Oil Unions: Cut Keystone Pipeline

[J_Hay]

That is where pollution permit swapping comes into play. Sask will easily offset any emission with the worlds first carbon capture and sequestering initiative on the planet. We already recycle enough to cover every household in the province and the latest projects will take a massive slice out of the oil industry emissions. Things are happening in SK and AB contrary to econaut beliefs.

Our in house econaut lives in the dirtiest province in Canada but is quick to chastise AB and SK. What's up with that?

If your referring to me, I'm not chastising, merely raising my own questions and trying to figure this out.

Also, in regards to the carbon capture systems, I thought they were still in proverbial beta?

 

[petros]

No, not you at all. You've been very open to being more informed which gets a big "hats off" from me.

We've been sequestering for years here but now want to use capture from coal/nat gas fired power generation to do more.

GOVERNMENT APPROVES $1.24 BILLION CARBON CAPTURE PROJECT - Government of Saskatchewan

 

[J_Hay]

Ha, I try, But yeah.

I'm in the middle of doing a paper on The Tar Sands, and I came across the CC idea, but it's saying they wouldn't really be viable for quite some time ?

2014? Hmm, thats not too far away.

Hopefully the dent it will make would be good enough.

 

[petros]

The $1.24 billion project will transform an aging generating unit at Boundary
Dam Power Station near Estevan into a producer of reliable, clean electricity
while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by approximately one million tonnes per
year - the equivalent of taking more than 250,000 vehicles off Saskatchewan
roads each year - in addition to capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) for enhanced oil
recovery.

1/4 million vehicle equivalent is a huge step forward.

 

[J_Hay]

Agreed, although the whole Tar Sands idea makes my stomach turn...
Never really been a fan of any sort of strip mining, assuming from what I've read the Sands could be described as such.

Also, this pipeline is not in fact the only one no?
I'm curious as to when the media picked up on and decided to sensationalize it.

 

[petros]

Agreed, although the whole Tar Sands idea makes my stomach turn...
Never really been a fan of any sort of strip mining, assuming from what I've read the Sands could be described as such.

Things are changing in regards to strip mining the bitumen as well. Operations - Technology - SAGD

You're right. XL isn't the first Canadain line to head south. Enbridge is in the game too and has been for yeas and years.

 

[JLM]

Agreed, although the whole Tar Sands idea makes my stomach turn...
Never really been a fan of any sort of strip mining, assuming from what I've read the Sands could be described as such.

If you have a valuable product just sitting on top of the ground doesn't it make sense to use it? How do the extraction costs compare to drilling, fracking etc.?

 

[J_Hay]

Things are changing in regards to strip mining the bitumen as well. Operations - Technology - SAGD

So this method uses a fair bit of water I'm assuming?

I'm inclined to state the importance of Canadas water supplies.

That's actually quite an intruiging way to get the oil , and I'm surprised at the ratio.
Thanks for the link.

 

[petros]

If you have a valuable product just sitting on top of the ground doesn't it make sense to use it? How do the extraction costs compare to drilling, fracking etc.?

Drilling isn't cheap. You're looking at $100K a day per rig and that is without a guarantee they will hit a pool.

 

[J_Hay]

If you have a valuable product just sitting on top of the ground doesn't it make sense to use it? How do the extraction costs compare to drilling, fracking etc.?

One would think so, but in terms of long-term (and I mean LONG-term) sustainablility Is it not worth it to know you have said stockpile and preserve it?

 

[petros]

One would think so, but in terms of long-term (and I mean LONG-term) sustainability Is it not worth it to know you have said stockpile and preserve it?

I'm on the fence with current reclamation of the boreal forest. There is a diversity loss and it's not the surface species that are the most crucial to forests. It's the mycelium that lives in the soil and is what breaks down organic matter and makes a healthy soil and forest.

Mycelium Mushrooms Provide Detoxification for the Earth

 

[J_Hay]

I'm on the fence with current reclamation of the boreal forest. There is a diversity loss and it's not the surface species that are the most crucial to forests. It's the mycelium that lives in the soil and is what breaks down organic matter and makes a healthy soil and forest.

Mhm, If the soil is destroyed, there is no real backing to the guarantee that the forest will be able to regenerate to what it was, and Alberta's natural setting is gorgeous, sadly I've only seen it in postcards and online.

It would be a crying shame if it lessened.

 

[petros]

Mycelium is the key to returning land back to healthy conditions.

Oops...I almost forgot rhizobium as well as mycelium.

 

[J_Hay]

Hmm, strangely never heard of that in Biology , you'd figure it would be classed as important.

So what your saying...

Is that with enough of this Myc, you could essentially reverse the damages caused by over-industrialization?

Estimated timeframe?

and what about the ecology?

I am intruiged.

 

[petros]

Hmm, strangely never heard of that in Biology , you'd figure it would be classed as important.

So what your saying...

Is that with enough of this Myc, you could essentially reverse the damages caused by over-industrialization?

Estimated timeframe?

and what about the ecology?

I am intruiged.

Yes mycelium and rhizobium are what makes soil a living entity over dirt. Both are cultured in mass quantity for the agricultural business and can be inoculated into the reclaimed forest soils to speed up recovery. As for species diversification nature is excellent at repopulating a reclaimed area in relatively short time. Things tend to flourish when there is a vacuum and competition is temporarily reduced.

 

[J_Hay]

Yes mycelium and rhizobium are what makes soil a living entity over dirt. Both are cultured in mass quantity for the agricultural business and can be inoculated into the reclaimed forest soils to speed up recovery. As for species diversification nature is excellent at repopulating a reclaimed area in relatively short time. Things tend to flourish when there is a vacuum and competition is temporarily reduced.

Agreed, but in cases like NY Central Park? Non-Native species like to seize opportunities similar to this and kill off native species replacing them with themselves.

Any idea how long recovery with the myc/rhi would take?

And in all honesty... thats alot of mushrooms ;;

 

[mentalfloss]

No, not you at all. You've been very open to being more informed which gets a big "hats off" from me.

We've been sequestering for years here but now want to use capture from coal/nat gas fired power generation to do more.

GOVERNMENT APPROVES $1.24 BILLION CARBON CAPTURE PROJECT - Government of Saskatchewan

In 1986 a large leakage of naturally sequestered carbon dioxide rose from Lake Nyos in Cameroon and asphyxiated 1,700 people. While the carbon had been sequestered naturally, some point to the event as evidence for the potentially catastrophic effects of sequestering carbon artificially.[28] The Lake Nyos disaster resulted from a volcanic event, which very suddenly released as much as a cubic kilometre of CO2 gas from a pool of naturally occurring CO2 under the lake in a deep narrow valley. The location of this pool of CO2 is not a place where man can inject or store CO2, and this pool was not known about nor monitored until after the occurrence of the natural disaster.

The use of CCS can reduce CO2 emissions from the stacks of coal power plants by 85-90% or more, but it has no effect on CO2 emissions due to the mining and transport of coal. It will actually "increase such emissions and of air pollutants per unit of net delivered power and will increase all ecological, land-use, air-pollution, and water-pollution impacts from coal mining, transport, and processing, because the CCS system requires 25% more energy, thus 25% more coal combustion, than does a system without CCS".[83]

Another concern regards the permanence of storage schemes. It is claimed that safe and permanent storage of CO2 cannot be guaranteed and that even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate mitigation effect.[80] The IPCC concludes, however,, that the proportion of CO2 retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years and is likely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years.[2]

Finally, there is the issue of cost. Greenpeace claims that CCS could lead to a doubling of plant costs.[80] CCS though may remain economically attractive in comparison to other forms of low carbon electricity generation.[84] It is also claimed by opponents to CCS that money spent on CCS will divert investments away from other solutions to climate change.

IPCC has provided estimates of air emissions from various CCS plant designs (see table below). While CO2 is drastically reduced though never completely captured, emissions of air pollutants increase significantly, generally due to the energy penalty of capture. Hence, the use of CCS entails a reduction in air quality.

Carbon capture and storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[petros]

Agreed, but in cases like NY Central Park? Non-Native species like to seize opportunities similar to this and kill off native species replacing them with themselves.

Any idea how long recovery with the myc/rhy would take?

If inoculated just a matter of a couple weeks for the dirt to return to soil. For complete restoration it will take one generation of trees which for aspens (poplar) is only 20 years.

 

[J_Hay]

Thats not bad, I doubt it would be the same though.

Related:

The jobs gained from the pipeline would majoritivly be America side no?

I havent found much data in specific about the employment possibly gained. : /

 

[petros]

In 1986 a large leakage of naturally sequestered carbon dioxide rose from Lake Nyos in Cameroon and asphyxiated 1,700 people. While the carbon had been sequestered naturally, some point to the event as evidence for the potentially catastrophic effects of sequestering carbon artificially.[28] The Lake Nyos disaster resulted from a volcanic event, which very suddenly released as much as a cubic kilometre of CO2 gas from a pool of naturally occurring CO2 under the lake in a deep narrow valley. The location of this pool of CO2 is not a place where man can inject or store CO2, and this pool was not known about nor monitored until after the occurrence of the natural disaster.

The use of CCS can reduce CO2 emissions from the stacks of coal power plants by 85-90% or more, but it has no effect on CO2 emissions due to the mining and transport of coal. It will actually "increase such emissions and of air pollutants per unit of net delivered power and will increase all ecological, land-use, air-pollution, and water-pollution impacts from coal mining, transport, and processing, because the CCS system requires 25% more energy, thus 25% more coal combustion, than does a system without CCS".[83]

Another concern regards the permanence of storage schemes. It is claimed that safe and permanent storage of CO2 cannot be guaranteed and that even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate mitigation effect.[80] The IPCC concludes, however,, that the proportion of CO2 retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years and is likely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years.[2]

Finally, there is the issue of cost. Greenpeace claims that CCS could lead to a doubling of plant costs.[80] CCS though may remain economically attractive in comparison to other forms of low carbon electricity generation.[84] It is also claimed by opponents to CCS that money spent on CCS will divert investments away from other solutions to climate change.

IPCC has provided estimates of air emissions from various CCS plant designs (see table below). While CO2 is drastically reduced though never completely captured, emissions of air pollutants increase significantly, generally due to the energy penalty of capture. Hence, the use of CCS entails a reduction in air quality.

Carbon capture and storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coal ming in SK where the project is,is extremely low impact. The drag lines that do the mining are powered by the power plant the mines supply. This isn't West Virgina. Lands mined here this year will be crops next spring. you'd never know they were mined unless someone told you they were.

At what depth was the Cameroon CO2 source? 2-3KM like the sequestering here?