Malaysia needs a robust legal framework on carbon capture, storage
THE 28th United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP28) on climate change in Doha, which ended on Dec 12 and was attended by nearly 200 countries, was a historic moment.
There was a standoff between countries that wanted a dramatic phasing out of fossil fuels to avert the worst effects of the climate crisis, and petrostates that staunchly opposed such a move.
However, the world has acknowledged that our future is in clean energy.
At the conference, there were debates about carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS).
CCS proponents argue that the technology will enable fossil fuel producers or fossil-fuel based industrial plants to trap carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and inject them underground or into the seabed for an indefinite period of time, or use CO2 to produce fuels or fertilisers.
However, opponents say it provides cover for oil and gas companies to inject CO2 into depleted wells to extract more hydrocarbons.
Developing countries, including Malaysia, which are parties to the Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997, are not subject to the binding reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) but are encouraged to implement mitigation actions.
Malaysia, through Petronas, has taken the initiative to collaborate with big names in oil and gas exploration and production companies on CCS opportunities to curb GHG emissions.
Petronas said the RM4.5 billion mega CCS project in the Kasawari gas field, about 200km off Bintulu in Sarawak, will be one of the largest offshore CCS projects in the world when it starts up, with four million tonnes of CO2 to be captured annually.
Compressed CO2 will be injected into the depleted reservoir in the M1 Field via a 138km-long 40.6cm subsea pipeline.
It has been reported that 11 of the 16 potential CCS sites are in Sarawak offshore fields.
The Sarawak government is the first state to have legislation regulating carbon storage and the reduction of carbon emissions with amendments to the state Land Code (Carbon Storage) Rules 2022 and the enactment of the Forest (Forest Carbon Activity) Rules 2022 to facilitate carbon trading.
Malaysia aims to become a CCS hub for Southeast Asia, targeting the first injection in 2025.
However, some experts say that this technology is costly and not without risk.
It has been argued that the largest risk from offshore CCS operations is the potential for CO2 leakages, which have serious consequences for the marine environment, health and safety.
Some experts argue that CCS needs to be regulated as an industrial process at each project stage to manage risk and support technological investment.
A legal framework — especially on the classification of CO2, environmental impact assessment of the network of pipelines in sensitive marine environments, public engagement in decisionmaking, and liabilities — is equally important.
The big question is whether our legal framework is ready to enable large-scale deployment of CCS and CCUS in accordance with each project stage mentioned above.
Our expertise in CCS is in the experimental stages. Limited knowledge of subsea carbon injection underscores the risky nature of the practice.
We also have no federal legal framework addressing CCS and CCUS.
The Sarawak government’s effort to implement CCS regulations deserves praise but may not be adequate to ensure safe, secure and permanent CO2 storage in the seabed considering the long-term management, liability, ownership and territorial issues that may arise from incidents or leaks.
Successful deployment of CCS, however, will depend on robust legal and regulatory frameworks that provide stewardship and oversight.
A legal framework should be interpreted in line with the precautionary principle to avoid and minimise the risk of offshore CCS and prevent harm to oceans, biodiversity and community.
Perhaps Malaysia, being a low emitter of GHG, should take heed of the advice from the Center for International Environmental Law in the United States about moving too quickly on CCS on the basis of significant risks, uncertainties, regulatory gaps and questions about cost that remain to be answered.