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

Carmen.dybwad@IPAC-CO2.com

Thank You

Subscribe to our newsletter by visiting our website: www.ipac-co2.com