 12 9 4 Replace 'might' with 'are likely to be'

42 Canada 12 9 6 9 9 References to scenarios and the 20-40% of fossil fuel emissions that could be amenable to capture: comment is included both here and in the costs section. Given that the analysis on which lines 6-9 is based is the result of an economic analysis, I would remove it from this location and keep it in the costs section. If more detailed information is needed for this section perhaps it might be better to use the 360 Mt figure from line 12, page 8 of the technical summary.

431 China 12 9 6 9 7 Rewrite this sentence as “The location and proximity to storage sites for most of the future increase in the number of sources are uncertain.”

432 France 12 9 6 9 6 Start the § with : "Large potential for storage is available in deep reservoirs, where saline aquifers offer wide capacities. Depleted oil and gas fields offer more limited but better known potentials (fig.S6)." unchanged after.

433 USA 12 9 6 9 9 This paragraph fails to answer the overarching question posed at the bottom of SPM-8: "What are the sources of CO2 and where are they located?" Suggest that the text which is currently here be preceded by new text drawn from Chapter 2 providing summary information on large stationary sources vs. other emissions, distribution by region, distribution by sector, etc. For example, the following text from Chapter 2 lines 14-18 of the Executive Summary for (page 3), lines 32-34 of the Executive Summary (page 3) and Table TS.2 of the Technical Summary."Collectively, identified fossil-fired power plants and industrial facilities emit in excess of 12 GtCO2 per year to the atmosphere. These facilities are distributed geographically around the world but four clusters of these facilities can be identified in North America (mid-west and eastern seaboard of USA), Europe (North West), South East Asia (the eastern coast of China) and South Asia (the Indian sub-continent). Currently, the majority of these CO2 emissions sources have concentrations of CO2 of typically less than 15%, whilst a small portion (less than 2%) have concentrations greater than 95%. which makes them more suitable for CO2 capture."



Page 37 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

434 USA 12 9 8 9 8 Replace "given the technical limitations" with "given technical uncertainties."

168 Norway 12 9 9 Since we suppose that the availability of storage sites is the bottleneck in this context, we would assume that "capture" should be replaced by "storage".

435 Australia 12 9 9 9 9 What does 'amenable to capture' mean? Does 'amenable' mean economically feasible, technically feasible, geographically accessible etc? Presumably 'capture' means storage also. The SPM needs to clarify what is meant by 'amenable to capture'.

436 Belgium 12 9 9 does this 40% apply only to capture, what about storage?

43 Canada 13 9 11 9 16 Can this section be a bit clearer? It sounds like CCS will or could play an essential role in promoting a hydrogen economy but also in reducing (capturing) in a fundamental way the carbon dioxide required to make the hydrogen. (this seems to be the link implied, but not really stated).

437 Australia 13 9 11 9 20 Section 13 is unclear. Suggest rewording the section to clarify the key issue. For example 'In the long-term, there could also be a relative shift from small, disparate CO2 sources (such as petrol cars) to large CO2 sources (such as fossil fuel power plants that produce electricity and hydrogen for use in electric cars or a hydrogen transport sector). This would increase the amount of CO2 emissions able to be captured.'

438 Switzerland 13 9 11 9 11 Write “In the long term, CCS enables to control CO2 emissions from the production of electricity with fossil fuels or hydrogen …”

221 UNFCCC 13 9 11 The language used in these 2 paragraphs is valid under the assumption that in the longer term elec1ricity and hydrogen production will be predominantly based on fossil fuel combustion. Although this may be the case assuming current trends, there are scenarios that are based on other assumptions including an increasing role for alternatives technologies, such as renewable energy. However, if the intent of these two paragraphs is to highlight a continuing reliance on fossil fuels, then it is suggested that a specific reference in both paragraphs is included to clarify this point.

133 Germany 13 9 12 9 13 Replace sentence "This would lead to additional large point sources of CO2" with "Due to the necessary conversion processes and the related energy consumption this would lead to higher CO2 emissions, but concentrated at large point sources".

222 UNFCCC 13 9 12 Replace the word "small" by "some".

439 France 13 9 12 9 12 this affirmation seems overoptimistic and would require much more argumentation. We propose to replace the wrd "eliminate" by "contribute to drastically reduce the emissions from"



Page 38 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

440 USA 13 9 12 9 13 Delete the sentence: " This would lead to additional large point sources of CO2."Replace with: "This reduction in small CO2 sources would be achieved by a shift toward the larger sources providing the power and hydrogen, to which CSS can be more economically applied." Reason for change: As currently written, the statement implies that hydrogen production would increase the amount of CO2 being emitted. This is not the case in conditions where CCS is being in used in conjunction with hydrogen production from fossil fuels.

441 Sweden 13 9 13 9 13 Change to "…, CCS enables low- or negative-carbon production of electricity or hydrogen….."

44 Canada 13 9 16 9 16 "Gas and coal based reforming…" What is this? Define or put in plain language - suggest defining in a Glossary.

442 France 13 9 20 9 20 end the § with : "But CCS offers an opportunity for wider developments of "decarbonisation" in future fuel options."

445 Australia 10 1 Figure S6 is very important but is impossible to read. The colours indicating the volumes of stationary emissions blend in with the colours of the prospectivity of storage sites. This figure should be redrafted with a better reassignment of colours.

45 Canada 10 1 Figure S6 is useful however the stationary emissions sources and size are hard to interpret on the map.

446 China 10 1 Figure S.6. It is suggested to delete the Figure S.6. Because it is difficult to project the likely number, location and size of such sources, such a figure may be misleading.

447 New Zealand

10 1 Figure S.6. It would assist Policymakers if the terms "highly prospective" and "prospective" in the figure key and caption were better explained and differentiated. In particular: The caption says "prospectivity is a qualitative assessment" - An assessment by whom? - One geologist sitting in an office somewhere? A review team? The authors of this Special Report? The terms in the key (Highly Prospective, Prospective (Low to High)) appear to overlap - Should they be: Highly Prospective; Prospective (Low to medium)? Can "high", "medium" and "low" levels of prospectiveness be defined in a similar way to the "very likely", "likely" etc terms traditionally used by IPCC - e.g highly prospective means there is a probability of 90-99% that a suitable storage location is present?



Page 39 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

448 USA 10 1 10 Fig.S.6. This figure appears in at least 3 places in the SRCCS. The source is not provided here, but it is provided in one place as Courtesy of Geoscience Australia. The caption should be consistent throughout the report. Also, the figure is potentially quite misleading, if as indicated in the text on page SPM 9 there is some uncertainty in storage capacity estimates for developing countries. A reader could easily construe that an absence of identified capacity means that capacity does not exist, which we understand may not reflect the actual situation. If there is less data available in developing (or certain) countries that should be clear in both the text of the SPM and the caption. It should also be clear that more regional analysis is needed. All basins identified may not be suitable for storage and additional target formations for storage may be identified over time. With additional data, "non-prospective" areas may become "prospective." This is supported by page TS -8, lines 22-23. We suggest the following addition to the typology of storage location categories: Highly prospective - Best data quality Prospective - Good data quality in developed countries, poor or sparse data and greater uncertainty in less-developed countries. Limited or non-prospective - Good data quality in developed countries, poor or sparse data and greater uncertainty in less-developed countries

46 Canada 10 6 10 Figure S6: Line 6. The statement on perception is confusing and too strong. This figure cannot be based on perception only. Suggest the following text: This figure may change over time as a result of new developments and more information. OR "Since the location of future sources are unknown, particularly in developing countries, it will change... ". (Either of these is preferred to the existing text.)

443 Australia 12 10 4 10 6 The explanation of prospectivity requires a numerical scale (e.g. 'highly prospective' is greater than 90% probability etc).

444 Australia 12 10 4 10 6 In spatially mapping the 'prospectivity' of storage, are all estimates uniformly derived (e.g. is one country's data generation and quality on 'prospectivity' as robust as that of another country)? If not, request articulation of the differences.

196 Norway 11 18 In Table 2, the abbreviations NGCC, PC and IGCC appear for the first time as far as we can see. These terms are used several times in the chapter, as well as in other chapters, and we think it would be helpful if some text to explain the technologies was added in a separate paragraph.

485 France 11 28 13 Tables S2, S3 and S4 - the low figures adopted for the price of energy (15 to 20 US$ / bl of oil and similar values for natural gas and coal) may be somewhat misleading; with prices in the range 50 to 60 US$ / bl, the cost of electricity and of the CO2 avoided would be significantly higher. The benefit of EOR would also be greater. The suggestion is to adopt a range of 15 - 60 US$ / bl.

187 Norway 11 28 35 Table S2 The number of the latest line in the table does not seem to correspond with the information about the cost benefit of using CO2 for EOR purposes before the storage described given in the message 14, (line 6 - 7).



Page 40 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

486 IPIECA 11 28 Table S.2. Suggest including the incremental cost added by CCS, since the range of total costs make the incremental cost less clear.

47 Canada 11 28 12 5 Table S2 and S3: More explicit details on what is driving the range of costs presented in each of these two tables is needed. Is it fuel cost specifically as the titles are suggesting or are these ranges taken from the literature and reflect a number of different factors?

193 Norway 11 28 Table S2 Comparing some of the tables in the summary chapter with later technical chapters we have seen some inconsistencies in how numbers are rounded off: For example: Table S2 vs 8.3a row 2 \ column 3 : given 0.05-0.09 in S2 correctly rounded off from 8.3a it should be 0.06 – 0.09 Similar for row 3 column 3 : 0.04 – 0.07 - should be 0.04-0.08 We have not investigated this thoroughly but want to point this out in case there are other reasons for the ranges given.

492 Belgium 11 28 Table S.2: replace the acronyms NGCC, PC and IGCC by the full names, and either avoid the a), b), c) comments at the bottom of the table, or use the place to explain the technology briefly. In addition the uppercase '11' at the acronym EOR does not refer to footnote 11 and should be deleted.

493 China 11 28 Table S.2. There are four kinds of geological storage. It should to indicate which kind of geological storage here.

494 China 11 28 Table S.2. In the table, add a row and column, giving information on cost in terms of $/tCO2. Reason: such information is highly relevant to decision makers.

495 China 11 28 Table S.2. Caption: part of the caption can be given in footnote, explaining (1) the meaning of a “full scale plant”; and (2) the range of transport distance (the cost is a range and transport distance varies as well. Transport distance is an important indicator)


11 28 Table S.2 The title of the first column is omitted

497 Sweden 11 28 Table S.2. The quantification of the benefits of EOR is based on oil prices much lower than the current prices. The implications of higher oil prices (in the range 40 - 60 US dollars per barrel) should be commented.



Page 41 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

751 Argentina 11 28 13 7 Tables S2, 3, 4 (A) - This SPM is clearly written, and its contents are accessible to the layman. However, I think the ensuing question–related to the report’s cogency in the short to the medium term–should be addressed. The cost analysis presented in pages 11 through 14 assumes that the price of oil is USD15 - USD20 per barrel. This is between a third and a fifth of the current price (late August 2005). It is likely that oil prices will remain higher than the reference prices used in the report, although not necessarily as high as the current ones. In principle, the cost of any CCS technology should be independent of the cost of oil, but with high oil prices the implementation of those technologies would certainly increase substantially the retail price of energy, particularly electricity. It is likely, therefore, that the implementation of those CSS technologies be postponed. Increasing oil prices are also likely to pull natural gas prices up with them, making the latter more expensive than coal. Utilities having coal-burning plants would intensify their use and, if they were allocated emissions allowances within an emission-trading system, they would buy carbon permits to offset the larger CO2 emissions from the coal-burning plants. It is likely that the price of those allowances increase, alleviating the impact of the implementation of CSS technologies on the retail price of electricity. Continues in B below

752 Argentina 11 28 13 7 Tables S2, 3, 4 (B) - Some comme+I531nts from the experts on these possibilities or on any other ones they think fit would be valuable to ward the report off future criticisms aimed at the use of those low reference oil prices for estimating the implementation cost of CCS technologies.

764 Switzerland 11 28 13 7 Tables S2, 3, 4 Furthermore, the price of the oil barrel should be updated and the estimated revised through all the section

770 Spain 11 28 The titles of S2 and S3 tables state an oil price reference of 15 - 20 US$ per barrel, but it is not mentioned the time period based on. In fact, the figures above mentioned are far away from the last five years average period. Stressing the importance of sending a clear message, one possible option could be to include a footnote with a reference to the period used for the current data (15 - 20 US$ per barrel) and reflecting that the fluctuations on the prices have direct implications on the data. Furthermore, it is highly convenient to state the oil price reference for the last three or five years in the footnote and the actual price.

487 Belgium 11 32 Table S2: Note current oil price 4 x higher, gas and coal prices also rise following oil. Should recalculate, or at least report costs as a percentage of the base (no CCS) – which might be less sensitive to price fluctuations. Otherwise the costs for electricity production will seem misleadingly low compared to, for example, renewable energy, and the costs per ton of CO2 avoided will also seem low, compared to other mitigation options. Note the fuel price affects not only the EOR benefit, but also the base cost, due to increased energy requirement of CCS.



Page 42 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

488 IPIECA 11 32 Table S.2. Suggest removing table row on EOR. The cost estimates for EOR are based on past experiences which have made use of some of the best prospects for EOR. Future prospects will be limited, and for a wider class of applications, the return could be poorer.

175 Norway 11 33 Table S.2. The stipulated oil price appears to be well below all current predictions. The effect of higher oil prices should be indicated (will plants without EOR be more expensive and plants with EOR cheaper?) The table text should clarify if the cost estimates are based on current technology.

489 IPIECA 11 33 Table S.2. Suggest including assumption about transport distance.

135 Germany 11 34 11 34 Table S2 There is no such table in the report.

176 Norway 11 35 37 The first line of table S2 would read better without abbreviation e.g. "Natural Gas Combined Cycle" etc. or by indicating the fuel used; natural gas, coal etc.

148 Germany 14 11 1 11 9 Include information on Co2 avoidance costs into this para, as this is very policy-relevant (for the purpose of this report, more than the information on costs per kWh)

450 Belgium 14 11 1 14 15 This section does not take into account the costs of monitoring and verification, which will be a necessary precondition for any accounting of emissions for compliance with legislations regulating CO2 emissions. It also does not include information on the costs of remediation of any release which would be prudent for policy makers to be made aware of.

451 China 14 11 1 In the discussion about costs, benefits and potentials, a few key issues are missing in the text: 1. cost: as CCS requires capital component for equipment and transport pipes, it is necessary to provide information on fixed cost and variable cost. Reason: if fixed cost is too high, that can be a barrier in places where there is a shortage of capital and the risk is high; if operational and management cost is high, there may be an incentive that the facilities are not put into operation. 2. In giving the numbers of cost per kwh, a few key assumptions have to be clarified: lifetime of the project, discount rate employed, base year (also internal rate of return for the investment at such a cost level) 3. Some comparison of CCS cost with other mitigation measures should be made as well. This would give the decision makers some idea which is more cost effective: CCS or renewable energy or energy efficiency 4. Some discussion on the impact of CCS on sustainable development 5. Definition of economic and technical potentials. Both terms are used, but the meaning does not seem to be clear.

452 Switzerland 14 11 1 11 1 Insert a paragraph “The major drivers and the uncertainties associated to them that determine the costs for CCS are (provide a list such as the one in Table S.2 caption)”.



Page 43 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

453 UK 14 11 1 Suggest redraft "What are the economic costs…."

449 Australia 14 11 1 14 15 It is important for policymakers to consider the relative costs of CCS options; and of CCS relative to alternatives, which include doing nothing, renewables and nuclear. Recommend Figure 3.20 (Chapter 3, pg. 112), which illustrates the relative costs between capture technologies be included in the SPM, with relative scale on the vertical axis rather than monetary figures. If space is an issue, we would favour this Figure over Table S2. Further, if possible, it would be most useful if Figure 3.20 could also include CCS alternatives (eg renewables or nuclear). The assumptions underpinning highlight that the relative costs are more important than the absolute costs.

754 Australia 14 11 1 13 The parts of these sections that discuss 'technical potential' should be moved to the be located under the question heading on 'What are the characteristics of CCS?'.

753 Australia 14 11 3 11 3 This question heading might better be titled 'What is the cost of CCS and what is the economic potential?'

48 Canada 14 11 4 11 9 Missing from current paragraph: the issue that a carbon price (emissions trading at the projected 25-30 dollars tonne outlined in Sect 17.), if and when applied, would improve the economics (reduce the costs) for the uptake of CCS in the electricity sector. This benefit should be brought to the attention of readers.

454 Australia 14 11 4 11 6 The reference to 'national circumstances' is unclear and should be clarified, perhaps through providing an example of how national circumstances may influence costs. Furthermore, does 'national circumstances' include site specific characteristics such as geology, technology, the distance between source and sink and policies adopted by the country? - if so then it should be stated; if not these factors should still be addressed.

455 Australia 14 11 4 11 6 This sentence is unclear and should be reworded to eliminate the need for referencing Footnote 11. For example, suggest rewording to: 'When applying CCS to electricity production under current conditions, electricity generation costs are estimated....'.

456 Australia 14 11 4 11 17 Stripping of CO2 is undertaken as part of gas projects, irrespective of whether geological storage of the CO2 is planned. Accordingly, costs associated with adding a geological storage of the CO2 to a gas project is less costly when compared to coal. While this factor appears to have been taken into account in the calculations, it may be significant enough to warrant specific mention in the SPM.

458 UK 14 11 4 11 5 Suggest redraft "Application of CCS to electricity production under current conditions are likely to increase costs by about…"

457 France 14 11 4 12 24 The reference used for oil prices in these sections are 2002 values (15-20$/b). They are ery low and are misleading. One should also take into account the effect of increased oil prices (nearly 70$/b today, up to 100 in the future). This influences the capture costs, as it is energy intensive. The incidence on the cost (US$/tCO2 avoided) is noticeable and should be



Page 44 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

taken into account in the figures given here. All figures need to be recalculated accordingly.

194 Norway 14 11 5 It is written here that the costs are estimated to increase by about 0.01-0.05 US$/kWh when applying CCS, referring to Table 2. In our view it is a bit confusing when the table does not contain these figures, but the costs of electricity generation with and without CCS. One solution could be to add a last row in the table including the increase in costs for application of CCS.

459 China 14 11 5 11 5 Before “and” to add “the distance”; after “and” to add “other”. Reasons: transport distance can be a key factor in determining the investment and operation costs.

460 IPIECA 14 11 5 Suggest that the COE increase also be given in % increase in production COE.

461 UK 14 11 5 For SPM suggest technical terms/units such are explained (at least for first usage) e.g. "…- 0.05 US dollars per kilowatt hour (US$10/kWh11),…"

462 Australia 14 11 6 11 8 The use of '… reduce additional electricity production costs….' is unclear and should be reworded. Suggest presenting the numbers associated with EOR in a format that is consistent with the numbers presented for CCS. i.e. provide the estimated increase in costs of electricity production under EOR compared to estimates without capture (i.e.. 0.01-0.03 US$/kWh) rather than an estimate of the reduction of costs when EOR is used compared to estimates with capture and geological storage (i.e. 0.01-0.02 US$/kWh). This would provide a clearer comparison of costs for plants with and without EOR.

463 IPIECA 14 11 6 The cost estimates for EOR are based on past experiences which have made use of some of the best prospects for EOR. Future prospects will be limited, and for a wider class of applications, the return could be poorer. Suggest changing sentence to "Use of captured CO2 for EOR, where applicable, can offset some of the cost of CO2 capture from power production. The benefit of past EOR translates to around 0.01 to 0.02 US$/kWh."

464 Switzerland 14 11 6 12 1 There is un ambiguity that should be removed in this section because the message to policymakers is not clear. The confusion arises because the sentence “Including the benefits of EOR would reduce additional electricity production costs …” is established with the help of elements in Table S.2 and Table S.3 that are not clearly connected: Table S.2 shows that CCS rises the costs of the production of electricity and Table S.3 shows that the CO2 avoided costs are in favour of CCS. How to better show the logical link in favour CCS as expressed in sentence “Including the benefits of EOR would reduce additional electricity production costs …” ?



Page 45 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

465 USA 14 11 6 11 7 (and Table S.2): Including the benefits of EOR would reduce additional electricity production costs due to CCS by around 0.01 to 0.02 US$/kWh The footnote accompanying this statement indicates that "EOR benefits are based on oil prices of 15 - 20 US$ per barrel." Revise Footnote #9 to read. Based on oil prices of 15-20 US$ per barrel. Different (higher or lower) oil prices would most likely influence the cost of CCS deployments that relied on EOR-based storage." Reason for change: While this assumption may have been appropriate at the time this study was initiated, it seems too conservative now. Higher oil prices would make for higher EOR benefits and a lower cost increase for electricity production under current conditions.

169 Norway 14 11 7 9 The following changes might make this sentence easier to comprehend: "Including the benefits of EOR additional electricity production costs would be 0-0.2 US$/kW.

466 Belgium 14 11 7 Note current oil price 4 x higher! Should recalculate or express as a fraction. (Note the fuel price affects not only the EOR benefit, but also the base cost, due to increased energy requirement of CCS)

467 Sweden 14 11 7 11 7 The quantification of the benefits of EOR is based on oil prices much lower than the current prices. The implications of higher oil prices (in the range 40 - 60 US dollars per barrel) should be commented.

49 Canada 14 11 8 11 14 An explanation of biomass-based CCS would be helpful - Glossary.

134 Germany 14 11 8 11 9 The sentence "Using biomass would add substantially to the electricity costs, particularly due to the current small scale of the plants" may lead to misleading conclusions, is a biased summary and thus has to be deleted or adapted in line with the original text in the long report (as referenced in 3.7.5.4). The chapter in the long report states that "using biomass" with CCS technology might actually be CHEAPER and that the overall cost "will very much depend on local circumstances, especially biomass availability and cost and (as with fossil fuels) proximity to potential CO2 storage sites". (second paragraph in chapter on page 3-61)

468 EC 14 11 8 11 9 Delete sentence on biomass. The situations depend on which type of biofuel is used and whether biomass is co-fired or not.

469 New Zealand

14 11 8 11 9 Please add at the end of the last sentence "…, but it would provide net negative CO2 emissions."

470 UK 14 11 8 For SPM suggest technical terms/units such are explained (at least for first usage) e.g. "…in US dollars per tonne CO2 ($US/tCO2) avoided…"



Page 46 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

471 UK 14 11 8 14 9 Suggest extend text to read '...small scale of the plants, though co-utilisation helps overcome this' ( UK experience suggests there is considerable scope for low cost CCS from biomass through co-utilisation with fossil fuels, particularly coal. This overcomes the the scale problems noted and also seasonality issues associated with biomass supply. The efficiency of utilisation is also much higher than that in dedicated biomass plants, very close to that for the plant when using only coal. Biomass co-combustion in pulverised coal plants is widely used now in the UK for inputs of approximately 5-10% of the heat input, corresponding to 25-50 MWe of biomass electricity. Co-gasification has also been demonstrated on the dry feed Shell coal gasifier at Buggenum. Combining CCS with biomass utilisation gives much greater CO2 savings than conventional biomass energy applications and probably more reliable long term C storage than immobilisation in standing biomass (i.e. forests) or soils. It is therefore likely to be the most promising technique for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, e.g. to offset CO2 emissions from premium uses for fossil fuels such as air transport.

472 USA 14 11 8 11 9 Delete the sentence: "Using biomass would add substantially to the electricity costs, particularly due to the current small scale of the plants." Replace with "CCS is also compatible with energy produced from biomass. However, because current biomass plants are much smaller in scale than fossil fuel plants, the costs of energy production and CO2 capture would be higher." Reason for suggested change: This statement is tangential to the issue of CCS itself and does not warrant emphasis with major italicized statement. However, if left in, the text should be changed as suggested to reflect the relative scale of the current contribution of biomass.

473 UK 14 11 9 Statement about small biomass plant appears to contradict page 2 line 34 which refers to large biomass plant

50 Canada 14 11 10 11 18 It should be made clear to policy makers that the information on which these conclusions are based is uncertain at this time. Recommend pulling forward text from the Tech Summ • TS-13, TS-14, lines 48 – 50, lines 1-3 “However, the difference in cost between PC and IGCC plants with or without CO2 capture can vary significantly with coal type and other local factors, such as the cost of capital for each plant type. Since neither NGCC, PC nor IGCC systems have yet been built at a full scale with CCS, the absolute or relative costs of these systems cannot be stated with a high degree of confidence at this time.” and • TS-16, lines 31 – 35 “Although there is considerable uncertainty about the magnitude and timing of future cost reductions, this literature suggests that, provided R&D efforts are sustained, improvements to commercial technologies can reduce current CO2 capture costs by at least 20-30% over approximately the next decade, while new technologies under development could achieve more substantial cost reductions.

195 Norway 14 11 10 In our view, the cost estimates is very valuable information to many policymakers. Hence, we would suggest the paragraph explaining the reasons behind the ranges in costs from the TS is added. This is the paragraph on page TS-13, lines 29-35. The heading of Table 2 explains some of the background and could hence be shortened. In addition, we suggest the most important assumptions behind the figures, like the oil price, are added in the paragraph.



Page 47 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

155 Germany 14 11 11 11 17 It could be expressed that beside technological progress which can be expected for CCS technologies the same situation is given for other climate protection technology options (e.g. renewable energies)

170 Norway 14 11 11 11 12 We propose the following change in the sentence: "In the future, pending on future green house gas agreements and governments and industries continued efforts in R&D, the cost of CCS could be reduced by technological development, and economies of scale. Studies suggest that CO2 capture cost can be reduced by at least 20-30% over the next decade." Rationale: The link between climate change regimes, R&D efforts and the costs is important and described in TS page 16.

172 Norway 14 11 11 17 The implications of taxes, CO2-quotas etc. should also be mentioned.

474 EC 14 11 11 14 11 Add some information e.g. from table TS-3 on what is the key contributor to costs e.g. "CCS is a capital intensive mitigation option. Added capital costs typically constitute roughly xx % of added costs. While operating costs typically contribute less than yy % percent.

171 Norway 14 11 12 11 13 We propose the following change: "Increase in world market fuel prices would tend to make operations more expensive, while the benefits if CO2 is used for EOR will increase considerably and even might make CCS profitable with increased oil prices compared to the calculations based on prices of 15-20 US$. Costs vary considerably from project to project and from country to country." Rationale: The calculations is very sensitive to the oil price and this is valuable information since the expectations for the oil price now may be higher than when the calculations was carried out. A study made by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate indicates that CCS-EOR projects might go break -even at an oil price of 30 US$.

475 Belgium 14 11 12 After “expensive”, example would be useful

173 Norway 14 11 14 15 We propose that the text is changed as follows: "When applying CCS to biomass-fuelled electricity plants, this could lead to net capture of CO2."

116 Canada 14 11 15 11 15 "co-fired electricity plants" What are these? Define in glossary.

476 Sweden 14 11 15 11 15 That applying CCS to conversion plants fuelled with sustainably grown biomass would lead to negative emissions is not only valid for electricity generation. The sentence should be rephrased "…..to biomass-fuelled or co-fired conversion facilities, this would lead to...."

477 EC 14 11 16 11 16 Footnote 13 is ambiguous. Add "and the requirements of relevant inventory guidelines are met."

51 Canada 14 11 41 "sustainably grown"; vague; there are many definitions of sustainability; need to state specifically "grown with lower fossil C input than is captured post-combustion" - Glossary.

52 Canada 15 11 19 11 19 leads to higher costs and significantly reduced overall efficiencies than…



Page 48 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

53 Canada 15 11 19 11 19 The retrofitting issue is given no context as to how much more the costs would and as written, it appears that retrofitting is more expensive except in almost all circumstances (the exceptions would appear to cover everything) - a bit amusing or confusing or both. One solution would be to split lines 19-21 into two sentences. First sentence would make clear that retrofitting OLDER plants would be more expensive than building new plants with CO2 capture. Second sentence would add some nuances - but make clear how 'retrofitting' is different from 'upgrading'.

478 Australia 15 11 19 11 19 States 'retrofitting existing plants with CCS normally leads to higher costs'. The concept of retrofitting a 'storage' component of CCS to existing plants seems irrelevant (as the 'retrofit' of the storage component to new and highly efficient plants has exactly the same implication - it is the capture system that is the issue here). Suggest changing 'CCS' to 'capture'.

479 EC 15 11 19 11 21 This sentence is unclear - suggest re-phrasing: "Retrofitting existing power plants with CCS is possible. Costs to add CCS to existing plants will generally be higher than for new plants and depend on the remaining lifetime of the plant, its efficiency, site-specific factors and the possibility to utilise the regular retrofit cycles."

480 New Zealand

15 11 19 Given that currently there are no commercial CCS plants in operation, the use of the word "normally" is somewhat misleading. Better to say "… is expected to …".

54 Canada 15 11 23 11 25 The term integrated systems is used but it is unclear what is meant by integrated vs. industrial systems. It might be helpful to include in page 1, line 35 these two terms and give examples. (Or put in Glossary.)

482 EC 15 11 23 11 25 Please clarify this sentence. It is not clear why the counterpart to "industrial sources" would be "integrated systems". Does this refer to some sub-category of industrial sources or to power generation?

174 Norway 15 11 24 The term "integrated systems" should be explained.

55 Canada 15 11 25 11 25 Critical issue to both locate and build in technology that is compatible with CCS for all new plant designs. Nowhere, other than indirectly when discussing pipelines, was there a discussion of potential savings to be made through strategically locating plants near opportunities for CCS. Maybe there needs to be a discussion of the land use planning implications of this. Line 25-26 addresses this implicitly, bring out more explicitly.

483 Australia 15 11 25 11 25 The statement 'limit future retrofit costs' should probably read 'reduce future retrofit costs'.

484 New Zealand

15 11 25 111 26 The way this sentence is constructed is prescriptive because it assumes that plants will be retrofitted. This prescriptive aspect can be avoided if you rephrase the sentence to read "New plant designs that take potential future CCS application into account would limit future retrofit costs."



Page 49 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

490 Slovenia 15 11 33 12 3 It would be very valuable if, beside 15 - 20 US$ per barrel, also the actual oil prices were taken into account, e.g. 50 - 60 or 50 - 70 US$ per barrel. This refers also to the footnote 12 on page 11 and consequently line 7 on the same page.

491 UK 15 11 33 For SPM suggest technical terms/units such are explained (at least for first usage) e.g. "…- 4.4 US dollars per gigajoule (US$/GJ)…"

481 USA 16 11 19 11 21 Revise the following; "Retrofitting existing plants with CCS normally leads to higher costs than for newly built power plants with capture, except in relatively new and highly efficient plants and cases where a plant is upgraded or substantially rebuilt." Suggested revision: "Retrofitting existing plants with CCS normally leads to higher costs for capture than for newly built power plants designed for capture. For some relatively new and highly efficient plants, or where existing plants are substantially upgraded or rebuilt, the cost disadvantages of CO2 capture may be reduced." Reason for change; As worded, this statement is confusing, and focuses attention more on the exception rather than the main point.

57 Canada 12 1 Caption to Table S.3 could be clearer about what exactly these numbers represent.

120 Germany 12 1 12 Table S.3, Capture: "EOR benefits" should be given updated values with respect to the current oil price which - most probably - will even increase in future. An appropriate remark should be added (this applies also to corresponding passages of the actual report).

147 Germany 12 1 12 1 Table S3 have leakage rates been taken into account for assessment of co2 avoidance costs, and if yes, how?

177 Norway 12 1 12 1 Table S3. We propose that the title of the table clarify that the costs are for "the complete CCS system" and "based on current technology" if that is the case.

201 Norway 12 1 5 In Table S.3 (SPM-12) a crude oil price of 15-20 USD per barrel is assumed to calculate EOR values. However, the present oil price is at the triple level of this and many oil market analysts believe that the oil price will stay high for the foreseeable future. Therefore EOR values should preferably be calculated for an additional case of a higher oil price, or if this is not possible the text should reflect the possible cost reduction with higher oil prices.

498 IPIECA 12 1 Table S.3. Suggest removing table rows on EOR. The cost estimates for EOR are based on past experiences that have made use of some of the best prospects for EOR. Future prospects will be limited, and for a wider class of applications, the return could be poorer.

56 Canada 12 1 12 Table S.3 (second column third last box reads 20-70). Compare with Table S.2 and with Tables 8.3 and 8.4 in Tech Summary and make sure numbers are consistent.



Page 50 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

526 Australia 12 1 Table S3 needs to be clarified through a number of ways - CCS operating costs are presented as estimates even though the technologies have not yet been demonstrated at scale and EOR may not be available to all electricity power plants. Is it to be interpreted that the estimates represent the 'additional' cost of capturing and storing (in geological and EOR respectively) relative to the reference plants? It is unlikely that this analysis is applicable to all countries (ie. gas prices, capital costs, energy markets can be very different) - eg. typically in Australia, the oil and gas fields are on the west coast and most electricity generation is on the east coast (some 5,000kms apart).

527 Australia 12 1 Table S3 is difficult to interpret. Recommend explaining that 'reference plant' means 'current plant without CCS/capture and EOR', and providing a brief explanation for the need to compare the plant with capture to the plant without capture (TS pg.34, lines 41-45 provide a good explanation). Also, the text says Table S3 is based on Table 8.3a, when it is actually based on Table 8.4.

528 Australia 12 1 Further, the interpretation of the data in Table S3 could be enhanced by better identifying the underlying assumptions. Do we assume that the plants described in the first column are essentially the same as the reference plants; what size and capacity of plants are being referred to; what sort of capture systems and storage sites are being referred to? note: EOR is not listed as a unique storage option on pg. 2.

529 Belgium 12 1 Table S.3 (and related footnote 14): What is the exact meaning of "reference plant" in this context? How must one understand the combination of some type of power plant in the first column - where the three types are listed two times - with the two types of plants in resp. columns 2 and 3 of the table? E.g. the combination of a NGCC with a PC? I did my best to read the text and table 3 times, but I do not get the meaning of the different numbers ... Also in this table replace the acronyms NGCC, PC and IGCC by the full names.

530 Chile 12 1 12 Table S.3, Introduction: "EOR benefits are based on oil prices of 15 - 20 US$ per barrel" Given that current oil prices are around 70 US$ per barrel, it would be useful to include a footnote to give some estimate of economic benefits of using this technique (EOR) to storage CO2 at other oil prices. Prices in the range of 20 US $ per barrel are not representing the oil market in the last two years.

531 China 12 1 Table S.3. There are four kinds of geological storage. It should to indicate which kind of geological storage here.


12 1 Table S.3 The title of the first column is also missing

533 Sweden 12 1 Table S.3. The quantification of the benefits of EOR is based on oil prices much lower than the current prices. The implications of higher oil prices (in the range 40 - 60 US dollars per barrel) should be commented.

500 UK 12 3 12 4 Figure S3 Suggest using US$ rather than $ for consistency with rest of SPM



Page 51 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

499 Belgium 12 3 Table S3 Note current oil price 4 x higher, gas and coal prices also rise following oil. Should recalculate, or at least report costs as a percentage of the base (no CCS) – which might be less sensitive to price fluctuations. Otherwise the costs for electricity production will seem misleadingly low compared to, for example, renewable energy, and the costs per ton of CO2 avoided will also seem low, compared to other mitigation options.

136 Germany 12 4 12 4 Table S3 The table is not based on Table 8.3a, but on Table 8.4.

501 China 16 12 6 12 6 CCS system cost: give information on the amount of capital cost needed for such a system; the amount of O&M annually and per ton of carbon

502 USA 16 12 6 12 6 Suggested replacement text for italicized paragraph 16, "The cost of and therefore the circumstances under which CCS deployment will occur are dependent upon a number of site and project specific factors."

503 Australia 16 12 8 12 9 Clarify what is meant by 'the base case'.

504 Belgium 16 12 8 12 8 What does "depending on the base case" means? What is the base case?

505 Australia 16 12 9 12 11 Suggest rewording this sentence to: 'Over the next decade the cost of capture could be reduced by 20-30% and further cost reductions may be achieved by new technologies….'.

506 UK 16 12 10 Replace 'can be achieved' with 'should be achievable'

156 Germany 16 12 11 12 11 which technologies are for example in the demonstration phase?

507 Australia 16 12 11 12 12 Suggest rewording this sentence to: 'The costs of transport and storage of CO2 could also decrease as the technology matures further and the scale of deployment increases.'

508 Australia 17 12 15 12 19 In line with the TS (pg. 36, lines 10-20) the statement should be added here that deployment requires a policy driver and that large-scale deployment would then arise within several decades.

509 EC 17 12 15 12 19 Please correct and change the sentence to read: "For CCS systems to make a major contribution to climate change mitigation a large-scale deployment would need to take place in the electricity sector in addition to the low-cost industrial point sources. For this to happen..."

510 UK 17 12 15 12 19 Edit text to read '...a major contribution from CCS to climate change mitigation...' (The statement tends to miss the important potential role for CCS in H2 production from fossil fuels already mentioned on SPM-9)

511 USA 17 12 15 12 16 This sentence is poorly written. Suggested revision: "Energy and economic models indicate that the major contribution of CCS systems to climate mitigation would…"



Page 52 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

512 USA 17 12 15 12 19 Remove the italics from Paragraph 17 (lines 15-19, on SPM-12) and move this paragraph up so that it falls under and becomes a part of the explanatory text that goes with italicized paragraph #16. Reason for change: This paragraph supplies information that contributes to the general conclusion of italicized paragraph 16 (as rewritten).

515 UK 17 12 16 suggest redraft "...would likely come..."

516 UK 17 12 16 suggest redraft "For this to be justified economically, the…"

513 EC 17 12 16 12 19 Rephrase sentence as follows: "For this to happen, a constraint on CO2 emissions that is equivalent to a price of 25 - 30 US$/tCO2 over the lifetime of a CCS project would need to be in place."

514 New Zealand

17 12 16 The phrase "for this to happen" is not very clear. It would be better to say "For CCS application in the electricity sector to be economic, …". It would also be tremendously helpful for policymakers to provide a reference to the typical expected lifetimes of CCS projects that could be built in the near future, so that policymakers and industry decision-makers know over which time horizon they need to take the possible price of carbon into account. Most people will only compare the stated cost of $25-30 per ton CO2 with the current market price for CO2, and not the likely market price over the next 30 to 50 years as would be appropriate for a large power plant.

517 USA 17 12 16 12 19 The sentence: "For this to happen, the price of carbon dioxide emission reductions would have to exceed 25 - 30 US$/tCOs over the lifetime of the CCS project, or an equivalent limit on CO2 emissions would have to be mandated." Revise to: "The models suggest that large scale deployment would be economically viable at CO2 emission prices of 25-30 US$/tCO2 over the lifetime of the CCS project." Reason for change: Text as written is policy prescriptive. The focus should be on models indicating results associated with CO2 values rather than on specific policies.

518 China 17 12 18 12 18 Life time of CCS project: how many years? Please specify.

519 IPIECA 17 12 19 The "the price of carbon dioxide emission reductions" is unclear. Suggest changing to "policies that guarantee a monetary return for CO2 reductions would have to provide an incentive exceeding 25-30…"

520 Australia 17 12 21 12 24 The SPM should represent more clearly the time sequence relationship of this statement and the preceding italicised text. Suggest rewording line 22 to: '…. storage options that generate revenues (such as EOR) can lead to early limited storage of CO2….'.

521 China 17 12 21 12 21 We have a number for “short distance” here. We also need to know “long distance” and the distance that such a system is too costly to invest and manage.

522 UK 17 12 21 12 23 Suggest redraft to read more positively as follows: 'Lower-cost capture possibilities in combination with short (< 50 km) transport distances and storage options that generate revenues (such as EOR) provide some storage capacity (up to 360



Page 53 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

MtCO2 cumulatively) with lower or even without incentives'

523 France 17 12 23 12 23 As a consequence of the preceding remark, the upper value of the breakeven cost for the reduction of CO2 emission reduction will be higher. It would be helpful to have some more insight on how the price of CCS varies as a function of oil price.

743 Austria 17 12 23 It is noted that the figure of 360 MtCO2 was only 13 MtCO2 in the SOD. What about the uncertainty and quality of that figure? Can it be expected that this figure would become larger, if investigations become more complete? Some further clarification would be welcomed.

524 UK 17 12 24 Suggest add text saying 'A role for CCS in partially decarbonising synthetic and unconventional liquid hydrocarbon production could emerge if oil prices stay above 30-40 US$ per barrel for any length of time.'

525 Australia 17 12 26 12 26 Footnote 14: The SPM (and main Report) needs to more clearly and consistently define the status of IGCC as being in the demonstration phase. Here, Footnote 14 states that IGCC is not yet widely deployed in the electricity sector, yet in Table S1 (pg. 5) it is described as economically feasible and Table 8.1 (Chapter 8, pg. 26) describes these technologies as currently commercial.

578 Australia 20 12 9 12 11 Is the 30% or more cost reduction for stabilising CO2 concentrations based on an explicit carbon price? If there are any additional assumptions which have been made to obtain the 30% estimate then these assumptions should also be articulated in the SPM.

188 Norway 13 1 9 Table S4 Some of the cost ranges are so wide. In order to give the best information for the policymakers some of the intervals could be explained in the Remark column similar to the text about Transportation (low-end and high-end).

58 Canada 13 1 Table S.4 contains "monitoring and verification" costs for geological but not ocean (see additional attached comments)

563 Australia 13 1 Table S4 states costs for monitoring and verification per tonne injected of US$0.1-0.3/tCO2. However, the statement 'Experiences from monitoring of existing CCS projects are still too limited for conclusions on the … leakage rates and associated uncertainties' (from pg. 18, lines 36-37) casts uncertainty on the monitoring cost estimates provided in Table S4. These uncertainties are identified in Chapter 8 (pg. 8, lines 18-22) and should be reflected in the SPM, either in the text or as a footnote for Table S4. It is also recommended this comment be applied to the similar table in the TS (pg. 33).



Page 54 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

564 Belgium 13 1 Table S.4: column 3, row 2 ",compared to the same plant without capture": why is this statement added? What is the contribution in understanding? When one adds some component to a system, its cost is always compared to the situation without the component, or not? column 3, row 6: replace ECBM by "enhanced coal bed methane recovery"

566 Chile 13 1 13 Table S.4, 8th row. Cost for monitoring and verification are given in US$/tCO2 injected. Should these prices be expressed in US$/tCO2/year or other time period?

567 China 13 1 Table S.4. Change representative to indicative. Reason: the numbers are in a large range and there is uncertainty.

568 China 13 1 Table S.4 Capture from ammonia: does it refer to NOx or CO2?

569 China 13 1 Table S.4. Please add a row at the bottom: total cost (adding the items together) so that a rough idea of the total cost is available.


13 1 The first column of Table S.4 is entitled “Cost Component”. To be consist with corresponding elements mentioned in this column, we suggest to replace “cost component” by “ccs system components or ccs component”

535 USA 13 3 13 3 Delete the following sentence: "The costs of the separate components cannot simply be summed to calculate the costs of the whole CCS system in US$/CO2 avoided." Although this is true, this statement is out of context and does not fit with the table title description. Recommend placing it as a table footnote.

536 Belgium 13 4 Table S4 Note current oil price 4 x higher, gas and coal prices also rise following oil. Should recalculate, or at least report costs as a percentage of the base (no CCS) – which might be less sensitive to price fluctuations. Otherwise the costs for electricity production will seem misleadingly low compared to, for example, renewable energy, and the costs per ton of CO2 avoided will also seem low, compared to other mitigation options.

537 Belgium 13 4 Table S4, col “remarks” row “ocean storage”, insert: “Excluding impacts on marine ecosystems”

538 EC 13 6 13 6 Insert appropriate graphical elements in Table S.4 (e.g. bold horizontal lines) to separate the groups from each other i.e. rows 2 to 4, 5, and 6-9 should be three distinguishable groups.

571 New Zealand

13 37 Footnote 17. The phrase "that would make sense economically" is very loose. Can the authors explain more specifically what they mean here ?

565 Belgium 13 40 footnote 18: there is no reference to this footnote in the text; also on page 17 there is some confusion about the footnoting of likely and very likely. Very likely the TSU will solve this issue.



Page 55 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

534 EC 17 13 1 13 1 Add text or a footnote which lays out the key assumptions for the cost estimates including interest rates and assumed amortisation period.

178 Norway 18 13 6 Ocean storage appears to be much more expensive than geological storage. This should be explained.

539 New Zealand

18 13 6 Should the statement "… it is likely that there is 2,000 GtCO2 (545 GtC) of storage capacity ..." be replaced by "it is likely that there is at least 2,000 GtCO2 ..."? (Read literally, the present statement implies there is a 66 to 99% probability of between 1,999.5 and 2,000.5 Gt of storage capacity existing).

540 Australia 18 13 7 13 20 Section 18 deals with technical potential and should be incorporated under the question heading on characteristics of CCS.

542 China 18 13 7 13 8 2,000 GtCO2, is this technical potential of geological storage? Please specify: (1) is technical the same as technological potential as given in IPCC WG III TAR? (2) does this include ocean storage as shown in table S.4, if not, what the potential is? (3) is this number per year or total?

543 EC 18 13 7 13 8 This is sentence is technically wrong. Please change into "Available evidence...it is likely that there is more than 2,000 GTCO2..."

544 USA 18 13 7 13 8 In order to address the uncertainty associated with storage capacity the authors have assigned a probability rating to "likely" and "very likely." This is consistent throughout the report, but it is not clear how these numbers were developed and it is confusing. The footnote should include the basis for this calculation (or where to find that info in the body of the report). Storage capacity estimates are provided in other parts of the report and could be summarized here rather than assigning random probabilities (if that is what was done).

545 USA 18 13 7 13 27 The sentence: "Available evidence suggest that worldwide, it is likely that there is 2,000 GtCO2 (545 GtC) of storage capacity in geological formations. " Suggest revising to read"... is at least 2,000" or "...is roughly 2,000". It makes no sense to give a precise number with a probability range, when the text in Chapter 5 makes it clear that these capacity numbers are themselves the sum of several ranges of estimates. In reworking the text for SPM 13 lines 7 -27, we suggest that this statement, line 7, "Available evidence suggests …..," as modified above should be incorporated into paragraph 19 and that lines 12- 20 could be deleted. Lines 12-20 are vague and confusing. They mix statements about three different storage technologies. They have nothing concrete to say about the capacities of any of them.

541 Australia 18 13 7 13 33 Footnotes 15 and 18 define the terms 'likely' and 'very likely' as between 66-90% and 90-99% respectively, however the term 'uncertain' is used often and could benefit from a similar definition too (i.e. less than x%). Moreover, Footnote 18 is not attached to any text on pg. 13.

59 Canada 18 13 8 "Uncertain estimates" = "Uncertainty of estimate"??



Page 56 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

60 Canada 18 13 8 13 10 This sentence is vague. A well-defined capacity estimate is given in the preceding sentence (line 7), and then a very vague estimate (which includes the estimate for geological formations from the preceding sentence) is stated. Surely, a more precise estimate can be given in this sentence.

137 Germany 18 13 9 13 9 "ocean-storage" should be deleted, see comment number 4

546 New Zealand

18 13 9 Replace "on the order" with "in the order".

547 France 18 13 12 13 14 Modify the second sentence: "The largest potential is in deep aquifers, notably in saline formations, although the upper limit estimates are uncertain due to lack of information and agreed methodology. The capacity for oil and gas reservoirs are more limited but better characterized."

548 USA 18 13 12 13 15 There are no agreed upon methodologies for estimating storage capacity yet (regardless of formation type - saline or oil and gas). Recommendation: If text for lines 12-20 is retained, then delete first 2 sentences of the paragraph and replace with "The technical potential for geological storage primarily consists of oil and gas reservoirs and saline formations. There are uncertainties in these estimates due to lack of an agreed upon methodology and, in some cases, lack of data."

61 Canada 18 13 13 13 13 "Saline formations" is imprecise. You are referring more specifically to "saline water-bearing formations" as used earlier in the text. "Saline formations" is too general.

179 Norway 18 13 15 We would prefer if the term "thousands of GtCO2" could be replaced by a more precise description.

549 Australia 18 13 15 13 16 The footnote (16) reference to ocean sequestration states '… will after some time reach equilibrium with the atmosphere.' This statement could benefit from further qualification, such as does this mean that ultimately all CO2 is returned to the atmosphere, and what is the duration of '... will after some time...' This discussion should be presented in main text rather than a footnote.

550 Australia 18 13 15 13 20 We are concerned with expressing ocean storage potential size as thousands of GtCO2. This is a sweeping statement that could easily give a false impression to policymakers that are unaware of the limitations of scientific information around this issue. Further, the statement does not give the timescale for ocean storage, i.e. only 100s of years, not 1000s or millions - again potentially creating a false impression. One difficulty is that the definition of 'technical potential' in the glossary does not emphasise the theoretical, as distinct from practical, scope for the technology option. Also, the glossary relates 'technical potential' to options that have reached the demonstration phase, while ocean storage is defined in Table S1 as being in the research phase.



Page 57 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

551 Japan 18 13 16 13 16 Original text: "Technical storage potential in the oceans could be up to thousands of GtCO2, depending on the assumed stabilization level in the atmosphere, and depending on environmental factors such as ocean pH change." Proposed text: "Technical storage potential in the oceans could be up to thousands of GtCO2, depending on the assumed stabilization level in the atmosphere, and depending on environmental factors ." Reason: Chapter 6 does not specifically refer to ocean pH change as environmental factors but simply refer to "environmental consequences."

552 Belgium 18 13 17 Replace “pH changes” by “ocean circulation and ecosystem changes”. Note: pH change is not an external factor or additional uncertainty – it also depends on the atmospheric stabilisation level and on the amount of CO2 injected into the ocean. However the effect of climate change on ocean circulation, and the effect of ocean pH and circulation changes on marine ecosystems, both introduce large uncertainties regarding the ocean carbon cycle.

138 Germany 18 13 19 13 19 it is suggested to delete reference to 7.2.8.2 , since gap in knowledge of mineral carbonation do not belong into the paragraph "storage capacity". (Reasoning: chapter 7.2.8.2 outlines the need for further research and building of a demonstration plant for mineral carbonation, although "mineral carbonation will always be more expensive than most applications of geological storage." In fact, most studies cast severe doubts on the usefulness and appropriateness of mineral carbonation.

149 Germany 18 13 19 13 20 add "and from large-scale mining operations"

554 UK 18 13 19 Extend text to read '…product disposal and the energy cost'

62 Canada 18 13 33 footnote 18 does not appear to be cited in the text

555 Australia 19 13 22 13 25 It would be beneficial for the SPM to identify when CCS (in these models) is assumed to become 'least cost', and what mitigation options are being exploited up to that time. A portfolio approach could be further emphasised. For example Chapter 8 (pg. 15, line 1) states that 'no single mitigation measure will be sufficient to achieve a stable concentration of CO2'.

556 Australia 19 13 23 13 23 Footnote 17. The SPM's definition of 'economic potential' is different to the Glossary's. Request consistency.

557 China 19 13 23 13 24 CCS economic potential: this is a range, different from one number as given in paragraph 18 for technical potential. What is the difference between technical and economic potentials?

180 Norway 19 13 24 Are the quantities mentioned per year or totals?

558 China 19 13 24 13 27 Footnote 18 doesn’t exist in the text.

559 China 19 13 25 13 26 Delete “averaged over a range of baseline scenarios (see Figure S7)”.



Page 58 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

560 Australia 19 13 26 13 27 The statement '… the technical potential for geological storage is sufficient to cover the high end of the economic potential range' could benefit from a clearer explanation. Also, the paragraph focuses on CCS, but the last sentence mentions only 'geological storage'. Request greater clarity and consistency between the terms 'CCS' and 'geological storage'.

561 Japan 19 13 26 13 27 Original text: "It is likely that the technical potential for geological storage is sufficient to cover the high end of the economic potential range." Proposed text: Delete this sentence. Reason: Available geological formations for CCS are distributed unevenly over the world, like petroleum resources are. The relationship between the technical potential for geological formation and the economic potential of CCS varies significantly by region due to different local geographical conditions. The original text is misleading because it can not be applied universally to all world regions and/or countries.

562 UK 19 13 26 13 27 Text obscure. If this is the meaning, suggest replace by 'It is unlikely that the economic potential will be constrained by geological storage capacity.'

570 Japan 19 13 28 Request: Provide the definition of technical potential on the footnotes of page 13.

553 IPIECA 23 13 19 Footnote 17: The "a price of CO2 reductions" is unclear. Suggest changing to "(i.e. policies that guarantee a monetary return for CO2 reductions, and the cost of other options)."

597 Argentina 14 27 14 Footnote 19. The definition of risk given in this footnote may raise some difficulties with its interpretation, because it is given as the product of a number (i.e. the probability of a phenomenon occurring) by a consequence, which should also be a number but... what kind of number should it be?. In fact defining risk does not seem necessary within the context of the SPM; policymaker's intuitive perception of risk very likely will suffice for their clear understanding of the text. Therefore, the footnote could be removed from the text.

63 Canada 0 14 18 As a general comment, when reading sections 21 - 26, 29, and 30, in sum total, the reader would be under the impression that CCS is a dangerous technology and that we also know very little about it - thus both risk and uncertainty are somehow high. We should have it explicitly stated that the risks are very low, or that the expectation of risk is very low. Also, the timeframes of different risks should be made clearer especially if these are quite different for geological vs. ocean storage. AND ALSO - consider bringing Figure TS.8 into this section of the SPM. Insertion of the Figure would give policymakers the assurances that this report looks at storage risks from a holistic perspective.



Page 59 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

573 Australia 19 14 1 14 8 An example of a policy-relevant statement from the body of the report that could be brought forward to the SPM is in the Executive Summary of Chapter 8. Chapter 8 (pg. 3 lines 38-39) states that '…models indicate that CCS systems are unlikely to deploy on a large scale in the absence of an explicit policy that substantially limits greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.' This would be relevant in the economic discussion in the SPM, and adds context to other statements in the SPM, such as 'several hundreds to thousands of CO2 capture systems would need to be installed over the coming century...'.

574 Australia 19 14 4 14 7 The statement listing the barriers to CCS use (i.e.. '.. Actual use of CCS ... may be lower than the economic potential due to barriers such as …') is incomplete. The difference between use and potential may more reflect the legitimacy of the potential estimates as stated in the first sentence: 'uncertainties in these economic potential estimates are significant' and/or CCS is simply too expensive relative to other mitigation options.

575 Australia 19 14 5 14 8 The TS uses firmer language on this topic (pg. 38, lines 4-11). i.e. the TS says use of CCS is 'likely to be lower' instead of 'may be lower'.

576 Australia 19 14 6 14 7 Disagree with the term 'barriers'. These are legitimate issues and the sentence would be adequate if the words 'barriers such as' were removed.

577 China 19 14 6 14 6 Change “risks of leakage, and the lack of” to “risks of leakage, energy penalty and the lack of”

579 China 20 14 9 14 11 This statement is lack of preconditions or assumptions.

141 Germany 20 14 11 14 11 delete "by 30% or more" as this seems to be only based on few studies.

157 Germany 20 14 13 14 14 the compatibility is given concerning the existing infrastructures (big central power plant and distribution network). On the other hand there is less compatibility with decentralized structures (e.g. smaller cogeneration unit - a climte protection technology as well). Moreover there could be competitive situation between using underground formation for CO2 storage or for geothermal application.

580 Australia 20 14 13 14 14 The statement 'One aspect of the cost competitiveness of CCS systems is that CCS technologies are compatible with most current energy infrastructures' is a significant statement and could be raised earlier in the SPM.

581 China 20 14 13 14 14 CCS cost competitiveness is its compatibility with most current energy infrastructure. Does this mean that the cost for both newly built power plant and existing power plant is the same? If so, paragraph 15 on page 11: it is in conflict with the statement “retrofitting … is more expensive”.

582 UK 20 14 13 14 14 Suggest replace with "Implementation of CCS would be compatible with most current energy infrastructures and could therefore either restrain the cost of meeting the target for emissions reduction to meet a given level of atmospheric



Page 60 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

stabilisation, or meet a more ambitious level of stabilisation for given cost'

738 Austria 20 14 13 14 14 It is proposed to balance this statement by another one from section 8.3.3.4: On the other hand, the widespread availability of CCS technologies implies an ability to meet a given emission reduction at a lower marginal cost, which decreases the demand for substitute technologies at the margin, i.e. CCS is competing with technologies such as energy intensity improvements, solar power options and wind. The nature of that interaction will be strongly site depend.

583 Switzerland 20 14 14 14 14 Write “… most current energy infrastructure related to fossil fuel (Sections 1.5 …)” … “

586 China 21 14 17 The whole section tends to advocate that the local health, safety and environment risks of CCS are low and the science of these is well understood. However, the risks associated with CCS would be significant and the knowledge of the dangers caused by geological and ocean storage remain poor in some key areas. Assertions made in this section mainly depend on models which are not validated by field tests. Therefore, it should be stressed in this section that the expertise and understanding is largely absent once the CO2 enters the storage reservoir and more understanding of long-term CO2 retention and potential impacts on marine and land environments of seepage is needed.

584 Australia 21 14 17 Suggest expanding the discussion to provide more detail on risks and risk mitigation measures, and better reflect the conclusions drawn from the main Report. The current section on risk is disjointed and does not provide enough information for the policymaker to assess risks of CCS. The section on local risks should explain potential risks associated with each component of CCS, including an estimate of the likelihood/probability of those risks occurring. There should be a section on risks associated with the capture stage, including risks related to any short-term storage on site before transporting to injection site (insert new section before Section 21 (transport).

585 Australia 21 14 17 The SPM should indicate that known local health, safety and environment risks for CCS would likely be managed through a comprehensive regulatory framework (see Section 5.8.2). Further, the SPM should acknowledge here that the impacts of CCS technologies may extend beyond the local area, and may cross jurisdictional boundaries (see Sections 5.8.3, 6.2.1). The regulatory framework will need to consider a holistic approach to ensure assessments encompass all potential risks.

64 Canada 21 14 19 14 45 A discussion of the environmental or legal risks associated with the capture portion of CCS is needed here.

587 China 21 14 19 14 27 The statement is not complete. It should include the risks raised by sudden and catastrophic leakage during transportation, because that is the main concern of the people potentially exposed to such risks. Moreover, the “dangers to human life and health” should be elaborated.



Page 61 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

588 EC 21 14 19 14 20 Please clarify and change sentence: "The local risks associated with CO2 transport could be similar to those posed by comparable pipeline operations."

589 UK 21 14 19 14 20 Suggest redraft to read 'The local risks associated with CO2 transport are well within the range of other societal risks.'

590 USA 21 14 19 14 20 The sentence: "The local risks associated with CO2 transport could be similar to or lower than those posed by comparable operations." Add the word: "pipeline" after CO2. Also, the word "operations" should be replaced by "industrial processes in operation today." This was text in the earlier version of the SPM . Clarity about the precedents for transport of CO2 in pipelines is lost by the truncated version.

591 Sweden 21 14 21 The rather new concept of CCS must be carefully judged from the different kinds of environmental risk that might occur. The report considers two classes of risk that in every case of CCS must be addressed: gradual and sudden leakage of CO2. Especially sudden and rapid escape of large amounts of CO2 could have worse consequences on the environment than not storing it at all. To earn a licence for storage operations, it must be clear knowledge that sudden leakage is extremely unlikely. For these reasons, Sweden recommends a thorough environmental impact assessment (EIA) to be elaborated as basis for the licence giving authority for CCS.

65 Canada 21 14 22 14 26 The first section is a bit confusing to me as a reader, as the probability of a leak being low based on current CO2 pipelines is being included in the same sentence as the hypothetical impacts of a leak - a CO2 leak being less severe than a natural gas accident. This seems to mix up these two issues. Separating these ideas into separate sentences or paragraphs might help. Further confusion is then caused by the authors indicating that impacts could be significant, which is contradictory to the natural gas analogy in the previous section. Clarity is needed.

66 Canada 21 14 22 14 27 Possible threats to safety from other constituents in a CO2 pipeline have not been highlighted. Recommend that text from Technical Summary be pulled forward • TS-17, lines 36 – 39 “However, a CO2 pipeline through populated areas might need a lower specified maximum H2S content. Pipeline transport of CO2 through populated areas also requires attention to detailed route selection, over-pressure protection, leak detection and other design factors.”

592 EC 21 14 22 14 22 Please clarify and change sentence: "For existing CO2 pipelines, which unlike a future CO2 transport infrastructure are mostly in areas of low population density, ..."

67 Canada 21 14 25 14 27 Need to insert the comment that at greater than 10% concentration instantaneous fatality occurs as a result of suffocation. (Check lethal concentration since comment below suggests it is 15% not 10%.)



Page 62 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

68 Canada 21 14 25 14 27 The most significant part of this statement is…” local impacts on health could be significant; a concentration of CO2 greater than 7 - 10% in air would cause immediate dangers to human life and health” . Two points are germane; 1) the reference to the statement as coming from Sections 4.5.2, A.4.1 seems to be incorrect - further reference to this statement appears in The Technical Summary, but does not appear to be substantiated in the body of the report, 2) if this statement is correct, it needs a proper and highly credible reference -- this statement will undoubtedly cause concern for public health officials and the public in general. This risk could well become the Achilles' heel for the entire concept of CCS, if not carefully described and managed. In this context, we also need to be completely honest. For example, one web site related to safe levels of CO2 around volcanoes (http://seis.bris.ac.uk/~glcjh/ivhhn/guidelines/gas/co2.html). suggests that a concentration above 15% would in fact become lethal and levels above 25% would lead to convulsions and death.

69 Canada 21 14 25 14 28 This sentence should be qualified in that the probability of a sudden large release is very low.

593 Australia 21 14 25 14 27 Recommend providing an indication of the likelihood that a 'sudden and brief release of CO2' would occur during pipeline transport of CO2. Further, the SPM would benefit from better differentiating between the risks (including likelihood and consequences) associated with land and marine pipeline transport, and mentioning the risks associated with ship transport. This would better reflect the discussion presented in Chapter 4.

594 USA 21 14 25 14 27 The body of the report does not indicate under what, if any, circumstance a "sudden and brief large release" of CO2 would occur and it does not indicate what concentrations of CO2 might be reached in such circumstances. Section 4.5.2 does not provide information which would allow one to conclude that such a release could occur and/or that the "the local impacts on human health could be significant." The sentence must be deleted.

595 Sweden 21 14 26 Add after "..be significant..": "Acute exposure to CO" concentrations at or above 3 % may significantly affect the health of the general population." Ref in Annex I page AI-6, last section, first sentence.

745 Austria 21 14 26 It is noted that the figure of 7-10% of the concentration of CO2 in air that causes immediate dangers to human life differs significantly from the figure of 4% included in the SOD.

596 EC 21 14 27 14 27 Add a short concluding sentence to this section. E.g.: "Safety requirements in populated areas will need to reflect respective national standards for comparable hazardous substances."



Page 63 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

768 USA 22 14 19 16 In several places, the SPM significantly overstates the likelihood of potential leakage from CO2 stored in geological formations, thus diminishing the apparent viability of CCS as a greenhouse gas mitigation option. Other sections of the report, including other sections of the SPM clearly indicate that leakage is apt to be minor. (See comment on SPM, p. 3 lines 14-16 and p.17, lines 4-6 , lines 17-20, and lines 30-33). In several places, the SPM understates the available storage capacity for CO2 in geological formations. It also fails to convey the level of uncertainty of the accuracy of data used in developing Figure S.6 . This figure could easily be misinterpreted by policymakers. (See Comment on SPM, Figure S.6 and SPM 13, lines 7-8).

769 USA 22 14 19 16 The SPM significantly overstates the potential health, safety and environmental effects associated with the release of CO2 from the transport of CO2 and from geological formations. The local health, safety and environmental effects of CO2 transport and storage are negligible based on significant operating experience in North America. While the North American experience may not be applicable to new carbon capture and storage projects in other countries, and will depend on siting and other criteria, it does suggest that these risks are manageable. (See SPM comment on p.15, lines 9-12)

598 France 15 0 15 7 We believe that the figure S7 is not necessary. There are so many assumptions underlying the two scenarios that it may be ill understood by the policymakers, whereas the text of § 19 and 20 is quite clear.

181 Norway 15 1 Figure S7 This figure is difficult to understand (for example because it indicates CO2 emissions from both CO2- and non-CO2 sources). We propose that the main message is communicated in the text.

122 Germany 15 1 Figure 7: characteristics a to e missing.

70 Canada 15 1 15 Figure S7: labels a) to e) are missing, so the reader does not know to which chart the figure caption text is referring. For the 2 charts in the middle row, the axis is labeled "Million Tonnes Carbon Dioxide per Year" - should this be "Million Tonnes Carbon Dioxide AVOIDED per Year"

71 Canada 15 1 I found figure S 7 very confusing until I tracked down the original source in the full document. There was no reference in the text to suggest that this provided 2 model scenarios that could both deliver the same emission level of 550 ppmv in a century. And there was no reference as to where the 550 ppmv came from- I assume the European target though I didn’t try and confirm. The scenarios then model projected cost per ton of carbon dioxide. After I had figured out my interpretation I then re-read the description provided under the Figure and can see it might describe what I believe it means but the text is not clear. Especially confusing is reference to “a), b), c), d), and e)“ which I can’t find anywhere. If my interpretation is correct I think it is useful for policy makers to understand they have flexibility as to how to get to a common end point and that it is possible to estimate what the costs may be. I think it is also useful for people to understand that the cost of managing carbon dioxide will continue to rise as our economy grows, a point made in several places.



Page 64 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

72 Canada 15 1 Figure S.7 is not really self-explanatory. One can make some educated guesses about what exactly it means, but it seems like something created by those initiated in this sort of economic modelling for their own peers. Some explanation of what MiniCAM and MESSAGE are would be nice, as well as the "marginal price". The text states that this exercise demonstrates the value of CCS in reducing the cost of stabilization (p. 14 lines 10-11), but the two models appear to give it rather different weight, and the overall increase in the marginal price is very similar. There are labels a-e in the caption that do not appear on the figure.

73 Canada 15 1 Figure S7: This figure and its charts and explanation portion are completely incomprehensible and how CCS is fitting in with all those graph lines and charts of every conceivable energy source, even those non-CCS related is impossible to follow nor comprehend. Further, why this Figure is under the "Health, Safety and Environment" section is also a puzzle and does not flow. If this Figure and charts cannot be simply explained and demonstrated, should be scrapped.

605 Belgium 15 1 Figure S7 should move up before para 21

606 Belgium 15 1 Figure S.7: the fi ve panels should have a letter tag a) tot e) ; the ordinates of the panels c) and d) can be expressed better in Gt instead of Million Tonnes. This saves 000's and it is consistent with the Gt unit used in sections 18 and 19 of the SPM

607 China 15 1 Figure S.7. It is suggested to delete this figure, because this figure is not necessary for illustrating the costs for CCS and its economic potential.

608 USA 15 1 15 Figure S.7: Delete the marginal price curve.Reason for change: Figure S.7 is referred to in the text of page 13 para. 19. Figure (e) is not directly relevant to the points made in paragraph 19 - and only confusing to the reader. There is no mention of the marginal price of CO2 in this paragraph. The main point of paragraph 19 is that "it is likely" that there is enough geologic capacity in geological formations (2,000 Gt) (as stated in paragraph 18) to store all of the CO2 that a range of models suggests would be economically feasible.

761 New Zealand

15 1 Figure S.7. Please label the Panels (a) to (e).

600 UK 15 6 15 7 Figure S7 Suggest delete space "…calculations; e)…"; add full stop to end of caption.



Page 65 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

599 Belgium 15 6 Figure S7: Does the cost in (e) take into account induced technological change? Plot (f) from previous draft, which contained useful information about costs relative to renewables, nuclear and efficiency – should be brought back (although in a clearer format).

74 Canada 22 15 9 15 12 Risks posed by geological storage do not "depend on criteria and available information" but the can be limited by these things. The sentence is grammatically incorrect as is. Reword to make clear that the risk can be MITIGATED or MINIMIZED by the various activities listed. Bringing Figure TS.8 into this section is recommended since this is an excellent figure that is quite self-explanatory.

601 Australia 22 15 9 16 8 The two types of leakage scenarios, together with the results (lethal effects on plants and subsoil animals, contamination of groundwater etc) should be placed in more context by applying a judgment of probability, as is done in Ch5 eg. pg 5-64 lines 35-36 'the probability of leakage is low'.

602 China 22 15 9 15 12 It should be added that although the handling and control of CO2 in the operational subsystem (capture, transportation and injection) can be managed with certainty and safety by years of technological innovation and experience, the same level of expertise and understanding is largely absent once the CO2 enters the storage reservoir.

603 France 22 15 9 16 17 dumping any waste in the ocean is a very sensitive issue, both for technical reasons and for public acceptance; the wording of this paragraph underestimates both.

604 USA 22 15 9 15 11 Risks posed by geological storage would depend on the available subsurface information used for site selection, the design of the monitoring program to detect potential problems, the regulatory system, and the appropriate use of remediation methods if needed to stop or control CO2 releases if they arise. Suggested revision: "The local health, safety and environment risks of geological storage will be minor with appropriate site selection and when controlled by the criteria and available subsurface information used for site selection, the design of the monitoring program to detect problems, the regulatory system, and the appropriate use of remediation methods to stop or control CO2 releases if they arise." Also add the following paragraph following paragraph from Section 5.2.5:"Evidence from oil and gas fields indicates that hydrocarbons and other gases and fluids including CO2 can remain trapped for millions of years (Magoon and Dow, 1994; Bradshaw et al., 2005). Carbon dioxide has a tendency to remain in the subsurface (relative to hydrocarbons) via its many physical-chemical immobilization mechanisms. World-class petroleum provinces have storage times for oil and gas of 5 to 100 million years, others for 350 million years, while some minor petroleum accumulations have been stored for up to 1,400 million years. However, some natural traps do leak, which reinforces the need for careful site selection (Section 5.3), characterization (Section 5.4), and injection practices (Section 5.5)."Reason for change: As an answer to the page SPM-14 overarching question "What are the local health, safety and environment risks of CCS?", this sentence seems to say



Page 66 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

basically that "it depends", and in doing so seems to substantially overstate risks of CCS. The question should be answered by supplying information about what is known from natural CO2 reservoirs and the procedures that can be used to limit risks.

75 Canada 22 15 10 15 10 Information used for site selection, the nature and seal integrity of the well, design of the monitoring

76 Canada 22 15 12 Replace "they" with "leakage". The use of "they" is ambiguous and not clear what it refers to.

77 Canada 22 15 15 15 16 Under features of storage sites, "geologically stable" should be added. For example, highly active tectonics areas or areas where groundwater fluxes are high would not likely be suitable.

121 Germany 22 15 15 15 16 "Features of storage sites with a low probability of leakage include highly impermeable caprocks, absence of leakage paths and effective trapping mechanisms." It should be considered to add the following sentence: Further expertise to asses leakage risks include comprehensive knowledge of all reservoir parameters, as well as the storage capacity of the reservoir, and the physicochemical properties of cap rock and overburden.

643 Argentina 16 27 16 Footnote 21 does not have its corresponding reference in the main text. See comments on footnote 19.

645 New Zealand

16 47 Footnote 21. This footnote does not appear to be refered to in the text. Should it be placed on the previous page (Page 15) with a reference from line 9?

78 Canada 22 16 1 replace "Abrupt" with "Sudden, high-volume".

609 USA 22 16 2 16 2 2) more gradual leakage,……. Remove the word 'more' and just start with 2) gradual leakage…..

79 Canada 22 16 7 8 It is not clear why impacts of leakage from offshore would be less severe than from onshore. Just because people live onshore? On the other hand atmospheric circulation likely will disperse the Co2, while offshore it may harm aquatic life. The case is not made one way or another.

182 Norway 22 16 7 Since little research has been performed on this field, we propose that the text is changed as follows: "Impacts of leakage from offshore storage locations would most likely be less severe than from onshore storage locations."



Page 67 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

610 Australia 22 16 7 16 8 The word 'human' should be inserted at the beginning of the sentence comparing impacts of leakage offshore and onshore, as it is in the TS (p24, line14). Further, it would be useful if this paragraph had its own references to the relevant sections of the report, including those on oceans, so that the reader can locate the reasoning behind the conclusion that impacts of leakage from offshore storage locations would be less severe than from onshore storage locations.

611 China 22 16 7 16 8 It is not responsible to state that “impacts of leakage from offshore storage locations would be less severe than from onshore storage locations”, because the practical experience on that is very scarce and model simulations on that are not validated by field test.

612 Japan 22 16 7 16 8 Original text: "Impacts of leakage from offshore storage locations would be less severe than from onshore storage locations." Proposed text: "Human impacts of leakage from offshore storage locations would be less severe than from onshore storage locations." Reason: The original text is not accurate.

613 Sweden 22 16 7 16 8 Delete "Impacts of leakage from off-shore storage locations would be less severe than from onshore locations". This statement needs explanation and/or ref to a section in the full report. - In Box 6.4, page 6-27 middle section it is stated "…biological activity of some animals living on the deep sea floor can be as great as is found in relatives living on the sea floor in shallow waters."

614 UK 22 16 7 16 8 Is there evidence in the underlying report for the final sentence "Impacts of leakage from offshore storage locations would be less severe than from onshore storage locations." Eg page 5-66 line 25-26 says that "No studies specifically address the environmental effects of seepage from sub seabed geological storage sites". Suggest delete SPM sentence if unsupported.

615 USA 22 16 7 16 8 Delete the sentence "Impacts of leakage from offshore storage locations…" Reason for change: The body of the report does not support this statement. A risk assessment comparing the impacts of leakage onshore vs offshore was not conducted. Additionally, the impacts here are not defined - i.e. impacts to humans, ecosystems, etc.

80 Canada 22 16 9 "Impacts of leakage from offshore storage locations would be less severe than from onshore storage locations." How do they know this? Two paragraphs later it states that marine organisms are vulnerable to impacts of elevated CO2 (header section 23). Why assume that there will be minimal impact?



Page 68 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

644 New Zealand

22 16 9 Is potential for a major earthquake a risk factor for an area being considered for carbon storage? Is there any chance that injecting CO2 into a geological structure could increase earthquake risk? The answers to both of these questions are probably "no", but perhaps with qualifications. These are concerns which the public might have in earthquake-prone countries, so it would help Policymakers if the report answered them.

81 Canada 22 16 10 16 10 "…related industrial experience…"; why not be more specific and state "….related experience in the oil and gas industry…"

616 Australia 22 16 10 16 17 This paragraph implies that remediation strategies for CCS sites will be successful. However, site remediation will depend on site-specific factors and in some instances remediation will be quite difficult, if not impossible to achieve. The SPM should reflect this possibility.

617 Australia 22 16 12 16 13 The sentence: 'The effectiveness of the available risk management methods still needs to be demonstrated for use with CO2 storage' is inaccurate. Recommend rewording this sentence to better reflect conclusions drawn from Chapter 5 (pg 71, lines 1-5). This section of Chapter 5 states that some remediation methods are not yet established and additional research is needed to assess the feasibility of applying these methods to geological storage projects. The SPM should reflect this uncertainty and identify the need for further research.

618 Australia 22 16 13 16 13 The term 'storage formation' is inconsistent with terminology used in the main Report. Suggest rewording to 'storage reservoir' for consistency.

619 Australia 22 16 15 16 15 The statement beginning 'Given the long-term nature of CO2 storage…' could be reworded to provide a more accurate description. The statement is true for geological storage, yet is inaccurate for ocean storage (for example in terms of site monitoring capability). Further the word 'nature' is inaccurate - if its nature was long-term there wouldn't be a need for monitoring. Suggest rewording to: 'Given the long timeframes associated with geological storage…'.

82 Canada 23 16 19 16 Policy makers will not likely understand the text in terms of PH changes. Recommend rewording in terms of changes in acidity. And note that even a small change in acidity can have an impact.



Page 69 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

620 Australia 23 16 19 16 36 This section is not consistent with the conclusions drawn in Chapter 6. Some effects of direct CO2 injection into the ocean are known. For example, direct CO2 injection into the ocean will increase ocean acidity, and these pH changes have been shown to affect marine organisms. Further, this section does not make it clear that marine organisms have already been affected by ocean acidification. The SPM should more clearly articulate the discussion in Chapter 6 (pg 7 and Fig. 6.4), namely that the ocean has already been affected by increased CO2 uptake, and that these changes are expected to worsen over time even in the absence of intentional injection of CO2 into the oceans. At the same time this section should emphasise that ocean storage technology is still in research phase and risks are generally unknown relative to geological storage.

621 Australia 23 16 19 16 20 The statement: 'The chronic effects…' contains a tautology. Chronic means of a 'long duration' so the 'long time scales' that appears at the end of the sentence becomes largely redundant. It is recommended this sentence is reworded to 'The long term effects of direct CO2 injection....'.

622 Belgium 23 16 19 16 20 This statement: "the chronic effects of direct CO2 injection into the ocean on ecosystems over large ocean areas and long time scales are unclear" seems to be contradictory to the executive summary of chapter 6 which states: "injection up to a few GtCO2 would produce a measurable change in the ocean chemistry in the region of injection, whereas injection of hundreds of GtCo2 would eventually produce measurable change over the entire ocean volume." The statement in the SPM should accurately reflect this statement from the corresponding chapter.

623 New Zealand

23 16 19 16 22 We believe the order of the two sentences should be changed, i.e. first sentence describes the local effect of CO2 injection, and the second sentence describes the chronic effect.

83 Canada 23 16 20 Delete "In contrast,"

84 Canada 23 16 20 16 23 The text in these paragraphs provides detail without conclusions. Recommend that to the end of first para (add or replace last sentence) , pull forward text from the Technical Summary • Executive Summary of Chapter 6 p. 6-4, 6th Para. "Experiments show that added CO2 can harm marine organisms. Effects of elevated CO2 levels have mostly been studied on time scales up to several months in individual organisms that live near the ocean surface. Observed phenomena include reduced rates of calcification, reproduction, growth, circulatory oxygen supply and mobility as well as increased mortality over time. " The point is, that no other text makes reference to effect other than mortality and so these need to be identified here.

624 Belgium 23 16 20 “unclear”: Too weak. Recent research (e.g. as summarised by Turley et al in Exeter, Jan 2005) suggests that even small increases in ocean acidity will have substantial negative impacts on marine ecosystems, especially on calcifying organisms including corals and shellfish. On the other hand, dispersing CO2 directly into the deep ocean may reduce this impact compared to releasing a similar quantity into the atmosphere, which temporarily concentrates the pH effect in the surface



Page 70 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

mixed layer.

625 Australia 23 16 22 16 22 In the statement 'to the extent that has been shown … cause mortality of ocean organisms.' the word 'extent' could benefit from further qualification (i.e.. large, low, unknown etc).

85 Canada 23 16 24 16 35 The text in this paragraph is quite detailed and may require simplification with the message being that further study and modelling is required to fully understand the risks and impacts. The Chapter 6 summary suggests that controlled ecosystem studies and be undertaken. The message that impacts are expected should not be lost.

626 China 23 16 24 16 36 The effects of lower pH value on marine environment are missing. According to relevant studies, the increased CO2 uptake will increase the formation of bicarbonate and decrease of pH which will produce effects on the carbonate and calcite mechanisms, phytoplankton, metal speciation and higher food chain. It should also be emphasized that studies are based on models that uncertainly is large.

627 New Zealand

23 16 24 16 28 The frst two sentences are confusing because they tell an incomplete and inconsistent story: It is not clear whether the figure of 1% refers to the volume or surface area of the ocean, and the second sentence gives no information about subsurface pH changes. Please ensure the information in both those sentences is comparable by poviding information on both surface and subsurface pH changes, and scale of areas with particularly high pH changes (does >0.4 mean 0.45, or 1?). It may also help if the order of the two sentences is reversed, i.e. first sentence starts out with the pH changes for a stabilisation scenario without ocean storage (as baseline scenario), and the second sentence provides information on the additional effect of ocean storage.

628 Belgium 23 16 26 16 29 the text uses the terms "acidity changes" and "pH change". I suggest to be more informative to the readership and tell whether it concerns an increase or decrease of acidity, and how important the mentioned pH changes are for the degree of acidity. When this message can be formulated without the "pH" indicator, I would be glad because I always forget if a high pH is more acid or more base.

629 Belgium 23 16 26 "approximately 1% of the ocean": is it the ocean 'surface' or ocean 'mass'??? How much area is 1% of the ocean surface?

746 Austria 23 16 26 16 27 It is proposed to specify the stabilization by its equilibrium concentration of CO2. This is because the change in pH of the ocean is probably a function of this equilibrium concentration.



Page 71 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

630 UK 23 16 27 Insert footnote after 'expected' to read: 'Ocean acidification due to elevated atmospheric CO2 is a major impact of climate change and to reduce its impact is an important aim of stabilisation.' (This is to explain the significance of these observations)

631 IPIECA 23 16 28 It is unclear what is the definition of "pre-industrial variability"; there have been very large changes in pCO2 over the Earth's history, and there are differences regionally in current ocean pH as illustrated in Figure 6.6 that are greater than 0.2-0.4. Suggest that this sentence be omitted.

632 Australia 23 16 29 16 29 The phrase 'some effects' could benefit from further qualification to provide the reader an idea of what effects have been observed. For example, the following sentences could be included: 'Studies have shown that ocean acidification will lead to a reduction in the calcification process, the process by which animals such as corals and molluscs make shells and plates from calcium carbonate. Further, some studies suggest that reduced calcification may affect the growth and reproduction of these organisms, and ultimately impact on the marine food web'. Refer to recent (July 2005) Royal Society of London report 'Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide'. This Report draws together studies to date on ocean acidification.

86 Canada 23 16 31 16 33 "There is no known mechanism for sudden or catastrophic release …" I recommend deleting this entire sentence. It isn't necessarily true (there are conceivable scenarios where a Lake Nyos like disaster could occur in marine waters), and it doesn't fit the flow. It seems to have been added in to offer reassurance, but it isn't clear what if anything in the preceding text it refers to.

633 Belgium 23 16 31 Delete: “There is no known mechanism for sudden, or catastrophic release of stored CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere”. Replace with: “ In the short term, unexpected ocean circulation changes (possible as a consequence of climate change) could bring a pool of high-CO2 water back to the surface, resulting in a sudden pulse release to the atmosphere. This risk diminishes over time as this high-CO2 water mixes throughout the ocean. “

634 UK 23 16 31 16 33 Extend text slightly to read 'There is no known mechanism for sudden or catastrophic release of stored CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere. Gradual release is discussed in SPM section 25'

87 Canada 23 16 33 16 35 "Chemical or physical conversion of molecular CO2 …" This sentence is confusing and too technical and should be simplified.



Page 72 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

635 Australia 23 16 33 16 36 This sentence is too technical for policymakers and does not follow clearly from the previous sentence. The SPM should more clearly describe the proposed techniques for increasing ocean alkalinity (dissolution of carbonate minerals), drawing on Section 6.2.2 of Chapter 6 (pgs. 16-18). In addition, the SPM should include statements on the status of these techniques, the likelihood for them to adequately increase ocean alkalinity in light of the recent evidence for ocean acidification, and potential environmental risks (including the expected additional energy required).

636 USA 23 16 33 16 35 The sentence: "Chemical or physical conversion…other environmental impacts" should be revised to read: "Chemical or physical conversion of molecular CO2 to bicarbonates or hydrates before or during CO2 release would reduce the pH effects and enhance the retention of CO2 in the ocean. "Delete the last part of the sentence as it is out of context with the beginning of the sentence.

637 Sweden 23 16 35 16 35 Observandum: The referred section 6.6.4 could not be found in this version of the report (IPCC-SRCCS FD 25 July 2005)

88 Canada 24 16 38 16 39 These lines (38-39) in italics are unclear and lack a clear message. Suggest rewording: Large-scale mineral carbonation would have environmental impacts as a consequence of…

638 USA 24 16 38 16 39 Rewrite as follows: "Environmental and other impacts of large-scale mineral carbonation would be a consequence of the required mining and disposal of those resulting products that have no practical use."Reason for change: There are potential uses of some carbonation products, including beach replenishment, synthetic soils etc.

89 Canada 24 16 41 16 41 The term 'fixing' should be defined in a Glossary.

639 Sweden 24 16 42 16 42 Insert after: "…, which indirectly also may result in habitat degradation."

640 Sweden 24 16 46 16 46 For consistency with the opening sentence in italics of this paragraph, add after the last sentence a new sentence: "An environmental impact assessment would be required to identify and prevent pollution of soil, water and air in surrounding areas" (Ref section 7.2.6, page 7-10)

641 UK 24 16 46 What is the energy cost of fixation using silicate rock?

642 Australia 24 16 47 16 48 Footnote 21: This footnote is not attached to text on this page.

93 Canada 17 47 The footnote at the bottom of page 17 needs to have "very likely' defined as well as 'likely'.



Page 73 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

681 Argentina 17 47 17 Footnote 22 does not have its corresponding reference in the main text. If ‘likely’ is given a probability range, ‘very likely’ should also be given one.

682 New Zealand

17 47 Footnote 22. This footnote is not refered to from the text. (It should be refered to from line 13).


17 47 Footnote The term “Very likely” needs to be also defined. In the previous reports, Very likely is defined as a probability of 90 to 99%.

646 Belgium 25 17 0 Title: Insert “ , longer term” after global

647 IPIECA 25 17 1 17 34 This section does not deal with the "global risks" of CCS, but rather on estimates of potential leakage, and their valuation. Suggest the title for the section be changes to "Will physical leakage of stored CO2 compromise the value of CCS?"

648 Australia 25 17 4 17 6 While the first sentence for Section 25 is correct, it implies that global risks of CCS outweigh the benefits from deploying CCS technologies, ie. compared to allowing CO2 to vent into the atmosphere. The current first sentence also doesn't link with the following paragraph - does the 1% release over 100 years from geological storage and the much larger numbers for ocean storage constitute 'continuous leakage of small quantities of CO2 over a long timeframe'? The opening paragraph should be more balanced and should be explicitly linked to the supporting text. Recommend inclusion of statements on the risks, costs and benefits of reducing atmospheric CO2 through CCS (perhaps using measures of radiative forcing); then present the statement that leakage from storage sites will reduce the benefits from CCS; and finally present a statement on the expected magnitude of leakage from storage sites compared to the amount of CO2 that is expected to be stored (ie. the probability that leakage will occur).

649 Australia 25 17 4 17 4 The word 'continuous' is imprecise for this context and should be removed.

650 Australia 25 17 4 This section should discuss the role of monitoring and verification (M&V) for storage sites. M&V is a critical component for ensuring the stored CO2 is behaving as predicted and is not released into the atmosphere. The status and accuracy of current M&V technologies should be briefly mentioned for both geological and ocean storage. It is recommended this information be presented before mineral carbonation leakage rates is mentioned.



Page 74 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

652 IPIECA 25 17 4 This paragraph gives estimates of emissions from geological and ocean storage. Since the basis for such estimates is different, I suggest that this be expanded to 2 numbered sections (I will refer to these as 25a and 25 b). Furthermore, the italics section does not directly pertain to the paragraph and should be considered in the context of existing paragraph 26. For 25a I suggest: "For well-selected, designed and managed geological storage sites, the vast majority of the CO2 will gradually be immobilized by various trapping mechanisms and will therefore be retained for up to millions of years. Because of these mechanisms, storage could become more secure over longer timeframes. Estimates of the long duration of storage is based on observations from engineered and natural analogues as well as from analysis and models." I suggest that the quantitative statements on the likelihood of leakage not be included. These statements were generated by a poll of author opinion (not the peer-reviewed literature) and introduced after the 2nd review of Chapter 5. Since the security of storage is dependent on the geological setting, any conclusion on likelihood would depend on the definition of "appropriately selected" and thus the statement is circular. For 25b I suggest: "CO2 injected into the deep ocean would be isolated from the atmosphere for a period of time that increases with the depth of injection." followed by lines 13-18.

653 USA 25 17 4 17 6 The sentence "Continuous leakage of small quantities of CO2 over a long time frame could offset the benefits of CCS for mitigating climate change and, depending on the storage option and the selection process, leaks could become a disperse emission source, which would be difficult to control" appears to be more of a general hypothetical statement, rather than a conclusion, and is much more negative that the text below it. Moreover, given observational data regarding the likely time frame and magnitude of any leakage identified in lines 5-14 below, this statement should at most be a subsidiary statement that identifies likely retention rates for CO2. In addition, the use of the word "offset" without any qualifiers also seems to suggest total negation of CCS benefits, which is certainly not the case. Therefore move the statement from SPM-17, lines 11-14, as modified, to replace the italicized sentence in Paragraph 25: "Observations from engineered and natural analogues as well as models suggest that the fraction retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years, and is likely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years. Release of CO2 from the oceans would be gradual over hundreds of years." Then delete this sentence from lines 11-14.Also, add the sentence to the end of line SPM-17, Line 18: "Continuous leakage of small quantities of CO2 over a long time frame could offset some of the benefits under conditions of poor site selection and implementation of CCS and, depending on the storage option and the selection process, leaks could become a disperse emission source, which would be difficult to control"



Page 75 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

651 Australia 25 17 4 17 35 The text under this question heading does not seem to address risks in the context of climate change (i.e. in regards to reducing the radiative forcing effect of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere). Recommend inserting the following sentence at the beginning of the Section 25: 'Global risks involve the release of CO2 that may contribute to climate change if some fraction leaks from the storage medium to the atmosphere.'

91 Canada 25 17 8 17 18 This paragraph is a critical one. It should be made crystal clear that IF there is leakage from a geological storage site, it will be because of poor management, NOT because of a technology failure. We suggest a sentence be added to this paragraph saying that "sites can be managed for zero leakage." It is also imperative that this paragraph be split into multiple sections to clearly separate the different storage options in terms of the global risks associated with each of them, which are very different. We suggest the first section (or new paragraph) begin with the first sentence and end after the words "1,000 years". To this paragraph, should also be added something about the timeframe difference for physical vs geochemical trapping. A second paragraph should then begin with "Release of CO2 from oceans....". A third paragraph would make the point about mineral carbonation. In fact, this could precede the ocean storage paragraph since retention is higher with this technology.

654 Australia 25 17 8 17 14 Table 5.5 (Chapter 5) provides a clear summary of the retention times and release rates from current geological storage studies. Suggest including Table 5.5 as a reference for this section. However, Chapter 5 does not consider all current studies on retention times and release rates. For example, the Introduction raises a study (Haugan and Joos, 2004) on release rates (Chapter 1, Section 1.6.4) that is not considered in Chapter 5. It is recommended that the SPM raise the issue of uncertainty relating to retention times and release rates from current studies, and that Section 1.6.4 is also included as a reference here. Further, the SPM should more clearly explain the claim that the risks of leakage of CO2 from geological storage are expected to reduce over time.

655 USA 25 17 8 17 10 This sentence should be qualified or referenced (and supported by the body of the report). Change sentence to read: "…various trapping mechanisms and is likely to be retained for up to millions of years." Reason for change: Storage capacity and timeframes are extremely uncertain and the expectation should not be created that millions of years is an appropriate timeframe for storage. The authors could also use probabilities to address uncertainties, along with clear explanations and references.

90 Canada 25 17 9 replace "will therefore" with "could therefore". The word "will" implies certainty, which is not the case. The word "could" implies possibility.



Page 76 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

92 Canada 25 17 11 17 13 Limits of observable data are not highlighted. Policy makers should be aware of the limited extent of observations. Current statement seems very categorical. Appropriate context and extent of knowledge should be provided. Recommend pulling forward text from Technical Summary • TS-23, lines 30 – 34 “based on observations and analysis of current CO2 storage sites, natural systems, engineering systems and models, it is suggested that the fraction retained in appropriately selected and managed reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years, and is likely9 to exceed 99% over 1000 years.” and including parentheses with (current 3 monitoring sites with less than 10 years of data) between "sites," and "natural systems".

656 China 25 17 13 17 13 Footnote 22. “Likely” should be “very likely”; “66-90%” should be “90-99%”. Footnote on “likely” sees SPM-13, footnote 15.

741 Austria 25 17 16 It is noted that the figure of 85% for the retained fraction after 500 years and ocean storage in a depth of 3000m was 93% in the SOD. Given the importance of that figure some information about the uncertainty of that figure (e.g. reflecting the results calculated by various models) would be very much appreciated.

657 UK 25 17 17 17 18 Text says 'If mineral carbonation were used, the CO2 stored would not be released to the atmosphere' Is mineral carbonation associated with ocean storage - eg by disposal of the carbonates? If so could there be chemical reaction paths by which release could occur?

658 Belgium 25 17 19 Does this take into account ocean circulation changes as a result of climate change?

659 Belgium 25 17 19 Should point out that 100% is actually up to 140% of the CO2 that would have been emitted without CCS, due to the additional energy used (see figure S2). Thus in the long term, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere may be higher with CCS, than without it. Likewise the acidity of surface waters could also be higher in the long term (see also comment re para 23)

660 Belgium 25 17 19 Should compare these numbers with the fraction retained if the CO2 had been emitted into the atmosphere, since on these timescales most of this CO2 ends up in the ocean anyway, and most of the rest may be stored in the terrestrial biosphere due to the carbon fertilisation effect. In this respect, the figure 30% seems remarkably low -where is the 70% going? More clarification is needed regarding the definition of “fraction retained”, over such long timescales.

662 China 25 17 20 17 20 It should be asserted that the ocean storage by injection or deep sea release onto the sea floor would be the worst options because of the many unknown effects and consequences for this globally working marine ecosystem and its corresponding atmospheric system.



Page 77 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

661 Australia 26 17 20 Section 26 does not adequately discuss the policy implications of slow leakage from storage. The sentence: 'The policy implications…. depend on assumptions in the analysis' requires clarification and better linkage with the following paragraph. The section presents only an economic perspective rather than a policy perspective. The use of terms such as 'compensation' and 'valuable' have inherent financial connotations and are confusing when discussing the mitigation of climate change. The discussion should be broader and more clearly articulate the range of policy implications for slow leakage, drawing on Chapters 5 (Section 5.7.7) and 9 (Section 9.3.1) in addition to Chapters 1 and 8.

663 UK 26 17 20 Redraft to read 'The value associated with of storage with slow leakage depends on assumptions made.'

664 USA 26 17 20 17 20 The policy implications of slow leakage from storage depend on assumptions in the analysis. Reword the statement: The possibility of leakage from reservoirs can be taken into account in the evaluation of different storage options and in the comparison of CO2 storage with mitigation options avoiding CO2 emissions." [Text adapted from Section 8.4 [page 8-22, lines 3-5] Reason for change: Need to clearly communicate that there is no reason to believe that leakage will always occur. , "

665 China 26 17 22 17 34 This paragraph doesn’t address much policy implications. For example, for those possible risks above mentioned, what kind of policy-relevant considerations should be included?

742 Austria 26 17 22 It is proposed to substitute “impermanent” by the word “non-permanent” because the latter word might be easier to understand.

666 UK 26 17 25 This is a policy judgement, if it needs to remain suggest redraft to "...could still make such impermanent storage a climate change mitigation option"

150 Germany 26 17 30 17 34 statement on acceptable fractions of retention cannot be traced back to information in the report. What exactly does "valuable for mitigation " mean? Section 1.6.4 gives some very clear and policy relevant information that should be added, but it does not support this statement. On which studies is it based? section 8.4 cites one study that say, leakage rates of 0.5% could be unattractive, 0.1% acceptable. However, this depends very much on assumptions, as is explained in section 8.4. In general, this para and both sections fail to explain clearly the relationship between leakage rates and retention fractions. It is suggested to replace this sentence with text from 1.6.4, page 22 "The policy relevant issue is whether CO2 will be held in a particular class of reservoirs sufficiently long that it will not increase the difficulty of meeting future targets for co2 concentration in the atmosphere." and "All methods imply that, if CO2 capture and storage is to e acceptable as a mitigation measure, there must be an upper limit to the amount of unintended releases that can take place:" (1-23)



Page 78 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

667 USA 26 17 30 17 33 Expressing the amount of allowable leakage as a fraction of the total stored over a 100 or 500 year interval may confuse lay readers, since leakage has generally been expressed in terms of percent leaked per year, and is a small number << 1%. We believe that it is premature to press for quantification of leakage rates given our rather limited knowledge stemming from meaningfully sized field demonstrations which are only now beginning to generate data. Suggest revising the paragraph to the following: "Acceptable levels of slow leakage depend on the perspective chosen for analysis. An economic perspective counts future leakage as delayed emissions that can be compensat ed by additional future emissions reductions. Assuming future cost levels based on specific mitigation scenarios, the limited number of available studies shows that global average leakage rates that would be the equivalent of a few tenths of a percent of the cumulative stored CO2 could be accommodated while still making progress towards atmospheric stabilization goals. Experience from engineered natural gas storage facilities and natural CO2 reservoirs may be relevant to understanding whether such releases might occur. This strict economic perspective omits potentially important issues such as financial liability. (Sections 1.6.3, 1.7, 8.4)."

747 Austria 26 17 30 34 It is proposed to delete this last sentence because it is in contradiction with information included in the version of the SOD (“Leakage rate of 0.5% makes storage unattractive”). Deletion of such results would best correspond to the fact that results depend on methods used and assumptions made. Another option would be to provide a range of examples reflecting a range of methods and a range of assumptions. However, this might be too long for the SPM and therefore the SPM might be limited to the reference to the sections of the full report.

94 Canada 26 17 32 17 32 The retention rates given in this line do not seem to be consistent with those given in section 25 above. If the retention rates here are treating all storage options together, we would strongly recommend against doing this.

668 Belgium 26 17 32 60% seems very low on a 500 year timescale- for same reason as comment on para 25

669 New Zealand

26 17 32 Replace "on the order" with "in the order".

670 Australia 26 17 33 17 33 The word 'impermanent' should be defined for this context.



Page 79 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

95 Canada 27 17 37 Insert "and regulatory" after "legal". The two are different, and should not be confused. Laws are passed by a legislative body (e.g., parliament), regulations are passed by regulatory bodies (e.g., an Environment Ministry or department).

139 Germany 27 17 39 17 40 Replace sentence in italics with "At present few countries have specifically developed legal and regulatory frameworks for onshore CO2 storage. Specifically, long-term liability issues, such as global issues associated with the leakage of CO2 to the atmosphere, as well as local concerns about environmental impacts, have not yet been addressed." This is very policy-relevant information taken from the Technical Summary. statement in the SPM-draft is, by contrast, biased and therefore misleading.

671 Australia 27 17 39 This section should identify that at present, few countries have specifically developed legal and regulatory frameworks for onshore CO2 storage (as stated in the TS (pg. 25, lines27-28)). However, the section should also mention that many of the domestic legal issues are expected to be resolved within a regulatory framework.

672 Australia 27 17 39 17 40 The statement 'In some countries, long term liability is unresolved' should be expanded to explain what liabilities are being referred to.

674 Switzerland 27 17 39 17 39 Write “Some national and international regulations for operations …”



Page 80 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

673 Australia 27 17 39 18 15 The limited scope of coverage of the legal issues creates a false impression that relatively few legal matters require attention in regard to CCS. This section needs stronger wording to identify the complexity associated with legal/regulatory systems for CCS.

140 Germany 27 17 41 17 47 Replace para by text in TS: TS-25 line 30 - 39" - this text from the TS gives an unbiased and very policyrelevant summary of the relevant issues. Oriiginal para in draft SPM is, by contrast, biased and.

675 Australia 27 17 42 17 47 Environment protection regulations should be included in the list of regulations applicable to implementing CCS.

676 New Zealand

27 17 42 It is not clear whether "These" refers to "legal issues" (the section heading) or "regulations for operations" (the section chapeau). The wording should be clarified, ie either "These include regulations for mining, …" or "These legal issues relate to mining, ...".

677 UK 27 17 43 17 45 Redraft to read 'In other cases governments take long-term responsibility in situations comparable to CO2 storage, such as underground mining operations.'

749 Austria 27 17 43 It is proposed to include also the following wording from the Technical Summary after the sentence “In some countries, long-term liability is unresolved.” because of being very relevant: Monitoring and verification regimes and risks of leakage may play an important role in determining liability, and vice versa.



Page 81 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

678 Australia 27 17 44 17 46 The statement '… a tradition that involves the government taking on long term responsibility …' could benefit from a qualification as to what responsibilities 'comparable to CO2 storage' are being referred to. Further, it is inaccurate to assume that there is a 'tradition' of governments accepting the role for long term storage liability of CO2 given the infancy of the technology. It is recommended the SPM remove the word 'tradition'.

96 Canada 27 17 46 17 46 First mention to "pore space". Needs some context. Define in Glossary.

679 Australia 27 17 47 17 47 Suggest there be a reference to section 1.6.7.1 as the Introduction raises legal issues and questions relevant for policymakers.

680 New Zealand

27 17 47 It is our understanding that the pore space is not necessarily owned by the surface property owner. The sentence should be changed to read "…as the pore space is often owned by …".

750 Austria 27 17 47 It is proposed to include also the following wording from the Technical Summary after the last sentence because of being very policy relevant: The long-term perspective is essential to a legal framework for CCS as storage times extend over many generations.

97 Canada 28 18 1 18 1 Generally, it remains unknown under the relevant environment...

127 Germany 28 18 1 18 3 The heading in italics should read: "CO2 injection into the geological sub-seabed or the ocean is regulated in a number of international treaties. Its compatibility with international law depends on the treaty regime and on the interpretation of the treaty provisions". The current wording is misleading. It gives the impression that the compatibility of all forms of CO2 injection (and for all possible purposes) with international law is only a matter of interpretation and entirely left up to a State Parties discretion. The word "offshore" is omitted from the proposed wording, since (in the OSPAR context and using OSPAR definitions) it could be read as not covering certain activities such as a pipeline running from the land to the sub-seabed in order to inject CO2 into the sub-seabed, an example which is used in the following text.

200 Norway 28 18 1 Under legal issues it might be of value to describe that the Kyoto Protocol states that Annex I countries need to research, promote, develop

684 Australia 28 18 1 18 3 This sentence places too much emphasis on the ability of States themselves to determine the compatibility of offshore CO2 injection with international law. It is recommended that the italics summarise the general legal position using the following sentence: 'Generally, it is unclear whether offshore CO2 injection into the geological sub-seabed or the ocean is compatible with international law, and any conclusion reached will be influenced by the facts of each case.'



Page 82 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

685 Australia 28 18 1 The legal status of intentional storage of CO2 into the ocean has not been decided. This point was raised in the TS (pg.29, line 32), and this needs to be more clearly articulated in the SPM.

686 Australia 28 18 1 18 15 In this section it is unclear whether the legal aspects have been considered in light of scientific uncertainties. The SPM should mention that the relevant treaties and conventions have been drafted without specific consideration of CO2 storage. Further, it is recommended the SPM mention that these treaties would need to revisited/assessed in light of the current state of knowledge of scientific, economic and social aspects of CCS.

687 EC 28 18 1 18 3 Vague statement - replace by: "No international consensus has so far been reached among the States of the relevant environmental treaties on whether offshore..."

688 France 28 18 1 18 15 dumping any waste in the ocean is a very sensitive issue, both for technical reasons and for public acceptance; the wording of this § underestimate both and should be improved in this respect.

689 New Zealand

28 18 1 Please replace "… States of …" with "… Parties to …"

690 Switzerland 28 18 1 18 1 Write “Currently, it is a matter …”

128 Germany 28 18 5 18 6 The London Protocol should also be mentioned here. Even though it is not yet in force, it is highly relevant and also mentioned in the main report (see for example chapter 5 page 72). Also it might have entered into force once CCS is used in practice. In order to accommodate this change, but also because it is more fitting "potentially apply" should be replaced with "are of relevance".

691 Australia 28 18 5 18 6 The SPM should include a reference to the London Protocol although it is not yet in force. Contracting States are obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the London Protocol. It is recommended the bracketed text is replaced with the following: '(notably the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the London Convention and the London Protocol, as well as the OSPAR Convention)'. A footnote should be inserted after 'Protocol' with the following text included in the footnote: '1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. The London Protocol is not yet in force as a matter of international law.'


28 18 5 Footnote Specify the years of adoption of LONDON (1972) and OSPAR (1992) Conventions.



Page 83 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

98 Canada 28 18 6 18 7 CO2 into marine environments. Does this mean the water column, or the sedimentary section below the sea floor? Could clarify in text or in a glossary.

692 Australia 28 18 6 18 7 This sentence mentions that several treaties apply to the injection of CO2 into marine environments. These treaties apply to ocean injection and potentially to offshore geological injection. Recommend changing this sentence to: 'Currently, there are several treaties..... that potentially apply to the injection of CO2 into marine environments (ie. both into the sea and the sub-seabed).' This sentence better reflects the discussion in the TS (pg. 26, lines1-2).

129 Germany 28 18 11 18 13 A new sentence should be introduced after "land." reading: "It also found, however, that the placement of CO2 in the maritime area for mitigating the effects of climate change, for example from a vessel, is a deliberate disposal and prohibited by the treaty." Without this sentence the paragraph seems unbalanced, naming only the forms CCS in the maritime area which are compatible with international treaty law.

203 Norway 28 18 11 18 11 Insert the following after "…..a pipeline from land.": ”Following this legal assessment OSPAR has initiated work focused on the potential environmental impacts of CO2 storage." Rationale: The issues are still under consideration in OSPAR. By decisions in 2004 and 2005 OSPAR have initiated work on environmental impacts of CO2 in the marine area, acidification and technical aspects related to underground CO2-storage. This is included in the work program for the Biodiversity Committee and the Offshore Industry Committee.

204 Norway 28 18 11 18 12 Change the sentence starting with "A similar assessment is now…" to: "Similar assessments of legal and environmental issues are now underway by Parties to the London Convention." Rationale: The decision made by the London Convention in 2004 was two-fold, both focused on the legal status and of environmental issues (which is under consideration in its Scientific Group).

693 USA 28 18 11 18 12 Replace sentence " A similar assessment …" with the following: "In November 2004, the members of the London Convention began a legal and scientific review of carbon sequestration in the geologic sub-seabed." Reason: There are differences between these two assessment activities. Replace "Some studies concluded " with "Papers by legal commentators have concluded …"Reason: This is text used in TS and makes clear that these are non-governmental assessments.

99 Canada 28 18 12 16 15 This sentence is misleading as it suggests that some decision has been reached on the review by the Parties to the London Convention which is NOT TRUE. Recommend deleting this sentence.



Page 84 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

189 Norway 28 18 15 We propose that the following new sentence is added: “How to build an appropriate evaluation of the environmental risk and benefits of CO2 storage into international and national regulations or need for amendments are under evaluation by governments and international bodies.”

694 Australia 28 18 15 18 15 Currently the SPM emphasises the compatibility of CO2 injection with international law. Given that in some cases as a matter of international law it is not yet certain whether CO2 injection into the sub-seabed and ocean floor is permissible, it is recommended the following final sentence be added to this effect: 'The definitive position under international law, however, in most cases remains uncertain.'

695 China 29 18 18 1? The discussion in this section is very weak with regard to how to ensure transparent reporting of fugitive emissions from CCS processes. 2?Description about CCS for biomass originated emissions is somehow inconsistent with the 2006 IPCC guidelines.

696 Australia 29 18 21 This section should follow a clearer format which describes which aspects of CCS are expected to be addressed through inventory and accounting systems (namely capture, transport, injection into geologic reservoirs or the ocean, mineral carbonation and industrial uses of CO2, the additional energy required for CCS) and which aspects are likely to require special considerations (namely storage (geological and ocean), emissions from biomass plants).

697 EC 29 18 21 18 22 Please clarify and change sentence to read: "For CCS to be used as a mitigation option, an accepted, transparent and comprehensive system for emission estimation and accounting is needed".

100 Canada 29 18 22 18 23 Estimates should say "estimation". Add a new sentence (line 23) to beginning of next paragraph which reads as follows: Current GHG inventory rules under the UNFCCC do allow for inventorying of CCS projects." This paragraph is about GHG inventories, not accounting and this needs to be made clear.

698 USA 29 18 22 18 22 Delete "is needed." This statement is both untrue as a factual matter and policy prescriptive. Replace with "would be useful."

699 Australia 29 18 23 18 23 The first sentence of this section should provide a clearer statement on the importance of emissions inventories and accounting for CCS. The SPM would benefit from inserting the following sentence at the beginning of Section 29 (italics): 'An important aspect of CCS is the development and application of methods to estimate and report the quantities by which emissions of CO2 (and associated emissions of methane or nitrous oxides) are reduced, avoided or removed from the atmosphere.'



Page 85 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

700 UK 29 18 24 18 29 The current IPCC Inventory Guidelines do not provide methods to estimate emissions due to any physical leakage from the storage site and associated systems. Estimation of potential fugitive emissions from capture, transport and storage need specific methodologies. Specific consideration may also be required for CCS applied to biomass systems, as that application would result in reporting negative emissions. The 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories are expected to include guidance on incorporating CCS in inventories

701 Australia 29 18 25 18 26 The sentence on fugitive emissions from CCS is inconsistent with the conclusions in the TS (pg. 39, lines 23-25) and Chapter 9 (pg. 3, lines 22-24). It is recommended the SPM state that fugitive emissions from the capture, transport and injection of CO2 to storage can largely be estimated within the existing reporting methods, yet some additional guidance specific for each component will be necessary.

744 Austria 29 18 25 It is proposed to include a footnote clarifying the current inventory methodology. The wording for the footnote could be: The current inventory methodology is based on the Revised 1996 Guidelines of the IPCC (IPCC 1996) and Good Practice Guidance Reports (IPCC 2000; 2003).

702 China 29 18 26 18 26 After “specific methodologies.” add: “Amounts of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel injected into geological formations are used as activity data in the estimation method but do not themselves occur in the inventory estimates, so it is essential to report how this activity data are collected and whether a QA/QC approach is adopted for the sake of transparency”. Reason: this paragraph should stress transparency of emissions reporting for CCS.

703 China 29 18 26 18 28 Substitute sentence “Specific consideration……negative emissions.” with “Amounts of carbon dioxide from combustion of sustainably produced biofuel and injected underground are included in the inventory as a negative emission, but no distinction is made between any subsequent leakage of this carbon dioxide and leakage of carbon dioxide from fossil sources. ”. Reason: this is the language in the 2006 IPCC guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. The two special reports should keep consistency with each other.

704 Australia 30 18 32 18 32 The first sentence of Section 30 needs to establish that monitoring, verification and reporting of uncertainties is an essential part of emission inventories (as stated in Chapter 9 pg. 12, lines 8-9). Further, it is recommended the word 'current' is inserted at the beginning of the sentence: 'Experience with monitoring, verification....'.

705 USA 30 18 32 18 32 Delete line. This is hardly a key conclusion. The information is captured in the sentences that follow.



Page 86 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

197 Norway 30 18 34 We suggest an addition to this paragraph on monitoring, namely the following phrase from TS, page 25, line 7:”Monitoring is a very important part of the overall risk management strategy for geological storage projects.”

706 Australia 30 18 34 18 37 The second sentence of this section suggests that the experience with monitoring of CCS projects is limited. This sentence would be more accurately phrased as ' As there are a very small number of CCS projects only recently in existence, and those are constrained to geological storage, there is limited experience with monitoring, verification and reporting of actual physical leakages rates and associated uncertainties.'

101 Canada 30 18 35 18 35 vary in applicability, due to the diverse characteristics of the geology, detection limits, man-made and natural leakage pathways, ....

707 Australia 30 18 35 18 35 This paragraph currently only mentions monitoring and verification for geological storage. The SPM should mention here that techniques for monitoring and verification of ocean storage sites are still in the research phase and require further development, as implied in Chapter 6 (Section 6.6; pgs. 24-26).

708 IPIECA 30 18 36 It is unclear what is meant by "conclusions" (perhaps it means generalizations?). Since the remainder of the sentence is redundant with the paragraph heading, I suggest that this sentence be omitted.

709 UK 30 18 36 Redraft to read '...are still too limited to form general conclusions...'

748 Austria 30 18 37 It is proposed to include also the following wording from the Technical Summary because of being very relevant: Given the long-term nature of CO2 geological storage, site monitoring may be required for very long periods.

757 Austria 31 18 21 implications for accounting The current version is a significant improvement compared to the version included in the SOD. However, some further improvements are proposed below.

102 Canada 31 18 39 Insert "Potential" in front of "Physical". The leakage is not a certainty.



Page 87 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

103 Canada 31 18 39 41 The first sentence on line 39 is incorrect. It is NOT uncertain how CCS will be accommodated under the Kyoto mechanisms. (CCS projects would be dealt with in a similar fashion to any other CDM or JI project). The only uncertainty has to do with how to deal with projects involving countries that are NOT party to the Kyoto Protocol. We suggest rewording as follows: "Although Kyoto mechanisms are in place to address CCS projects for parties that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, there are no mechanisms that allow for a situation in which CO2 is captured in a country not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol and transferred and stored in a country that is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol."

104 Canada 31 18 39 41 The whole statement is questionable. The Kyoto period is 2008-2012. No significant leakage, if any, is likely to occur, and in such circumstances, during the Kyoto period. Any that may occur will likely be small scale and dealt with. After 2012, leakage will/should be accommodated, but what will be the new, negotiated mechanisms?

202 Norway 31 18 39 19 4 Our preference would be to delete the sentences (para 31) in line 39-44 through p. 48 1-3. We do not see special problems arising under the mechanisms that would not arise anyway, and thus no need to create additional unnecessary uncertainties related to such projects. The first sentence says that there are uncertainties related to projects that would appear related to or Joint Implementation projects or Emission Trading. Regarding ET emission reductions by CCS will have to be dealt with in the relevant countries emission inventory and will be similar to other emission reduction strategies. For Joint Implementation (JI) projects emissions would have to be accounted for in the country having jurisdiction in the area they occur, this is similar to emissions from cross-border petroleum projects eg. cross-border oil/gas-fields and gas-pipe-lines crossing boarders where leakages, fugitive and energy related emissions is reported in the relevant countries inventory. CCS-projects in the CDM (and JI "track 2") would have to go through exactly the same project cycle and approval/verification as all other types of projects. If special problems occur, these would have to be solved before the project could be approved and yield CERs. Hence, it is difficult to see why there is a need for a particular mentioning of any the mechanisms in the context of this report. The example chosen to justify the text in italics appear of limited practical likelihood to us, and the reference to the literature on terrestrial sinks arbitrary. The difference between CCS, in particular CO2 storage in geological formations differs from bio-sequestration in key aspects. Using knowledge from this area will easily lead to misjudgement and inappropriate monitoring guidance and regulations. Alternatively, the lines 39-41 could be changed to the following: "31. CCS-projects under the Kyoto mechanisms raise the same type of challenges as mentioned above. Under CDM and Joint Implementation, the projects would have to follow the same project cycle and approval/verification procedure as any other project types. The will include accounting of any possible future physical leakage. Fugitive and energy related emissions from capture, transport and injection of CO2 to



Page 88 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

storage can largely be estimated within the existing reporting methods and inventory framework. The general principle is that such emissions are reported by the country having jurisdiction where the emissions occur.”

710 China 31 18 39 18 39 Before “how”, add: “whether and”. Reason: there is no UNFCCC COP decision on whether the Kyoto mechanisms will be applied to CCS.

711 Switzerland 31 18 39 18 39 Write “ … under the Kyoto Protocol.” This is more general because it refers to both domestic and trans-boundary use of CCS under the Kyoto Protocol.

712 USA 31 18 39 18 41 The italicized statement is misleading, since it implies that these challenges are unique. In fact, uncertainties associated with in CCS leakage present challenges that are probably less "challenging" than those of other project-based emissions, since in the case of well-designed activities they are likely to be subject to much lower uncertainties; Similarly, cross-border issues come up in all kinds of instances of relevance to international mechanisms, from electricity provision to carbon exports. There is certainly nothing unique about CCS in this regard from a methodological standpoint. Suggest either deleting the paragraph, or putting "though these challenges are by no means unique to CCS."

713 China 31 18 44 18 44 After “situation” add: “if the Kyoto mechanisms are applied to CCS.” Reason:there is no UNFCCC COP decision on whether the Kyoto mechanisms will be applied to CCS.

110 Canada 18 19 2 19 2 Recommending pulling forward text from the Technical Summary on estimates of geological storage capacity. This seems to be an area of significant uncertainty at present. TS-41, lines 43 to 46 and TS -42, lines 1 and 2 "There is a need for improved storage capacity estimates at the global, regional and local levels, and better knowledge of very long term storage, migration and leakage processes. Addressing the latter issue will require an enhanced ability to monitor and verify the behaviour of geologically stored CO2. Implementation of more pilot and demonstration storage projects in a range of geological, geographical and economic settings would be important to improve the understanding of these issues."



Page 89 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

715 Australia 31 19 1 19 3 The introduction of ideas associated with the terrestrial biosphere are overstated and uninformative as drafted, and therefore the final sentence should be deleted. The previous two sentences are sufficient to capture the issues. The real issues revolve around monitoring, verification and reporting and the confidence in storage and emission estimates over very long timeframes.

716 UK 31 19 1 19 4 Strongly suggest delete sentence beginning 'Although…' Pursuing analogies with sequestration in the terrestrial biosphere is very questionable and likely to get us into considerable complexities

717 Australia 32 19 6 19 6 The heading for this section is not well drafted. Suggest changing the title to: 'What is the public perception of CCS?'.

718 Belgium 32 19 6 19 17 I very much prefer the much more informative and precise statements of the previous draft [see p.10, lines 9 to 19]. If you want, I can quote the previous text, but the TSU has it electronically available.

719 China 32 19 6 In this section, one issue that is the characteristics of CCS is missing. That is, CCS is such a new technology that it is purely introduced to mitigate climate change. We believe that it is very important to let the public know this feature of the CCS.

720 EC 32 19 6 19 17 Unclear what the purpose of this section is - is it really needed? Prefer deletion of entire section or at least clarify and change the last sentence to read: "Public perception of CCS could change in the future. There are indications...if it is adopted in conjunction with alternative energies, and provided that CCS is seen as safe to humans and the environment." Delete the last part of the sentence.

721 Australia 32 19 8 It may be more appropriate to locate this section earlier in the SPM, rather than concluding the SPM with the generally unknown issues and limited studies associated with public perception. It is recommended that a discussion on public perception of CCS (as a separate question heading) follows the text under the question heading 'What are the legal issues for implementing CO2 storage?'

722 Australia 32 19 8 The issue of public acceptance is not well covered and the Section should be presented more clearly. It is inconsistent with sections on public acceptance in other chapters (eg. Chapter 5 (pg. 76), Chapter 6 (pg. 39)), and discussion on the public perception of ocean storage is omitted. The SPM should outline better what the limited public perception studies show, and recognise that deployment of commercial CCS will largely depend on public acceptance.



Page 90 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

723 Australia 32 19 8 19 8 The italicised text does not adequately introduce the key issues for public perception of CCS. It is recommended the italicised text is replaced with the following sentences: 'Public perception of CCS will be an important factor contributing to whether commercial deployment of CCS will occur. Currently, assessing public perception of CCS is challenging because of the limited number of studies that have been conducted.'

724 USA 32 19 8 19 15 Delete italicized statement "In countries where systematic… use of non-fossil energy systems." and replace with the following: "The study of public perception and perceived acceptability of CCS is at an early stage and consists of only a handful of studies. Based on these limited studies, there is insufficient public knowledge of climate change issues and of the various mitigation options, their potential, and their practicality." Delete Lines 14-17 "Public perception is likely … as an urgent problem (Sections 5.8.5, 6.7.8" and replace with the following: "Based on existing studies, there is insufficient public knowledge of climate change and the various mitigation options, their potential impact, and their implementation. Research on public perception is challenging and it is not possible to draw conclusions based on the small number of surveys conducted to date. (Section 5.8.5.1, 6.7.8) "Reason for suggested change: The study of public perception and perceived acceptability is in its early stage and consists of only a limited number of studies. The current language reaches beyond what is supported in the body of the Report.

737 Austria 32 19 8 19 13 This text is a significant improvement compared to the SOD.

105 Canada 32 19 11 19 11 Recommend qualifying this by adding "some" before "other options". While CCS may be viewed less desirably than efficiency and renewable measures, it is viewed more favourably than other options such as nuclear.

106 Canada 32 19 14 19 14 The likely statement in this area of the text needs to be substantially supported as likely has a very specific meaning in IPCC text. Given the limited amount of polling in this area, you might be able to say that there is an indication that public perception could shift (if CCS is packaged with other options).

107 Canada 32 19 14 19 14 Line 14 does not appear to be justified in our perusal of the technical report. If this is true, delete sentence.



Page 91 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

725 Australia 32 19 14 19 17 The statement 'public perception is likely to change in the future' requires stronger supporting statements than those provided, if indeed it can be supported. The paragraph also assumes that the public is likely to change its view in a positive direction, yet there is no coverage of matters such as intergenerational equity with regard to, for example, hazards to marine ecosystems.

726 Australia 32 19 14 19 17 The second paragraph for this section should concentrate on what the limited studies on public perception show. The paragraph should outline that the studies indicate: the public is generally not well informed about CCS or climate change more generally; if information is given alongside information on other climate change mitigation options then CCS is generally regarded less favourably than alternative energy options; geological storage could be viewed favourably if it is adopted in conjunction with these alternatives; and the public has expressed greater reservations regarding ocean storage compared to geological storage. These issues better reflect the discussion on public perception presented in Chapters 5 and 6 of the Report.

727 Belgium 32 19 14 What is to be understood as 'Public perception is likely to change in the future', when it is said on line 8 of page 19 that "only a few percent of the general public is familiar with CCS" Are these statements based on scientific evidence (questionnaires, etc.) or expert guesses?

728 Belgium 32 19 14 19 14 The statement: "Public perception is likely to change in the future" is based on one focus group in the UK and does not appear to be the key finding of the research on public perceptions. This statement should be removed as the paragraph clearly explains public perception without it

729 China 32 19 14 19 14 After “in the future.” add: “It is very important to let the public know that CCS is such a new technology purely introduced for the purpose of mitigating climate change.”. Reason: this is the most important feature with regard to public perception of CCS.

730 IPIECA 32 19 14 Studies are not sufficient to justify the statement on CCS favorability "if it is adopted in conjunction with alternatives". Suggest replacing this statement with the statement of factors from page 5-79, lines 1-6.



Page 92 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

731 Japan 32 19 14 19 15 Original text: "Public perception is likely to change in the future. There are indications that geological storage could be viewed more favorably if it is adopted in conjunction with alternatives, and provided that CCS is seen as environmentally safe and climate change as an urgent problem." Proposed text: "Those studies indicate there is a possibility that CCS could be supported if it is adopted in conjunction with alternatives, and provided that CCS is seen as environmentally safe and climate change as an urgent problem." Reason: In our SR, there is no reference that suggests geological storage could be viewed more favourable.

732 New Zealand

32 19 14 19 17 This paragraph and the chapeau are much improved from earlier versions - thank you! - but still not quite there: the first sentence is a truism that gives no indication of the likely direction of change, while the second sentence sounds as if it is written from a PR perspective, i.e. in the sense of "if you want to make CCS sound more attractive to the public, here is how to go about it". Proposed alternative for this paragraph that avoids such bias: "Public perceptions about the role and desirability of CCS depend on views about the urgency and scale of climate change as a problem, environmental safety of CCS, and the cost, availability and use of alternative mitigation options in a portfolio of measures. Any future changes in public views about these latter issues are expected to also change public perceptions of the role and desirability of CCS."

733 Switzerland 32 19 14 19 14 Delete the first sentence “Public perception is likely …”. This sentence is too general, does not convey any information and is therefore (naively) non-scientific and hence is not necessary

734 UK 32 19 14 Suggest add paragraph based on page 5-79 "From this limited research, it appears that at least three conditions may have to be met before CO2 capture and storage is considered by the public as a credible technology, alongside other better known options: (1) anthropogenic global climate change has to be regarded as a relatively serious problem; (2) there must be acceptance of the need for large reductions in CO2 emissions to reduce the threat of global climate change; (3) the public accepts this technology as an option that is low risk and will contribute effectively to the resolution of (1) and (2)."



Page 93 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

739 Austria 32 19 14 19 18 The underlying section provides little evidence that it is likely that public perception of CCS will change in the future. It is also policy prescriptive to state that “CCS is seen as environmentally safe”. Therefore the following wording is proposed: Public perception may change in the future. There are indications that geological storage could be viewed more favourable if it is adopted in conjunction with other mitigation options (e.g. renewables, energy efficiency), and provided that CCS can be demonstrated to be environmental safe and climate change is anticipated as an urgent problem.

142 Germany 32 19 17 19 17 The secretariat is asked to include a reference to Chapter 6.2.1.2 since it deals specifically with important matters of public perception of CCS.

735 Australia 32 19 17 19 17 This paragraph should mention the role for communication strategies for public perception of CCS. It is recommended the following sentence is inserted at the end of the section: 'Communication strategies would seem a key component in allowing the public to make informed decisions on CCS.'

109 Canada 33 19 1 19 1 The section on gaps in knowledge has not been addressed in the SPM. Recommend creating such a section and including the key future research areas so that policy makers understand where investments in new knowledge need to be made. Text from the Technical Summary can be pulled forward - TS-41, lines 18 to 25 "R&D efforts also are needed to improve knowledge of emerging concepts and enabling technologies for CO2 capture that hold promise of significantly reducing the costs of capture for new and existing facilities. More specifically, knowledge gaps concern large coal-based and natural gas-based power plants with CO2 capture at a scale of several hundred megawatts (or several MtCO2). CO2 capture at this scale is needed to establish the reliability and environmental performance of different types of power systems with capture, to reduce costs of CCS, and improve confidence in the estimates."

111 Canada 33 19 3 19 3 Recommend pulling forward text from Technical Summary on ocean storage research. TS-42, lines 4 to 8 "Major knowledge gaps that should be filled before the risks and potential for ocean storage can be assessed, concern the ecological impacts of CO2 in the deep ocean. Studies are needed of the response of biological systems in the deep sea to added CO2, including studies that are longer in duration and larger in scale than yet performed. Coupled with this is a need to develop techniques and sensors to detect and monitor CO2 plumes and their biological and geochemical consequences."



Page 94 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

112 Canada 33 19 4 19 4 Recommend pulling forward text from Technical Summary on gaps in legal/regulatory knowledge. These are important for policy makers to better understand. TS-42, lines 10 and 11 "There is currently inadequate knowledge concerning the legal and regulatory requirements for implementing CCS on a larger scale." and TS -42, lines 12 and 13 "Clarification is needed regarding potential legal, environmental, or other constraints on the use of ocean storage."

113 Canada 33 19 5 19 5 Recommend pulling forward text from Technical Summary on gaps in knowledge about mitigation potential. These are also areas where policy makers require information. TS-42 "These include the potential for transfer and diffusion of CCS technologies, including opportunities for developing countries to exploit CCS, application to biomass sources of CO2, and the potential interaction between investment in CCS and other mitigation options. Further investigation is warranted of the question of how long CO2 would need to be stored, which is related to stabilization pathways and intergenerational aspects."

1 Canada 33 19 18 Paragraph 36 of the previous version titled "What can we say on diffusion and transfer of CCS technology" should be re-inserted as it provides a vital link to broader issues related to the transfer of technology to developing countries, especially those that have large emissions from electricity generation point sources.

225 Australia 33 19 18 The SPM should address the question 'what is the potential for diffusion and transfer of CCS technology between countries?' - a question that is addressed in the TS, which notes 'addressing … barriers and creating conditions that would facilitate diffusion of the technology to developing countries would be a major issue for the adoption of CCS worldwide' (TS pg. 7, lines 22-24). The Introduction (Section 1.7, pgs. 27-30) also addresses this issue and it is important for policymakers.

758 Austria 33 19 18 The language and structure of the Final Draft (25 July 2005) is generally appreciated and has been further improved compared to the Second-order draft (SOD). It is welcomed not to address diffusion and transfer of CCS technology and to keep the SPM focused. It is noted that the structure and the text of the Technical Summary has also been improved considerable what is very much appreciated. However, there are still some mainly editorial issues to be addressed and a few more technical ones. Furthermore it is noted that the Technical Summary lacks references to the main part of the Special Report. It is proposed to add such references in order to make the Technical Summary even user-friendlier.



Page 95 of 95

Co

mm

ent

nu

mb

er

Go

vern

men

t/

Org

aniz

atio

n

SP

M s

ecti

on

From

Pag

e

From

Lin

e

To P

age

To li

ne Comments

213 UNFCCC 33 19 18 The SPM does not to address issues relating to a widespread adoption of this technology by developing countries. For example, issues such as promoting the appropriate technical, political, and regulatory environments for the deployment, diffusion and transfer of this technology, enhancing capability of developing countries to apply CCS, and retrofitting existing power plants and installations in developing countries with CCS technology, are covered to some extent in the body of the report but are missing from the SPM.

151 Germany 33 19 20 A section on gaps of knowledge should be added, based on the information in the Technical summary. This is very policy-relevant, as it shows where there is need for further research.

12 Canada 33 19 20 A section on the gaps in knowledge which is present in the technical summary and was also present in the 2nd draft of the Summary for Policy Makers should be re-inserted if the summary if truly to provide an overview and un-biased review of the state of knowledge on CCS. It might also be helpful to include in this section that we have very limited knowledge of the potential for CCS in developing countries (this will link well with some of the work the G8 is proposing).

108 Canada 33 19 20 See General Comment #3 of this submission, which suggested a restructuring of the SPM to match the flow of information in the Technical Summary. This would be a major restructuring of the report but in our opinion, would make it much more readable and relevant to policymakers. However, if this recommendation is not implemented, then we would like to see a new section 33, which brings forth the Knowledge Gaps. See details below.

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trananh
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

IPCC SPECIAL REPORT ON CARBON DIOXIDE … · Montreal, 22 -24 September 2005 ENGLISH ONLY IPCC...

Documents