A. Overview of the development of offshore CCS

CCS consists of the process where CO2 emissions are captured, transported via pipelines or ships, and permanently stored in geological formations. The sequestration process involves compressing captured CO2 into a fluid almost as dense as water, transporting it to near the storage site, and then pumping it down a well into a geological storage formation.Footnote ¹⁴ In particular, offshore CCS has become a preferred option because of several advantages, such as substantial capacity for high-quality storage, prior geological knowledge gained from oil and gas exploration, minimal impact on freshwater aquifers, and the absence of objection from permanent populations and communities.Footnote ¹⁵ Depleted oil and gas reservoirs, enhanced oil and gas recovery sites, and saline formations are considered suitable options for CO2 geological storage sites.Footnote ¹⁶ The notable industrial-scale offshore CCS projects are Sleipner and Snøhvit, operating on the Norwegian continental shelf. The Sleipner and Snøhvit facilities have operated since 1996 and 2008 respectively, and have collectively stored approximately 26 million tonnes of CO2 so far.Footnote ¹⁷ In addition to the two projects in operation in Norway, there are more than 30 new proposals for offshore CCS across the world, aiming to start operation before 2030.Footnote ¹⁸

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) even addressed in the report on “Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage” in 2005 that “appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs are ‘very likely’ to retain over 99% of the sequestered CO2 for longer than 100 years and ‘likely’ to retain 99% of it for longer than 1000 years”.Footnote ¹⁹ However, though it is generally known that offshore CCS projects are safe under certain conditions, each stage of offshore CCS projects, from capture, transport, injection, to storage, entails potential harm to the marine environment.Footnote ²⁰ For example, there are potential risks from CO2 leaks due to pipeline or ship tank ruptures. CO2 injection and storage in sub-seabed geological formations can cause even more significant impacts. Different dynamics of each geological formation may result in unpredictable outcomes from the injection of CO2.Footnote ²¹ The leakage of stored CO2 may pose significant threats to benthic creatures and their habitats.Footnote ²² In particular, any leakage of CO2 from storage sites could cause irreversible harm to the ocean, such as “reduced rates of calcification reproduction, growth, circulatory oxygen supply and mobility, as well as increased mortality over time”.Footnote ²³

Moreover, there are concerns over South Korea’s lack of technical experience with the long-term storage of CO2 in sub-seabed geological formations. Considering only a few offshore CCS projects are operating in Norway so far, there have been few technological developments related to the monitoring, verification, and reporting of actual physical leakage rates.Footnote ²⁴ These knowledge gaps related to the possible impacts of CCS on the marine environment have caused additional concern, especially regarding the long-term effects of leakage of stored CO2.Footnote ²⁵

B. Current development of offshore CCS in South Korea

CCS has received special attention in South Korea as a significant technology for reducing CO2 emissions and achieving carbon-neutral goals.Footnote ²⁶ In particular, in 2010, the Presidential Committee on Green Growth announced the 2010 National CCS Master Action Plan. As a priority plan addressing CCS at the national level, it includes key sectoral plans, such as: (1) development of integrated technology for all phases of CCS, including capture, transportation, and storage; (2) development of large-scale CO2 transportation infrastructure via pipelines for the long term and alternative transport means, such as shipping; (3) selection of potential storage sites in the offshore seabed in different maritime areas; (4) development of CCS technologies; and (5) environmental management and infrastructure, including the development of an environmental management framework for all the phases of CCS.Footnote ²⁷ Considering the importance of reducing the environmental risks that may arise from CCS projects, the action plan encourages the development of a regulatory framework for CCS at the national level, including a permit for CCS projects, monitoring procedures, and liability standards.Footnote ²⁸ It addresses the need for the CO2 storage process to meet international standards for monitoring and verification.Footnote ²⁹ It also highlights the need to develop national legislation.Footnote ³⁰

In 2012, the Korean government announced possible locations for offshore CCS for the first time. The results came from the analysis of extensive existing data collected for oil and gas exploitation and initially identified possible areas in a sedimentary layer near Ulleung Basin in the East Sea (with a depth of 800–3000 m).Footnote ³¹ In addition to the 2012 preliminary research, the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries published a map of potential CO2 storage locations in marine geological formations in Korea in 2014.Footnote ³² It provided information on possible CO2 sequestration locations and storage capacity with an analysis of marine geological formations in maritime areas around the Korean Peninsula – the East Sea, the West Sea, and the South Sea.Footnote ³³

In 2017, however, the concern regarding the risk to the marine environment impeded a preliminary feasibility experiment that started in the Pohang Basin in the West Sea. The experiment was terminated because of protests by local residents after a 5.4-level earthquake happened nearby.Footnote ³⁴ Nevertheless, in 2021, a joint research group conducted research on the Comprehensive Evaluation of Potential Geological Formations and Storage Capacity for CO2 Storage in Korean Maritime AreasFootnote ³⁵ and concluded that the potential geological formations for CO2 storage have a capacity of approximately 7.3 billion tonnes, which would allow for the storage of 24 million tonnes of CO2 per year for 30 years.Footnote ³⁶ However, environmental considerations were not included in the evaluation criteria for the potential CO2 storage in maritime areas.

A. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

The LOSC provides a legal framework for the regulation of offshore CCS, in particular sequestration that entails an injection of CO2 through drilling into sub-seabed geological formations. In accordance with the provisions of LOSC, a coastal state has rights to carry out CCS projects in different maritime zones. In the territorial sea, which extends to 12 nautical miles from the baseline, including its seabed and subsoil, a coastal state can exercise its sovereignty to explore geological formations beneath the seabed for CO2 sequestration.Footnote ³⁷ In the exclusive economic zone, a coastal state enjoys sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage the natural resources of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil and other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone. Part VI of LOSC also gives coastal states rights to conduct CCS projects on the continental shelf by providing states with the exclusive right to authorize and regulate drilling on the continental shelf for all purposes as well as to construct, authorize, and regulate installations and structures relating to CCS operations on the continental shelf.Footnote ³⁸ With an evolved and broader interpretation of “natural resources” under Article 77 of LOSC, it is arguable that coastal states have exclusive sovereign rights to inject CO2 into geological formations on the continental shelf. Natural resources are defined as “the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms belonging to sedentary species”.Footnote ³⁹ However, it can be understood that new technological developments broaden the definition of “natural resources” to include geological storage capacity, such as sub-seabed CO2 storage operations.Footnote ⁴⁰

While a coastal state has the right to exploit geological formations for CO2 injection within national jurisdiction, at the same time, it has a general obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment from the potential risks arising from CO2 sequestration.Footnote ⁴¹ It raises the fundamental question of whether the injection of CO2 in the sea-bed geological formations constitutes “pollution of the marine environment” under the LOSC.Footnote ⁴² “Pollution of the marine environment” is defined as “the introduction by man, directly or indirectly of substances or energy into the marine environment … which results or is likely to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living resources and marine life”.Footnote ⁴³ These criteria can be rephrased as three standards: (1) an actor standard, (2) an activity standard, and (3) a result standard. First, an offshore CCS project, which involves an artificial injection of CO2 into the sea-bed geological formations, easily meets the actor standard, as it is planned, controlled, and conducted by humans. Second, the activity standard is also met, as the injection of CO2 into sea-bed geological formations constitutes the direct introduction of substances into the marine environment.Footnote ⁴⁴ Third, although it depends on various environmental characteristics and the level of technical and scientific capacity of an operator, there is a potential that offshore CCS projects may cause deleterious effects from the leakage of CO2 to living resources and marine life. Therefore, CO2 sequestration into sub-seabed geological formations can be considered pollution of the marine environment under the LOSC.

In addition to a general obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment from CO2 sequestration,Footnote ⁴⁵ the LOSC also requires states to take measures to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment “from any source”, including measures “necessary to protect and preserve rare and fragile ecosystems”.Footnote ⁴⁶ If a state fails to take these measures to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment from anthropogenic GHG emissions, this would constitute a breach of the due diligence obligation.Footnote ⁴⁷ While a coastal state has a stringent due diligence obligation, the implementation of the obligation may differ based on the state’s capabilities and available resources.Footnote ⁴⁸ A coastal state also has an obligation to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under Article 206 of the LOSC, which states “when States have reasonable grounds for believing that planned activities under their jurisdiction or control may cause substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment”.Footnote ⁴⁹ There is no doubt that the CO2 sequestration process into sub-seabed geological formations is one of the “planned activities” that requires an EIA.

Moreover, sub-seabed CO2 sequestration is also closely related to dumping. The LOSC defines dumping as “any deliberate disposal of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea”.Footnote ⁵⁰ The term “at sea” raises a question of whether it includes disposal into sub-seabed geological formations, such as CO2 sequestration. Considering the definition of dumping under the LOSC was incorporated from the 1972 London Convention, this issue will be addressed in the next section. While the LOSC does not prohibit dumping, it obliges states to adopt laws and regulations to prevent pollution of the marine environment by dumping.Footnote ⁵¹ The 1972 London Convention and 1996 London Protocol provide more detailed obligations regarding dumping.

B. The 1972 London Convention and 1996 London Protocol

The 1972 London Convention and the 1996 London Protocol are significant in regulating CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations. The 1972 London Convention was adopted to control all sources of marine pollution and to prevent pollution of the sea by the dumping of waste and other matter.Footnote ⁵² It takes a “black and grey list” approach, in which other materials or substances not included in the list can be dumped subject to a general permit issued. However, the permitting scheme allows states to have discretion to implement their obligations, and thus, a lack of compliance procedures undermined its effectiveness.

The 1996 London Protocol was developed to overcome these challenges. For states that are parties to the 1972 London Convention and the 1996 London Protocol, the 1996 London Protocol superseded the 1972 London Convention.Footnote ⁵³ The 1996 London Protocol takes the “reverse list” approach to dumping; that is, dumping is prohibited in principle, except for the materials listed in Annex 1. The 1996 London Protocol adopted a definition of dumping as “any storage of wastes or other matter in the seabed and the subsoil” (emphasis added). This new definition makes it clear that the injection of CO2 into sub-seabed geological formations is prohibited.Footnote ⁵⁴ However, in 2006, Resolution Lp.1(1) was adopted to include CO2 Sequestration in Sub-Seabed Geological Formations in Annex 1 to the 1996 London Protocol.Footnote ⁵⁵ The amendment to Annex 1 of the 1996 London Protocol, which was entered into force on 10 February 2007, allows CO2 streams to be regulated as dumping if

The 1996 London Protocol also obliges contracting parties to apply a precautionary approach by taking appropriate preventative measures “even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between inputs and their effects”.Footnote ⁵⁷

This amendment that allows CO2 sequestration as dumping also requires that states that plan to carry out offshore CCS are subject to a mandatory impact assessment as addressed in Annex 2 of the 1996 London Protocol, on the Assessment of Wastes or Other Matter that may be Considered for Dumping.Footnote ⁵⁸ CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological formations is considered a waste management option concerning climate change mitigation efforts.Footnote ⁵⁹ Therefore, parties to the 1996 London Protocol should consider Annex 2, and other factors including waste prevention audit, consideration of waste management options, chemical, physical and biological properties, action list, dump-site selection, assessment of potential effects, and monitoring and permit conditions in the risk assessment for CO2 sequestration. Moreover, in 2009, Article 6 of the 1972 London Convention was amended to enable transboundary export of CO2.Footnote ⁶⁰ In 2019, the contracting parties to the 1996 London Protocol adopted a Resolution on the Provisional Application of the 2009 Amendment to Article 6 of the 1996 London Protocol.Footnote ⁶¹ It is notable that South Korea is one of the few states to have accepted the 2009 Amendment to Article 6 of the London Convention to enable transboundary export of CO2.Footnote ⁶² This indicates that the South Korean government has a strong motivation to develop offshore CCS as a regional driver in the Asia-Pacific region. However, because this article focuses on offshore CCS projects developing within Korea’s national jurisdiction, it will not provide details about regulations for transboundary offshore CCS.

The contracting parties also adopted several technical guidelines on CO2 sequestration in sub-seabed geological structures. The 2006 Risk Assessment and Management Framework for CO2 Sequestration in Sub-seabed Geological Structures aims to “characterise the risks to the marine environment from CO2 sequestration on a site-specific basis and collect the necessary information to develop a management strategy to address uncertainties and any residual risks”.Footnote ⁶³ It provides details on the scoping of a risk assessment, site selection and characterisation, exposure assessment, effect assessment resulting from leakage of CO2, risk characterisation based on site-specific information, and risk management including monitoring and mitigation actions.

South Korea is a party to both the 1972 London ConventionFootnote ⁶⁴ and the 1996 London Protocol.Footnote ⁶⁵ Thus, South Korea has an obligation to comply with the 1996 London Protocol, because the 1996 London Protocol superseded the 1972 London Convention. The obligation includes mandatory impact assessment as described in Annex 2 of the 1996 London Protocol, and the establishment of a national legal framework that is consistent with the 1996 London Protocol and other relevant guidelines. The next part will examine the extent to which the existing national regulatory framework in Korea regulates environmental challenges raised by sub-seabed CO2 storage operations and whether there are gaps.

A. Act on Carbon Capture, Transport, Storage, and Utilization

The Act on Carbon Capture, Transport, Storage, and Utilization was adopted in South Korea in January 2024, and it aims “to develop the necessary technologies for industrial and domestic use of capturing carbon dioxide emitted from industrial activities and storing it underground, thereby contributing to preventing the serious impacts of climate change and the sustainable economic development of the nation”.Footnote ⁶⁶ The Act prescribes the establishment of the basic plan for capture (Chapter 2), installation of CCUS (Chapter 3), exploration, selection, and closure of CO2 storage sites (Chapter 4), operation of Storage Projects (Chapter 5), designation and operation of CCUS clusters (Chapter 6), development of Industries such as CO2 Capture (Chapter 7), and miscellaneous (Chapter 8).

In particular, Article 3 of the Act addresses the responsibility of the government to establish and promote measures to accelerate CCUS development and to activate necessary educational and promotional efforts to enhance public awareness. However, it does not create any specific obligation on the government to protect the marine environment. There are no articles addressing issues relating to the prevention of pollution that may arise from offshore CCS projects.

B. Environmental Impact Assessment Act

South Korea has an obligation to carry out an EIA under Article 206 of the LOSC. The Environmental Impact Assessment Act was adopted to describe procedural obligations to evaluate the possible environmental effects of policies and projects, and it can be applied to offshore CCS projects. Thus, offshore CCS projects, as part of a plan to develop energy sources, are required to conduct a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and an EIA. The SEA also assesses the feasibility of an offshore CCS plan and the selection of a site location, and applies to the processes of capture, transportation, and storage.Footnote ⁶⁷

When the head of an administrative agency intends to formulate an offshore CCS plan,Footnote ⁶⁸ the Act provides the details of the assessment that should be considered. Moreover, once the location of an offshore CCS project is confirmed, the project operators are required to carry out an EIA.Footnote ⁶⁹ While offshore CCS activities require an EIA for different phases of CCS, including capture, transportation, and sequestration, the phase of CO2 sequestration requires particular attention. As it is a large-scale industrial activity carried out using new technology, there is much uncertainty as to its impact on the marine environment, including the potential leakage of CO2 during and after sequestration. However, there are no details about how to assess the impacts of CO2 sequestration on the marine environment in the Act.Footnote ⁷⁰

C. Marine Environment Management Act

The Marine Environment Management Act provides a basic legal framework of general obligations for the regulation of maritime pollution from different activities. It regulates the discharge of marine pollutants from ships and facilities in order to prevent damage and promote the improvement and recovery of the marine environment.Footnote ⁷¹ It provides a legal basis for the regulation of CO2 streams by defining “wastes” as “a substance which is unusable in such form when discarded into the sea and which adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect the marine environment”.Footnote ⁷² While this definition encompasses CO2 streams, the Act does not prohibit the injection of CO2 into sub-seabed geological formations. Instead, it provides regulation in the case of a CO2 leakage that adversely affects the marine environment.Footnote ⁷³ The Marine Environment Management Act includes obligations related to preserving and managing the marine environment, regulations for the prevention of marine pollution, and measures to respond to marine pollution.

It is notable that the Act also addresses the relationship between relevant international conventions. It declares that international conventions in force shall prevail where the standards for the marine environment and for marine pollution conflict with the Act itself.Footnote ⁷⁴ “Standards” under Article 4 of the Marine Environment Management Act can be interpreted in a broad manner in this context. This can include not only regulatory requirements under international conventions but also guidelines and codes adopted by state parties to these international conventions. Therefore, this article is unique in requiring states to comply not only with regulatory requirements but also with stringent standards, including guidelines and codes, when there are inconsistencies between international conventions and national legislation. Thus, the Korean government is still subject to compliance with regulatory requirements under international conventions in the absence of these obligations addressed in the national Act. However, in the cases of the absence of standards in national Acts, arguably, it can be interpreted that the Korean government is required to do their best to comply with standards addressed in guidelines and codes adopted within the 1996 London Protocol, though it would be a weaker obligation than their mandatory regulatory obligations under the 1996 London Protocol. It can also be argued that the Korean government fulfils the stringent due diligence obligation in implementing offshore CCS by complying with guidelines which were adopted to provide generic guidance to the contracting parties to the London Convention and Protocol.

D. The Management of Marine Garbage and Contaminated Marine Sediment Act

The Management of Marine Garbage and Contaminated Marine Sediment Act is a piece of national legislation that incorporates elements of the 1996 London Protocol. The Act is supplemented by the Presidential Decree and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.Footnote ⁷⁵ While the Act prohibits the discharge of wastes into the sea in principle, similar to the 1996 London Protocol, it allows an exception for CO2 streams.Footnote ⁷⁶ Article 10 specifically addresses CO2 sequestration under the title “Storage and management of carbon dioxide streams in marine geological structures”. First, it states that CO2 streams that may be stored in marine geological formations and the way that they may be stored are prescribed by the Presidential Decree.Footnote ⁷⁷ Second, permission is required from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries for the storage of CO2 in sub-seabed geological formations.Footnote ⁷⁸ Third, the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries shall determine a marine geological structure suitable for offshore CCS.Footnote ⁷⁹ The Act confirms that the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries is the national authority that oversees the storage of offshore CCS. The Act also prohibits the sequestration of CO2 in the water column. The Presidential Decree and Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, which supplements the Act, provides further details about the regulation of the CO2 sequestration process in sub-seabed geological formations, as described below.

E. Gaps in the regulatory framework on offshore CO2 sequestration and the protection of the marine environment

A. Site selection

One of the main gaps in CO2 sequestration into sub-seabed geological formations in South Korea is the lack of consideration of the potential impact on the marine environment in the site selection process. As discussed in Part III, the Ordinance on Management of Marine Garbage and Contaminated Marine Sediment prescribes storage site options instead of elaborating a selection process based on characterisation and assessment of potential storage sites. However, offshore CCS projects rely on site-specific and geological characteristics and careful site selection based on data can be one of the means to guarantee high environmental integrity. Therefore, after scientific data collection, detailed criteria should be provided for the adequate sequestration site selection process.Footnote ⁹³

While the current regulatory framework addresses potential sites based on storage capacity and characterisation of geological formations, the process for site selection should be clarified. The details for the assessment of potential storage sites should be included, taking into account “characterisation of the reservoir, the cap rock-trapping mechanisms, geological stability, possible leakage path routes and ecosystem characteristics”.Footnote ⁹⁴ The 2006 Risk Assessment and Management Framework provides useful guidance for factors to be considered in this regard. They include “the storage capacity and injectivity of the geological formation; the storage integrity; the suitability of the surrounding geological formations; potential migration and leakage pathways over time; the potential effect on marine life and human health of leakage of CO2”.Footnote ⁹⁵ The factors relating to the potential impacts on the marine ecosystem should be evaluated throughout the site selection process.

B. Assessment of potential risks from CO2 sequestration

The current national legislation on EIA only provides a general obligation on large-scale planned activities without content specific to CO2 sequestration. Yet, South Korea has an obligation to comply with Annex 2 of the 1996 London Protocol to carry out an assessment with a broader scope than environmental impact alone. The comprehensive assessment must consider human health risks, environmental hazards, and the exclusion of future maritime uses in the area where offshore CO2 sequestration takes place.Footnote ⁹⁶ Because the private operator is required to carry out an EIA for the CCS project and submit the report for a CO2 sequestration permit, developing detailed criteria contributes to ensuring objectivity in the permit process.Footnote ⁹⁷

Moreover, the 2006 Risk Assessment and Management Framework provides detailed guidance to characterise and assess the risks to the marine environment arising from offshore CO2 sequestration. In particular, it includes (1) exposure assessment to assess leakage to the marine environment during and after CO2 injection; (2) effects assessment on the marine environment if leakage were to occur; and (3) risk characterisation to integrate the information on the likelihood of adverse impacts on the marine environment. It is worth noting that risk assessment solely regarding the marine environment would not be sufficient. The 2006 Risk Assessment and Management Framework clearly addressed that “the main considerations in relation to the leakage of CO2 should be the effects of CO2 concentrations on human health, marine resources, sensitivity of species, communities, habitats and processes, and other legitimate uses of the sea”.Footnote ⁹⁸ Yet, as the assessment of storage capacity, suitability, and acceptability should be carried out on a site-specific basis, there is a need to develop standards that account for Korean geological characteristics.

Annex 2 of the 1996 London Protocol also highlights a precautionary principle, which states that “if this assessment reveals that adequate information is not available to determine the likely effects of the proposed disposal option, then this option should not be considered further”.Footnote ⁹⁹ South Korea should apply this precautionary principle to the whole process, including decision-making on CO2 sequestration. If there are potential significant risks of CO2 sequestration on the marine environment, in the absence of scientific consensus, the project should not be considered further.

C. Monitoring

Monitoring is an essential component of offshore CCS projects to ensure the safe and secure sequestration of CO2. It allows for the quick identification and effective management of any CO2 leaks from a CCS site. Monitoring plays a significant role both during and after CO2 injection, particularly in tracking the migration of CO2 within and above the reservoir and providing early warnings of unexpected CO2 leakage. Additionally, monitoring is crucial not only for detecting CO2 migration or leakage but also for assessing potential adverse effects on the marine environment. Annex 2 of the 1996 London Protocol requires states to conduct compliance monitoring and field monitoring as part of permit conditions.Footnote ¹⁰⁰ For the implementation of a monitoring requirement, Article 14(2) of the Ordinance on Management of Marine Garbage and Contaminated Marine Sediment addresses that“there will be a separate noting of the details on the security of safety in the process of transportation and storage of CO2 streams, monitoring of the environment and marine ecosystems, and emergency plans to tackle CO2 leakage accidents, as well as post-management”. However, no national legislation or order has been adopted to ensure these obligations.

Monitoring requirements should be designed based on the information gathered during the planning stage because site selection, effects assessment, and risk characterisation during the planning stage are closely related to, and provide essential knowledge and data for, the development of a monitoring strategy. It is interesting to note that the Act on Carbon Capture, Transport, Storage, and Utilization leaves open the possibility of establishing a public monitoring system in addition to the operators’ monitoring plan.Footnote ¹⁰¹ The public monitoring system allows operators to provide newly updated monitoring data of the CO2 storage site. Presidential decrees will prescribe issues to be included in the public monitoring reports and will also indicate the submission cycles for the development of the public monitoring system.Footnote ¹⁰² The results of the monitoring conducted by operators should be disclosed to the public.Footnote ¹⁰³ Additionally, it is necessary to require operators to provide more detailed plans for long-term monitoring, given that offshore CCS projects aim for permanent sequestration. This is also closely related to the issue of whether monitoring obligations will be reduced as a result of transferring responsibility to the competent authority, which will be discussed in the next section.

D. Long-term storage liability

The 1996 London Protocol requires states to develop procedures regarding liability for damage to the marine environment from offshore CCS projects.Footnote ¹⁰⁴ While it gives states broad discretion rather than providing detailed guidance, the liability issue is not covered by the current legal framework regulating offshore CCS in Korea. Liability issues include what kinds of liability should be imposed and who should bear responsibility for offshore CO2 sequestration, including in post-closure phases.Footnote ¹⁰⁵ In principle, the operator remains responsible for the maintenance and monitoring of the CO2 sequestered in sub-seabed geological formations.Footnote ¹⁰⁶ However, responsibility for offshore CO2 sequestration that is to be stored for an indefinite period would be a significant burden for operators, causing uncertainty and increasing investment risks. It raises the question as to how to “allocate a wide range of potential liabilities between the operator and regulator, throughout the lifetime of an offshore CCS project”.Footnote ¹⁰⁷

Although the 1996 London Protocol does not provide details on long-term storage liability, some national legal frameworks contain provisions for the transfer of liability from an operator to a regulator. For example, an EU Directive on the geological storage of carbon dioxide stipulates the transfer of responsibility from the operator to the competent authority under the condition that there has been: (1) complete and permanent CO2 storage, (2) a minimum period of 20 years, (3) the fulfilment of financial obligations, and (4) a sealed site and removal of the injection facilities.Footnote ¹⁰⁸ A combination of “time-related and performance-based elements”Footnote ¹⁰⁹ can be considered in prescribing a liability transfer, the transfer of compensation, or the transfer of monitoring to ensure that the level of risk of leakage is reduced.Footnote ¹¹⁰ Furthermore, as several government agencies are involved in offshore CCS projects under the Korean regulatory framework, such as the Ministry of Knowledge Economy, the Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, it should be discussed which government agency will become the main body dealing with liability issues, including the transfer of liability.