KEYNOTE PRESENTATIONS CCS PROGRESS IN CANADA: Dr Carmen Dybwad – IPAC-CO2 CCUS IN THE UNITED STATES: Judi Greenwald – C2ES CCS IN AUSTRALIA: Dick Wells – National CCS Council
Oct 31, 2014
KEYNOTE PRESENTATIONS
CCS PROGRESS IN CANADA: Dr Carmen Dybwad – IPAC-CO2 CCUS IN THE UNITED STATES: Judi Greenwald – C2ES CCS IN AUSTRALIA: Dick Wells – National CCS Council
CCS Progress in Canada
Dr. Carmen Dybwad IPAC-CO2
Global CCS Institute International Members’ Meeting Calgary 2012
Purpose of the Meeting
CCS Progress in Canada
The Question: Have we made enough progress to date to
make CCS sustainable in Canada?
About IPAC-CO2
An Independent Not-for-profit Environmental NGO Specializing in:
• Risk assessment • Risk management • Risk mitigation
techniques • Risk communication
• IPAC-CO2 Research Inc. is committed to providing:
• Independent, Objective Information
• Standards • Applied Research • Risk and
Performance Assessment
• Community Engagement
Basic Question to be addressed:
Have we made enough progress to date to make CCS sustainable in Canada?
By definition, if something is not sustainable it comes to
and end.
Sustainability
ENVIRONMENT
SOCIETY ECONOMY
The same is true for CCUS
Technology (economic)
Stakeholder Support (society)
Regulatory Framework (environment)
Technology
Need to bring all of the costs of CCS in order to make it
economically/commercially viable and cost competitive with nuclear, wind, biomass and other renewables that have little or zero emissions.
Need more demonstration projects at commercial scale,
knowledge sharing for wide-scale deployment. Canada’s contribution: Shell’s Quest; SaskPower’s
Boundary Dam, and Aquistore.
Regulatory Framework
Regulatory frameworks are essential to ensure effective and
safe CO2 storage. At a high level, uncertainty regarding CO2 storage regulation is
perceived to have impacted negatively on some projects. Canada’s contribution: A Standard for Geologic Storage;
certainty around liability, carbon taxes (all be they small) and some regulations around GHG emissions for power plants.
Demonstration of technology
and Cost Reduction
Regulatory Framework
and Standards Confidence
Confidence Stakeholder and Public Support
But….. Having a demonstrated, proven technology and a good
regulatory framework will not inspire confidence and support among stakeholders and the community without effective communication and engagement.
And…. The international consensus is that sound stakeholder
engagement in CO2 storage projects is essential for CCS deployment even at the demonstration level.
PUBLIC
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
TECHNOLOGY
Cancelled CCS Projects
Three very important CCS projects have been cancelled:
• Barendrecht – Netherlands 2010 – Lack of public support.
• Mountaineer Project – West Virginia – Economic Reasons
• Pioneer – Calgary 2012 – Economic reasons and a relatively low price for carbon.
Public Engagement
Effective engagement and communication requires that you know and understand who you are communicating with.
When we talk about “stakeholders”, “public” and “community”…what do we mean?
Stakeholder – an individual, group or organization that has an
interest in CCS policy or specific project. Public – refers to the general public at a national or regional
level. Community – refers to local stakeholders comprising both
individuals (the local public) and other local stakeholders (landowners, citizen groups etc) in the vicinity of a particular project.
Levels of Engagement and Communication
Stakeholder (including general public) group support is
generally the target of national CCS education and information campaigns.
Whereas… Community education and information campaigns tend to be
undertaken by developers or project proponents.
An important question to ask is:
Who do the community trust to give them accurate information about CCS?
Trusted Sources of Information about CCS
CCS Awareness in Canada
17%
31%
47%
4% 10
% 18
%
67%
5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Have heard of CCS and know
what it is
Have heard of CCS but don't know what it is
Have not heard of CCS
Don’t know
Canada 2012 Europe 2011
48% have heard of CCS in Canada (2012) 28% have heard of CCS in Europe (2011)
Levels of Concern
71% of Quebec residents would be very or fairly concerned if carbon dioxide was stored underground within 1.5 to 3 kilometers from their home;
63% of B.C. residents think the same way; while only
43% of Saskatchewan residents would be concerned.
Provincial Concerns About CCS
Effectiveness of CCS Perception Amongst Canadians
Very effective 7.5 %
Fairly effective 27 %
Not very effective 22 %
9% Not at all effective
Don’t know 34%
34.5% Canadians believe CCS would be very or fairly effective, while
31% think it will not be very or not all effective.
34% Don’t know.
Situating public debate about broader CCS issues at the level
of policy rather than at the project level will facilitate engagement.
It enables basic/fundamental issues to be considered and
addressed before project-level activities begin. There should be a solid understanding of CCS and how
government will oversee its deployment well in advance of the start of operations.
Local/Project Level
The old “decide, announce and defend” approach no longer works.
Replace it with…. Understanding the local community to determine the unique
context for the project. This is the first step in undertaking a risk assessment and site characterization.
Then tailor the project tools and messages to suit the local
community in order to facilitate effective engagement and communication.
Ensure active two-way communication that engages the
community early (not at finalization) in the decision-making process.
Societal support is as important and vital to the future
deployment of CCS as is the development of the technology and regulatory frameworks.
It is clear that guidance in the form of a Standard on effective
engagement at both the National and project level (often included as regulatory requirements) is needed.
This would augment, strengthen and enhance the developing
Standard governing the technical aspects of CCS.
Remember the Goal: to reduce GHG emissions in order to
reduce the possibility of catastrophic climate change and to keep our energy production sustainable in the transition to a low carbon future.
Conclusion
• Progress is underway.
• Ongoing CCS projects have been helpful for the advancement
in technology.
• We will soon have a standard.
• There is work to be done to gain stakeholders and community’s confidence.
• Economic incentives and community engagement are critical for further progress.
Dr. Carmen Dybwad
+1.306.206.0119 +1.306.591.2740
Thank You
Subscribe to our newsletter by visiting our website: www.ipac-co2.com