The Guidelines have been revised by the European Commission with the assistance of an independent energy expert and DNV. The aim of the Guidelines is to help support sustainable CO₂ management and create uniform permitting regimes for CCS activity in Europe. The CCS Directive is implemented in Norwegian law through the Storage Regulations (1517/2014) and Chapter 35 of the Pollution Regulations (931/2004). The four revised Guidance Documents are based on the four original Guidance Documents from 2011, but the Commission has shortened them considerably and thereby sharpened and operationalized the Guidelines to give both authorities and operators better guidance on the CCS Directive. Several major adjustments have also been made, and at headline level we can highlight the following as particularly noteworthy for Norwegian operators:

• Clarification in Guidance Document 1 related to when Enhanced Oil Recovery (EHR) is considered as CO₂ storage under the CCS Directive,
  
  
• Clarification in Guidance Document 2 that water is not considered to be part of the CO₂ stream during injection,
  
  
• Inclusion of guidance on how a shorter takeover period than 20 years can be agreed between the state and the operator in Guidance Document 3, and
  
  
• Increased focus on flexibility in Guidance Document 4 related to how the financial security and mechanism can be designed.

In the following, a general overview of the four guidelines with a focus on the changes and their significance for Norwegian operators is provided. 

Guidance document 1: CO₂-storage lifecycle and risk management framework

The Guideline specifies the risk assessments that authorities and operators must undertake when choosing and using a storage location to ensure permanent and safe storage of CO₂ in line with Articles 1 and 4 of the CCS Directive. The revised Guideline has been significantly shortened, which provides a more operational approach to the risk assessments that operators and authorities must carry out throughout the lifecycle of a CO₂ storage facility, from investigation and mapping to operation and decommissioning, and finally the transfer of responsibility to the state. Of particular note, the Guidance sets out a clearer framework for when Enhanced Oil Recovery (EHR) is considered to be CO₂ storage under the CCS Directive; either by i) long-term storage of CO₂ being the main driver of the project, or ii) it can be demonstrated that the CO₂ injected into the field exceeds the lifecycle emissions from the EHR operation including emissions resulting from combustion of the increased hydrocarbon production.

Guidance document 2: Characterization of the storage complex, CO₂ stream composition, monitoring and corrective measures

The Guideline firstly sets out the steps for the process and criteria for characterization of the storage complex’s storage capacity, density, injection possibilities and monitoring possibilities, as well as how storage activities will not result in significant risks to health or the environment, based on Article 4 and Annex 1 of the CCS Directive. The risk assessments set out in Guidance Document 1 form the basis for this further assessment of a specific storage facility. Annex 1 of the CCS Directive provides for a three-step process for the characterization of the storage complex. The Guideline provides supplementary information related to the steps, which consist of i) data collection, ii) building a three-dimensional model of the storage complex and its surroundings, and iii) dynamic modeling of the CO₂ storage to reduce uncertainty and risk. Compared to the 2011 Guideline, the revised Guideline has sharpened the focus on balancing site-specific conditions and a risk-based approach to ensure containment, there is more detailed information on geomechanical characterization of the storage and a specific guidance on how to evaluate risks related to leakage via legacy wells is included.

Secondly, the Guideline specifies assessment criteria to clarify whether the composition of the CO₂ stream complies with the Directive’s criteria, i.e. consists “overwhelmingly of carbon dioxide” and has not had “waste or other matter” added to it. Compared to the 2011 Guideline, the main elements are the same, but it is clarified in the updated Guideline that water injected together with CO₂ in the storage to ensure mineralization is not considered part of the CO₂ stream.

Thirdly, the Guideline provides information on monitoring, including the establishment of a monitoring plan based on Annex 2 of the CCS Directive, reporting on the monitoring plan and inspection, as well as updating of the monitoring plan. The guidance has been considerably shortened compared to the 2011 Guidelines, making the guidance more operational, however, without changing the main approach to monitoring.  

Finally, more detailed guidance is provided on how corrective measures in the event of a leak or other undesirable event should be notified to the state, planned for, considered in the context of the monitoring plan, and implemented.

Guidance document 3: Criteria for Transfer of Responsibility to the Competent Authority

The Guideline provides guidance on how Article 18 of the CCS Directive on the transfer of responsibility for a storage site from the operator to the state can take place. The revised Guideline largely follows the original structure but has been shortened to focus on the operational criteria for the transfer of responsibility. The EU Commission has clarified what is meant by, among other things, “long-term stability” and included more detailed guidance on how agreement on a shorter period between decommissioning and transfer of responsibility than 20 years can be reached.

Guidance document 4: Financial security and financial contribution

The Guideline provides guidance on how the financial security and financial contribution under Article 19 and 20 of the CCS Directive can be structured, calculated, entered into and maintained. The revised Guideline underlines that the design of the financial security and financial contribution should not be unnecessarily costly, and the Guideline emphasizes that member states have great flexibility in the approach on how to the design the instruments. When calculating the sum of the financial security, the possibility of probability weighting for uncertain future events (e.g. leaks) has been included and the requirement for a minimum 25% contingency has been removed and replaced with a more concrete risk-based approach.