Get a free lesson
Just type your contacts
It's totally free
Contact us
Leave a request and we will call you back
Subscribe to the Unicase Newsletter
Be the first to know about current events
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Current Framework and Key Gaps
Carbon Capture in Kazakhstan:
15.12.25
Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) is increasingly recognised worldwide as a critical mechanism for reducing CO₂ emissions from industrial and energy facilities. As of today, 77 commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects are operational worldwide, with a combined capture capacity of 64 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of CO₂ [1].
The core concept of CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide at emission sources, transporting it, and injecting it into deep underground formations where it can be stored permanently. This technology is essential for mitigating climate change, particularly in sectors where emissions cannot be eliminated solely through renewable energy.
The core concept of CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide at emission sources, transporting it, and injecting it into deep underground formations where it can be stored permanently. This technology is essential for mitigating climate change, particularly in sectors where emissions cannot be eliminated solely through renewable energy.
Current Framework and Key Gaps
Carbon Capture in Kazakhstan:
15.12.25
Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) is increasingly recognised worldwide as a critical mechanism for reducing CO₂ emissions from industrial and energy facilities. As of today, 77 commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects are operational worldwide, with a combined capture capacity of 64 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of CO₂ [1].
The core concept of CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide at emission sources, transporting it, and injecting it into deep underground formations where it can be stored permanently. This technology is essential for mitigating climate change, particularly in sectors where emissions cannot be eliminated solely through renewable energy.
The core concept of CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide at emission sources, transporting it, and injecting it into deep underground formations where it can be stored permanently. This technology is essential for mitigating climate change, particularly in sectors where emissions cannot be eliminated solely through renewable energy.
Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) is increasingly recognised worldwide as a critical mechanism for reducing CO₂ emissions from industrial and energy facilities. As of today, 77 commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects are operational worldwide, with a combined capture capacity of 64 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of CO₂ [1].
The core concept of CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide at emission sources, transporting it, and injecting it into deep underground formations where it can be stored permanently. This technology is essential for mitigating climate change, particularly in sectors where emissions cannot be eliminated solely through renewable energy.
Kazakhstan is one of the world’s carbon-intensive economies, heavily reliant on fossil fuels and energy-intensive industries. Although Kazakhstan currently lacks a dedicated legal or regulatory framework governing CCUS, the country has adopted ambitious climate commitments, including carbon neutrality by 2060, and is expected to introduce supportive regulations in the coming years. Understanding the compatibility of CCUS projects with existing laws is therefore essential for project developers and investors.
Global practice recognises several types of deep geological formations suitable for long-term CO₂ storage, from which two formations are particularly relevant for Kazakhstan:
The core concept of CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide at emission sources, transporting it, and injecting it into deep underground formations where it can be stored permanently. This technology is essential for mitigating climate change, particularly in sectors where emissions cannot be eliminated solely through renewable energy.
Kazakhstan is one of the world’s carbon-intensive economies, heavily reliant on fossil fuels and energy-intensive industries. Although Kazakhstan currently lacks a dedicated legal or regulatory framework governing CCUS, the country has adopted ambitious climate commitments, including carbon neutrality by 2060, and is expected to introduce supportive regulations in the coming years. Understanding the compatibility of CCUS projects with existing laws is therefore essential for project developers and investors.
Global practice recognises several types of deep geological formations suitable for long-term CO₂ storage, from which two formations are particularly relevant for Kazakhstan:
- Depleted oil and gas reservoirs represent a favourable and well-studied option. Their geological characteristics, including porosity, permeability and structural integrity, have been extensively assessed during years of hydrocarbon extraction. Existing wells, pipelines and injection facilities can often be repurposed. In addition, CO₂ injection may support enhanced oil recovery (EOR), improving the economic viability of early CCUS projects.
- Saline aquifers represent a second option for implementing CCUS projects as they constitute formations containing highly mineralised water at depths exceeding 800-1000 meters. Such water is not suitable for drinking or industrial use and is found extensively across Kazakhstan. International bodies such as the IPCC recognise deep saline formations as one of the most promising long-term CO₂ storage options due to their large capacity and widespread distribution. Salt domes are another potential option for CO₂ storage, but Kazakh legislation does not yet contain a defined licensing regime for their use.
Image credit: UNECE [2].
Development of CCS Regulation Across Jurisdictions
The regulatory foundations for carbon capture and storage (CCS) were laid the earliest in Norway, which in 1996 launched the Sleipner project and relied on the Petroleum Act (1996) and the Pollution Control Act (1981) to regulate offshore CO₂ injection. These laws, later supplemented by detailed technical and environmental regulations in the 2000s and 2010s, created the first functioning CCS permitting system in the world and demonstrated how existing petroleum legislation could be adapted for permanent CO₂ storage [3]-[5]. Onshore capture facilities are further regulated under the Energy Act, land-use planning rules and general environmental permitting regimes, whereas CO₂ pipelines and associated offshore infrastructure are increasingly governed by CCS-related legislation. The cumulative effect of this multi-layered framework is that any CCS project in Norway must secure a petroleum-type license for reservoir access and use, a pollution control permit for injection and storage, conventional permits for capture installations and transport infrastructure, and the necessary approvals for closure and post-closure monitoring, reflecting an effective petroleum-environmental regulatory model that has influenced CCS legislation worldwide.
The United States developed a federal regulatory framework for CCS beginning with foundational environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. A significant regulatory development occurred in 2010, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced the Class VI well requirements under the Underground Injection Control program [6]. These regulations set stringent standards for geological storage, monitoring, and financial assurance. In parallel, CCS capture facilities are generally required to obtain permits under the Clean Air Act and state-level air quality regulations. CO₂ pipelines may be regulated as hazardous liquid pipelines and therefore require authorisations under federal pipeline safety regulations and, in many cases, certificates or permissions from state public utility commissions, especially where eminent domain or common carrier status is involved. Consequently, CCS project developers must secure both federal Class VI injection permits and the necessary state-level approvals for storage, surface access, and environmental protection, rendering the U.S. regulatory framework one of the most complex and influential globally.
Around the same time, Australia advanced its own comprehensive legal approach. The Commonwealth adopted the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, one of the first explicit CCS statutes globally, establishing titles for assessment, injection and closure [7].
The European Union followed with a harmonised regulatory system through Directive 2009/31/EC, adopted in 2009 and implemented by Member States between 2010 and 2012 [8]. The Directive introduced EU-wide standards for geological storage, monitoring, corrective measures, financial security and post-closure responsibility, while also integrating CCS into the EU Emissions Trading System by deeming permanently stored CO₂ as “not emitted”. The Directive requires national transposition, creating a consistent framework for exploration, operation, closure, and post-closure phases of CO₂ storage. CCS projects in the EU require environmental and industrial permits for capture installations, CO₂ transport infrastructure, and geological storage. Operators must provide detailed site characterisation, modelling, and financial assurance, with a storage permit granted only if the site poses no significant risk of leakage or harm. Post-injection monitoring and corrective measures continue until responsibility for the site is transferred to the state, ensuring the permanent containment of stored CO₂. The EU’s approach marked the first international attempt to unify CCS regulation across multiple sovereign states.
In parallel to the EU, the United Kingdom developed its own comprehensive CCS regime through the Energy Act 2008 and the Storage of Carbon Dioxide Regulations 2010, creating a two-step licensing system (carbon storage license and storage permit) for offshore CO₂ storage [9]-[10]. The regime differentiates between offshore geological storage on the UK Continental Shelf and onshore capture and transport activities. For offshore storage, the North Sea Transition Authority is the licensing body, awarding carbon dioxide appraisal and storage licences (CS Licences) in designated licensing rounds. These grant exclusive rights to explore and develop a storage site, and must be supplemented by a storage permit at the operational stage, which authorises CO₂ injection and imposes conditions on maximum pressure, injection rates, monitoring, financial security, and decommissioning. Onshore, operators must secure environmental permits under the Environmental Permitting Regulations, which cover discharges to groundwater and emissions to air [11]. CO₂ pipelines are governed by national pipeline safety rules, with additional consents for construction and operation, and marine licences for seabed works where applicable. The Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Termination of Licences) Regulations 2011 outlines the post-closure obligations and liabilities once a storage site is decommissioned [12]. The UK’s system is considered one of the most detailed offshore storage regimes globally, closely aligned with the North Sea decarbonisation efforts.
Similarly, South Korea is transitioning from policy-based governance to a statute-based system with the CCUS Act, which took effect in February 2025 [13]. The CCUS Act regulates CO₂ capture, transport, storage, and long-term management as part of the country’s carbon neutrality goals for 2050.
Finally, developing economies are now adopting specialised CCS regulation, with Indonesia issuing Presidential Regulation No. 14/2024. This act authorises CO₂ collection, transport and storage, allows up to 30 percent of capacity for imported CO₂, and integrates CCS with the country’s oil and gas framework, while AMDAL environmental assessments (established in the 1990s and updated in 2021) govern environmental approvals.
Strategic Direction and Legal Framework for CCUS in Kazakhstan
Although Kazakhstan does not yet have a dedicated law regulating CCUS, the strategic direction clearly recognizes CCUS as a crucial component for achieving the country's decarbonisation goals. The Government of Kazakhstan has outlined these objectives in its national strategy, which serves as a foundation for future legislation and regulatory measures.
The Strategy for Achieving Carbon Neutrality by 2060 envisions systematic development of carbon capture, utilisation and storage technologies [14]. Kazakhstan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2030 and by 95 percent by 2060 relative to 1990 levels, increase the share of renewable energy to 50 percent of the national energy mix, modernise energy and industrial infrastructure, and accelerate the deployment of low-carbon and climate-resilient technologies.
The strategy focuses on three main pillars of Kazakhstan’s low-carbon transition:
Particular attention is given to the energy and industrial sectors, which account for the majority of national emissions. In the medium and long term, Kazakhstan plans to implement CO₂ capture and storage technologies at coal-fired power plants that will remain operational beyond 2035. Decommissioned units will be granted priority to participate in the development of renewable or other "green" energy projects. In parallel, the industrial sector is expected to adopt zero-emission production technologies combined with CCUS solutions, expand recycling efforts, and integrate alternative low-carbon materials.
Although CCS operations are not explicitly addressed in Kazakhstan’s existing legal framework, the Environmental Code does reference "carbon dioxide capture" as an activity requiring permits, classifying such installations as Category I hazardous facilities. This reference may indicate the regulatory system’s preparedness to accommodate CCUS technologies, laying the groundwork for the future development of a comprehensive legal framework for CCUS.
Drawing from the experiences of other countries, Kazakhstan may follow a model similar to Norway's early approach, utilising existing subsoil use legislation to regulate CCUS activities in its initial stages.
Applicability of Current Kazakh Subsoil Use Legislation to CO₂ Storage
Kazakhstan’s Subsoil Use Code does not directly regulate CCUS. As a result, implementation of storage projects may require applying general subsoil regulations by analogy. Kazakhstan mandates licences for any type of subsoil use, but the law does not expressly envision a licence category for CO₂ storage. Consequently, developers must consider which form of subsoil licence could lawfully cover CO₂ injection.
The first theoretical option involves licensing underground storage facilities for oil, gas and related products under Article 249(1) of the Subsoil Use Code [15]. However, this provision is inapplicable to CCS because it concerns only man-made storage facilities for hydrocarbons, not geological formations, and therefore cannot be interpreted to cover CO₂.
The second option, under the Article 249(2), allows a licence for the placement or operation of underground sites for the storage or disposal of liquid waste, hazardous substances or industrial effluents injected into the subsoil. This provision appears to be the most legally feasible route for CCS, as injection of CO₂ into geological formations could be viewed as the storage or disposal of liquid substances into the subsoil. The term “underground sites” is not defined in the Code, but Article 16 describes subsoil space as a three-dimensional geological environment available for industrial use, suggesting that natural reservoirs may fall within its scope.
Depending on the geological target formation, further permits may be required:
If CO₂ is recognised as waste, the operator must comply with waste management requirements, including notification, permitting and documentation under Section 19 of the Environmental Code. If CO₂ is classified as hazardous waste, a separate licence for hazardous waste recovery and removal will be required.
Conclusion
Having examined the potential legal mechanisms for implementing CCUS projects in Kazakhstan, we may conclude that, despite the absence of a dedicated regulatory framework, the existing system of subsoil, environmental and water legislation provides a minimal yet workable basis for launching pilot projects. At this stage, the most realistic and legally supportable approach appears to be obtaining a subsoil-use licence for the injection of liquid substances under Article 249(2) of the Subsoil Use Code, supplemented by a special water-use permit when operating with deep saline aquifers. Where depleted oil and gas reservoirs are used, an additional assessment may be required to determine whether licensing for hydrocarbon-related operations is triggered.
The further development of CCUS in Kazakhstan faces several unresolved legal uncertainties that are critical for project structuring and investment decision-making. The central issue concerns the legal classification of CO₂ in whether it should be treated as “waste” and if so, at what stage of the technological process. Current legislation does not expressly designate CO₂ as waste, but under certain conditions captured CO₂ may fall within the definition of waste provided in Article 317 of the Environmental Code. Such recognition would trigger the full scope of waste-management requirements, including licensing, notifications, permitting procedures and where applicable, compliance with the rules governing hazardous waste.
The correct determination of CO₂’s legal status directly affects the applicability of Article 249(2) of Subsoil Use Code, the potential qualification of subsurface injection as “disposal” or “storage” of liquid waste, the need for water-use authorisations, and regulatory obligations relating to monitoring, reporting and long-term liability for the storage site. The lack of a clear statutory position on these matters creates significant risks for investors and operators, including uncertainty regarding the appropriate permitting pathway, operational regime, allocation of responsibilities between the state and the project developer, and the scope of future monitoring and remediation obligations.
Kazakhstan’s strategic documents demonstrate a strong commitment to developing a comprehensive regulatory framework that will enable the large-scale deployment of CCUS technologies. The current state policy positions CCUS as a critical element in the country’s energy and industrial transformation, aligning with the national objectives of carbon neutrality. To facilitate this transition, further development of the legal framework is essential. Key areas include the formal classification of CO₂, defining permitting requirements, addressing long-term liability and monitoring obligations, and clarifying the interaction of CCUS activities with water and waste legislation. Resolving these issues will be key to attracting investment, reducing regulatory uncertainty, and supporting Kazakhstan’s success in achieving its long-term carbon-neutrality goals.
The regulatory foundations for carbon capture and storage (CCS) were laid the earliest in Norway, which in 1996 launched the Sleipner project and relied on the Petroleum Act (1996) and the Pollution Control Act (1981) to regulate offshore CO₂ injection. These laws, later supplemented by detailed technical and environmental regulations in the 2000s and 2010s, created the first functioning CCS permitting system in the world and demonstrated how existing petroleum legislation could be adapted for permanent CO₂ storage [3]-[5]. Onshore capture facilities are further regulated under the Energy Act, land-use planning rules and general environmental permitting regimes, whereas CO₂ pipelines and associated offshore infrastructure are increasingly governed by CCS-related legislation. The cumulative effect of this multi-layered framework is that any CCS project in Norway must secure a petroleum-type license for reservoir access and use, a pollution control permit for injection and storage, conventional permits for capture installations and transport infrastructure, and the necessary approvals for closure and post-closure monitoring, reflecting an effective petroleum-environmental regulatory model that has influenced CCS legislation worldwide.
The United States developed a federal regulatory framework for CCS beginning with foundational environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. A significant regulatory development occurred in 2010, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced the Class VI well requirements under the Underground Injection Control program [6]. These regulations set stringent standards for geological storage, monitoring, and financial assurance. In parallel, CCS capture facilities are generally required to obtain permits under the Clean Air Act and state-level air quality regulations. CO₂ pipelines may be regulated as hazardous liquid pipelines and therefore require authorisations under federal pipeline safety regulations and, in many cases, certificates or permissions from state public utility commissions, especially where eminent domain or common carrier status is involved. Consequently, CCS project developers must secure both federal Class VI injection permits and the necessary state-level approvals for storage, surface access, and environmental protection, rendering the U.S. regulatory framework one of the most complex and influential globally.
Around the same time, Australia advanced its own comprehensive legal approach. The Commonwealth adopted the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, one of the first explicit CCS statutes globally, establishing titles for assessment, injection and closure [7].
The European Union followed with a harmonised regulatory system through Directive 2009/31/EC, adopted in 2009 and implemented by Member States between 2010 and 2012 [8]. The Directive introduced EU-wide standards for geological storage, monitoring, corrective measures, financial security and post-closure responsibility, while also integrating CCS into the EU Emissions Trading System by deeming permanently stored CO₂ as “not emitted”. The Directive requires national transposition, creating a consistent framework for exploration, operation, closure, and post-closure phases of CO₂ storage. CCS projects in the EU require environmental and industrial permits for capture installations, CO₂ transport infrastructure, and geological storage. Operators must provide detailed site characterisation, modelling, and financial assurance, with a storage permit granted only if the site poses no significant risk of leakage or harm. Post-injection monitoring and corrective measures continue until responsibility for the site is transferred to the state, ensuring the permanent containment of stored CO₂. The EU’s approach marked the first international attempt to unify CCS regulation across multiple sovereign states.
In parallel to the EU, the United Kingdom developed its own comprehensive CCS regime through the Energy Act 2008 and the Storage of Carbon Dioxide Regulations 2010, creating a two-step licensing system (carbon storage license and storage permit) for offshore CO₂ storage [9]-[10]. The regime differentiates between offshore geological storage on the UK Continental Shelf and onshore capture and transport activities. For offshore storage, the North Sea Transition Authority is the licensing body, awarding carbon dioxide appraisal and storage licences (CS Licences) in designated licensing rounds. These grant exclusive rights to explore and develop a storage site, and must be supplemented by a storage permit at the operational stage, which authorises CO₂ injection and imposes conditions on maximum pressure, injection rates, monitoring, financial security, and decommissioning. Onshore, operators must secure environmental permits under the Environmental Permitting Regulations, which cover discharges to groundwater and emissions to air [11]. CO₂ pipelines are governed by national pipeline safety rules, with additional consents for construction and operation, and marine licences for seabed works where applicable. The Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Termination of Licences) Regulations 2011 outlines the post-closure obligations and liabilities once a storage site is decommissioned [12]. The UK’s system is considered one of the most detailed offshore storage regimes globally, closely aligned with the North Sea decarbonisation efforts.
Similarly, South Korea is transitioning from policy-based governance to a statute-based system with the CCUS Act, which took effect in February 2025 [13]. The CCUS Act regulates CO₂ capture, transport, storage, and long-term management as part of the country’s carbon neutrality goals for 2050.
Finally, developing economies are now adopting specialised CCS regulation, with Indonesia issuing Presidential Regulation No. 14/2024. This act authorises CO₂ collection, transport and storage, allows up to 30 percent of capacity for imported CO₂, and integrates CCS with the country’s oil and gas framework, while AMDAL environmental assessments (established in the 1990s and updated in 2021) govern environmental approvals.
Strategic Direction and Legal Framework for CCUS in Kazakhstan
Although Kazakhstan does not yet have a dedicated law regulating CCUS, the strategic direction clearly recognizes CCUS as a crucial component for achieving the country's decarbonisation goals. The Government of Kazakhstan has outlined these objectives in its national strategy, which serves as a foundation for future legislation and regulatory measures.
The Strategy for Achieving Carbon Neutrality by 2060 envisions systematic development of carbon capture, utilisation and storage technologies [14]. Kazakhstan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2030 and by 95 percent by 2060 relative to 1990 levels, increase the share of renewable energy to 50 percent of the national energy mix, modernise energy and industrial infrastructure, and accelerate the deployment of low-carbon and climate-resilient technologies.
The strategy focuses on three main pillars of Kazakhstan’s low-carbon transition:
- decarbonisation of fossil fuel industries and processes,
- decarbonisation of non-fossil-fuel industries, and
- expansion of natural carbon sinks, coupled with the development of industrial technologies for carbon capture, utilisation, long-term storage, and sequestration.
Particular attention is given to the energy and industrial sectors, which account for the majority of national emissions. In the medium and long term, Kazakhstan plans to implement CO₂ capture and storage technologies at coal-fired power plants that will remain operational beyond 2035. Decommissioned units will be granted priority to participate in the development of renewable or other "green" energy projects. In parallel, the industrial sector is expected to adopt zero-emission production technologies combined with CCUS solutions, expand recycling efforts, and integrate alternative low-carbon materials.
Although CCS operations are not explicitly addressed in Kazakhstan’s existing legal framework, the Environmental Code does reference "carbon dioxide capture" as an activity requiring permits, classifying such installations as Category I hazardous facilities. This reference may indicate the regulatory system’s preparedness to accommodate CCUS technologies, laying the groundwork for the future development of a comprehensive legal framework for CCUS.
Drawing from the experiences of other countries, Kazakhstan may follow a model similar to Norway's early approach, utilising existing subsoil use legislation to regulate CCUS activities in its initial stages.
Applicability of Current Kazakh Subsoil Use Legislation to CO₂ Storage
Kazakhstan’s Subsoil Use Code does not directly regulate CCUS. As a result, implementation of storage projects may require applying general subsoil regulations by analogy. Kazakhstan mandates licences for any type of subsoil use, but the law does not expressly envision a licence category for CO₂ storage. Consequently, developers must consider which form of subsoil licence could lawfully cover CO₂ injection.
The first theoretical option involves licensing underground storage facilities for oil, gas and related products under Article 249(1) of the Subsoil Use Code [15]. However, this provision is inapplicable to CCS because it concerns only man-made storage facilities for hydrocarbons, not geological formations, and therefore cannot be interpreted to cover CO₂.
The second option, under the Article 249(2), allows a licence for the placement or operation of underground sites for the storage or disposal of liquid waste, hazardous substances or industrial effluents injected into the subsoil. This provision appears to be the most legally feasible route for CCS, as injection of CO₂ into geological formations could be viewed as the storage or disposal of liquid substances into the subsoil. The term “underground sites” is not defined in the Code, but Article 16 describes subsoil space as a three-dimensional geological environment available for industrial use, suggesting that natural reservoirs may fall within its scope.
Depending on the geological target formation, further permits may be required:
- If CO₂ is injected into depleted oil and gas reservoirs, additional regulatory uncertainty arises. The Ministry of Energy may require a hydrocarbon operations licence for enhanced oil recovery activities. Whether such a licence applies to CCS operations without hydrocarbon extraction requires a project-specific assessment.
- If injection is performed into deep saline aquifers, two permits may be required: first, a subsoil use licence issued by the Ministry of Industry and Construction (MIC), and second, a special water-use permit issued by the Ministry of Water Resources, because saline aquifers constitute water bodies subject to water regulation.
If CO₂ is recognised as waste, the operator must comply with waste management requirements, including notification, permitting and documentation under Section 19 of the Environmental Code. If CO₂ is classified as hazardous waste, a separate licence for hazardous waste recovery and removal will be required.
Conclusion
Having examined the potential legal mechanisms for implementing CCUS projects in Kazakhstan, we may conclude that, despite the absence of a dedicated regulatory framework, the existing system of subsoil, environmental and water legislation provides a minimal yet workable basis for launching pilot projects. At this stage, the most realistic and legally supportable approach appears to be obtaining a subsoil-use licence for the injection of liquid substances under Article 249(2) of the Subsoil Use Code, supplemented by a special water-use permit when operating with deep saline aquifers. Where depleted oil and gas reservoirs are used, an additional assessment may be required to determine whether licensing for hydrocarbon-related operations is triggered.
The further development of CCUS in Kazakhstan faces several unresolved legal uncertainties that are critical for project structuring and investment decision-making. The central issue concerns the legal classification of CO₂ in whether it should be treated as “waste” and if so, at what stage of the technological process. Current legislation does not expressly designate CO₂ as waste, but under certain conditions captured CO₂ may fall within the definition of waste provided in Article 317 of the Environmental Code. Such recognition would trigger the full scope of waste-management requirements, including licensing, notifications, permitting procedures and where applicable, compliance with the rules governing hazardous waste.
The correct determination of CO₂’s legal status directly affects the applicability of Article 249(2) of Subsoil Use Code, the potential qualification of subsurface injection as “disposal” or “storage” of liquid waste, the need for water-use authorisations, and regulatory obligations relating to monitoring, reporting and long-term liability for the storage site. The lack of a clear statutory position on these matters creates significant risks for investors and operators, including uncertainty regarding the appropriate permitting pathway, operational regime, allocation of responsibilities between the state and the project developer, and the scope of future monitoring and remediation obligations.
Kazakhstan’s strategic documents demonstrate a strong commitment to developing a comprehensive regulatory framework that will enable the large-scale deployment of CCUS technologies. The current state policy positions CCUS as a critical element in the country’s energy and industrial transformation, aligning with the national objectives of carbon neutrality. To facilitate this transition, further development of the legal framework is essential. Key areas include the formal classification of CO₂, defining permitting requirements, addressing long-term liability and monitoring obligations, and clarifying the interaction of CCUS activities with water and waste legislation. Resolving these issues will be key to attracting investment, reducing regulatory uncertainty, and supporting Kazakhstan’s success in achieving its long-term carbon-neutrality goals.
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Reference List:
[1] Global Status of CCS report. Global-Status-of-CCS-2025-report-9-October.pdf
[2] UNECE. Carbon Capture, Use and Storage (CCUS). https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/cleaner-electricity-systems/carbon-capture-use-and-storage-ccus
[3] Regulations relating to documentation in connection with storage of CO2 on the shelf. https://www.sodir.no/en/regulations/regulations/materials-and-documentation-in-connection-with-surveys-for-and-utilisation-of-subsea-reservoirs-on-the-continental-shelf-to-store-co/
[4] Regulations relating to exploitation of subsea reservoirs on the continental shelf for storage of CO₂ and relating to transportation of CO₂ on the continental shelf. https://www.sodir.no/en/regulations/regulations/exploitation-of-subsea-reservoirs-on-the-continental-shelf-for-storage-of-and-transportation-of-co/
[5] CO₂ safety regulations. https://www.havtil.no/contentassets/85219a8bda32464a97e024d6be29cdba/co2-sikkerhetsforskriften_e-2.pdf
[6] Underground Injection Control Program. https://www.epa.gov/uic/underground-injection-control-regulations
[7] Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/opaggsa2006446/
[8] Directive 2009/31/EC. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/31/oj/eng
[9] Energy Act 2008. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/32/contents
[10] Storage of Carbon Dioxide Regulations 2010. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2221/contents
[11] Environmental Permitting Regulations. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1154/contents
[12] Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Termination of Licences) Regulations 2011. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1483/contents
[13] CCUS Act. https://climate-laws.org/document/act-on-the-capture-transportation-storage-and-utilisation-of-carbon-dioxide_ce05
[14] Strategy for Achieving Carbon Neutrality by 2060. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/U2300000121
[15] Subsoil Use Code. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K1700000125
[16] Environmental Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K2100000400
[1] Global Status of CCS report. Global-Status-of-CCS-2025-report-9-October.pdf
[2] UNECE. Carbon Capture, Use and Storage (CCUS). https://unece.org/sustainable-energy/cleaner-electricity-systems/carbon-capture-use-and-storage-ccus
[3] Regulations relating to documentation in connection with storage of CO2 on the shelf. https://www.sodir.no/en/regulations/regulations/materials-and-documentation-in-connection-with-surveys-for-and-utilisation-of-subsea-reservoirs-on-the-continental-shelf-to-store-co/
[4] Regulations relating to exploitation of subsea reservoirs on the continental shelf for storage of CO₂ and relating to transportation of CO₂ on the continental shelf. https://www.sodir.no/en/regulations/regulations/exploitation-of-subsea-reservoirs-on-the-continental-shelf-for-storage-of-and-transportation-of-co/
[5] CO₂ safety regulations. https://www.havtil.no/contentassets/85219a8bda32464a97e024d6be29cdba/co2-sikkerhetsforskriften_e-2.pdf
[6] Underground Injection Control Program. https://www.epa.gov/uic/underground-injection-control-regulations
[7] Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/opaggsa2006446/
[8] Directive 2009/31/EC. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/31/oj/eng
[9] Energy Act 2008. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/32/contents
[10] Storage of Carbon Dioxide Regulations 2010. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/2221/contents
[11] Environmental Permitting Regulations. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/1154/contents
[12] Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Termination of Licences) Regulations 2011. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1483/contents
[13] CCUS Act. https://climate-laws.org/document/act-on-the-capture-transportation-storage-and-utilisation-of-carbon-dioxide_ce05
[14] Strategy for Achieving Carbon Neutrality by 2060. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/U2300000121
[15] Subsoil Use Code. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K1700000125
[16] Environmental Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/K2100000400