The fifth webinar in the public engagement, education and outreach for CCS Series will explore the critically important subject of social site characterisation with the very researchers who named the process. We were delighted to be able to reunite CCS engagement experts Sarah Wade and Sallie Greenberg, Ph.D. to revisit their 2011 research and guidance: ‘Social Site Characterisation: From Concept to Application’. When published, this research and toolkit helped early CCS projects worldwide to raise the bar on their existing engagement practices. For this webinar, we tasked these early thought leaders with reminding us of the importance of this research and considering the past recommendations in today’s context. Sarah and Sallie tackled the following commonly asked questions: What exactly is meant by social site characterisation? Why it is important? What would they consider best practice for getting to understand the social intricacies and impacts of a CCS project site? This entire Webinar Series has been designed to share leading research and best practice and consider these learnings as applied to real project examples. So for this fifth Webinar, we were really pleased to be joined by Ruth Klinkhammer, Senior Manager, Communications and Engagement at CMC Research Institutes. Ruth agreed to share some of her experiences and challenges of putting social site characterisation into practice onsite at some of CMC’s larger research projects. This Webinar combined elements of public engagement research with real world application and discussion, explore important learnings and conclude with links to further resources for those wishing to learn more. This a must for anyone working in or studying carbon capture and storage or other CO2 abatement technologies. If you have ever nodded along at a conference where the importance of understanding stakeholders is acknowledged, but then stopped to wonder – what might that look like in practice? This Webinar is for you.

1. Webinar Series: public engagement, education and outreach for
carbon capture and storage
Part 5: Social Site Characterisation
Thursday 23 March 2017

2. Judith A. Bradbury, Ph.D.
 Over 30 years experience in programs involving
technical, regulatory and public involvement issues
 Formerly Battelle Public Outreach Lead for the US
DOE Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnership
 Evaluation of public involvement programs for the
US DOE and the US Army
 Development of public involvement training for US
DOE technical managers
 Advisory roles for the US National Academies of
Science Engineering & Medicine and the
European Community ECO2 Project
Retired Social Scientist, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

3. Sallie E. Greenberg, Ph.D.
 Principal Investigator for the Midwest Geological
Sequestration Consortium (MGSC)
 An Isotope Geochemist with more than 20 years of
experience in environmental geology, with a
research focus on stakeholder engagement and
understanding the societal implications of natural
resource utilisation
 Launched STEP in 2009, a dedicated CCS
educational centre
 PhD in Secondary and Continuing Education, and
Master of Science degree in Geology from
University of Illinois, and a Bachelor of Arts degree
in Geology from Alfred University in New York
Associate Director of Energy Research & Development at the
Illinois State Geological Survey – University of Illinois

4. Sarah Wade
 More than 25 years' experience in environmental
regulation and policy, with primary activities now
focused on public outreach, regulations, and policy
frameworks for CCS technology.
 Outreach Consultant to the Midwest Regional
Carbon Sequestration Partnership
 Coordinator of the Outreach Working Group for the
US Department of Energy Regional Carbon
Sequestration Partnership Initiative since its
inception in 2003.
 Co-authored the NETL Outreach Best Practices
Manual and supported the production of the World
Resources Institutes CCS Guidelines.
 Chair of the Citizen Advisory Committee of the
National Risk Assessment Project (NRAP)
Principal, WADE LLC

5. Ruth Klinkhammer
 20+ years of broad-based communication
experience with a focus on developing networks
and building relationships between diverse
stakeholders.
 At CMCRI Ruth designs communication strategies
to build collaborative clusters of academic,
government and industry stakeholders all focused
on developing carbon capture, conversion and
storage technologies.
 Led a successful public engagement campaign
that resulted in the siting and development of
CMCRI’s carbon storage field research station in
southern Alberta.
Senior Communications and Outreach Manager, CMC Research
Institutes (CMCRI)

6. Questions
 We will collect questions
during the presentation.
 Your Webinar Host will pose
these question to the
presenters after the
presentation.
 Please submit your questions
directly into the GoToWebinar
control panel.
The webinar will start shortly.

7. “Social Site Characterization” as “Term of Art”
The Challenge in 2005:
 CCS seen as critical and
rapidly deployed
 Obvious public concerns
likely
 R&D teams missing real
social science expertise
and need for alignment
of goals
The Aha! Moment:
 2005 IPCC CCS Report
emphasized the importance
of geologic site
characterization
 Draw parallels between
physical and social site
characterization
 Highlight the “SCIENCE” in
social science
The concepts may not be new but term is catchy and somewhat universal
(see Feenstra Blog Post on GCCSI 2012)

8. Key social site characterization concepts
 Social site characterization (SC) has to start early!
 Effective stakeholder engagement
 Attempts to identify and address true stakeholder concerns
 Involves 2-way communication
 Respects stakeholder perceptions and beliefs
 Adjusts to the given community
 Social SC informs effective engagement
 Utilizes an array of social science disciplines and methodologies to gather
information about project context, stakeholder perceptions and roles, and
potential areas of concern or opportunity related to CCS projects
 As is the case with physical site characterization, the process of
gathering social data is iterative through site selection, project design,
and project operation
 The level of effort should reflect the community and project characteristics
 Social SC increases in detail and depth as new data are collected

9. Social site characterization mirrors physical site
characterization
Just as physical site characterization informs efforts to design a project to
suit the local geologic and other physical conditions; social site
characterization can be used to design effective stakeholder engagement
to suit local conditions
Collection
Difficulty or
Cost
Influence on Performance
Rock
Type
Seismic
Survey
Injectivity
CO2
Movement
Collection
Difficulty or
Cost
Influence on Performance
Stats
Economic
Drivers
Sequestration
Concerns
Perceived
Community
Benefits
Physical Site Characterization Social Site Characterization

10. The increasing action in social site characterization
 Site Screening / Selection
 Low key investigation
 Readily available materials and publications
 Provides general context on demographics, key issues,
environmental history for comparison among sites
 Delves deeper into priority sites to identify potential stakeholders and
likely perceptions / concerns
 Project Design
 Initial discussions with local stakeholders
 Focus groups or other feedback meetings to share information and
obtain feedback
 Full involvement of project team
 Project Operation / Completion
 Ongoing information sharing (multiple pathways, multi-directional)

11. Social site characterization tool kit
 Preliminary Assessment: to
establish team and shared
understanding of local context
and project.
 Stakeholder Identification: an
initial and then ongoing process to
ID groups of stakeholders and key
individuals
 Issues Identification: process of organizing stakeholders, identifying
and categorizing perceptions, concerns, views to help improve
understanding of context and potential information needs or gaps
 Analysis: review of social data, project plans, and team objectives to
identify important concerns and perceptions, potential project benefits
and costs, information needs/gaps, outreach options.

12. Social site characterization challenges
 Stakeholder ID
 Coordination with the
technical management team
 What to do about non-
participating stakeholders
 Overcoming barriers to
accurate information
collection
 The role and use of social
media and new monitoring
tools
Map of potential CCS stakeholder groups.
(Adapted from Hund, et al.)

13. Using social site characterization in outreach
The Updated DOE CCS Outreach Best Practices
1. Integrate Public Outreach With Project Management
2. ID Outreach Goals with Project Management
3. Establish A Strong Outreach Team
4. Identify Key Stakeholders
5. Conduct And Apply Social Characterization
6. Establish An Outreach Program
7. Develop Key Messages
8. Develop Outreach Materials Tailored To The Audience
9. Implement And Manage The Outreach Program
10. Assess The Performance Of The Outreach Program
11. Be Flexible – Adapt The Public Outreach Program As Needed

14. Points of review, interest, discussion
 Social SC is a step, it is not comprehensive outreach
 A focus of the outreach best practices was on building synergy
and awareness within the project team – not just assessing the
community
 Level of effort can be scaled to project characteristics –
balancing cost / benefit
 Consider what to do about non-participating stakeholders
 Overcoming barriers to accurate information collection
 The role and use of social media monitoring tools

15. CMC Research Institutes – A Tale of Two Towns
Siting the
Field Research Station
Testing measurement, monitoring
and verification technologies
Shallow injection of CO2 to
simulate a leak from below
 600 tonnes CO2 per year
 300 & 500 metres
 Sandstone saline aquifer
 Observation wells
 Water monitoring wells
CO2 storage tank -
County of Newell

16. Alberta Energy Regulator Directives*
 State engagement should be “Effective,
early, ongoing”
 Establish who to include and how
 Establish level of engagement
 Applicant must attempt to resolve all
questions, concerns, & objections
(*Eg. AER Directive 56: Energy Development Applications)
CMC Research Institutes – A Tale of Two Towns

17. ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES
 Met with, presented to, elected
politicians and administrative staff
(county and municipal district)
 Face-to-face with area residents
 Town hall meeting near Priddis
 Information packages left for
residents
CMC Research Institutes – A Tale of Two Towns
Rothney Observatory near Priddis

18. CMC Research Institutes – A Tale of Two Towns
The webinar will start
shortly.
Priddis, Alberta
County of Newell
20k SW of Brooks, Alberta

19. The webinar will start shortly.
BROOKS PRIDDIS** ALBERTA
Population 13,676 (2011) 964 3.6 M
Oil and Gas 4000-5000 employees 70*
Wells 48% of all wells in Alberta
Beef processing
XL Foods
2000 employees
Age 68% between 15 and 64
10% over 65
49% over
50
28%
Income 22% over $100K $119,000K 26% over
$100K
University degree
Bachelor’s
7.2% 32% 15.27%
*Resource-based industries, including agriculture, oil/gas, mining and forestry
** 66.7% of Priddis residents are at least 3rd generation.
CMC Research Institutes – A Tale of Two Towns

20. The webinar will start shortly.
Reasons for lack of support by Priddis residents:
 Exploration of a natural gas well contaminated a well. Court awarded
payment to family in 2009.
 Cross family came out against project
 Financial benefit of no real value to residents
 Few energy developments in the area
 Residents want to keep the place “natural”
 Residents feared development would harm community cohesiveness
and relationships
Source: Amanda Boyd, 2012, Dissertation
CMC Research Institutes – A Tale of Two Towns

21. The webinar will start shortly.
MEDIA COVERAGE
Carbon storage proposal could pose risk to water table
Okotoks Western Wheel, Jan. 2011
Nicholas Worthington (Letter to Editor)
University plans carbon capture project near Priddis
Okotoks Western Wheel, Jan. 2011
Don Patterson
University of Calgary plans carbon capture research centre near Priddis
National Post, January 17 2011
Kelly Cryderman
Cross family concerned about proposed CO2 storage project
Okotoks Western Wheel, Feb. 16, 2011
By Bruce Campbell (news story)
My stepfather would be
“rolling in his grave”
Marshall Abbott
CMC Research Institutes – A Tale of Two Towns

22. The webinar will start shortly.
CMC Research Institutes – A Tale of Two Towns
COUNTY OF NEWELL COUNCIL
Questions asked:
 What was reaction of residents?
 Will CO2 stay underground?
 What are the risks?
 Will coal fire plants disappear?
 Where will you get the CO2?
 Will carbon management
happen?
Also discussed: Cenovus – they are
a good neighbor

23. The webinar will start shortly.
MEDIA COVERAGE
Carbon capture piques interest
Mickey Dumont; The Brooks Chronicle, May 13, 2014
“A model of high-tech wizardry . . .”
Canada’s first monitoring and training facilities for carbon dioxide
injected underground to be built in southeast Alberta
Mark Lowey, Enviroline, May 2014
The Containment Frontier
Corinne Lutter, The PEG, Fall 2014
“More and more often, carbon dioxide and other fluids are being injected
underground. Now, a new field station will allow researchers to track and
monitor them in a controlled situation, with an emphasis on what happens
near the surface.”
CMC Research Institutes – A Tale of Two Towns

24. Please submit questions in English directly through
the GoToWebinar control panel…
Q. Can you scale the level of effort
required on a project’s engagement to the
project characteristics – balancing cost /
benefit?
Q. What do you do about non-participating
stakeholders?
Q. Does selecting sites based on social
characterisation throw up many ethical
issues?
The webinar will start shortly.

25. Communications for carbon capture and storage: (2013)
Identifying the benefits, managing risk and maintaining the trust of stakeholders
Global CCS Institute: Max Prangnell, Feb 2013
www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/communications-
carbon-capture-and-storage-identifying-benefits-managing-risk-
and
 PDF, online version
 Analysis of the
communication and
engagement activities of
five recent CCS
demonstration projects
based on interviews with
the communication and
engagement staff from the
following projects:
– ROAD (Netherlands)
– Compostilla (Spain)
– Longannet (UK)
– Weyburn (Canada)
– Jaeschwalde
(Germany)

26. Social Site Characterisation and Stakeholder Engagement:
Case Study on the ULCOS CCS Project (2013)
Jammes, L, Vervier, p. (2013) Social Site Characterisation and
Stakeholder Engagement, France.
www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/social-site-characterisation-
stakeholder-management
 PDF with Executive Summary available in
Japanese language translation.
 Set of four detailed case studies designed to
demonstrate a methodology for creating a
favourable negotiating environment for all CCS
project stakeholders.
 The processes are applied to the original
ULCOS CCS Project, Lorraine, France.
 Each case study provides detailed process
descriptions, actual project results and a
reflection on the usefulness of the processes
used, for the following stakeholder analysis
and strategy techniques:
 Social site characterisation
1. Context Analysis
2. Stakeholder identification and mapping
3. Materiality analysis of project related issues
 Stakeholder Engagement Planning

27. Social Site Characterisation (2011)
CSIRO: Sarah Wade (AJW Inc, USA) and Sallie Greenberg (USA),
June 2011
www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/social-site-
characterisation-concept-application
 PDF, e-book, online version
 Social science literature
review
 Practical activities, tools and
resources to improve
understanding of a projects
local community.
 Can be used in conjunction
with the:
Communications and
Engagement Toolkit for
CCS Projects

28. Communication/Engagement Toolkit for CCS projects
(2011)
CSIRO: Peta Ashworth , Judith Bradbury, C.F.J. (Ynke) Feenstra, Sallie
Greenberg, Gretchen Hund, Thomas Mikunda, Sarah Wade and Hylton
Shaw, Mar 2011
www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/communication-and-
engagement-toolkit-ccs-projects
 PDF, e-book, online version
 Globally trialled and peer
reviewed practical guide for
CCS developers
 Contains tools, activities and
work sheets
 Can be used in conjunction
with:
Social Site Characterisation
Toolkit
Communicating the Risks of
CCS

29. Communicating the risks of CCS - 2011
Wade LLC: Judith Bradbury (US), Sallie Greenberg (US), Sarah Wade,
(US), June 2011
www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/communicating-risks-ccs
 PDF, online version
 Risk communication research and
best practice review
 Lessons learned from five North
American CCS case studies
 Five-step strategy for
understanding community views of
projects and developing risk
communication programs.
 Links to further risk communication
resources
 Can be used in conjunction with
the Communications and
Engagement Toolkit

30. Communication, project planning and management for
CCS projects: an international comparison - 2010
CSIRO: Peta Ashworth , Judith Bradbury, C.F.J. (Ynke) Feenstra,
Sallie Greenberg, Gretchen Hund, Thomas Mikunda and Sarah Wade,
Nov 2010
www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/communication-project-
planning-and-management-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects
 PDF, online version
 Summary lessons from a
series of case study reports
from CSIRO led international
research team
 Should be read in conjunction
with case studies:
– Barendrecht Project – The
Netherlands
– Carson Project – United States
of America
– Future Gen Project – United
States of America
– Zero Gen Project – Australia
– CO2CRC Otway Project –
Australia

31. Resources
 Best Practices for Public Outreach and Education for Carbon Storage Projects,
DOE/NETL:https://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Carbon%20Seq/
Reference%20Shelf/BPM_PublicOutreach.pdf
 Is the public engaged on climate change, Feenstra 2012
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/feenstra/2012/08/23/public-
engaged-climate-change?author=NzA0MQ%3D%3D
 SiteChar-CO2 EU - http://www.sitechar-
co2.eu/Sections.aspx?section=558.583.587

32. Please submit any feedback to: webinar@globalccsinstitute.com