CCUS and Public Engagement, Experiences and Best Practices

7/26/2019 CCUS and Public Engagement, Experiences and Best Practices

1/36

Public Participation in CCS

Sallie E. Greenberg, Ph.D.Energy Research & Development

University of Illinois Illinois State Geological Survey

13 June 2016 !RECS !Birmingham, AL


2/36

" Focus on project developer to-date

" Shift to government and regulations

" Aspects more readily undertaken by government?

"

What is impact of regulation on engagement and outreach?

" Are CCS laws best tool to determine engagement processes?

" How do stakeholder perceptions of CCS impact framework?

Role of stakeholder engagement in CCS

IEA Carbon Capture and Storage Legal andRegulatory Review (3rdEdition)


3/36

CCS Engagement Foundations

International FinanceCorporation World

Bank Group

IAP2

World Resources

Institute Community

Engagement Guidelines

U.S. DOE Public

Outreach and Educationfor Carbon Storage

Projects


4/36

Stakeholder Engagement isshared responsibility

of three main groups


5/36

!"#$%&'()*

,(-&%

."-/*/(0

1&2")*

3)(4"-'

."5"%(6")*


6/36

!"#$%&'("# *+,(* ,+--."/'0 ,+"'$1'


7/36

21,3("4$ /"5+%-(6+" (7+.' '3$ 8%+9$,'


8/36

:#$"650 '3$ (88%+8%/('$ *$;$* +5 $"4(4$-$"'


9/36

'& +5 '3$ 8%+9$,'


10/36

?+"6".$ $"4(4$-$"' '3%+.43+.'

'3$ 8%+9$,'@& */5$ ,0,*$


11/36

Communities must perceive they havethe ability to influence decision-making

processes.

Project planning, management, and

engagement can inform project design

and operation resulting in mutually

beneficial outcomes.


12/36

Gaining the trust of the community

is the key to successful engagement

and, if that trust is broken, it can beimpossible to regain.


13/36

Public engagement will be affected

by the local political and social dynamics,but the structure and design of the

engagement process itself is important.


14/36

Engagement and outreach cannot be

added on to a project as an afterthought,

but must be integrated throughout the

process.


15/36

Successful outreach and engagement

around a project does not always translate

into successful deployment of CCS in thatcommunity.


16/36

" Began public engagement early" Made public engagement

a priority"

Created, evaluated, and refinedcommunications plan

" Integrated public engagement

into project management

" Made sufficient investment in

time and resources"

Understood and consulted

community" Maintained flexibility and

diligence

Creating a stakeholder engagement strategy thatresonates


17/36

Effective Stakeholder Engagement

17

" Fosters relationship between project developers,regulators, and communities

"

Establishes open lines of communication" Addresses questions and concerns

" Identifies and mitigates potential risk

" Provides no guarantee of public support


18/36

Engagement Objectives

18

" Provide factual information

" Cultivate knowledgeable stakeholders

"

Create trust between stakeholders andproject team

" Inform about potential project risks & benefits

" Address perceived risks

"

no less "real" for implementing outreach

" can rapidly expand transform into public opposition

if ignored.


19/36

!"#$%&'#()*++,(*+


20/36

CCSPortrayedasSymptomofProblem


21/36

Media Portrayal


22/36

CCS Portrayed as Solution or Bridge

CCS as part ofportfolio to reduceGHG

CCS based ongeologic knowledgeof subsurfacebehavior

CCS based on long-

standing industrialpractices

CCS bridge

technology

7($)-"8 :2A 2BCD EFGF

HI!2 J(8 K,$"(%/+


23/36

One cup of super critical CO2equals 277 cups ofCO2at the surface under atmospheric pressure

CO2is highly compressible


24/36

Helping People See through Simple and Powerful Analogy Use:Visualizing volume and pressure implications

One cup of CO2stored insubsurface

277 cups of CO2at the surface =


25/36

Flexibility !Awareness !Respect !Intuition !Adaptation !

Knowledge

Informal Engagement


26/36

Formal Engagement Processes

C.7*/, "+6,$ +5 8$%-/' (88*/,(6+"

C.7*/, ,+--$"' 8$%/+#

C.7*/, ,(" %$L.$&' 8.7*/, 3$(%/"4

C.7*/, 3$(%/"4 C.7*/, ,+--$"' 8$%/+#

M$&8+"&$ '+ ,+--$"'&

C.7*/, /&&.(",$ +5 #%(N 8$%-/'

C.7*/, ,+--$"' 8$%/+#

M$&8+"# '+ ,+--$"'&

C.7*/, (88$(* 8$%/+# 5+% >"(* 8$%-/'

Based on US regulatory procedures


27/36

Research Q&A for Science & Society

" How do you know the CO2is staying where you put it?"

What happens in the event of earthquakes?

" Induced seismicity

"

Fracture and catastrophic release of stored CO2"

Where does formation water go when CO2is injected?

" Increased pressure

"

Does CO2injection fracture rocks during injection?

" What are long-term implications of project?

"

Who is liable if something goes wrong with the project?"

How do you know it is safe?


28/36

Key Points Learned"

Public engagement is critical

"

Projects provide successfulexamples of engagement

" Do your homework

" Establish relationships

" Talk a lot

"

to as many different people

as possible

" as often as possible

" Know your audience

"

Know your topic" Be prepared

" Listen, respond, respect


29/36

" Proactively engage regulators

" Engage early and know the regulatory time clock

" Start early

"

Seek out examples (publicly available)" Provide balance of information detail important, but can distract

" Remain flexible

" Exceed requirements for public engagement and monitoring

"

Expect technical collaboration between USEPA and applicant

" USEPA focused on making technical, risk-based permitting decisions

" Modeling should be discussed in detail with USEPA prior to

development and verification

Projects provide precedent for regulatorystakeholders


30/36

Initial RiskAssessment

Research andOperational

Activities

Communication,Education, andEngagement

Interim RiskAssessment

RevisitCommunication

and CrisisManagement,

RiskCommunication

CompleteInjection &

Post-Injection

Monitoring

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Geologic UncertaintyOperational Uncertainty

Regulatory UncertaintySocial Uncertainty

Regulatory UncertaintySocial Uncertainty

Change in Scope

Long-term FundingChallenges in Knowledge Sharing

Complacency Potential

Institutional Memory Loss

Communication Plan & Implement Communication and Crisis Management

IBDP Risk Assessment and Stakeholder Engagement


31/36

Engagement Necessitates ExceedingPermit Requirements


32/36


33/36

" CCUS currently demonstrated in multiple projectsacross value chain

"

Integration leads toward commercialization" Important to see, touch, and understand connections

" Tolerance may vary across value chain

Demonstration of Entire CCUS Value Chain

sequestration.org/step


34/36

Engagement is an opportunity,NOT a barrier.


35/36

Pioneering Change. From the Ground Up.

Knowledge sharing and capacity building

continue to be key for

CCS technology deployment

andstakeholder engagement

www.sequestration.org/[email protected]


36/36

Pioneering Change. From the Ground Up.

STEP is a program of the Advanced Energy Technology Initiative, University of Illinois.

STEP is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under

Award Number DE-FE0002462 and the Illinois Department ofCommerce and Economic Opportunity #09-484002.

The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium is funded by the U.S. Department of Energythrough the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) via the Regional Carbon

Sequestration Partnership Program (contract number DE-FC26-05NT42588) and by a costshare agreement with the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Office

of Coal Development through the Illinois Clean Coal Institute.

CCUS and Public Engagement, Experiences and Best Practices

Documents

Transcript of CCUS and Public Engagement, Experiences and Best Practices