CDR Wrap Up : West Coast 2024

Is the Mining Industry the Future of CDR?

The mining industry faces a conundrum.

It is under pressure from investors, regulators, and customers to reduce its environmental impact. However, mining has a relatively high carbon footprint, and abatement is challenging due to several factors. 

Decarbonisation via electrification faces barriers due to high costs of capital equipment and the potential for disruption of active mining operations.   

Additionally, metallurgical processes like iron ore reduction produce CO₂ as a byproduct. At the same time, there is a tremendous need for more mining: electrifying everything and moving away from fossil fuels is going to require a lot of metals. We need to double copper production by 2050 if we are to complete the energy transition.

As in many other industries, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can help to fill the gap for hard-to-abate emissions, and luckily there are myriad synergies between mining and CDR. The mining industry is one of the very few that knows how to move gigatons per year of material, and mineral feedstocks are critical for geochemical CDR pathways like enhanced rock weathering (ERW) or ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE). The industry has a wealth of knowledge in geochemistry, geology, environmental monitoring, and minerals processing, all of which are crucial for advancing CDR. In addition to technical expertise, CDR would benefit from leveraging the mining industry’s experience in areas such as permitting, land acquisition, and community relations. 

One option is turning flooded, past-producing surface mines—aka pit lakes—into carbon sinks. Using closed mines for CDR allows miners to reduce their net emissions without disrupting active operations or using valuable land, while leveraging assets and skillsets that are already in-house. We are building these capabilities at Aquarry, using geochemical techniques inspired by ERW and OAE. Our technology development requires expertise in everything from geochemistry to mine closure to environmental regulations. 

And yet, we have found that many of the people we speak to within mining are unfamiliar with CDR and the massive opportunity it represents for them. There is a real need for CDR advocates to engage with the industry. Normalising the idea of CDR, making it less a technology for the future rather a technology for today, will speed the scaling of CDR alongside the decarbonisation of the mining industry. We can do this by exhibiting at major mining conferences like PDAC or SME, writing articles for trade journals, and engaging with industry groups like ICMM. We can also engage with and gain the support of their regulators, as even the slightest risk of losing permits can prevent mining companies from adopting new technologies.

We are encouraged by the work the Mining CDR Working Group (organised by Isometric, RMI, and WSP) is doing to bring together CDR suppliers (Aquarry included), mining companies, and mining consultants.

The interest in their panel at Carbon Unbound West Coast showed that many in the CDR community see the value of working with mining. Now we need to make sure that the mining industry sees the value of working with CDR.

‍

Article 6 and the Future of Carbon Dioxide Removal

One of the most contentious issues faced by the Parties to the Paris Agreement¹ in recent years has been how to operationalise the provisions of Article 6 of the treaty. 

Article 6 is designed to optimise the efficiency of the regime in meeting its mitigation objectives by facilitating “cooperative approaches” that create “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes” (ITMOs). From a macro-political perspective, it’s hoped that this will help to lower Party abatement costs and ultimately drive more ambitious nationally determined contributions² by the Parties. 

Article 6.2 of Paris enables Parties to establish bilateral or multi-lateral cooperative agreements that facilitate the trading of ITMOs. For example, in January of 2024, Switzerland’s Klik Foundation purchased 1916 ITMOs from a Thai-based company³ that is engaged in electrification of Bangkok’s private bus system. The Swiss government ultimately contemplates applying these ITMOs toward its nationally determined contribution under Paris. 

Article 6.4 establishes a framework for a centralised international carbon market under the supervision of a Supervisory Body established by the Parties. The Supervisory Body is charged with establishing standards and oversight for the validation, verification and issuance of so-called “A6.4ERs” from public or private projects. By contrast, Article 6.8 seeks to promote non-market approaches to facilitate joint cooperation by Parties through initiatives in mitigation, adaptation and technology transfer.

The primary focus at COP29 in the context of Article 6, and thus this editorial post, was on operationalising Article 6.4.

In October, the Supervisory Body adopted two standards to facilitate this: Application of the requirements of Chapter V.B (Methodologies) for the development and assessment of Article 6.4 mechanism methodologies⁴ (Methodologies Standard) and Standard: Requirements for activities involving removals under the Article 6.4 mechanism⁵(Removals Standards). 

The Methodologies Standard sets forth an array of requirements for development of Article 6.4 mechanisms methodologies and their assessment to facilitate “creditable emission reductions or removals …” This includes an emphasis on approaches that enhance mitigation ambition over time, a focus on development of transparency and robustness in mechanism methodologies, as well as detailed standards to ensure project additionality and avoidance of emissions leakage. 

The Removals Standard focuses on “[a]nthropogenic removals as the withdrawal of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the atmosphere as a result of deliberate human activities,” including “carbon dioxide removal as anthropogenic activities removing CO2 from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products.” The Standard calls for “robust and statistically representative” sources for monitoring data, “calculated in a conservative manner.” Recognising the risk of reversals of carbon removal approaches, especially nature-based options⁶, the Standard outlines an extensive set of rules to address the risk, including risk-rating tools, remediation rules, and establishment of a Reversal Risk Buffer Pool Account to ensure system integrity. There is also an emphasis on avoidance of potential adverse environmental and social impacts, as well as protection of indigenous peoples and recognition of human rights, including through application of a sustainable development tool, activity standards and cycle procedures for removal projects, and an appeal and grievance procedure...

To read the full article, head to the Library.

^{1. Paris Agreement}

^{2. The Economic Potential of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and Implementation Challenges}

^{3. Switzerland, Thailand Conclude First Article 6.2 Deal in landmark move for carbon markets}

^{4. Application of the requirements of Chapter V.B (Methodologies) for the development and assessment of Article 6.4 mechanism methodologies}

^{5. Requirements for activities involving removals under the Article 6.4 mechanism}

^{6. Addressing differences in permanence of Carbon Dioxide Removal}