







































MN. Rahman /Future Sustainability                                                                                    November 2025| Volume 03 | Issue 04 | Pages 
01-11 

1 

 

 

 

Review 

Regulatory and standard insights on 

transboundary CO2 in the context of MRV 
Mohammad Nurizat Rahman* 

Energy Markets and Strategy, Energy Systems, DNV Technology Centre, 118227 Singapore 

               A R T I C L E   I N F O 
 

Article history: 
Received 10 April 2025  
Received in revised form 
18 May 2025 
Accepted 02 June 2025 
 
Keywords:  
Transboundary CO2, EU ETS, ISO, Verra, 
Regulatory 
 
*Corresponding author 
Email address: 
izat.rahman@dnv.com  
 
 
 
DOI: 10.55670/fpll.fusus.3.4.1 
 

A B S T R A C T 
 

As transboundary carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS) projects gain 

momentum globally, the need for a coherent, robust, and verifiable system for 

measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of cross-border carbon dioxide 

(CO₂) flows becomes increasingly critical. This paper reviews and synthesises 

key regulatory frameworks and technical standards, namely, the EU Emissions 

Trading System (EU ETS), ISO 27914 and ISO 27915, and the Verra VM0049 

methodology, to assess their applicability to MRV across the CO₂ capture, 

transport, and storage chain. The EU ETS, under its 2024 consolidated 

Implementing Regulation, sets a high benchmark for uncertainty management 

and data integrity in CO₂ accounting; however, it lacks specific prescriptions for 

advanced or smart metering technologies. ISO 27914, while focused on 

geological storage, provides essential guidance for long-term containment and 

injection site monitoring, relevant to the final stages of the CCS chain. ISO 27915 

provides a comprehensive framework for quantifying and verifying GHG 

emissions and reductions, establishing a direct link between CO₂ flow 

measurement and emissions reporting. The Verra VM0049 methodology, 

although designed for voluntary carbon markets, provides comprehensive 

procedures for quantifying and monitoring emissions across transport and 

storage stages, with practical relevance to transboundary CO₂ transfers. While 

none of these instruments independently address all aspects of cross-border 

CO₂ movement, their combined insights highlight both foundational strengths 

and critical gaps, such as the absence of unified custody transfer protocols and 

limited treatment of fugitive emissions in transitional zones. This paper aims to 

consolidate these insights to inform future MRV frameworks tailored to the 

unique technical, regulatory, and jurisdictional challenges of transboundary 

CO₂ flows. 

 

1. Introduction 

The Paris Agreement, along with an increasing number 
of national and regional commitments to carbon neutrality, 
underscores the critical importance of deploying carbon 
mitigation technologies [1-4]. Among these, Carbon Dioxide 
(CO₂) Capture and Storage (CCS) emerges as a pivotal solution 
in addressing the global climate challenge. CCS encompasses 
a suite of technologies designed to capture CO₂ emissions 
from industrial and energy-related sources, preventing their 
release into the atmosphere. Once captured, the CO₂ is either 
transported to a suitable geological formation for long-term 
storage or, in cases where co-location allows, injected directly 
into storage reservoirs beneath the capture facility [5]. In 
addition to storage, captured CO₂ can be utilised in various 

CO₂-derived products and services, including synthetic fuels, 
industrial chemicals, mineralised construction materials, and 
enhanced oil recovery (EOR). These utilisation pathways 
form the basis of Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage 
(CCUS), a broader concept that incorporates both storage and 
the commercial use of captured CO₂ [6, 7]. CCS and CCUS 
technologies are central to the global effort to limit 
temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial 
levels, in line with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. 
Recognising their climate mitigation potential, the United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 
formally accepted CCS under the Clean Development 
Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol in 2011 [8]. Looking 
forward, CCS may also serve a key role in carbon dioxide 

Future Sustainability 

Open Access Journal 

https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fusus.3.4.1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

November 2025| Volume 03 | Issue 04 | Pages 01-11 

Journal homepage: https://fupubco.com/fusus 

 
ISSN 2995-0473 

mailto:izat.rahman@dnv.com
https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fusus.3.4.1
https://fupubco.com/fusus


MN. Rahman /Future Sustainability                                                                                    November 2025| Volume 03 | Issue 04 | Pages 01-11 

2 

 

removal (CDR) strategies, enabling net-negative emissions by 
capturing CO₂ directly from the atmosphere and storing it 
securely [6]. Although technical and economic challenges 
persist, multiple studies have confirmed the feasibility of 
CCS/CCUS with existing technologies [9]. In the context of 
ongoing reliance on fossil fuels, particularly coal and natural 
gas, CCUS provides a critical pathway for mitigating emissions 
from both energy production and heavy industry [10-12]. 
Large-scale deployment of CCUS systems necessitates 
integration with existing energy infrastructure, as capture, 
compression, transportation, and injection processes all 
require significant energy inputs [13, 14]. In light of the 
limited availability of alternative decarbonisation 
technologies for hard-to-abate sectors, CCUS remains 
indispensable for addressing both current and legacy 
emissions [15-18].  

Despite its recognised potential, the global rollout of CCS 
remains limited. As of 2023, operational CCS facilities 
collectively capture over 50 million tonnes (Mt) of CO₂ per 
year, a modest fraction of the estimated 37.4 gigatonnes (Gt) 
of global annual CO₂ emissions. Currently, around 45 
commercial-scale projects are active across sectors such as 
industrial manufacturing, fuel transformation, and power 
generation. While early progress was slower than anticipated, 
recent years have seen renewed momentum. Over 700 CCUS 
projects are now at various stages of development across the 
full value chain, indicating a growing recognition of the 
technology’s role in supporting climate targets. 

In 2023, the projected CO₂ capture capacity for 2030 
increased by 35%, while announced storage capacity saw a 
substantial 70% growth. These developments position the 
anticipated CO₂ capture capacity for 2030 at approximately 
435 million tonnes (Mt) annually, with the announced storage 
capacity reaching around 615 Mt per year. Despite these 
advancements, the current trajectory remains insufficient to 
meet the scale outlined in the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 
(NZE) Scenario, which requires the capture and storage of 1 
gigatonne (Gt) of CO₂ per year [7]. The announced capacities 
represent only 40% and 60% of the targets, respectively, 
highlighting the urgent need for accelerated action and 
investment to close this gap. 

Although the projected CO₂ capture capacity for 2030 
shows a 35% increase, as of 2022, there were only 137 CCS 
projects in operation globally. The majority of these projects 
are concentrated in developed regions: 36 in North America 
(14 operational), 65 in Europe (6 operational), and 8 in 
Australia (1 operational). Figure 1 illustrates the geographical 
distribution of the estimated CO₂ capture capacity of these 
facilities by country, assuming all CCS projects proceed as 
planned and reach their projected operational capacities. This 
data has been sourced and adapted from the Global CCUS 
Projects Database maintained by the International 
Association of Oil and Gas Producers [19]. 

Most CCS projects operate within the boundaries of a 
single nation, with CO₂ capture, transport, and storage 
occurring entirely under the jurisdiction of one State. 
However, for a global alignment of CO₂ sources with suitable 
storage reservoirs, the widespread deployment of CCS 
projects is essential. Expanding CCS efforts beyond developed 
countries is key to achieving this objective. Research suggests 
that many developing nations possess significant potential for 
CO₂ storage [20]. This storage capacity could be pivotal for 
countries lacking sufficient geological storage options but still 
seeking to leverage CCS as a tool for emissions reduction [21]. 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Estimated CO₂ capture capacity by countries 

Despite this potential, several barriers prevent the 
widespread adoption of CCS in developing nations. These 
include the technical complexity of the required technologies, 
the substantial investment and resources needed for risk 
assessment and management, and the absence of robust 
regulatory frameworks to regulate CCS facilities. 
Consequently, participation by developing nations remains 
limited, as illustrated in Figure 1. The internationalisation of 
CCS projects, where CO₂ is captured in one nation or region 
and transported to another for permanent storage, 
introduces significant regulatory challenges, particularly in 
the areas of transboundary transport and storage. Developing 
a CCS supply chain that spans multiple jurisdictions 
necessitates the creation of comprehensive regulatory 
frameworks at both international and domestic levels to 
effectively manage associated risks and incentivise 
technological investment [22, 23]. These regional and 
domestic frameworks play a crucial role, as they can either 
facilitate or hinder the widespread implementation of such a 
supply chain. Literature consistently emphasises the 
importance of strong policy support for CCS, especially in 
regions that serve as both sources and sinks for CO₂ [24]. 

A critical element in the development of a 
comprehensive regulatory framework for the transboundary 
shipment and storage of CO₂ is the establishment of effective 
Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems. This 
requires a robust carbon accounting system specifically 
designed to monitor transboundary CO₂ flows. Given the 
absence of a centralised MRV framework for such 
transboundary CO₂, this paper seeks to analyse existing 
standards and regulatory frameworks related to carbon 
management, evaluate the key criteria essential for a future 
MRV system, and propose best practices and lessons learned 
from these frameworks to guide the future development of 
MRV systems for transboundary CO₂ flows [25]. 

2. Monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) 

MRV of emissions is fundamental to the credibility of any 
emissions trading system, whether within compliance carbon 
markets, such as the European Union Emissions Trading 
System (EU ETS), or voluntary carbon markets (VCMs), like 
the Gold Standard Marketplace and the Verra Registry. 
Although these systems differ in structure, the EU ETS, being 
based on carbon allowances, and VCMs, on carbon credits, 
both rely heavily on robust MRV frameworks. Within the EU 
ETS, MRV underpins transparency, facilitates compliance 
tracking, and strengthens enforcement. A comprehensive, 
consistent, accurate, and transparent MRV system fosters 
trust in emissions trading by ensuring that operators fulfil 
their obligation to surrender the correct number of 
allowances. As the world’s first international emissions 



MN. Rahman /Future Sustainability                                                                                    November 2025| Volume 03 | Issue 04 | Pages 01-11 

3 

 

trading scheme, the EU ETS has developed mature and 
reliable MRV guidelines over time, providing a robust 
framework for emissions measurement and reporting. In the 
VCM, carbon credits are issued based on the reduction or 
removal of one metric tonne of CO₂-equivalent greenhouse 
gas (GHG) emissions through specific projects. These credits 
are quantified using detailed carbon accounting 
methodologies and MRV guidelines. For instance, Verra’s 
Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) is the world’s most widely 
used GHG crediting programme. It enables individuals, 
companies, or organisations to purchase credits that support 
emission-reducing activities. Verra’s methodologies ensure 
the accurate quantification of GHG benefits and the issuance 
of Verified Carbon Units (VCUs). These methodologies define 
project boundaries, establish baselines, assess additionality, 
outline monitoring parameters, and quantify GHG emission 
reductions or removals, thus reinforcing rigorous metering 
and measurement practices. Specific methodologies, such as 
VM0049, are dedicated to CCS projects.  

MRV guidelines in both compliance and voluntary 
frameworks are grounded in extensive scientific research, 
incorporating carbon accounting, remote sensing, and 
environmental monitoring techniques. They are aligned with 
international standards, including ISO 14064 (Greenhouse 
gases – Part 1: Specification with guidance at the organisation 
level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas 
emissions and removals) and ISO 14065 (Requirements for 
greenhouse gas validation and verification bodies). For CCS 
applications, standards such as ISO 27915 (Carbon dioxide 
capture, transportation, and geological storage - 
Quantification and verification) provide further specificity, 
ensuring that monitoring and verification processes are 
rigorous, consistent, and internationally standardized. 
Therefore, critical insights from these standards and existing 
regulations can be used to propose key measures for the 
future establishment of MRV systems for transboundary CO₂ 
flows. In this paper, Table 1 summarises the international 
standards and regulations reviewed. 

In all of these standards and regulations, the review was 
conducted by focusing on the key aspects considered 
essential for establishing a robust MRV framework for 
transboundary CO₂ flows. These aspects serve as the 
evaluation criteria outlined below. While this list is not 
exhaustive, it captures the most critical elements deemed 
vital for addressing the unique challenges posed by the 
international shipment and storage of CO₂. A clear 
understanding and alignment on these aspects are crucial to 
ensure consistency, transparency, and reliability across 
different jurisdictions. The key aspects are as follows: 
1. CO₂ receipt metering and monitoring requirements: 
Proper metering and monitoring at the point of CO₂ receipt is 
fundamental to ensuring that the quantity and quality of CO₂ 
being transported and stored are accurately recorded. This 
includes: 
o Selection of metering technologies: An evaluation of the 

technologies recommended or required by the standards 
and regulations, including their suitability for different CO₂ 
conditions. 

o CO₂ operating conditions: Consideration of technical 
parameters that impact metering and monitoring accuracy, 
including pressure, temperature, flowrate, composition 
(including levels of impurities), phase state (gaseous, 
liquid, supercritical), environmental conditions, and 
operational limits. 

o Calibration procedures: Requirements for metering 
equipment to be calibrated in accordance with recognised 

national or international standards, ensuring traceability 
and accuracy across different measurement points. 

o Accuracy and uncertainty levels: Specification of the 
allowable error margins and required uncertainty levels 
for measurement systems to maintain credibility and 
precision in reporting. 

o Additional guidelines: Any supplementary procedures or 
considerations that support effective measurement and 
reporting but may not fall directly under the above 
categories, for example, redundancy measures or backup 
metering protocols. 

Table 1. Standards and regulations reviewed  

Details Reference 

EU ETS 

• Directive 2004/87/EC 

• Directive 2009/31/EC 

• Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2018/2066 

• Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2018/2067 

• Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2024/2493 

• Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2023/2122 

• Others policy/technical papers related to 
CCS, referencing the EU ETS 

[26] 

ISO 

• 27914 

• 27915 

 

[27, 28] 

 

Verra’s VCS 

• CCS overarching methodology: VM0049 
Carbon Capture and Storage 

• Transport Module: E.g. VMD0057 (Project 
Emissions from CO2 Transport for CCS 
Projects) 

• Storage Module: E.g. VMD0058 (Project 
Emissions from CO2 Storage in Saline 
Aquifers and Depleted Hydrocarbon 
Reservoirs) 

[29-31] 

 

2. CO₂ metering and monitoring points: It is essential to 
clearly define where metering and monitoring must occur 
along the CO₂ value chain to maintain a complete and 
verifiable record of CO₂ movements. This includes: 
o Identification of critical points: Such as the point of capture, 

before and after compression, at the point of entry and exit 
in transport systems (pipelines, ships, etc.), and at the 
injection point into storage sites. 

o Specification of requirements: Including the technical 
specifications needed at each monitoring point to ensure 
consistent data collection and compatibility across 
jurisdictions. 

3. Leakage/reversal management: Leakage or reversal 
events, where stored CO₂ is unintentionally released back into 
the atmosphere, pose significant risks to the environmental 
integrity of transboundary CCS operations. As such: 
o Best practices for management: The standards and 

regulations are assessed for their recommended practices 
in detecting, reporting, mitigating, and remediating leakage 
or reversal incidents. 

o Requirements for contingency planning: Including the 
development of monitoring plans, corrective action 



MN. Rahman /Future Sustainability                                                                                    November 2025| Volume 03 | Issue 04 | Pages 01-11 

4 

 

measures, and financial assurance mechanisms to address 
potential liabilities. 

4. Digital and smart solutions: The integration of digital 
technologies can significantly enhance the efficiency, 
accuracy, and transparency of MRV systems. Therefore: 
o Recommendations for digital tools: Evaluation of 

guidance on the use of smart metering, real-time 
monitoring systems, blockchain for data integrity, remote 
sensing technologies, and digital platforms for automated 
reporting and verification. 

o Data management practices: Standards for data security, 
transparency, and accessibility to ensure that data 
collected across different jurisdictions can be reliably used 
for regulatory reporting and carbon accounting. 

An overall traffic light assessment was performed for each of 
the identified standards and regulations. The colour coding 
used in this assessment is as follows: 
• Green: The standard or regulation provides a 

comprehensive definition or coverage of the topic, and it is 
fully applicable to the case of transboundary CO₂ flows. 

• Yellow: The evaluation criteria are covered within the 
standard or regulation, but the coverage is either partial or 
not fully applicable to the specific requirements of the 
current case. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

• Red: The evaluation criteria are not covered or addressed 
within the standard or regulation. 

Detailed discussions on how each of these standards and 
regulations align with the evaluation criteria, together with 
justification for their respective traffic light ratings, are 
provided in the following chapters. 

3. EU ETS 

The overall traffic light assessment of the relevant EU 

ETS regulations is presented in Table 2. Adapted from EU 

Regulation 2018/2066 pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC 

(consolidated 2024), the Monitoring and Reporting 

Regulation (MRR) outlines two primary methodologies for 

quantifying GHG emissions: the calculation-based 

methodology and the measurement-based methodology. The 

calculation-based approach estimates emissions based on 

fuel and material inputs, using emission factors and activity 

data. This method is generally simpler and more commonly 

applied across European installations. In contrast, the 

measurement-based methodology directly determines 

emissions by continuously measuring the concentration of 

relevant GHGs, primarily CO₂, in the flue gas, along with the 

volumetric flow rate of that gas.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Relevant EU ETS regulations  

Criterion Remarks 

Metering technology 
No specific information is provided regarding recommended metering technologies. 

CO₂ operating conditions related to metering and 
monitoring 

The regulations mainly focus on CO₂ quantities (flows) and concentrations, without 

detailed specifications on operating conditions such as pressure, impurities, or 

phase state. 

Calibration procedures traceable to national or 
international standards 

A generic explanation is provided, requiring calibration to national or international 

standards, but without specific protocols or references. 

Accuracy and uncertainty levels of metering systems 
A notable feature is the use of a tiered approach for uncertainty requirements in the 

monitoring system. 

Additional measurement and monitoring guidelines for 
accounting and regulatory reporting 

The EU ETS provides best practices to address potential data loss in CO₂ metering, 

particularly under Article 45. It also introduces flexibility to measure CO₂ at either 

the transferring or receiving installation. This is particularly relevant to the current 

CO₂ value chain planned in Malaysia, where metering will occur at the receiving 

station. To ensure data integrity, operators must reconcile CO₂ quantities across the 

value chain and provide technical justifications for any discrepancies, such as 

uncertainties or operational deviations. 

Identification and specification of critical metering and 
monitoring locations 

Generic guidance is provided, emphasising flexibility to install metering points at 

transferring or receiving facilities, but without specifying detailed sitting criteria 

across the full value chain. 

Leakage/reversal 

Any CO₂ leakage (including fugitive emissions, venting, or incidents) must be 

accounted for in the installation’s emissions report. Biogenic CO₂ leakages are 

treated as fossil emissions. In-transit corrections are permitted (typically reconciled 

at year-end). Reversals are addressed according to the standard EU ETS rules for 

transferred CO₂. 

Digital/smart solutions to enhance CO₂ data collection, 
management, and analysis 

No specific recommendations or requirements for digitalisation or smart solutions 

are provided. 

Overall remarks 

The EU ETS (particularly Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2066, 

pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC and its 2024 consolidation) establishes 

important requirements for uncertainty management and data handling in CO₂ 

metering across the CCS supply chain. It offers relevant guidance for CO₂ 

measurement and monitoring applicable to the current transboundary CO₂ flow 

scenario. However, it lacks detailed recommendations on specific metering 

technologies and the integration of digital or smart metering solutions, which would 

need to be supplemented through project-specific practices or by referencing 

additional standards. 

 



MN. Rahman /Future Sustainability                                                                                    November 2025| Volume 03 | Issue 04 | Pages 01-11 

5 

 

This approach is also applied to monitor CO₂ transfers 

between installations, whereby both the concentration and 

flow of the transferred gas must be accurately measured. This 

is particularly relevant in the context of CCS, where the 

transport and storage of CO₂ demand a higher degree of 

accuracy than conventional combustion-based emission 

sources. Although the use of Continuous Emission 

Measurement Systems (CEMS) for monitoring flue gas 

emissions is relatively uncommon in Europe due to the 

prevalence of calculation-based methods, CEMS becomes 

essential in CCS applications. In such scenarios, calculating 

emissions based on fuel input is often impractical or 

inaccurate. As a result, the CCS-specific MRV, which amends 

the broader MRR framework, places a strong emphasis on 

CEMS as a critical tool for real-time CO₂ stream monitoring, 

especially at transfer points. Continuous monitoring of CO₂ 

stream composition is expected to be a standard requirement 

to ensure reliable accounting of transferred volumes in CCS 

chains. One of the defining features of the EU ETS regulatory 

framework is the tiered system used to define the accuracy 

and uncertainty requirements for emission measurements. 

For measurement-based methodologies, Tier 4, the highest 

level, must be applied for transferred CO₂, requiring an 

uncertainty of no more than ±2.5%. The selection of tiers 

depends on the scale of the installation. For example, large-

scale CO₂ capture installations handling more than 50,000 

tonnes per year are typically classified as Category B or C, thus 

requiring adherence to Tier 4 for both CO₂ flow and 

concentration measurements. However, the regulation 

provides flexibility in its application. Where achieving the 

highest tier is technically infeasible or would result in 

disproportionate costs, operators may request approval to 

use a lower tier, subject to justification and acceptance by the 

relevant competent authority. This approach maintains a 

balance between regulatory rigour and operational 

practicality, particularly for installations facing technical 

limitations. Table 3 summarises the applicable guidance for 

installations under the MRR, based on the EU ETS reference 

[32]. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The EU ETS also provides best practices to address 

potential data loss in CO₂ metering, as outlined in Article 45. 

Another significant aspect is the flexibility to measure CO₂ at 

both the transferring and receiving installations. This is 

highly relevant to the transboundary value chain. To ensure 

accuracy, the measured CO₂ quantities throughout the value 

chain must align. If discrepancies occur, operators must 

provide technical explanations, such as measurement 

uncertainties or deviations, to justify the differences.  

4. Relevant ISO Standards 

The overall traffic light assessment for the ISO 27914:2017 is 

presented in Table 4. Moreover, the overall traffic light 

assessment for the ISO 27915:2017 is presented in Table 5. 

According to ISO 27915, GHG reporting for CCS projects is 

conducted annually, while the actual measurement of CO₂ 

flow is performed continuously, with data typically 

aggregated on a monthly basis. At the point of capture, the CO₂ 

stream is monitored using physical measurement devices 

such as flow meters and sensors. These instruments are used 

to record key parameters, including CO₂ concentration, flow 

rate, pressure, and temperature, as the gas enters the 

transportation system. For storage operations, metering is 

carried out at both the plant gate, marking the custody 

transfer point, and at the injection wellheads, ensuring 

comprehensive coverage of CO₂ flows into subsurface 

formations. To reduce calibration errors and improve overall 

accuracy, ISO 27915 allows for data aggregation at 

centralised collection points rather than relying solely on 

individual wellhead measurements. The standard outlines 

clear methodologies for calculating the annual CO₂ mass 

handled in a CCS system. One common approach is to sum the 

quarterly CO₂ concentrations, expressed either as weight or 

volume percentages, and multiply these by the corresponding 

mass or volumetric flow recorded during each quarter. 

Alternatively, where CO₂ concentration data are available, 

they can be combined with density values (expressed in 

metric tons per standard cubic meter or derived from the 

total stream mass) and volumetric flow data to calculate 

accurate annual totals.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. MRR guidelines for various installation categories 

Installation category Emission  
source  
category 

Tier required Minimum tier (if tier required 
technically not feasible or 
unreasonable costs) 

If not at least  
tier 1 Is  
possible 

Category C 
(>500kt) 

Major highest tier in Annex VIII highest tier in Annex VIII 
minus 1 (minimum tier 1) 

Fall-back 
approach 

Minor highest tier in Annex VIII tier 1 

Category B 
(50kt<x≤500kt) 

Major highest tier in Annex VIII highest tier in Annex VIII 
minus 2 (minimum tier 1) 

Minor highest tier in Annex VIII tier 1 

Category A 
(≤50kt) 

Major tier 2 tier 1 

Minor tier 2 tier 1 

Installation with  
low emissions  

(<25kt) 

Major tier 1 unless higher tier is achievable without  
additional effort (not applicable for N2O) 

Minor 

 



MN. Rahman /Future Sustainability                                                                                    November 2025| Volume 03 | Issue 04 | Pages 01-11 

6 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Traffic light assessment - ISO 27914:2017 

Criterion Remarks 

Metering technology 
No specific information is provided regarding the types of metering technology to be used. 

CO₂ operating conditions related to metering and 
monitoring 

The standard addresses the composition of the CO₂ stream and outlines expected ranges for pressure, 

temperature, and flow rate at the receiving storage facility. It also includes injection rate and design 

specifications, though these are primarily intended for storage site operations. 

Calibration procedures traceable to national or 
international standards 

General reference is made to calibration procedures, but specific traceability requirements are not 

detailed. 

Accuracy and uncertainty levels of metering 
systems 

No explicit information or thresholds regarding accuracy or uncertainty levels are included. 

Additional measurement and monitoring guidelines 
for accounting and regulatory reporting 

The quantity of CO₂ injected must be recorded for purposes of accounting, engineering, and regulatory 

compliance. However, guidance remains high-level. 

Identification and specification of critical metering 
and monitoring locations 

The standard recommends individual meters be installed at each injection well, downstream of the 

custody transfer meter, to ensure detailed tracking at the point of storage. 

Leakage/reversal 

General guidelines are provided on leakage management. These include requirements for primary seals, 

assessment of potential leakage pathways, installation of secondary containment barriers, and the use 

of flow modelling to evaluate potential leakage scenarios. 

Digital/smart solutions to enhance CO₂ data 
collection, management, and analysis 

No specific information is provided regarding digitalisation or smart solutions. 

Overall remarks 

ISO 27914 is focused on geological storage of CO₂ and is most applicable to the storage phase of the CCS 

value chain. It is highly relevant when the transported CO₂ is intended for long-term containment 

in geological formations. While the standard does not explicitly address transportation metering 

and monitoring, it does cover essential requirements for injection site monitoring, safety assurance, 

and leakage prevention. It provides a useful reference for evaluating monitoring approaches at the point 

of CO₂ injection. 

 

Table 5. Traffic light assessment - ISO 27915:2017 

Criterion Remarks 

Metering technology 

The standard mentions the use of mass and volume flow meters for CO₂ measurement, in addition to 

chemical analysis systems (e.g. sampling and laboratory testing) and general leakage detection 
technologies, such as laser and infrared systems, particularly relevant for storage applications. 

CO₂ operating conditions related to metering and 
monitoring 

Key parameters prioritised for measurement and monitoring include CO₂ concentration, flow rate, 

pressure, and temperature. The standard also highlights the importance of pre-treatment systems to 

remove impurities (e.g. annex gases, minor components, organics) before capture or transport, which 
affects monitoring requirements. 

Calibration procedures traceable to national or 
international standards 

To minimise calibration errors, the standard recommends data aggregation at centralised collection 

points rather than relying exclusively on wellhead meters, particularly in storage contexts. However, 

specific traceability requirements are not extensively detailed. 

Accuracy and uncertainty levels of metering 
systems 

The Tier 3 methodology is introduced, involving flow metering during gas loading and discharge. This 

method relies on site-specific or plant-level data, including direct measurements and modelling, to 

enhance measurement accuracy. 

Additional measurement and monitoring guidelines 
for accounting and regulatory reporting 

The standard discusses aggregation methodologies for CCS systems, which involve combining CO₂ 

measurements across different points within the supply chain to calculate the total CO₂ captured, 

transported, and stored, crucial for both accounting and regulatory reporting. 

Identification and specification of critical metering 
and monitoring locations 

Measurement and monitoring points across the CCS value chain are outlined for quantification and 

verification (Q&V) of CO₂ flow and emissions. These include capture outlets, transport interfaces, and 

injection points. 

Leakage/reversal 
The standard provides general guidance on leakage management, primarily in the context of emissions 
quantification. Accurate leakage estimation is essential for reliable GHG accounting. 

Digital/smart solutions to enhance CO₂ data 
collection, management, and analysis 

No specific recommendations are provided regarding the application of digital or smart metering 

technologies. 

Overall remarks 

ISO 27915 offers guidelines for the Q&V of GHG emissions and reductions from CCS activities. It covers 

all elements of the CCS chain, capture, transport, and storage, with a particular emphasis on ensuring 

the accuracy of emissions reporting. While its focus is on GHG Q&V, it offers valuable guidance on CO₂ 

metering and monitoring, especially because leak rates must be measurable. Thus, the standard 

creates a direct link between CO₂ flow measurement and broader GHG reporting across the CCS 
chain. 

 



MN. Rahman /Future Sustainability                                                                                    November 2025| Volume 03 | Issue 04 | Pages 01-11 

7 

 

By integrating chemical analysis techniques, either in-

line or through periodic sampling and laboratory testing, with 

flow measurements, operators can obtain a detailed 

understanding of the CO₂ stream’s composition and quantity. 

This precision is essential not only for reporting but also for 

operational efficiency and regulatory compliance. In addition 

to pure CO₂, the gas stream often contains annex gases such 

as nitrogen (N₂), oxygen (O₂), hydrogen (H₂), and argon, as 

well as minor components like methane (CH₄), carbon 

monoxide (CO), and water. Trace impurities, including sulfur 

dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), hydrogen sulfide (H₂S), 

mercury, various metals, and volatile organic compounds like 

benzene, may also be present. ISO 27915 emphasises the 

importance of removing these substances prior to CO₂ 

transport or injection through dedicated treatment units 

integrated within the conversion and separation process. 

Although the standard does not delve into the direct impacts 

of these impurities on surface infrastructure or storage 

formations, it recommends that monitoring plans account for 

the associated risks. 

The concept of data aggregation is another critical aspect 

of ISO 27915, particularly in the context of complex CCS 

networks. Aggregation enables project developers to combine 

CO₂ measurements taken at different points along the value 

chain to calculate the total amount captured, transported, and 

stored. Two primary aggregation methods are identified. The 

first, known as post-segregation aggregation, involves 

summing the CO₂ mass values recorded by separate meters at 

key points throughout the system. The second, pre-

segregation aggregation, calculates total annual CO₂ mass by 

subtracting the sum of internal CO₂ uses or losses, measured 

downstream, from the upstream total captured at the main 

flow meter. This approach is useful for tracking and 

accounting for process-related CO₂ consumption or losses 

before final storage. 

Leakage detection and management are also addressed 

through a multi-faceted approach. ISO 27915 recommends 

the use of pressure monitoring, regular visual inspections, 

and advanced detection technologies such as laser-based and 

infrared systems to identify leaks in buried pipelines or 

storage infrastructure. These techniques are essential for 

ensuring the long-term containment of CO₂ and maintaining 

environmental safety. Furthermore, ISO 27915 aligns with 

key elements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), 

specifically Subpart RR, which pertains to geologic 

sequestration. Under Subpart RR, facilities injecting CO₂ 

underground are required to develop and implement a robust 

MRV plan approved by the EPA. Required data points include 

the mass of CO₂ received for injection, the amount injected 

into subsurface formations, any CO₂ produced back to the 

surface, surface leakage, and emissions from equipment leaks 

or venting. Additionally, emissions occurring between 

production flow meters and wellheads must be reported, 

along with the mass of CO₂ successfully sequestered and the 

cumulative total reported over time. 

In cases where CO₂ is transported by ship, ISO 27915 

introduces a Tier 3 methodology for accurately metering gas 

quantities during loading and discharge. This methodology is 

consistent with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines (Volume 2, Section 

3.3), which describe three tiers of accuracy for estimating 

emissions from energy systems. Tier 3 methods are the most 

precise, relying on site-specific or facility-specific data 

derived from direct measurements, real-time monitoring, and 

tailored modelling approaches. These methods are 

particularly suitable for high-integrity CCS operations 

involving transboundary CO₂ transport and storage. 

5. VERRA CCS-related methodology/modules 

The overall traffic light assessment for the Verra CCS-

related methodology and modules is presented in Table 6. 

Under the Verra CCS Methodology VM0049 , the eligibility of 

a CO₂ stream for storage is contingent upon its purity and 

compliance with relevant regulations. Specifically, the 

captured CO₂ must be at least 95% pure and must meet all 

applicable national, regional, or local standards concerning 

co-injected substances. This ensures that the stream is 

suitable for geological storage and minimizes environmental 

risks. To measure the flow of CO₂, the methodology provides 

two main options: mass flow meters and volumetric flow 

meters. For supercritical CO₂, where impurities can distort 

volumetric readings, project proponents must either use 

mass flow meters while accounting for all impurities 

exceeding 0.25% mole fraction, or use volumetric meters 

while accurately determining both CO₂ density and 

concentration. Importantly, the cumulative mole fraction of 

unmeasured impurities cannot exceed 2%. 

When using mass flow meters, the total mass flow is 

multiplied by the CO₂ concentration (mass fraction), which is 

derived from sampled mole fractions. These measurements 

are carried out continuously, with data captured at least every 

15 minutes. Commercially available technologies such as 

Coriolis, thermal, impeller, and twin turbine meters are 

recommended by the methodology as well. Similarly, 

volumetric flow measurement at STP requires multiplying the 

total volumetric flow by the CO₂ concentration (volumetric 

fraction) and its density at STP. Devices like rotameters, 

turbines, wedges, ultrasonic, and vortex meters are 

recommended to be used, with the same 15-minute 

monitoring interval. Pressure and temperature at the flow 

meter must also be recorded continuously under operating 

conditions using digital or analog instruments such as 

pressure transducers, thermocouples, or thermistors. 

Sampling of the gas stream focuses on components exceeding 

a mole fraction of 0.5% under standard conditions or 0.25% 

under supercritical conditions. Two options are offered: 

Option A involves gas chromatography with data aggregated 

weekly, while Option B adds IR spectroscopy and aggregates 

monthly. Calibration of all metering and monitoring 

equipment must adhere to either manufacturer 

specifications, national/local standards, or international 

benchmarks (e.g., IEC, ISO), ensuring traceability and data 

reliability. Equipment must operate within specified 

conditions and undergo routine maintenance. The transport 

module (VMD0057) defines its boundary at the custody 

transfer point and includes intermediate storage and all 

transport legs. Each leg is considered separately when 

different transport modes are involved or when crossing 

borders, enabling clear attribution of emissions across 

jurisdictions. The methodology underscores the importance 

of emissions monitoring at each intermediate storage site and 

transport leg, identifying these as critical metering points. 



MN. Rahman /Future Sustainability                                                                                    November 2025| Volume 03 | Issue 04 | Pages 01-11 

8 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6. Traffic light assessment - Verra CCS Methodology VM0049 

Criterion 
Remarks 

Verra CCS Methodology VM0049 Verra Transport Module VMD0057 Verra Storage Module VMD0058 

Metering 
technology 

The modules VMD0057 and VMD0058, based on methodology VM0049, outline that CO₂ measurements must be 

conducted using commercially available devices.  

• Mass flow: Measured using Coriolis, thermal, or impeller meters and multiplied by the CO₂ concentration (mass 

fraction). 

• Volumetric flow: Measured using rotameters, turbine, ultrasonic, or vortex meters at standard temperature and 

pressure (STP), multiplied by CO₂ concentration (volumetric fraction) and CO₂ density.  

• Measurements must be continuous, with a minimum reading every 15 minutes. 

CO₂ operating 
conditions related 
to metering and 
monitoring 

The CO₂ stream must meet the following requirements:  

• Minimum purity of 95% CO₂.  

• Compliance with applicable national/regional/local regulations regarding CO₂ purity and concentrations of co-

injected substances. 

Calibration 
procedures 
traceable to 
national or 
international 
standards 

Metering equipment must be 

installed and calibrated in line with 

local/national standards or 

manufacturer specifications.  

If these are unavailable, international 

standards (e.g., IEC, ISO) must be 

used. 

Equipment must operate within the manufacturer’s operating conditions and 

be routinely calibrated, inspected, and maintained. 

Accuracy and 
uncertainty levels 
of metering 
systems 

No specific levels for accuracy or uncertainty are defined. However, a statistical approach is required for quantifying 

overall uncertainty in emission reductions and removals, considering potential measurement errors. 

Additional 
measurement and 
monitoring 
guidelines for 
accounting and 
regulatory 
reporting 

Pressure and temperature must be continuously monitored at the flow meter under operating conditions using 

recordable electronic signals (e.g., pressure transducers, thermocouples, or thermistors). Sampling requirements:  

• Applies to components with >0.5% mole fraction at standard conditions or >0.25% under supercritical 

conditions.  

• Sampling is done with commercially available devices:  

o Option A: Gas chromatography, data aggregated weekly.  
o Option B: Gas chromatography + IR spectroscopy, data aggregated monthly.  

• Minimum monitoring frequency: every 15 minutes. 

Identification and 
specification of 
critical metering 
and monitoring 
locations 

No direct specification. 

The modules emphasise the need to 

measure emissions at each 

intermediate storage site and 

transport leg – deemed critical for 

CO₂ measurement. 

Mandatory monitoring points are 

required for CO₂ injection 

downstream of all intermediate 

storage, compression, and 

conditioning units, both onshore and 

offshore. 

Leakage/reversal 

No specific procedures outlined for 

leaks or reversal under transport 

modules. (Note: Verra defines 

leakage as an unintended increase in 

GHG emissions outside project 

boundaries because of project 

activities). 

Fugitive or vented emissions from 

transported CO₂ are acknowledged, 

but quantification or measurement 

details are not provided. 

The storage module includes 

quantification methods for both 

intentional and unintentional leaks 

from surface and subsurface. 

Digital/smart 
solutions to 
enhance CO₂ data 
collection, 
management, and 
analysis 

A working group has been established to advance Digital Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (DMRV) 

technologies. The initiative is ongoing and under development. 

Overall remarks 

The Verra Methodology VM0049 provides a framework for quantifying GHG reductions from CCS projects within the 

VCM, using a baseline-versus-project approach across the CO₂ capture, transport, and storage chain. Modules 

VMD0057 and VMD0058 specifically address emissions from transport and storage, which is highly relevant for 

transboundary CO₂ activities, such as shipping or pipeline transfer between countries. While the methodology does 

not explicitly define transboundary protocols, its detailed provisions on CO₂ stream purity, metering 

technologies, and leakage quantification provide valuable technical insights.  

 



MN. Rahman /Future Sustainability                                                                                    November 2025| Volume 03 | Issue 04 | Pages 01-11 

9 

 

For certain transport scenarios, particularly when using 

ships, trucks, or rail, the methodology allows emissions 

estimation using default values and measured CO₂ mass. 

When CO₂ is transported in detachable containers, the total 

weight, including the container, must be monitored using flow 

meters or weighing scales. Fugitive emissions during 

transport are acknowledged but not comprehensively 

quantified. While CH₄ emissions from fuel use are considered, 

CO₂ fugitive emissions are referenced only in terms of likely 

sources like valves or connectors, with limited calculation 

guidance. Conversely, the storage module (VM0058) provides 

more detailed treatment. The storage site boundary includes 

all surface facilities, injection and monitoring wells, and 

subsurface areas up to the extent of the CO₂ plume. 

Mandatory monitoring points must be located 

downstream of intermediate storage, compression, and any 

conditioning units, both for onshore and offshore wells. The 

methodology addresses both intentional and unintentional 

CO₂ releases. Surface venting may result from maintenance 

(e.g., blowdowns) or safety mechanisms (e.g., pressure relief 

valves) and must be quantified using one of three approaches: 

direct measurement, estimation for isolated volumes, or 

estimation for non-isolated volumes. Subsurface venting, 

often associated with injection well maintenance, must follow 

Approach 1 (direct measurement). Unintended surface leaks 

(e.g., pipeline leaks) are quantified using emission factors, 

with a default value of 0.26 kg CO₂/hr/km provided. 

Subsurface leakage from the storage complex requires model-

based estimation using reservoir and monitoring data. Across 

all modules, metering and weighing devices must remain 

within operational specifications and be regularly calibrated. 

For CO₂ and fuel-related measurements, cross-verification 

with energy balances and purchase documentation is 

recommended to ensure data consistency. 

6. Conclusions 

This paper has examined the EU ETS, ISO 27914 and 

27915 standards, and the Verra VM0049 methodology to 

assess their technical provisions, practical relevance, and 

regulatory applicability to future transboundary CO₂ MRV 

frameworks. Each instrument brings valuable strengths. The 

EU ETS, through its 2024 Implementing Regulation, provides 

a robust compliance regime with strong provisions on 

uncertainty management and data handling, although it lacks 

detailed direction on digital and advanced metering 

technologies, which will be vital for cross-border integration. 

ISO 27914, while limited to geological storage, offers critical 

insight into injection site monitoring and leakage prevention, 

making it especially relevant at the receiving end of 

transboundary CO₂ flows. ISO 27915 enhances the chain-wide 

accountability of CCS by linking accurate flow measurement 

with broader GHG quantification and verification 

requirements. It reinforces the importance of consistent 

metering and monitoring across all CCS components, 

especially when emission reductions are claimed across 

jurisdictions. The Verra VM0049 methodology contributes 

significantly to the technical definition of project boundaries, 

stream purity, emissions accounting, and leakage 

quantification. Modules VMD0057 and VMD0058 are 

particularly applicable to shipping and pipeline-based 

transboundary movements. However, as a voluntary 

mechanism, Verra does not explicitly address governance 

structures or liability allocation across borders, which will be 

critical for enforceability in a regulated international context. 

Taken together, these standards and methodologies offer 

critical building blocks for the development of future 

transboundary CO₂ MRV frameworks. They highlight both the 

technical rigour already available and the systemic gaps that 

must be addressed. Among these are the absence of 

standardised protocols for custody transfer, underdeveloped 

quantification of fugitive emissions during cross-

jurisdictional transport, and insufficient integration of digital 

monitoring technologies. This paper seeks to bring coherence 

to the fragmented landscape of current standards and 

regulations by identifying how each addresses (or overlooks) 

the specific challenges posed by transboundary CO₂ flows. 

The analysis offers a consolidated knowledge base to guide 

regulators, project developers, and policymakers in shaping a 

credible, transparent, and internationally harmonised MRV 

system. Such a system will be fundamental to supporting the 

scalability of cross-border CCUS projects, enabling their 

contribution to global net-zero targets. 

Ethical issue 
The author is aware of and complies with best practices in 
publication ethics, specifically with regard to authorship 
(avoidance of guest authorship), dual submission, 
manipulation of figures, competing interests, and compliance 
with policies on research ethics. The authors adhere to 
publication requirements that the submitted work is original 
and has not been published elsewhere. 

Data availability statement 
The manuscript contains all the data. However, more data will 

be available upon request from the author. 

Conflict of interest 

The author declares no potential conflict of interest. 

References 

[1]     d’Amore, F., Lovisotto, L., Bezzo, F., 2020. Introducing 

social acceptance into the design of CCS supply 

chains: a case study at a European level. J. Cleaner 

Prod. 249, 119–337. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119337 

[2]  Zhang, D., Alhorr, Y., Elsarrag, E., Marafia, AH., Lettieri, 

P., Papageorgiou, LG., 2017. Fair design of CCS 

infrastructure for power plants in Qatar under carbon 

trading scheme. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 56, 

43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.11.014 

[3]  Bui, M., Adjiman, CS., Bardow, A., Anthony, EJ., Boston, 

A., Brown, S., Fennell, PS., Fuss, S., Galindo, A., Hackett, 

LA., Hallett, JP., Herzog, HJ., Jackson, G., Kemper, J., 

Krevor, S., Maitland, GC., Matuszewski, M., Metcalfe, 

IS., Petit, C., Puxty, G., Reimer, J., Reiner, DM., Rubin, 

ES., Scott, SA., Shah, N., Smit, B., Trusler, JPM., Webley, 

P., Wilcox, J., Dowell, NM., 2018. Carbon capture and 

storage (CCS): the way forward. Energy Environ. Sci. 

11, 1062–1076. 

https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EE02342A 

[4]  Sun, L., Chen, W., 2017. Development and application 

of a multi-stage CCUS source-sink matching model. 

Appl. Energy 185, 1424–1432. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.01.009 



MN. Rahman /Future Sustainability                                                                                    November 2025| Volume 03 | Issue 04 | Pages 01-11 

10 

 

[5]  IPCC, 2005. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. 

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/carbon-dioxide-

capture-and-storage/ 

[6]  IEA, 2020. CCUS in Clean Energy Transitions. 

https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-in-clean-energy-

transitions 

[7]  IEA, 2023. Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage. 

https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-

capture-utilisation-and-storage 

[8]  Dixon T, Leamon G, Zakkourc P, Warren L., 2013. CCS 

projects as Kyoto Protocol CDM activities. Energy 

Procedia. 37, 7596-7604. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.704 

[9]  Scott, V., Gilfillan, S., Markusson, N., Chalmers, H., 

Stuart Haszeldine, R., 2013. Last chance for carbon 

capture and storage. Nature Clim. Change 3, 105–111. 

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1695 

[10]  Bassi, S., Boyd, R., Buckle, S., Fennell, P., Dowell, NM., 

Makuch, Z., Staffell, I., 2015. Bridging the gap: 

improving the economic and policy framework for 

carbon capture and storage in the European Union. 

Available at: https://www.cccep.ac.uk/wp-cont 

ent/uploads/2015/10/GRI_LSE_CCS_web.pdf. 

[11]  Anderson, S., Newell, R., 2004. Prospects for carbon 

capture and storage technologies. Annu. Rev. Environ. 

Resour. 29, 109–142. 

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.29.082703.

145619 

[12]  Asian Development Bank (ADB), 2015. Roadmap for 

carbon capture and storage demonstration and 

deployment in the People’s Republic of China. 

Available at: 

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication

/175347/roadmap-ccs-prc.pdf 

[13]  Roettereng, J-KS., 2014. The foreign policy of carbon 

sinks: carbon capture and storage as foreign policy in 

Norway. Energy Procedia 63, 6927–6944. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.727 

[14]  Gibbins, J., Chalmers, H., 2008. Carbon capture and 

storage. Energy Policy 36, 4317–4322. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.058 

[15]  Li, Q., Chen, ZA., Zhang, J-T., Liu, L-C., Li, XC., Jia, L., 

2016. Positioning and revision of CCUS technology 

development in China. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 

46, 282–293. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.02.024 

[16]  Rodrigues, CFA., Dinis, MAP., de Sousa, MJL., 2015. 

Review of European energy policies regarding the 

recent “carbon capture, utilization and storage” 

technologies scenario and the role of coal seams. 

Environ. Earth Sci. 74, 2553–2561. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4275-0 

[17]  Boot-Handford, ME., Abanades, JC., Anthony, EJ., 

Blunt, MJ., Brandani, S., Dowell, NM., Fernandez, JR., 

Ferrari, MC., Gross, R., Hallett, JP., Haszeldine, RS., 

Heptonstall, P., Lyngfelt, A., Makuch, Z., Mangano, E., 

Porter, RTJ., Pourkashanian, M., Rochelle, GT., Shah, 

N., Yao, JG., Fennell, PS., 2014. Carbon capture and 

storage update. Energy Environ. Sci. 7, 130. 

https://doi.org/10.1039/C3EE42350F 

[18]  Todd, AC, 2011. CCS – A multidisciplinary global 

activity for a global challenge. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 

89, 1443–1445. 

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/2011CE

RD...89.1443T/doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2011.04.018 

[19]  IOGP, 2022. Global CCUS projects Overview of 

existing and planned CCUS facilities. 

https://www.iogp.org/bookstore/wp-

content/uploads/sites/2/woocommerce_uploads/20

20/03/GRA002_220131.pdf 

[20]  Kearns J, Teletzke G, Palmer J, Thomann H, Kheshgi H, 

Chen H, Paltsev S and Herzog H., 2017. Developing a 

Consistent Database for Regional Geologic CO2 

Storage Capacity Worldwide. Energy Procedia. 114, 

4697-4709. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1603 

[21]  Dixon T, Garrett J, Kleverlaan E., 2014. Update on the 

London Protocol Developments on Transboundary 

CCS and on Geoengineering. Energy Procedia. 63, 

6623-6628. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.698 

[22]  Dixon, T., McCoy, ST., Havercroft, I., 2015. Legal and 

regulatory developments on CCS. Int. J. Greenhouse 

Gas Control 40, 431–448. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.024 

[23]  Severinsen, G., 2014. Constructing a legal framework 

for carbon capture and storage in New Zealand: 

approaches to legislative design. Energy Procedia 63, 

6629–6661. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.699 

[24]  Jiang, K., Ashworth, P., Zhang, S., Liang, X., Sun, Y., 

Angus, D., 2020. China’s carbon capture, utilization 

and storage (CCUS) policy: a critical review. 

Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 119, 109601. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109601 

[25]  Rahman, MN., Samsuri, MSHM., 2025. Greenhouse gas 

inventory mapping: a case study in Malaysia’s solid 

fuel testing facility. Future Sustainability, 3(1), pp.1-

13. http://dx.doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fusus.3.1.1 

[26]  EU ETS. Monitoring, reporting and verification of EU 

ETS emissions. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-

action/eu-emissions-trading-system-

euets/monitoring-reporting-and-verification-eu-ets-

emissions_en#documentation 

[27]  ISO 27914:2017. Carbon dioxide capture, 

transportation and geological storage — Geological 

storage. https://www.iso.org/standard/64148.html 

[28]  ISO/TR 27915:2017. Carbon dioxide capture, 

transportation and geological storage — 

Quantification and verification. 

https://www.iso.org/standard/65981.html 

[29]  VM0049, 2024. Carbon Capture and Storage. 

https://verra.org/methodologies/vm0049-carbon-

capture-and-storage/ 

[30]  VMD0057, 2024. CO2 Transport for CCS Projects. 

https://verra.org/methodologies/vmd0057-co2-

transport-for-ccs-projects-v1-0/ 

[31]  VMD0058, 2024. CO2 Storage in Saline Aquifers and 

Depleted Hydrocarbon Reservoirs. 

https://verra.org/methodologies/vmd0058-co2-



MN. Rahman /Future Sustainability                                                                                    November 2025| Volume 03 | Issue 04 | Pages 01-11 

11 

 

storage-in-saline-aquifers-and-depleted-

hydrocarbon-reservoirs-v1-0/ 

[32]  European Commission, 2023. Guidance Document: 

The Monitoring and Reporting Regulation – General 

guidance for installations. 

https://climate.ec.europa.eu/document/download/d

4f11230-9126-41a8-8c42-

6131cd4e742e_en?filename=gd1_guidance_installatio

ns_en.pdf 

 This article is an open-access article 

distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative 

Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

