A.2.2. Regional Improvement
After having defined the appropriate ranking, we improved IPCC original map with regional maps that have been released after 2005 and up to now.
This section sums up the different regional or local sources used to improve the world suitability map (Figure 14).
Examples of such improvements are given in sub-sections below.
The study conducted by Australian CCS Taskforce  carried out a detailed ranking of the Australian basins. Using a probabilistic approach they created a five levels ranking: Highly Suitable, Suitable, Possible, Unlikely, and Unsuitable.
The ranking seen above was adapted on Australia. In addition the extrusive volcanic rocks have been highlighted.has been considered as unsuitable only due to a high natural seismicity risk.
The map of storage potential in, proposed by IEAGHG - 2008 has the same logic of ranking, with only three levels:
As for Australia the extrusive volcanic rocks have been highlighted in the new proposed version (see Figure 58).
The study from Figure 53).(PNNL)  and the works of Dahowski et al , of Finlay et al , of Le Nindre et al , of Li et al , and of Jiao et al  have been used for to improve the IPCC’s map (
These documents propose a good description of the storage possibilities in deep saline formations, oil and gas fields and coal fields. The following Figure 59 and Figure 60 are derived from these references.
A.2.2.4. South-East Asia
For the South-East Asian countries, the map from IPCC (Figure 53) was too global. The work presented by ICTPL  proposed some interesting details of the potential storage capacities at a country level.
Additionally the report from Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) on South East Asia countries  has also been used.
The work of Huh et al  and Dooley for PNNL  has been used for Korea.
The works of Best et al  and ofCCS working group  were used for Indonesia.
In Europe, the results from EU GeoCapacity project  were used. This project assessed European capacity for geological storage of CO2 in following countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and UK.
The presentation of Carneiro  was used to improve the information about the Portuguese aquifers. The work of Okandan et al , and Ersoy  were used for Turkey.
The work of Wilkinson et al  improves the information about North Sea storage.
A.2.2.6. North America
The Carbon Sequestration Atlas of theand edited by NETL was used for the US and North West Canada.
A.2.2.7 South America
The most recent information about South America is focussed on Brazil. The data come from the project managed by PUCRS [39, 40].
The main area studied for CO2 storage is South Africa. The atlas information  from the carbon sequestration project financed by the Department of Minerals and Energy ofand the CSIR has been used. The works of Campher et al , Cloete  and Viljoen et al  permitted to improve the information on South Africa.
A program is under development inbut there is no information was made available at the time of the study.
A.2.2.9. Middle East
There is not a lot of information on Middle East countries concerning CO2 storage suitability.
To increase the precision in this area, the repartition of oil and gas field proposed by USGS was used.
As is detailed below the natural seismicity was used to precise the IPCC map (Figure 53). In the Middle East, was classified as unsuitable area because of a very high seismic hazard except along the coast of the Persian Gulf.