the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 16 Aug 2024
Early engagement with First Nations in British Columbia, Canada: A case study for assessing the feasibility of geological carbon storage
Abstract. This work describes early engagement with 21 First Nations or alliances, that represent 41 Nations, in British Columbia, Canada. Geological researchers conducted this work as a case study to assess the feasibility of carbon storage in serpentinite rocks. The priorities for engagement were to inform people about the project and its implications, get consent for fieldwork, have a discussion, and start building relationships. Aside from the geology and logistics of a site for a carbon storage project, the permitting and acceptance by the local community and the traditional lands‘ rightsholders are needed for a successful project.
The engagement levels and timelines varied from short phone calls to emails and video meetings. The general reception was positive, and people showed an interest and appreciated being contacted early. Common areas of discussion were water quality, salmon habitat, and involving the youth. This work outlines the first step for engagement, and further work will be done if a proposed CO2 storage project is to proceed.
- Preprint
(1008 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(138 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2502', Giacomo Medici, 17 Sep 2024
General commentsNovel paper in the field of the energy transition. Please, follow my suggestions to bring the impact out and enlarge the views.Specific commentsLine 23. Provide detail on Carbfix technology due to the fact that you mention it multiple times.Lines 21-26. Mention the possibility to combine CO2 storage with geothermal energy production to reach climate goals on reduction of CO2. Please, refer to those papers that are relevant to CO2 storage / geothermal energy in basaltic and sedimentary rocks:- Buscheck, T. A., Bielicki, J. M., Edmunds, T. A., Hao, Y., Sun, Y., Randolph, J. B., & Saar, M. O. (2016). Multifluid geo-energy systems: Using geologic CO2 storage for geothermal energy production and grid-scale energy storage in sedimentary basins. Geosphere, 12(3), 678-696.- Medici, G., Ling, F., Shang, J. (2023). Review of discrete fracture network characterization for geothermal energy extraction. Frontiers in Earth Science, 11, 1328397.Line 51. Please, specify the 3 to 4 specific objectives of your research by using numbers (e.g., i, ii and iii).Lines 156-214. Large part of the discussion with no references. The purpose of the discussion is to merge the new insights of the manuscript with previous results and ideas in your field.Lines 412-607. Please, integrate the relevant literature suggested above on the importance of mafic and sedimentary rocks on the energy transition.Figures and tablesFigure 3. There is room to make the figure larger.Figure 3. Increase the font size of the words.Figure 4. Better tectonic setting if you refer to the trap system for the carbon dioxide. We're at a too large scale with "geodynamics". Just think about the right terminology.Figure 4. There is a link with geothermics, you should mention it also in the introduction.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2024-2502-CC1 -
CC2: 'Reply on CC1', Katrin Steinthorsdottir, 19 Sep 2024
Thank you for these helpful comments. I will add these changes in the updated manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2502-CC2
-
CC2: 'Reply on CC1', Katrin Steinthorsdottir, 19 Sep 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2502', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Oct 2024
General comments
This manuscript has considerable scientific significance to Geoscience Communication and the broader empirical literature given its scope and location. Earning the social license to conduct carbon removal projects within and outside of Canada will require substantial community engagement and involvement. In Canada, project success will require engagement with First Nations and Indigenous communities. However, a dearth of literature currently exists on this specific topic. The manuscript is therefore a meaningful and additive contribution to the literature. This is bolstered by the scientific quality of the manuscript which includes a detailed and transparent accounting of the community engagement, along with a good presentation quality.
Specific comments
- Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC? Yes (see above)
- Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? Yes (see above)
- Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined? Yes
- Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions? Yes
- Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution? Yes
- Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper? Yes
- Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary? Yes
- Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? Yes
- Is the language fluent and precise? Yes
- Are the number and quality of references appropriate? There are sufficient (quality) references to provide an evidence base that supports the manuscript.
Other:
- Line 12:
While not assuming this list infers a preferred order of operations, many First Nations and Indigenous communities want to start by building relationships, establishing trust, and making a human connection prior to discussion around consent to proceed with any projects.
- Line 18:
How to approach the issue of involving the local community in job creation while adhering to potential stipulations from certain governments around the use of union labor in order to access federal funds from policy initiatives? Granted, this is focused on a project in Canada, but these issues will continue to come up as stipulations to access public funding.
- Line 69:
Did the initial objectives include discussing potential equity partnerships as previously mentioned?
- Line 235:
Is there literature to suggest that any initial outreach should be conducted in partnership with social scientists? Are there any established industry best practices for team composition and expertise related to community outreach pertaining to 'natural' vs. 'social' scientists?
- Line 288:
"Give yourself time to learn about communities’ values, norms and culture and how to communicate and behave respectfully...": This should likely be the first step in any community engagement process.
Technical corrections
N/A
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2502-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Katrin Steinthorsdottir, 25 Oct 2024
Thank you for these insights. I will address them in the reviewed manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2502-AC1
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2502', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Oct 2024
- Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC?
Yes - Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
Yes - Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
Yes - Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
Yes - Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
Yes - Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
Yes - Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
Yes - Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
Yes - Is the language fluent and precise?
Yes - Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
Yes
Overall, this paper raises a critical topic--the importance of consultation with Indigenous communities within geoscientific research. Too often, it is argued that a lower level of ethics review and engagement is necessary because many geoscientific projects do not explicitly engage with people; however, as the authors note, this does not recognize longstanding Indigenous rights to consultation and cultural connections to land and landscape. This piece will significantly impact geoscientific work done in Canada and elsewhere.
I think one area of revision, or more accurately, addition, could be in the recommendations section. For example, the authors mention that the UBC ethics review board deemed the research as not warranting a full review, and I found myself curious about the authors' response to this--does this align with their consultation model? Additionally, it would be good to see the recommendations section fleshed out with more actionable goals for institutions to follow to help support the model the authors recommend,Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2502-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Katrin Steinthorsdottir, 28 Oct 2024
Thank you for the suggestions, we will add these into the revisions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2502-AC2
- Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC?
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 251 | 46 | 188 | 485 | 1,792 | 4 | 6 |
- HTML: 251
- PDF: 46
- XML: 188
- Total: 485
- Supplement: 1,792
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1