Carmen Dybwad - IPAC-CO2

1. 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

2. CCS Progress in Canada
Dr. Carmen Dybwad
IPAC-CO2
Global CCS Institute
International Members’ Meeting
Calgary 2012

3. Purpose of the Meeting
CCS Progress in Canada
The Question:
Have we made enough progress to date to
make CCS sustainable in Canada?

4. About IPAC-CO2
An Independent
Not-for-profit
Environmental NGO
Specializing in:
• Risk assessment
• Risk management
• Risk mitigation
techniques
• Risk
communication

5. • IPAC-CO2 Research Inc.
is committed to
providing:
• Independent,
Objective
Information
• Standards
• Applied Research
• Risk and
Performance
Assessment
• Community
Engagement

6. Basic Question to be addressed:
Have we made enough progress to date to
make CCS sustainable in Canada?

7. By definition, if something is
not sustainable it comes to
and end.

8. Sustainability
ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMY SOCIETY

9. The same is true for CCUS
Technology
(economic)
Regulatory Stakeholder
Framework Support
(environment) (society)

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Demonstration
of technology Regulatory
and Framework Confidence
and Standards
Cost Reduction

13. Stakeholder
Confidence and Public
Support

14. 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.

15. TECHNOLOGY
PUBLIC
REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK

16. 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.

17. Public Engagement
Effective engagement and communication requires that you know
and understand who you are communicating with.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. An important question to ask is:
Who do the community trust to give
them accurate information about CCS?

21. Trusted Sources of Information
about CCS

22. CCS Awareness in Canada
80%
67%
70%
48% have heard of CCS
60% in Canada (2012)
47%
50% 28% have heard of CCS
in Europe (2011)
40%
31%
Canada 2012
30% Europe 2011
18%
17%
20%
10%
5%
10%
4%
0%
Have heard of Have heard of Have not heard Don’t know
CCS and know CCS but don't of CCS
what it is know what it is

23. Levels of Concern
Provincial Concerns About CCS
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.

24. Effectiveness of CCS Perception
Amongst Canadians
Very effective
7.5 %
34.5% Canadians
believe CCS would be very Don’t know
or fairly effective, while
Fairly effective
31% think it will not
34%
27 %
be very or not all
effective.
34% Don’t know.
9% Not very effective
Not at all effective 22 %

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. Thank You
Dr. Carmen Dybwad
+1.306.206.0119
+1.306.591.2740
Carmen.dybwad@IPAC-CO2.com
Subscribe to our newsletter by visiting our website: www.ipac-co2.com