Early engagement with First Nations in British Columbia, Canada: A case study for assessing the feasibility of geological carbon storage

Steinthorsdottir, Katrin; Pete, Shandin; Dipple, Gregory; Truman, Richard; Snæbjörnsdóttir, Sandra

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2502

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2502

Preprints

16 Aug 2024

| 16 Aug 2024

Early engagement with First Nations in British Columbia, Canada: A case study for assessing the feasibility of geological carbon storage

Katrin Steinthorsdottir, Shandin Pete, Gregory Dipple, Richard Truman, and Sandra Snæbjörnsdóttir

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.

Received: 08 Aug 2024 – Discussion started: 16 Aug 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 1008 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (1008 KB)

Supplement (138 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

10 Jun 2025

Early engagement with First Nations in British Columbia, Canada: a case study for assessing the feasibility of geological carbon storage

Katrin Steinthorsdottir, Shandin Pete, Gregory M. Dipple, Richard Truman, and Sandra Ósk Snæbjörnsdóttir

Geosci. Commun., 8, 151–166, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-8-151-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-8-151-2025, 2025

Short summary

Katrin Steinthorsdottir, Shandin Pete, Gregory Dipple, Richard Truman, and Sandra Snæbjörnsdóttir

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-2502', Giacomo Medici, 17 Sep 2024

General comments
Novel paper in the field of the energy transition. Please, follow my suggestions to bring the impact out and enlarge the views.

Specific comments
Line 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 tables
Figure 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
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

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

CC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-2502', Giacomo Medici, 17 Sep 2024

General comments
Novel paper in the field of the energy transition. Please, follow my suggestions to bring the impact out and enlarge the views.

Specific comments
Line 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 tables
Figure 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
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

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (16 Dec 2024) by Louise Arnal

Dear Authors,

Based on the reviewers' comments and my own evaluation of your manuscript, I would like to request that you undertake major revisions. While the manuscript highlights an interesting engagement activity, I believe it would benefit from a more in-depth and robust qualitative analysis. Strengthening this aspect would significantly enhance its contribution as a research article in Geoscience Communication. Here are my main recommendations for improvements:
- Context & hypothesis: The manuscript should provide more thorough context and formulate a clear hypothesis and/or manuscript objectives (besides presenting the approach used). For instance, it would be helpful to know what the current practices are for engaging local communities in similar projects (at least within BC or Canada) and how the proposed model differs from those practices or addresses specific challenges. This could serve as the foundation for a hypothesis.
- Discussion: It would be useful to hear about where the presented model has been successful (mostly addressed it would be useful to link these successful aspects to the challenges identified earlier - see point above), where it has fallen short (currently under-explored), and how you propose to revise the model in the future (still lacking).
- Generalizability of the methods and findings: The manuscript would benefit from a discussion of the extent to which the results are applicable to other geographical or research contexts versus how localized the model and outcomes are.
- Minor aspects: There are repetitive elements in the discussion section that could be removed to make the manuscript more concise.

Please address these recommendations, as well as all reviewer comments you received so far, in your revised manuscript.

Thank you for engaging in the GC review process.

Louise Arnal

Hide

AR by Katrin Steinthorsdottir on behalf of the Authors (21 Jan 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (further review by editor) (04 Feb 2025) by Louise Arnal

AR by Katrin Steinthorsdottir on behalf of the Authors (07 Feb 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (07 Feb 2025) by Louise Arnal

ED: Publish as is (26 Feb 2025) by Kirsten v. Elverfeldt (Executive editor)

AR by Katrin Steinthorsdottir on behalf of the Authors (26 Feb 2025) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

10 Jun 2025

Early engagement with First Nations in British Columbia, Canada: a case study for assessing the feasibility of geological carbon storage

Katrin Steinthorsdottir, Shandin Pete, Gregory M. Dipple, Richard Truman, and Sandra Ósk Snæbjörnsdóttir

Geosci. Commun., 8, 151–166, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-8-151-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-8-151-2025, 2025

Short summary

Katrin Steinthorsdottir, Shandin Pete, Gregory Dipple, Richard Truman, and Sandra Snæbjörnsdóttir

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2502-supplement

Katrin Steinthorsdottir, Shandin Pete, Gregory Dipple, Richard Truman, and Sandra Snæbjörnsdóttir

Viewed

Total article views: 1,263 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
406	75	782	1,263	3,061	18	19

HTML: 406
PDF: 75
XML: 782
Total: 1,263
Supplement: 3,061
BibTeX: 18
EndNote: 19

Views and downloads (calculated since 16 Aug 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2024	88	20	7	115
Sep 2024	66	12	31	109
Oct 2024	48	6	110	164
Nov 2024	38	5	40	83
Dec 2024	13	8	0	21
Jan 2025	15	3	6	24
Feb 2025	10	1	148	159
Mar 2025	18	10	135	163
Apr 2025	62	6	130	198
May 2025	43	4	125	172
Jun 2025	5	50	55

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 16 Aug 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Aug 2024	88	20	7	115
Sep 2024	66	12	31	109
Oct 2024	48	6	110	164
Nov 2024	38	5	40	83
Dec 2024	13	8	0	21
Jan 2025	15	3	6	24
Feb 2025	10	1	148	159
Mar 2025	18	10	135	163
Apr 2025	62	6	130	198
May 2025	43	4	125	172
Jun 2025	5	50	55

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,312 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,312 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 10 Jun 2025

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (1008 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

This study describes an early engagement process between geologists and 21 First Nations or alliances in British Columbia, Canada. The reason for contacting the Nations was to inform about a project concept that is to store carbon underground in serpentinite rocks. Additionally, we asked for consent for geological fieldwork and to start building relationships. Further engagement work will be done if the proposed project is to proceed.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0