4.1.5 Regulations in Australia

In Australia national regulation regarding CCS activities offshore exist: Commonwealth Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act from 2006 with some specific regulations from 2009-2011, The National Greenhouse Energy Reporting Act 2007 and The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER) Regulations 2008 - 2011 (Parsons and Brinckerhoff, 2012). All documents concern monitoring issues as well as environmental and human health impacts. Measurements, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) responsibilities can be categorised into four phases: a) determination of suitability for injection and storage of CO2, b) operational plan for injection and storage activities, c) reporting, monitoring and verification requirements and d) site closure, license surrender and post closure monitoring. Federal states (Victoria, Queensland, South Australia) however have adopted their specific Acts and Regulations to regulate onshore geological storage and Western Australia and New South Wales are progressing following the same process. Most documents agree on the focus of the regulatory results, i.e. a risk assessment approach and on a life span continuous monitoring and verification process based on an adequate monitoring plan. Differences in MMV regulatory frameworks between jurisdictions exist, for example, in the frequency of reporting, in terminology, and in levels of prescription. Some documents do not address all (most) MMV issues.

The documents on the technical framework and guidelines in Australia are limited in number and do not provide comprehensive details (such as EU guidelines do) on complying with or regulating MMV requirements (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012). The same authors summarize the existing frameworks and guidelines as follows:

  • Guidelines for Injection and Storage of Greenhouse Gas Substances in Offshore Areas, Clean Energy Division, Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, December 2011 which are detailed and specific to Offshore Commonwealth CO2 geosequestration and thus would not necessarily be appropriate for other jurisdictions.
  • Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geological Storage, Australian Regulatory Guiding Principles, Ministerial Council on mineral and Petroleum Resources, 2005 which set out some objectives for MMV legislative frameworks but no detail.
  • The NGER Technical Guidelines for the Estimation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Facilities in Australia, which are intended to embody the latest methods for estimating emissions and will need to be consistent with chapter 5 of the IPCC Guidelines (IPCC, 2006). The guidelines acknowledge that methods for estimating fugitive emissions from the injection and the storage site have not yet been defined, but are intended for inclusion in future updates of the NGER Determination and these guidelines.

Australia is currently developing a national technical framework for the Measurement, Monitoring and Verification (MMV) of geologically stored CO2 (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012). The authors studied the relevant literature, provided the key findings on the feedback from the stakeholder that were engaged in the activities, presented options for addressing the key issues associated with the development of a national MMV technical framework and provided conclusions on the level of support the development of a national MMV technical framework. Stakeholders' feedback addressed groups of key issues such as scope, context and function of the national MMV technical framework, level of prescriptiveness, development and revision of the framework, knowledge and terminology and compliance and confidence. It has been concluded that Australian Legislation generally focuses on key regulatory outcomes that the MMV programme must demonstrate. Differences in MMV regulatory frameworks between jurisdictions exist, for example, in the frequency of reporting, in terminology, and levels of prescription.

Fundamentally, the existing literature, Australian and international, supports the IEA representation of Core MMV Requirements. In general, the majority of Australian legislation for MMV appears to be more rigorous and prescriptive than those applied internationally. EU, USA and Canadian jurisdictions propose risk based monitoring plans, less prescriptive and fit for purpose. Parsons Brinckerhoff (2012) further observation was that each site is unique and that the monitoring technology selection depends on site specific characteristics. They also resolve that being prescriptive in technology selection could lead to less than favourable results, because not all approaches are applicable in all circumstances. Moreover, it is emphasized that there is no common definition of MMV The "narrow" interpretation would include exclusively measuring the composition of a CO2 stream and monitoring the injection, storage, migration and leakage of CO2. A "broad" interpretation could include assessment of the site characterisation of the geological storage formation and the impacts of CO2 leakage on the environment, human health and other resources. Another issue is a common understanding of a technical framework for MMV of geological storage of CO2 is not evident.