The main difference in the presented approaches is essentially related to the project being onshore or offshore. In case of onshore projects, groundwater (and soil) protection seems to be paramount, which is not necessary for offshore projects where only seabedBoundary between the free water and the top of the seabottom sediment soil/sediment sampling is planned (for example Longannet seems to follow the OSPARConvention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, which was adopted at Paris on 22 September 1992 guidelines explicitly).
The Kingsnorth project clearly went further in defining alternative geophysical monitoringMeasurement and surveillance activities necessary for ensuring safe and reliable operation of a CGS project (storage integrity), and for estimating emission reductions besides 4D seismics. Both CSEM and gravity are mentioned in the documentation as potential methods. It must be noted though, that modelling studies were not undertaken yet to investigate the expected performance.
A striking difference between the Canadian Quest project and the EUEuropean Union projects is the more explicit definition of the Area Of Interest, based on the expected pressure footprint. In most European case studies this area is less stringently defined, although in practice the same considerations are taken into account.
Furthermore the notion of uncertainties in models seemed to be mentioned more explicitly in the Canadian monitoringMeasurement and surveillance activities necessary for ensuring safe and reliable operation of a CGS project (storage integrity), and for estimating emission reductions plans.