Pioneering Change. From the Ground Up.

Public  Engagement  and  the    Regulatory  Process:    

Experiences  from  an  Ac;ve  CCS  Project

Sallie E. Greenberg, Ph.D. Associate Director – Advanced Energy Technology Initiative

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Junior Professional Legal/Regulatory Tutorial w GCCSIw 10 March 2014

8  

7  

1  

2  

6  

5  

 9  Partnership Geologic Province Target Injection

Big Sky Nugget Sandstone 1,000,000

MGSC Illinois Basin- Mt. Simon Sandstone 1,000,000

MRCSP Michigan Basin- Niagaran Reef 1,000,000

PCOR

Powder River Basin- Bell Creek Field 1,500,000

Horn River Basin- Carbonates 2,000,000

SECARB

Gulf Coast – Cranfield Field- Tuscaloosa

Formation 3,400,000

Gulf Coast – Paluxy Formation 250,000    

SWP Regional CCUS Opportunity 1,000,000

WESTCARB Regional Characterization

Injec;on  Ongoing  

2013  Injec;on  Scheduled  

Injec;on  Scheduled  2013-­‐2015  

 

9  

ü  Four  Partnerships  currently  injec3ng  CO2    ü  Remaining  injec3ons  scheduled  2013-­‐2015  

Injec;on  began  Nov  2011  

Injec;on  Started  April  2009  

Core  Sampling  Taken  

Note:  Some  loca;ons  presented  on  map  may  differ  from  final  injec;on  loca;on  

 

Injec;on  began  August  2012  

DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships Phase III: Development Phase

Injec;on  started  in  depleted  reef    February  2013  

Injec;on  Started  May  2013  

Seismic  Survey    

Completed  

3  4  

1  

2  

7  

8  

6  

5  

3  

4

Large-­‐Scale  Geologic  Tests    

Collaboration: •  Midwest Geological Sequestration

Consortium, •  Archer Daniels Midland Company

(ADM), •  Schlumberger Carbon Services, •  Additional subcontractors ���

Objective: •  Inject 1 million metric tons ���

of anthropogenic carbon dioxide ���at a depth of ~2,130 m

•  Demonstrate geological carbon sequestration in a saline reservoir at a site in Decatur, Illinois USA

Illinois Basin – Decatur Project

Cumulative Injection ���(26 February 2014):

750,000 tonnes

Operational Injection: ���17 November 2011

• IBDP fully operational 24/7

• IBDP is the first 1 million tonne carbon capture and storage project from a biofuel facility in the US

• Injection through fall 2014

• Intensive post-injection monitoring under MGSC through fall 2017

C!

800 m

A

B

D

E

1 km

photo by Illinois Dept. of Transportation, 8 November 2010

A.  Dehydration/compression facility B.  Pipeline (1.9 km) C.  Injection well D.  Verification/monitoring well E.  Geophone well

US  EPA  Regions  

www.epa.gov/superfund/community/tag/whereare.htm    

Class  III  Wells  

                                                                                                                                 

Class  I            Class  II        Class  III      Class  IV                              Class  VI          

www.epa.gov  

www.epa.gov  

Class  V  

Covers  all  aspects  of  CO2  storage  from  re-­‐injec;on  to  post-­‐injec;on  site  care  (PISC).    §  Geologic  site  characteriza;on    §  Dynamic  Area  of  Review  §  Tes;ng  and  monitoring  of:  

§  Mechanical  integrity  of  injec;on  wells  §  Groundwater  quality  §  Tracking  plume  and  elevated  pressure  

§  Geomechanical  and  seismic  data  §  Modeling  §  Injec;on  well  construc;on  requirements  §  Financial  responsibility  §  Extended  post-­‐injec;on  monitoring  and  site  care  

 

Class  VI  

sequestration.org/step

Opera;ng  in  a  Complex  Regulatory  Context  

§  Permi_ng  in  an  emerging  regulatory  framework    §  Illinois  (USEPA  Region  V)  has  primacy:  IEPA    

§  UIC  Class  I,  III,  IV,  V  §  UIC  Class  II  through  Illinois  Department  of  Natural  Resources  –  Mines  and  

Minerals  Oil  and  Gas  Division  §  Most  recent  new  Illinois  permit  for  a  Class  I  Non-­‐Hazardous  well  was  issued  in  

1970s  §  Class  V  guidance  for  experimental  wells  issued  §  Class  VI  finalized  December  2010,  States  apply  for  primacy  by  September  2011,  

reapply  for  Class  VI  permits  by  December  2011  Illinois  did  not  apply  for  primacy,  permit  reverts  to  US  EPA  Region  V  

§  Reapplied  for  Class  VI  permit  in  December  2011  §  Class  VI  permit  pending  with  US  EPA  Region  V  

IEA  Carbon  Capture  and  Storage    Legal  and  Regulatory  Review  (3rd  Edi;on)  

Role  of  stakeholder  engagement  – Focus  on  project  developer  to-­‐date  – Shid  to  government  and  regula;ons  

•  Aspects  more  readily  undertaken  by  government?  • What  is  impact  of  regula;on  on  engagement  and  outreach?  

•  Are  CCS  laws  best  tool  to  determine  engagement  processes?  

•  How  do  stakeholder  percep;ons  of  CCS  impact  framework?  

Engagement  Founda;ons  

•  Interna;onal  Finance  Corpora;on  –  World  Bank  Group  

•  IAP2  •  World  Resources  Ins;tute  Community  Engagement  Guidelines  

•  U.S.  DOE  Public  Outreach  and  Educa;on  for  Carbon  Storage  Projects  

Pioneering Change. From the Ground Up.

Investigate wAdapt w Engage

 

Regulators  

Local  Decision  Makers  

Project  Developers  

Successful  outreach  and  engagement  around  a  project  does  not  always  translate  into  successful  deployment  of  CCS  in  that  community.    

EffecAve  community  engagement  cannot  happen  if  the  community  perceives  it  does  not  have  the  ability  to  influence  the  decision-­‐making  process.  When  the  project  planning  and  management  can  adapt  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  community,  or  engagement  can  be  used  to  inform  project  design  and  operaAon,  a  mutually  beneficial  outcome  can  be  reached.    

Gaining  the  trust  of  the  community  is  the  key  to  successful  engagement,  and  when  that  trust  is  broken  it  can  be  impossible  to  regain.    

Public  engagement  will  be  affected  by  the  local  poliAcal  and  social  dynamics,  but  the  structure  and  design  of  the  engagement  process  itself  is  also  important.    

Engagement  and  outreach  cannot  be  added  on  to  a  project  as  an  aJerthought,  but  must  be  integrated  throughout  the  process.  

§  no guarantee of public acceptance of CCS

§  helps identify main concerns

§  relationship between project developers, regulators, and communities is key

§  without engagement, public forms own opinions of CCS

§  public has perceived risks

§  no less "real" for implementing outreach

§  can rapidly expand transform into public opposition if ignored.

Starting Point for Stakeholder Engagement:

sequestration.org/step

Knowledgeable stakeholders

Public informed about potential project risks & benefits

Trusted project team

Scientific based information

Two-way communication

MGSC Public Engagement Objectives:

§  Part of portfolio to reduce GHG

§  Based on geologic knowledge of subsurface reservoirs

§  Based in long-standing industrial practices

§  Bridge technology

How we see CCS: Portrayed as Solution or Bridge

Source: IEA 2013 http://www.iea.org/publications

Formal Public Engagement

§  Public notice of permit application §  Public comment period §  Public can request public hearing §  Public hearing §  Public comment period §  Response to comments §  Public issuance of draft permit §  Public comment period §  Respond to comments §  Public appeal period for final permit

Flexibility w Awareness w Respect w Intuition w Adaptation w Knowledge

Informal Engagement

•  Began engagement early •  Made engagement a priority •  Integrated engagement into all

aspects of project management •  Made sufficient investment in time

and resources •  Sought to understand community •  Consulted community •  Created, evaluated, and refined

communications plan •  Monitored and adapted as needed

Project Perspective: What Worked for MGSC and STEP?

§  How do you know the CO2 is 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 CO2 is injected? §  Increased pressure

§  Does CO2 injection 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?

Outcome: Discovery of Common Ground Public Questions Reflect Research Objectives

One  cup  of  ‘super  cri;cal’  CO2  equals  277  cups  of  CO2  at  the  surface  under  atmospheric  pressure  

CO2  is  highly  compressible    

Helping  People  See  through  Simple  and  Powerful  Analogy  Use:  Visualizing  volume  and  pressure  implica;ons  

   

One  cup  of  CO2  stored  in                subsurface  

277  cups  of  CO2  at  the  surface      =    

•  Public engagement is critical •  Projects provide successful

examples 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

•  Prepare •  Listen, respond, respect

Take Home Points

sequestration.org/step

§  Regulations will drive monitoring activities §  Ongoing and evolving §  Research has not yet defined monitoring requirements §  Researchers should consider obligation to evaluate commercial needs

§  Environmental baseline essential regardless of regulatory requirements §  Risk mitigation §  Support CCS primary deployment goals

§  Public engagement guidelines should be exceeded §  Proactive approach increases transparency §  Move beyond formal engagement requirements

§  Provide balance of information – detail important, but can distract

IBDP Regulatory Lessons

§  Modeling §  Generation §  Verification

§  Proactively educate regulators §  Engage early §  Familiarize yourself with regulatory time clock

§  Start early §  Seek out examples (publicly available) §  Remain flexible

IBDP Regulatory Lessons

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

of Commerce and Economic Opportunity #09-484002.

•  The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) via the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Program (contract number DE-FC26-05NT42588) and by a cost share agreement with the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Office of Coal Development through the Illinois Clean Coal Institute.

•  MGSC supports KIOST through the Development of Workflow for

Offshore Geologic Sequestration Storage Demonstration Project (Yr 2)

•  The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) is a collaboration led by the geological surveys of Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky.

•  Landmark Graphics software via their University Donation Program and cost share plus Petrel software via Schlumberger Carbon Services.

Acknowledgements

“Public engagement around energy and environmental issues represents important opportunities to build greater understanding.” “Communication is never a barrier.”