Subsurface Evaluation of Carbon Capture and Storage and Unconventional Risks
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Project acronym and title: SECURe – Subsurface Evaluation of Carbon capture and storage and Unconventional risks DELIVERABLE 6.3 BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLIMENTING RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FOR GEOTHERMAL AND CCS R&D Authors and affiliation: UK: Simon Shackley1, Corin Jack1, Darrick Evensen2, Charlotte Bucke1, Nicoline Good1, David Ovenstone1, Graham Scobie1 (1) School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK (2) School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK Poland: Katarzyna Iwinska3, Krzysztof Maczka3, Aleksandra Lis3 (3) Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland Email contacts: [email protected] [email protected] D.6.3 Revision:1 Disclaimer This report is part of a project that has received funding by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 764531. The content of this report reflects only the authors’ view. The Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. Project funded by the European Commission within the Horizon 2020 Programme Dissemination Level PU Public CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (incl. the Commission Services) CL Classified, as referred to in Commission decision 2001/844/EC Deliverable number: 6.3 Deliverable name: BEST PRACTICE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLIMENTING RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH AND INNOVATION FOR GEOTHERMAL AND CCS R&D Work package: Work Package 6 Lead WP/deliverable beneficiary: University of Edinburgh Status of deliverable By Date Submitted (Author(s)) Simon Shackley 09.01.2021 Verified (WP leader) Jonathan Pearce 28-5-21 Approved (EB member) J Hennissen pp Pierre Cerasi 28-5-21 Approved (Coordinator) E HOUGH 29-5-21 Author(s) Name Organisation E-mail NAME ORGANISATION EMAIL Simon Shackley University of Edinburgh [email protected] Corin Jack University of Edinburgh [email protected] Darrick Evensen University of Edinburgh [email protected] Katarzyna Iwinska Adam Mickiewicz University [email protected] Poznan Krzysztof Maczka Adam Mickiewicz University [email protected] Poznan Aleksandra Lis Adam Mickiewicz University [email protected] Poznan ii Copyright © SECURe 2021 Public introduction Subsurface Evaluation of CCS and Unconventional Risks (SECURe) is gathering unbiased, impartial scientific evidence for risk mitigation and monitoring for environmental protection to underpin subsurface geoenergy development. The main outputs of SECURe comprise recommendations for best practice for unconventional hydrocarbon production and geological CO2 storage. The project is funded from June 2018–May 2021. The project is developing monitoring and mitigation strategies for the full geoenergy project lifecycle; by assessing plausible hazards and monitoring associated environmental risks. This is achieved through a program of experimental research and advanced technology development that includes demonstration at commercial and research facilities to formulate best practice. We will meet stakeholder needs; from the design of monitoring and mitigation strategies relevant to operators and regulators, to developing communication strategies to provide a greater level of understanding of the potential impacts. The SECURe partnership comprises major research and commercial organisations from countries that host shale gas and CCS industries at different stages of operation (from permitted to closed). We are forming a durable international partnership with non-European groups; providing international access to study sites, creating links between projects and increasing our collective capability through exchange of scientific staff. Executive report summary See pages iv - xix iii Copyright © SECURe 2021 Introduction During SECURe, two major developments led to a re-focus of work in WP 6.2. Firstly, Government moratoria on shale gas extraction in European countries meant that the prospect of large-scale extraction of natural gas through hydraulic fracturing receded. Secondly, European Governments committed to carbon neutrality targets by mid-21st Century, ensuring that shale gas extraction is unlikely to form a part of national energy policies (at least not without CO2 capture and storage (CCS) also being implemented and this has never been part of a (proposed) shale gas development). The initial proposal to investigate public and stakeholder perceptions of shale gas extraction was rapidly taken-over by events. Key stakeholders at the local and regional scales in the UK advised against investigating responses to hydraulic fracturing as they felt it was already widely known from experience (backed by extensive quantitative and qualitative research) that there is extensive opposition from members of the public and communities to such developments. It was proposed to shift attention to geothermal energy as a rapidly emerging sub-surface sustainable energy option where many of the same issues of potential adverse public responses also arise as they do for hydraulic fracturing. This shift was supported by local government stakeholders consulted in the UK, who felt that it would provide them with useful intelligence about an emerging technology in the search for sustainable low-carbon heat options. In March 2020, the global CV19 pandemic further affected plans, since in-person qualitative research was no longer possible. The WP6.2 team transitioned, therefore, to a fully online approach and it was decided that a remotely delivered survey would best meet the needs of the project. While the focus in both Poland and the UK was geothermal energy, each team focused upon the distinctive national contribution which, in Poland, was existing mid-depth geothermal opportunities while in the UK it was the extraction of heat from mine waters (termed here mine-water heat geothermal or MWHG). Comparison of the UK and Polish Samples with respect to perceptions of mine water geothermal Similar surveys were utilised in both the UK and Poland though there were important differences. The first draft of the survey was prepared by the UK team and then further adapted by both the UK and Polish teams. The main differences, and the rationale behind these differences, are described below. (1) The Polish team decided to shorten the length of the survey in response to the pilot survey which suggested that respondents required a shorter survey with less information provided. Therefore, some questions that were in the UK survey were removed. (2) The Polish team also shortened the information provided on geothermal energy during the survey compared to the UK. (3) The method for delivery of the survey differed, with use of existing panels in the UK from across all postcodes located in former coal mining areas compared with computer-assisted web interviews (CAWI) employed in Poland that were concentrated on three coal mining regions. (4) The UK survey was statistically representative of the UK population whereas the Polish samples were representative of the populations within three voivodeship - (Górny) Sląsk, Dolny Slask and Lubelskie - located in the three main coal fields in Poland. (5) The overall sample sizes were similar (approximately 1500 in Poland and 2000 in the UK). (6) Numerous revisions were made to the surveys in both countries in order to tailor the survey to the needs of each context. (7) The responses in both countries cannot be directly compared in a statistical sense therefore, due to sampling differences, variation in information provided and in the precise wording of survey questions. iv Copyright © SECURe 2021 (8) Some questions are the same or so similar that a meaningful comparison can be attempted, however (though not in the statistical sense) and this work is done below. AWARENESS OF GEOENERGY AND OF MINE WATER HEAT GEOTHERMAL In both the UK and Polish surveys, awareness and knowledge of geoenergy and mine water heat geothermal (MWHG) was asked prior to any information being provided. Awareness of extracting heat from below the ground (i.e. geothermal energy) is higher in Poland (90%) than in UK (70%), though in both countries only about 10% indicate that they know a ‘fair amount’ or a ‘great deal’. The % of respondents who know ‘nothing at all’ is higher in the UK (30%) than in Poland (10%). While the % of respondents who have ‘heard of it but know nothing about it’ is similar in both countries (c. 30%). The main difference occurs in the ‘know a little’ response, where the sample in Poland is c. 20% higher than in the UK. Awareness of mine water heat geothermal (MWHG) is lower than for geoenergy in general in both countries. 60% of UK respondents indicate that they ‘know nothing at all’ about mine water heat geothermal, while the % is somewhat lower in Poland (at 48%). In both countries, only 5 or 6% of respondents stated that they know a ‘fair amount’ of a ‘great deal’. A higher % of Polish respondents report that they ‘know a little’ about MWHG (19%) compared with the UK (14%), and likewise more Polish than UK respondents have heard about MWHG but ‘know nothing about it’ (28% versus 20%). In summary, awareness of geothermal is high in both countries (90% in Poland, 70% in UK), though those who indicate also having some knowledge is lower (60% in Poland, 40% in UK). Awareness of MWHG is lower than of geothermal in general (52% in Poland, 40% in UK), with those possessing knowledge (self- declared) even lower (25% in Poland, 20% in UK). OVERALL PERCEPTION OF MWHG BEFORE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED Prior to any information on geothermal heat or MWHG being provided, the question was asked: ‘What is your current opinion on the role of extracting heat from water underground in coal mines?’ 80% of respondents were supportive in Poland while in the UK it was considerably lower at 53%. Only 3.5% were against MWHG in Poland, while it was three times larger in the UK at 11%. 16% stated ‘don’t know’ in Poland while, in the UK, this response was twice as large at 36%. ‘Strongly support’ attracted 15% in the UK while in Poland it was at 24.5%.