Sask., Ottawa reach deal on greenhouse gases

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,373
11,436
113
Low Earth Orbit
Province granted more control

The federal government has agreed to give Saskatchewan control over how it cuts greenhouse gas emissions from its coal-fired power plants.

Federal Environment Minister Peter Kent and Saskatchewan Environment Minister Ken Cheveldayoff announced Friday they have agreed to strike a so-called "equivalency agreement," which will devolve more regulatory responsibilities to the province.

"Basically what we're doing is eliminating duplication," Kent said in an interview.

Under the new deal, Kent said, federal greenhouse gas emissions regulations will "stand down" in favour of provincial regulations, as long as the provincial regulation achieves an equivalent or better environmental outcome.

The announcement came as the province received a failing grade on a new environmental report card by Corporate Knights Magazine. The scathing report gives Saskatchewan a C grade, naming it the worst ecological laggard in Canada mainly due to high energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Corporate Knights' Green Provincial Report Card penalized Saskatchewan for releasing the most greenhouse gases per capita in Canada and for having the largest increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2009 in the country.

With such a bad track record, Corporate Knights managing editor Jeremy Runnalis said, Saskatchewan does not deserve any more responsibility on the environmental front.

"Especially on the (greenhouse gas) portfolio - across the board - (Saskatchewan) is performing terribly," he said. "They're at the bottom of almost everything."

Kent says the new equivalency deal is part of a broader government search for ways to meet Canada's Copenhagen summit commitment to cut 17 per cent of 2005 greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Kent said the new regulations for coal-fired power plants will be announced in the summer and will include more stringent performance and emissions standards.

Kent said he is trying to strike equivalency deals with other provinces that depend heavily on coal, having reached an agreement with Nova Scotia in April. Relevant provincial legislation will have to be drafted by each province.

Saskatchewan has three coal-fired power plants - the Shand, Boundary Dam and Poplar River Power Stations - in the province's south.

Cheveldayoff says the agreement will provide the flexibility needed to implement clean coal and carbon capture and storage technol-ogy at Boundary Dam 3 and other coal-fired plants in Saskatchewan.

"Saskatchewan looks forward to working with the federal government to negotiate an equivalency agreement that reflects our unique circumstances and advances the technology and innovation required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Cheveldayoff said in a statement.

SaskPower president Robert Watson said the $1.2-billion Boundary Dam carbon capture and storage project still needs more time to fine tune, and coal will be a major part of Saskatchewan's energy future.

"About 50 per cent of our power production comes from the coal fleet, so we have a vested interest in keeping the coal fleet in operation for years to come," he said. "The (power stations) sit on, arguably, about a 300-year supply of coal."

Kent called Saskatchewan a "world leader in carbon capture and storage," and said he hopes these innovations reach far beyond provincial borders.

"We're really pleased with the way that project is going, and hope that technology will eventually be shared with other operators, and not just in Canada," he said.
 

Cabbagesandking

Council Member
Apr 24, 2012
1,041
0
36
Ontario
CCS is a bust. There may be some merit in the concept that will become useful sometime in the future after it is too late to matter. The only successful attempt so far, and so far as I am aware, is in some sequestering that the Norwegians have done with North Sea Oil emissions.

This, for Canada, has always been an expensive mirage to make it seem that the federal and Alberta governments were serious about emissions.

It will be too expensive and too late if ever the technology proves successful.

It caanot work without a substantial Carbon tax.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
CCS is a bust.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies @ MIT

In Salah Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project

Company/Alliance: BP, Sontrach and Statoil
Location: Algeria
Start Date: 2004
Size: 1.2 MT/Yr
CO2 Source: Gas processing from In Salah Oil Field (the gas contains approximately 5.5% CO2 at the surface)
Storage: The Krechba Formation: A depleted gas reservoir located near the gas processing plant (1800m depth)
Motivation/Economics: Set precedents for regulations and verification of CO2 storage and obtain carbon tax credits. Total project is estimated to cost US$2.7 billion.
Comments: The formation has an estimated 17 million tons total storage lifetime. No leakage of CO2 has so far occurred. CO2 injection costs approximately $6 /ton CO2. Krechba storage well at In Salah has a relatively low level of rock permeability compared to oil reservoir rocks for instance and injection is via horizontal well. The successful storage of CO2 in the Krechba Formation gives valuable insight into how CO2 can be stored in analogous wells common in the USA, Northwest Europe and China.
Project Link: In Salah project website
Other Sources and Press Releases:
In Salah project in detail Monitoring CO2 storage
BP In Salah project website
SBSTA Meeting Bonn presentation - Iain Wright, BP [PDF] (May 2006)
Statoil In Salah CCS project

Date Modified November 23, 2011

There are also projects in the US. In Weyburn they sequester almost 3 million tonnes a year.

It's not a bust. It's a difficult project to embark on, but it's one of the wedges mentioned in a highly cited paper in Science by Pacala and Socolow.
 

Cabbagesandking

Council Member
Apr 24, 2012
1,041
0
36
Ontario
CCS is, indeed, a bust. There is little progress anywhere. As I said, without a carbon price the whole idea will collapse. Even with that, it is far too late for it to be of any real use - even if the technology were available. And it is not. The present state of the Art has limited application. This from a Shell oil advisor. It has already collapsed in Alberta.

"Carbon pricing is the essential precursor to technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), which may be the only available route forward to allow both energy demand to be met and CO2 emissions reduced. Alberta has at least started down this route, with a C$15 price driving behaviour in oil sands operations. That price, in combination with a technology incentive package, should see CCS activity emerge as part of future oil sands development."

http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/category/ccs/

And here are some papers that illustrate why and how CCS is a waste and a myth of the delaying interests. (China, btw, which has quite a lot of potential sites, has stated that the process is too expensive to even consider.)

Doubts about carbon capture and sequestration « The Cost of Energy
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,373
11,436
113
Low Earth Orbit
CCS is, indeed, a bust. There is little progress anywhere. As I said, without a carbon price the whole idea will collapse.
So EOR is a ****ty idea that isn't reaping huge benefits?

As I said, without a carbon price the whole idea will collapse.
Are SK companies buying CO2 From Minnesota with smiles and buttons? Will selling CO2 to MB, ND and MT be a ****ty thing for them to? Will they pay with jelly beans?

You really do know **** all about this **** eh? It shows big time.
 

Cabbagesandking

Council Member
Apr 24, 2012
1,041
0
36
Ontario
So EOR is a ****ty idea that isn't reaping huge benefits?

Are SK companies buying CO2 From Minnesota with smiles and buttons? Will selling CO2 to MB, ND and MT be a ****ty thing for them to? Will they pay with jelly beans?

You really do know **** all about this **** eh? It shows big time.

Read the references and then try to tell me which of us knows nothing about this. Also, the Encana project at Weyburn is leaking!

Costs in the US are now estimated at upwards of $75 per tonne.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,373
11,436
113
Low Earth Orbit
Read the references and then try to tell me which of us knows nothing about
this. Also, the Encana project at Weyburn is leaking!
Bull****! The Kerrs are neurotic at best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
it's the old shift the wealth from west to east thing,ignore them Petros,they wont go away, all they can do is whine.
Do they have a graph for increasing western wealth?
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies @ MIT

In Salah Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project

Company/Alliance: BP, Sontrach and Statoil
Location: Algeria
Start Date: 2004
Size: 1.2 MT/Yr
CO2 Source: Gas processing from In Salah Oil Field (the gas contains approximately 5.5% CO2 at the surface)
Storage: The Krechba Formation: A depleted gas reservoir located near the gas processing plant (1800m depth)
Motivation/Economics: Set precedents for regulations and verification of CO2 storage and obtain carbon tax credits. Total project is estimated to cost US$2.7 billion.
Comments: The formation has an estimated 17 million tons total storage lifetime. No leakage of CO2 has so far occurred. CO2 injection costs approximately $6 /ton CO2. Krechba storage well at In Salah has a relatively low level of rock permeability compared to oil reservoir rocks for instance and injection is via horizontal well. The successful storage of CO2 in the Krechba Formation gives valuable insight into how CO2 can be stored in analogous wells common in the USA, Northwest Europe and China.
Project Link: In Salah project website
Other Sources and Press Releases:
In Salah project in detail Monitoring CO2 storage
BP In Salah project website
SBSTA Meeting Bonn presentation - Iain Wright, BP [PDF] (May 2006)
Statoil In Salah CCS project

Date Modified November 23, 2011

There are also projects in the US. In Weyburn they sequester almost 3 million tonnes a year.

It's not a bust. It's a difficult project to embark on, but it's one of the wedges mentioned in a highly cited paper in Science by Pacala and Socolow.
Hmmm, scientific data and cost analysis v...

OP/Ed

OP/Ed

And of course...

Op/Ed
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
What the H... are you talking about this time. Have you completely lost your marbles?
Just pointing out the differences between someone that is educated and relies on facts and a simpleminded ideologue who relies on Op/Ed pieces.

In short, you got PWND, again.

...Apparently, those marbles were in the missing part of the post.
The only part that is missing, is the sarcasm I use to mock trolls.
 

Cabbagesandking

Council Member
Apr 24, 2012
1,041
0
36
Ontario
You really are a pitiful soul. Can you not read the commentary by scientists and the wealth of information about CCS. Is that beyond your intelligence even expressed in terms that the layman can understand.

There are all the facts and figures about the issue that you could want. It is not a focus on the Saleh and the eight year old thinking that accompanied it. I gave you far more recent information on the whole thing.

The evidence is there that CCS is a bust and a chimerical vision that will not happen. If CCS ever develops the technology and the storage capacity to do what was optimistically thought possible (by some) in 2004, it will be far too late and too little. It is now promoted as a major possibility only by this government and by the fossil fuel industry.

It is, as Tonington said, one of the wedges in that Solocow paper. It is, though, just one of seven and it has, so far, proved a failure.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Can you not read the commentary by scientists and the wealth of information about CCS.
Yes, I read it in Tonington's posts and links.

The only thing in your rebuttal were Op/Ed pieces.

I can understand your consternation. Information gleaned from Op/Ed pieces and wikiality, is so easily proven faulty. Which would clearly explain how your opinion is so easily shown to be vacuous.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
It is, as Tonington said, one of the wedges in that Solocow paper. It is, though, just one of seven and it has, so far, proved a failure.

How has it proven to be a failure? Are there more or less projects than there were say 5 years ago? There are limited attempts thus far, with some full scale commercial, but that doesn't make it a failure. It takes time to work out the kinks for new technology. Are you going to say electric vehicles then are also a failure? Thus far the sales numbers are low. There are more super exotic sports cars sold in the world each year than there are electric passenger automobiles.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
How has it proven to be a failure? Are there more or less projects than there were say 5 years ago? There are limited attempts thus far, with some full scale commercial, but that doesn't make it a failure. It takes time to work out the kinks for new technology. Are you going to say electric vehicles then are also a failure? Thus far the sales numbers are low. There are more super exotic sports cars sold in the world each year than there are electric passenger automobiles.
But Tonington!!! He posted links to bloggers and parroted them!!!

You'll have to raise the bar if you want to beat that!