opinion on CCS in the context of shale Québec (Canada)

Transcription

1 Evolution of public awareness and opinion on CCS in the context of shale gas exploration in the province of Québec (Canada) Jean-Philibert Moutenet 1, Karine Bédard, Michel Malo 1 Research officer, INRS-ETE 3 rd IEAGHG Social Research Network Meeting Noosa Heads, Queensland, Australia April 12-13, 2012

2 Overview: The Research Chair Léger Marketing Surveys: context Based on an article (accepted) to be published soon in Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology Debate on shale gas exploration activities Surveys results and analysis Public opinion on shale gas exploration Conclusion CCS refers mainly to CO 2 geological l storage Margin of error for surveys: 2.7%, confidence interval of 95% Arrows in tables show statistically significant variations in 2011 compared to 2010

3 The Research Chair Research Chair on CO 2 geological storage Created in June 2008 By the Québec government One of the objectives is to develop a demonstration pilot project To test the technology in conditions commonly encountered in Québec, in particular deep highly saline aquifers Assess the sedimentary basin potential in St. Lawrence Lowlands and characterize saline aquifers that could be used to store CO 2 in the case of a pilot project test site (Bécancour) Then, take into account social acceptance in this area 3

4 Léger Marketing Surveys: context (I) 2 identical Internet-based public awareness and opinion surveys of Québec residents Conducted in 2010 and in 2011, show that respondents: Were not really aware of what is, and what causes, climate change Knew almost nothing about what CCS is Only had a partial understanding di of what CO 2 is 4 Main objectives of the surveys were to understand: The importance that the residents of Québec give to the issue of GW Their level of knowledge concerning CO 2 and its impact on the env Their awareness of various green technologies, including CCS Their opinion regarding the use of CCS technology in the province and the establishment of a pilot project in their region

5 Léger Marketing Surveys: context (II) In order to achieve this objectives Created by the Research Chair team and survey experts from Léger Marketing (major Canadian SI) Inspired by other surveys conducted in North America and Europe Some questions were open-ended, but most of them were multiple- choice question with a no opinion option available Léger Marketing conducted the surveys, using its LégerWeb online survey panel, a representative sample of the population of Québec In addition, Léger Marketing also analyzed and compared the results of the two surveys using different statistical tests 5 The two surveys were composed of five parts, followed by a series of demographic questions useful for statistical interpretations Not all the parts and questions will be discussed today

6 Léger Marketing Surveys: context (III) Since it was presumed that few people would have heard about CCS Parts of the surveys were designed to inform the public about this technology Thus, a short neutral text with a diagram that explained CCS was provided to the respondents Also, two NGO opinions about CCS were presented in random order to the respondents (one favorable and one unfavorable) Bellona Greenpeace In order to evaluate whether the opinion i of the population toward CCS was firmly anchored, respondents were asked twice about their opinion on CCS and the idea of a pilot project in their region Once following the neutral explanation of CCS Once following the two opposite NGO opinions about CCS 6

7 Léger Marketing Surveys: context (IV) In 2010 and 2011, an oversampling of the Bécancour/Trois-Rivières (B/TR) region was made Located between Québec City and Montréal To see if CCS was better known and/or more accepted in this region compared to the rest of the province This particular region is of interest because it could potentially host a CCS pilot project In addition, this region is also where shale gas exploration and the resulting debate largely took place 7

8 8 Léger Marketing Surveys: context (V)

9 Debate on shale gas exploration activities Shale gas exploration began a few years ago in southern Québec, and the B/TR region is located in this area In 2010, the situation intensified, the general public became aware of the issue and a strong public protest began, leading to a decrease in oil and gas exploration activities since One of the objectives of the second survey To see if, among others, this intense debate impacted Québécois opinion about CCS First survey: April, 2010 Shale gas debate: Summer 2010 Second survey: June, 2011

10 Surveys results and analysis (I) Some general results The environment was the 4 th most important topic for respondents in 2011 (6 th in 2010) Climate change was given as the second most important t environmental problem in 2011 (idem in 2010) 32% of the respondents in 2011 (idem in 2010) said that priority must be given to the environment over the economy 10 46% of the respondents in 2011 (idem in 2010) believed that urgent action is needed to tackle climate change

11 Surveys results and analysis (II) Some general results Respondents were familiar with the majority of green technologies such as hybrid cars, solar energy and energy efficiency However, only 13% in 2011 (idem in 2010) said that t that t they had already heard of CCS Among them, 36% spontaneously described it as a way of storing CO 2 underground d So, we could say that <5% really knew a priori what it is 11

12 Surveys results and analysis (III) Respondents were asked what conditions would be mandatory for the implementation of a CCS pilot project in their region (MCQ) In 2010 and 2011, the results suggested that respondents would view it positively if, among others: Environmental protection is ensured Safety guaranties are given The population is informed and local residents opinions are taken into account (through h public consultation ti and meetings) Guarantees on the LT fate of the CO 2 injected in the reservoir are in place 12 Only 8% of the respondents in 2011 (6% in 2010) chose the proposed answer stating whatever the conditions, I will be against such a project (in the B/TR region: 7% in 2011 and 3% in 2010)

13 Surveys results and analysis (IV) In 2010, respondents did not generally reject CCS technology or a potential pilot project in their region In the B/TR region: 58% In the B/TR region: 66% 13

14 Surveys results and analysis (V) In 2010, respondents did not generally reject CCS technology or a potential pilot project in their region In the B/TR In the B/TR region: 40% region: 41% In the B/TR region: 58% In the B/TR region: 66% 14

15 Surveys results and analysis (VI) In 2010, respondents did not generally reject CCS technology or a potential pilot project in their region In the province: * Only 17% were totally opposed * 13% did not know why * 8% due to a lack of info* In the B/TR region: * Only 10% were totally opposed 15

16 Surveys results and analysis (VII) In 2011, the picture changed slightly as an intense debate on shale gas exploration took place in the province at the end of 2010 In the B/TR region: 44% (58% in 2010) In the B/TR region: 52% (66% in 2010) 16

17 Surveys results and analysis (VIII) In 2011, the picture changed slightly as an intense debate on shale gas exploration took place in the province at the end of 2010 In the B/TR In the B/TR region: 32% region: 30% (40% in 2010) (41% in 2010) In the B/TR region: 44% (58% in 2010) In the B/TR region: 52% (66% in 2010) 17

18 Surveys results and analysis (IX) In 2011, the picture changed slightly as an intense debate on shale gas exploration took place in the province at the end of

19 Surveys results and analysis (X) In 2011, the picture changed slightly as an intense debate on shale gas exploration took place in the province at the end of 2010 In the province: * 20% were totally opposed (17% in 2010) 19 In the B/TR region: * 24% were totally Opposed (10% in 2010)

20 Surveys results and analysis (XI) In 2011 and 2010, for the entire province, after reading the two NGO opinions (answers to an open-ended question) Those reluctant toward the implementation of a pilot project in their region considered CCS unsafe and not proven Unawareness of the technology, its long-term effects and consequences as well as its financial costs were additional reasons cited to justify their negative attitude 20

21 Surveys results and analysis (XII) 2010 Would you be in favor of a CCS pilot project in your area? (before NGO opinions) 42% 46% TOTAL Why are you against a CO 2 capture and geological storage pilot project in your area? Total B/TR 17% 13% 15% 10% Trois- Rivières/Bécancour 5% 20% 20% It s not safe / No guarantee in term of safety 12% 13% This is not a proven process / This is not a finalized process 9% 12% Lack of information on the subject 8% 7% (...) Totally in favor Somewhat in favor Somewhat against Totally against I don't know 2011 Would you be in favor of a CCS pilot project in your area? (before NGO opinions) 37% TOTAL 35% Do not know 13% 19% Why are you against a CO 2 capture and geological storage pilot project in your area? Total B/TR 10% 18% 17% 15% 15% Trois- Rivières/Béc ancour 25% 22% It s not safe / No guarantee in term of safety 16% 23% This is not a proven process / This is not a finalized process 7% 3% Lack of information on the subject 5% 8% (...) Do not know 15% 15% 21 Totally in favor Somewhat in favor Somewhat against Totally against I don't know

22 Surveys results and analysis (XII) 2010 Would you be in favor of a CCS pilot project in your area? (before NGO opinions) 42% 46% TOTAL Why are you against a CO 2 capture and geological storage pilot project in your area? Total B/TR 17% 13% 15% 10% Trois- Rivières/Bécancour 5% 20% 20% It s not safe / No guarantee in term of safety 12% 13% This is not a proven process / This is not a finalized process 9% 12% Lack of information on the subject 8% 7% (...) Totally in favor Somewhat in favor Somewhat against Totally against I don't know 2011 Would you be in favor of a CCS pilot project in your area? (before NGO opinions) 37% TOTAL 35% Do not know 13% 19% Why are you against a CO 2 capture and geological storage pilot project in your area? Total B/TR 10% 18% 17% 15% 15% Trois- Rivières/Béc ancour 25% 22% It s not safe / No guarantee in term of safety 16% 23% This is not a proven process / This is not a finalized process 7% 3% Lack of information on the subject 5% 8% (...) Do not know 15% 15% 22 Totally in favor Somewhat in favor Somewhat against Totally against I don't know

23 Public opinion on shale gas (in the 2011 survey only) 94% of the respondents had already heard of shale gas Only 15% of the respondents were in favor of shale gas exploration in the province (73% opposed, 12% did not know) Being in favor of shale gas exploration is a more widespread opinion among the respondents who said they were favorable toward the use of CCS in the province Have you ever heard of shale gas? (n=1304) What is your opinion on shale gas exploration in the province of Québec? Base: Respondents having already heard of shale gas No 6% Yes 94% 2011 (n=1251) FAVORABLE 15% OPPOSED 73% DO NOT KNOW 12% 23

24 Conclusion It is not possible to link the increase of respondents against CCS or a potential pilot project and the increase in security concerns specifically to the debate that occurred on shale gas exploration Furthermore, influences like alleged leaks on the CCS Weyburn-Midale project, as well as general political and economic conditions, could have had an impact on the opinion of Québécois However, CO 2 geological storage and shale gas activities share the same techniques and a layperson may view them as similar activities 24 Thus, the social context t in a region where controversial shale gas activities are underway may not be conductive for acceptation of a potential CCS pilot project by the local community

25 Thank you for your attention!