File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

Ashlynn H May 13 2024 at 6:39PM on page 16

Question
In what manner and to what extent can this methodology address concerns about regulators who may lack the capacity or integrity to thoroughly assess storage stability and the potential migration of CO2 plumes?
0 replies

Ashlynn H May 13 2024 at 4:34PM on page 17

Question
How does the methodology address the potential moral hazard associated with asking project suppliers to advocate for supportive regulations, given their vested interest in project success? Will these advocacy efforts primarily serve the project suppliers' financial interests or must they also align with the principles of climate science and community welfare?
0 replies

Ashlynn H May 13 2024 at 4:18PM on page 22

Question
How does Nori intend to mitigate the impacts of potential disparities resulting from varying outreach norms and standards?
0 replies

Ashlynn H May 13 2024 at 4:12PM on page 22

Question
What parameters will Nori use to qualify "minimal environmental impact"?
0 replies

Lexi May 9 2024 at 6:48PM on page 8

Question
What you do you mean by "associated bias"?
0 replies

Ryan Anderson May 7 2024 at 6:29PM on page 5

Question
Some DAC technologies have byproducts or co-products. How might these affect project boundaries? How might the LCA be considered with multiple products aside from CDR through DAC+S?
0 replies

Ryan Anderson May 7 2024 at 6:22PM on page 20

Suggestion
24/7 carbon-free energy is an important energy procurement strategy. However, this might benefit from a bit of clarity. Many DAC teams are designing processes as flexible power loads, turning on when clean power is available, turning off when prices or emissions increase. This operational strategy matches 24/7 CFE in theory, but can eliminate the need for power procurement in the most expensive hours of the year. The 24/7 language might be more clear if stated directly, as 'hourly power consumption matched by hourly clean energy procurement'. Currently, the implication is that DAC will operate 24/7, so must find the clean power to match.
0 replies

Ryan Anderson May 7 2024 at 6:17PM on page 20

Suggestion
I believe the GHG Protocol will be updating its Scope 2 emissions guidance in 2025. The 2030 timeline stated here for RECs might support early DAC deployment, but it might also be considered to be lagging the more stringent carbon accounting rules. One solution: hourly EACs (TEACs) are emerging that are more aligned with 24/7 low-carbon energy and locational, marginal grid emissions strategies.
0 replies

Ryan Anderson May 7 2024 at 6:09PM on page 17

Question
Why 1,000 years? and not 100 or 500 or 10,000? Have you considered the legal precedent and challenges of 1,000 year contracts?
0 replies

Ryan Anderson May 7 2024 at 6:06PM on page 18

Question
What is the basis for 95%? Why not 90% or 99%? These small choices make a fairly big difference in the DAC+S price.
0 replies

Emily Boothroyd May 7 2024 at 9:50AM on page 1

Question
Will there be further requirements surround additionality?
0 replies

Emily Boothroyd May 7 2024 at 9:45AM on page 7

Suggestion
More detail on the exact inclusions and requirements of the LCA would be helpful, including areas such as: - defining the system boundary requirements, which should be required as cradle-to-grave - clarifying the upstream, operational and downstream emission sources that are required to be included, across all life cycle stages and how these should be calculated by projects - providing emission factor requirements/guidance - providing functional unit definition guidance - clarifying inclusion of leakage emissions - allocation requirements
0 replies

Emily Boothroyd May 7 2024 at 9:00AM on page 7

Question
What is the reason for using this, rather than GWP 100?
0 replies

Jeeyoung kim May 3 2024 at 11:31PM on page 10

Thank you for sharing
0 replies

Dan Schmidt May 3 2024 at 11:27PM on page 13

Suggestion
How can it be demonstrated that someone is now extracting oil from that reservoir considering it's a large subsurface feature? Injecting Supercritical CO2 at one point could allow for more oil extraction at another well not directly associated with the project. It seems like these sites need more monitoring and verification steps to prevent Enhance Oil Recovery from benefiting if it is claiming to be CDR. If there is enhanced oil recovery then it shouldn't be considered a carbon removal credit. I'm not exactly a purist in the sense that there are zero cases where it's ok for their to be ambiguity, but it should be reflected in the credit and with blockchain you could put a real time monitoring function that will trace any activities related to the veracity of the emissions claims
0 replies

Dan Schmidt May 3 2024 at 11:17PM on page 14

Suggestion
Unique Attributes like the geological formations, their association with the petrochemical industry, and monitoring conditions can be embedded in blockchain carbon credits so people can keep track of the origin of the credit and smart contracts can even perform functions if site conditions change to affect the status of the credit.
0 replies

Paul Budin Apr 23 2024 at 9:43AM on page 23

Question
Will the project information non-confidential be publicly available?
0 replies

Paul Budin Apr 23 2024 at 9:42AM on page 22

Question
Same as above, do you aim to assess the positive impact of projects on local communities (i.e. assessment of SDGs, etc.?)
0 replies

Paul Budin Apr 23 2024 at 9:40AM on page 21

Question
Do you aim to ask the project to have some positive impacts on the environment? i.e. restoration of lands, etc.
0 replies

Paul Budin Apr 23 2024 at 9:32AM on page 21

Suggestion
I really like this approach that I never saw before!
0 replies

Paul Budin Apr 23 2024 at 9:30AM on page 18

Question
How will you compute this?
0 replies

Paul Budin Apr 23 2024 at 9:14AM on page 6

Suggestion
It will be negligible in most of cases but if the project is installed where a forest stands, this should be taken into account as part of the baseline characterization.
0 replies

Paul Budin Apr 23 2024 at 9:08AM on page 4

Suggestion
ok sorry, this answered to my previous comments
0 replies

Paul Budin Apr 23 2024 at 9:07AM on page 4

Question
Do you want to consider end-of-life GHG emissions? Under a cradle to grave life cycle assessment approach this should be taken into account.
0 replies

Paul Budin Apr 23 2024 at 9:05AM on page 3

Question
Is it a generic term? I can find different definition on Google.
0 replies

Paul Budin Apr 23 2024 at 9:03AM on page 2

Suggestion
It can be interesting to mention that this methodology does not apply for CCUS-EOR projects (Carbon Capture Utilisation & Storage - Enhanced Oil Recovery)
0 replies

Paul Budin Apr 23 2024 at 9:00AM on page 2

Suggestion
If my understanding is correct, this methodology only applies to CO2 storage and not to other potential utilization.
0 replies

Nuno Pereira Apr 22 2024 at 1:31PM on page 17

Question
What if undetected reversals occur? e.g. between the gap in seismic surveys? (5 years)
0 replies

Nuno Pereira Apr 22 2024 at 1:30PM on page 13

Question
The EPA rules allow for undetected reversal and are very flexible. How do you account for this in the protocol and the quality of the credits that you issue?
0 replies
in reply to Dougal Heap's comment

Estrella Beroff Apr 22 2024 at 12:10PM on page 13

Suggestion
Seconded, and building on this comment: what are the feedstock considerations for ex-situ mineralization? Class VI wells are a few years away from commonplace, companies are focusing on ex-situ the interim, waiting for the EPA to fully mature the development path for injection wells for CO2.
0 replies

Darcy Korhonen Apr 19 2024 at 12:41PM on page 7

Suggestion
Have you considered a tiered audit/certification such that by year 3 after go live all projects have an established certification process in place executed by an external 3rd party? Establishing an expectation of increasing rigor against standards generally can be used to drive organizational maturity within the sequestering project network.
0 replies

Dougal Heap Apr 19 2024 at 11:01AM on page 16

Suggestion
Contingency if the project supplier or the storage operator go bust? Or another project is using the same storage reservoir and there is a leak? how to apportion responsibility?
0 replies

Dougal Heap Apr 19 2024 at 10:55AM on page 4

Suggestion
Definition of ambient air. Is air at 2000ppm next to the highway ambient? is air in building HVAC ambient?
0 replies

Dougal Heap Apr 19 2024 at 10:52AM on page 8

Suggestion
I would recommend requiring a new LCA after 1 year of continuous operation because it will likely be quite different from the modelled LCA.
0 replies

Dougal Heap Apr 19 2024 at 10:49AM on page 13

Suggestion
It may be out of scope but why not include above ground mineralization in concrete or other alkaline rocks and residues a la Neustark, Airhive, BluePlanet etc.
1 reply
View all