Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Shifting Sands: Part VII

Looking for solutions to the carbon conundrum

SHAWN MCCARTHY

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:29 PM EDT 03/02/08

Sequestering emissions could be a win-win. But it won't be cheap. ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Dr Demento from Canada writes: This article is a joke. It fails to mention the most cost effective and proven method of producing huge amounts of base energy without ANY greenhouse gas emissions - nuclear power.
  2. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: Yup I like the nuclear power option.
    But what if we don't try to change global warming?
    . We would consume less energy to heat homes and business therefore less pollution.
    . We would have a longer growing season, less crop failure, maybe two crops a year.,
    . We would reduce imports of food products grown in the south, we can grow them in Canada.
    . We could move crop production further north.
    . We could finally open the North West Passage
  3. My Moniker is Better from Canada writes: Dick Garneau from Canada, although some of your points are correct, but I would like to point out that those are simply half of the picture.

    You may be right about the heating costs, but remember that during the summer, we will increase the use of the air conditioner, thereby canceling any savings we make from the winter. Also, at least in inter we can put on more clothing to reduce heating costs. In winter, there is not much further we can go than to strip down to our swim suits.

    With regards to crops, remember that earth is a closed system, and what nutrient resources, ie: fertilizer, we have are limited. Also, the amount of viable farming soil is fast depleting due to unsustainable farming practices. Monoculture farming is also a problem because the farming system is linear. You extract nutrients to feed the crops, harvest what you want and the rest is garbage. Personally I'd like to see a greater shift to crop cycling.

    If farming shifted northwards, remember that those living near the equator will start depending on us for food instead. This would simply be a shift of who is exporting and who is importing, and although economically profitable for us, remember that this is merely a shift, and in all likelihood, only the extremely wealthy will benefit thus the disparity between the rich and the poor will only increase.
  4. My Moniker is Better from Canada writes: This is what I get for not proofreading my posts =P...

    Also, at least in winter we can put on more clothing to reduce heating costs. In summer, there is not much further we can go than to strip down to our swim suits.
  5. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Preaching global warming is similar to preaching abstinence. Everyone talks about it being a good idea, but very few practice it.
  6. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: I don't understand why the environmental groups are not backing CO2 sequestration as the solution it is. This is a solution that does not shut down the oil and gas industry but still works towards CO2 reduction. I would have thought they would see this for the innovative solution it is. The government in Alberta is likely to fund part of this and the oil industry seems interested in getting involved as well. Seems like a solution that doesn't rely on taxing everyone to death.

    If there are any posters from the environmental groups, why are you not lobbying for this rather than the unrealistic solution of shutting down oil and gas development.
  7. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: A point often missed in the CCS discussion is the potential for siting ethanol plants along the pipeline and burying their CO2 as well since about 45% of the biomass turns into CO2 during fermentation.

    It's a double benefit as this is a net decrease in total CO2 not just a saw off.

    How' this for an idea on how to pay for it?? Up the gst about 2%!

    Then consumers are helping to pay for the emissions from the tailpipe. The companies would be paying more income tax relative to writing off the cost against taxes and the government would be able to bank and sell any carbon credits generated. Since the government would be one of the largest parties in the market they could probably get a better price.
  8. Kevin Go Riders from Canada writes: If we are serious about reducing GHG the government needs to increase the CO2 tech credit above the $15 and put a carbon tax on the fuel as ultimately it is the consumer that has to pay not some company, as a tax will do 2 ,reduce activity and the economy in general or require the company to pass it on to the ultimate consumer or in this case the polluter.
  9. E. Biggs from Canada writes: Folks all good points but I hardly ever hear a word about the new technology being developed by Petrobank for extracting oil from the sands.

    If my understanding is correct it will significantly reduce ghg's and is already being used on a small scale.

    Long term it is hard to beat the nuclear option.

    Good discussions if we can keep the goofs out of it.
  10. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: 'While the figures sound daunting, proponents say carbon capture would add only $3 to $4 to the cost of producing a barrel of upgraded synthetic crude from the oil sands.'

    That statement is not correct. The added cost ranges from $2 to $13 depending on the facility in question; and those numbers are from the Pembina Institute.

    They just prefer to only mention the lower part of range.
  11. martha stewart from Canada writes: Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: 'I don't understand why the environmental groups are not backing CO2 sequestration as the solution it is.'

    Most so-called 'environmental groups' are not interested in solutions. They thrive on maintaining crises and fear. If this problem was solved their donations would shrink faster than the problem.

    If this really was the doomsday scenario they say it is, they would fully support the only viable option - nuclear energy. But of course they don't. Why? Because... ummm... oh yes, Chernobyl!!! And... oh yes, the 'waste' has to be stored somewhere until we learn how to process it... ummm... oh yes, Three Mile Island almost happened... ummm... oh yes, this solution does not involve Green social engineers telling people how to live.

    What I don't understand is why Dion, as a citizen of France, does not fully support nuclear power. That provides 80% of France's power and is the ONLY reason they are even close to their Kyoto targets.
  12. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: A point often missed in the CCS discussion is the potential for siting ethanol plants along the pipeline and burying their CO2 as well since about 45% of the biomass turns into CO2 during fermentation.

    It wouldn't be necessary to build the ethanol plants along the CCS pipeline. Compressor stations could be used to build a gathering system across the entire province.

    It's just a matter of money.
  13. E. Biggs from Canada writes: For the first time in a long time we are actually having a discussion.

    I would really like to know if any of you have invested in any of the oil sands companies. I have some money in three oil sands outfits but as I am a senior on a pension I have limited funds as my wife insists in eating three times a day.

    I happen to believe that if more of us invested in the oilsands and as shareholders held the companys feet to the fire and demanded action on the ghg issue that more might be achieved.

    Naive????
  14. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: 'That statement is not correct. The added cost ranges from $2 to $13 depending on the facility in question; and those numbers are from the Pembina Institute.'

    As an estimate, there is no 'correct' answer w/o detailed engineering costs. Perhaps others have refined the estimates.

    The point that needs to be made, however, is that it is far more costly to retrofit an existing plant that was not designed for this technology, than it is for a greenfield (ie brand new) site.

    With oilsands production now at around 1 million barrels/day, forecast to rise to 4 or 5 million barrels/d by 2020 (again just an estimate) it should be incumbent that all new plants be designed with CCS in mind.

    Many have made this argument when it comes to new coal fired generation plants in the US and more importantly in China. Given the 30-40 yr life of a coal fired plant (same order of magnitude for an oilsands plant) all new facilities should be mandated to allow economic (relatively speaking) retrofits for 'clean coal' (ie CCS) technology.

    These same conditions should be mandated for all new oilsands expansion plans.
  15. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: The title of this article is of course extremely misleading. The Leduc Redwater 'deposit' is a hydrocarbon pool contained in a carbonate reservoir. Flushing it with CO2 experiment has nothing to do with oil sands and bituminous sands. One also have to appreciate the not so subtle hint about ARC energy... wink wink invest, it's green. This sentence 'Indeed, it may be the silver bullet that allows the world to arrest climate change even as the globe consumes growing of amounts of fossil fuels to energize emerging economies like China and India.' is truly a monument of ignorance doubled with propaganda: the Climate is always changing and the assumption CO2 emissions are at the source of change is yet unproven and nature is on its way to debunking the AGW fairy tale. So no one is going to stop climate change. period. Now here is the kill: '“The economics are serious and the economics are going to be a problem,” Mr. Page said. But if government imposes a significant price on CO{-2} – either through a cap on emissions or a carbon tax – “then it begins to close the gap.” So precious financial resources will be sunk to develop some technological marvel based on the faulty integration of facts. And it ain't going to be cheap... The dubious references to the goreacle and the eager claim of Dr Gunter to be part of the political award with its hypocritical leader is showing how pathetic some Canadians have become to climb in the bandwagon. Here comes the smoke and mirror comparison of the article: 'Abu Dhabi, an oil-rich member of the Persian Gulf state United Arab Emirates, has entered the field with plans to capture up to 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and inject it into aging oil fields to enhance recovery.' This has nothing to do with CO2 sequestration since it's just the same than what ARC is doing in Redwater: enhanced recovery of hydrocarbon that has nothing to do with AGW and oil sands! To be followed...
  16. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Part two: 'However, environmentalist John Bennett of climateforchange.ca said taxpayers should not be subsidizing highly profitable oil firms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but that governments should regulate steep reductions' Here we are some envrionment lobby group becomes de facto a reference... All this is fine as long as companies make profits but where are those lecturers when gas prices sink? And the infomercial continues: 'On the other hand, Petrocan's planned upgrader will be located about 40 kilometres northeast of Edmonton, in the neighbourhood of ARC's Redwater site. So conceivably, Petrocan could sell CO{-2} to ARC, which would then use it to enhance oil production. As a minority partner in a Weyburn, Sask., enhanced oil project, ARC has had a front-row seat at Canada's largest carbon capture and storage effort. ' And the tone continues like a Suzuki pamphlet: 'Ultimately, the driver behind carbon capture in Canada is likely to be Big Oil's fear of losing its $100-billion bet on the oil sands.' Fear of what? People not driving their cars and not heating their homes when -30c outside? ' There is a growing worry climate concerns – notably the growing call for climate change action in the United States – will trump economic ones, and force companies to rein in emissions, notes David Keith, a director at the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy at the University of Calgary, and a member of the recent federal-provincial task force on CCS.' Here we go another Professor jumps in the bandwagon and becomes an obligatory genius expert on the subject... 'Dr. Keith said. “And you are not going to manage it without moving aggressively on carbon capture and storage.” Yes give Dr Keith your money... Of course the Globe and Mail saved the 'Oil Sands and Global Warming' theme for the week-end... so readers can think about it and 1) invest in ARC on Monday 2) feel good about the Nobel peace prize canadian effort! Suzuki is next!
  17. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Part three:

    Jean Malice from Calgary forgot to mention to other readers outside of Alberta that the Earth is not really a sphere, but rather more like a plate.

    Best not to venture near the edge or you will fall off and be lost forever.
  18. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: Ontario and global warming...Ontario still produces 95% more GHG than the rest of the world. They contribute more to global warming than most in the world. How can we stop them from this crime they commit? They seem to want to point fingers rather than accept blame. They seem to think if they blame those in their country that can somehow escape their role in solving this global crisis. We must act now, the world can only stand so much hypocrisy.
  19. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: If there are any posters from the environmental groups, why are you not lobbying for this rather than the unrealistic solution of shutting down oil and gas development. ' I'nm not 'one of trhem' but I can point out the flaws they aren't mentioning.. First, CO2 'capture' takes about 8% of the thermal efficienct so a 44% efficient power plant becomes only 36% efficient, increasing the total costs and emissions by 22%. Second, if there is water in the 'storage' you produce a strong 'carbonic acid' which may eat through the 'caprock' and release the cxo2 back. We have no longterm data on this, soi it may be useless. Third, it required miles of pipeline and then there are limited wels suitable for 'enhhanced oil recovery' which is the only objective backed by the oil industry. Most of those *already* use CO2 injection and are nearing their end. It is a 'last ditch' method. As a technology, it loses to just replacing the current 35% 1960's era plants with moden 44% efficient unuits, thus saving fuel and emissions in one package. And instead of wasting power and money with this idiocy, you can powder (50 mesh or smaller) common deposits of magnesium silicate rocks and spread it over the ground to 'weather'. As it turns to clays it absorbs CO2 naturally from the air without requiring capture and related expenses.
  20. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Ian St. John, you make some interesting points. However, unlike the G&M article, you're leaving out cost information. It is possible that your preference for newer types of thermal power plants would be more cost effective than the carbon capture methods described in the article. Can you find any cost estimates for your competing vision? However, you'd still have to find a technology to solve the oil and gas industry's problems. Any ideas about that? I thought it was a great article. The image the future begins to get a little clearer. Cost numbers on the table for discussion. Real technology that can be evaluated and compared against other possible solutions. Just think, per the article: 'By some estimates, it would cost $16-billion over 20 years to build and operate a system that would capture 20 megatonnes of CO{-2} per year by 2020' This is new green technology I can get behind. Do you have any idea how many engineering and construction jobs a project of that size would create? The permanent plant operating jobs wouldn't be bad either. Anyways, now we have a straw dog to kick around while we figure out our next moves. Looks like the greens might have to move on to some other cause after we find that we don't have to shut the oil sands plants down. Great stuff! There's still at least one fly in the ointment though. It appears that energy costs will go up if we take on the types of projects the article describes. This will do nothing for Central Canada's manufacturing sector. However it would provide a bonanza of (western based) jobs for laid off workers in the east. The shifting to the west for the country's economic center would continue.
  21. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: martha stewart from Canada writes: '... Most so-called 'environmental groups' are not interested in solutions. They thrive on maintaining crises and fear. If this problem was solved their donations would shrink faster than the problem. ...'

    BINGO! As solutions come forward, the topic drifts towards areas the greens have no training in. Kind of hard to have an opinion about a technology you know nothing about.

    Wind turbines and solar panels capture the imagination. The problem is that you can't run cities and industries with their power and still allow citizens to have jobs and compete economically with the rest of the world.

    No, you're going to need to know about gas turbines, heat exchangers, pumps and piping to get in on this one. The kids who've been coming out of engineering schools dreaming about wind farms might have to learn a bit about basic old technology methods after all. Or, we can continue to hire American engineeirng contractors or import engineers from around the world who know more about these things - but that's a whole different subject for another day.

    I wonder what Alan Burke's position is on this?
  22. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Hendrick Larose ,
    the reason environmentalists don't back carbon sequestration , we have only ever seen technological solutions to pollution problems after legistlation closed the door to status quo pollution .
    If Canada placed a moritorium on oils sands expansion, until CCS was developed we might see some action. Obviously oil sands expansion is only in the interest of the companies who are already fabulously wealthy .Let those companies pay , and prove that their expansionist dreams won't harm the Earth.
  23. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Now we are getting somewhere - but not far enough. In my lengthy experience with the Industry, I was an officer of one of the two major companies that became Encana ... involved directly in the Weyburn CO2 project. I have tracked it ever since and remained abreast of the science that has been improved by it. Having said this, it must also be recognized that this is by no means the first such application. ESSO and Shell had similar projects in the same old sea bed (Williston Basin) but further south. I believe that there are others that have been initiated since. And there are many more that could be. That basin lends itself very well to enhanced recovery by CO2 injsction. Rather than wasting space here, on the science, I suggest that you Google your way into 'miscible flood' or 'co2 injection' or 'underground carbon sequestration'. There are many fine articles available. I prefer to deal with the economic, political and managerial issues that have to be addressed. The point is, the science is good and readers here do not have to wonder about it. When we did the work-up on the Weyburn project, it almost did not get the green light - in fact it sat still for years until the go-no go threshold was so close it was almost too late. The main reason was the cost of a pipeline for the CO2. That is what I remember best. We looked carefully at piping the stuff from oil sands and the Empress liquids plants. At that time we needed somthing like ten times the volume to make that work. Remember such a line would have been much longer and the reserves much smaller than a similar pipe into northern Alberta. Suffice to say that the oil sands now offers opportunity to capture easily enough to make this a 'no regrets' system - it will pay for itself. Business cannot be made responsible for a no-return investment like this. It has to be government sponsored but it will not be a burden. to be continued
  24. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Continued

    When inevitably the low ends of waste products in oil sands are turned into clean hydrogen to fuel the plants, to displace the waste of natural gas now being fractured into hydrogen and released CO2 the plants can engineer CO2 capture right into the initial build if a line is available.

    The main barrier that this (Alberta) government has to undertake and overcome RIGHT NOW before the line is available, is to re-appropriate from various companies, the crown and fee simple mineral rights that have no value other than with a CO2 miscible flood project that depends upon a publicly-sponsored CO2 line.

    Let me say it again .... Alberta seems to have scores of mineral rights holders that are doing nothing with the reserves but wait until a public sponsored line is put in place so that they can get rich at public expense. These reserves have to be re-appropriated in some way at least by ensuring that such holders are charged sufficient tarriff for the CO2 that they do not get another free ride. By this means the line can, with a little forethought, become a profitable one for the public.

    Again it seems that it is not science that stands in the way, it is leadership!

    Let's get the show on the road or Heaven's sake.
  25. David K from Guelph, Canada writes: Anyone who needs a perspective on this question should log on to Google Earth, go to Fort McMurray and view it and the surrounding area from an altitude of 40 km. The resolution is not brilliant but the scars from the pits and other workings are unmistakable. The next question to ask is, who, if anyone is going to be able to clean this mess up?
  26. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: What that? ...

    Do I hear crickets?

    Few things kill a party faster than talking about engineering details.

    Study up Greens. There's going to be more of this.

    BTW, great post Rudy Krueger!
  27. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Ian St. John,

    Thanks for outlining some of the issues with CO2 sequestration. Still seems to be the best answer we have available for controlling CO2 given the demands for energy.
  28. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Woody Forrest, any viable technology which be applied to mitigating the impact of global warming is fine with me as long as it doesn't make the problem worse. As an energy source I lean toward nuclear and wish we had seen much more research into fusion technology.

    Sequestration of carbon appears to me to be a potentially effective strategy if it results in safe and stable capture. What's needed, I guess, beyond the technological aspects is a solid economical reason for the companies to do it. This is where a carbon tax or cap-and-trade mechanism could come into play. I believe that the companies themselves should bear the brunt of the cost rather than pushing the results of not doing anything onto the rest of us (see 'Tragedy of the Commons'). No doubt they'll pass costs through to their customers but at least then it will be the users who pay, in proportion to their usage, providing incentive for becoming more efficient in their usage.
  29. freelix the cat from Canada writes: congrats to globe for another well written article in the ongoing series.
    it would be interesting to explore concepts of alternative energy from other sources.
    apparently the oil is going to run out someday and the world's economy would simply fall into an abyss. many in the horse and buggy trade never saw any sense in the 'infernal combustion dew-daw'.
    again, thanx for the series.
  30. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: If one were to fly over the area today, one would see huge lakes of fresh water overlaying old tailings ponds that were the result of existing technology when the plants first started. What one would not see is the large areas that have been reclaimed and are supporting flora and fauna au natural. There is a herd of wood buffalo grazing on the old Syncrude infill. You can't see it because that was the point. The licenses of these operators require this in all cases. The old lakes are both a blessing and a curse. Given the immense public benefit from these operations (the corporate owners were they the same ones, would be breaking even around now), it is not too much to expect that the universities turn their attentions to practical solutions rather than creating another generation of spoilers and complainers. There are many promising technologies for solidifying the tailings in the old ponds so that the over-layer of fresh water can be re-used in the plants sparing the Athabasca River some of the draw. Last year I worked on an oil sands project while waiting out a non-compete restriction on my other business (not oil related). I saw the huge improvements in water use and other environmental plusses. Unless a person is simply negative or neurotic by nature, so that they would rather dwell on the down side - there is so much hope and so much to be proud of here these conversations should be truly upbeat. Why do the nay-sayers not get on board to pressure government to do the right things rather than throwing rocks at companies like Suncor. Many of the senior officers in these organizations have been forced to conclude that for a lot of critics, there is nothing they can do to please. They have to be politically correct - I don't. So to all the nutcases out there - grow up, take some responsibility. For normal Canadians, there is a level of base contempt not spoken of but reserved for uninformed belly-achers. I hope you feel it daily.
  31. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: David K, as I understand it, when the mines stop producing in about 50 to 100 years from now, they'll be filled back in and the processing plants will be left standing as huge monuments to a dead industry. The filling in of the mines is actually on-going. I believe Syncrude has filled in their first mine site, or are on the way to completing this (they have more than one mine). The filled in mines will leave depressions in the earth (equal to the volume of oil removed) that will fill in with water. These have been labeled 'end-ponds', and there has been some study on whether these will ever support plant and animal life. I believe that over a long period of time this will happen, but it hasn't been successfully demonstrated yet. The above ground tailings ponds won't be left in place as the companies want to mine the oilsand that lie under them. I suppose the end ponds will be used for tailings ponds before the final shut downs. Where else to put the last bit of process water after extraction? Maybe there'll be some money put towards treating the water in the end-ponds. Water treatment plants might someday be built for this. I doubt they will knock down all of the processing plants and ship them south. This would cost a fortune, but maybe some of the equipment would be re-usable elsewhere, or have a value as scrap metal. I haven't read anything about how the Alberta government wants to take care of this. It will be interesting for my future grand, or great grandchildren to see how it all works out. There is a 1942 vintage oil sands plant abandoned at Bitumont, just NE of Ft. McKay. It's now a provincial historic site. I wonder if the same fate awaits Syncrude or Suncor.
  32. E. Biggs from Canada writes: Ian thanks for the education.
  33. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Final note My wife and I ere in the middle of it during some of the last bad years. When rant-and-rave people try to wreck this industry rather than help it, they disgrace thousands of fellow Canadians and Americans that literally invested their lives in making the place work. I do not think that this blog allows the use of individual names so I won't give you any of them - but I could. People who worked themselves into early old age, some who died in mishaps keeping the old places running or trying to make new technology work in harsh environments. The oil sands has been the set-up grounds for innovative industrial relations, heavy truck and shovel technology, flotation separation technology applicable around the world, cold weather metallurgy, freeze-up protection such as use of heat tracing and safe insulation. The list is vast. This operation has given as much to the world in technological advancement in proportion to spending, as the US military while pursuing what is a totally peaceful aim. While living in Ontario and working in Scarborough for a manufacturer, we landed an oil sands contract just when the 3 Mile Island crisis shut down the nuclear industry for a quarter century. We felt we had experienced divine intervention. The spin off economic value to Canada and to the United States has been enormous. Determine to fix the problems rather than sink the place. It is a good thing that swearing is not allowed in this blog or I would be happy to introduce a few new words for the down-siders.
  34. Erik Dullerud from Toronto, Canada writes: Unfortunately, the article only deals with the capture of CO emissions and pumping them back into the ground. Solving the environmental ills of the oil sands extraction process will take a lot more. Just as important, at least for Albertans, are the huge tailing ponds that are created as part of the heavy oil extraction process. These ponds contain 'pure poison' and it is already clear from early testing, carried out on samples taken from local water table and watersheds, that the 'plume' from the ponds is migrating. The seepage from these ponds will in time very likely contaminate, not only the local water table but also the surrounding watersheds on a grand scale. It is unbelievable that the importance of this issue concerning the oil sands bonanza seems to be so poorly understood, and that it is almost never mentioned by the media. Apparently, no conditions are being placed on the oil companies by the Alberta Goverment, to treat the huge qantities of tailings that go into these ponds and that in fact are becoming enormous 'dead' lakes. Failure to force the oil companies to clean up the tailings, as a licencing condition, will leave the people of Alberta with a terrible legacy, which will, sooner or later, have to be dealt with by the taxpayers, long after the oil companies have taken their profits and gone home.
  35. John Cameron from Rd Deer, Canada writes: The issue of EOR and the profits from it and the reversion of mineral rights is an important one for sure.. Presumably the formations involved can store a lot more CO2 than what is required for the EOR process.
    Maybe this aspect can be addressed by special royalty rates for EOR ie depending on the ratio of government to company funding?

    Presumably the suppliers of the CO2 will b e glad to get rid of it but at first the CO2 will have some economic value and then once oil production from the reservoir is finished it all becomes pure cost. Who will get the carbon credits generated over the cycle and in what proportion?

    Another issue with CSS is the standards for injection quality- I have no idea what they would be but mingling various sources would require a minimum CO2 content, etc etc.

    CSS is not the only solution to sequestration but it has a number of projects and engineering underway.
  36. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Alan Burke, I saw your response thanks. I understand your interest on the environmental side (that is a very good thing). It's just that I've been itching to move on to the technology side of this. By all means stick around for the next stage. But you and Glen are going to have to find other things to talk about ;-)

    As Rudy Krueger points out, there will be a lot of haggling over who pays. While we are figuring this out, we have to try to keep our industries competitive with those in the rest of the world. This is not an easy problem to solve and there has been so much misinformation printed. The article is a breath of fresh air.

    G&M - What took you so long? Oh yeah, the LPC doesn't have had a finger in this one yet.
  37. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Reposted from another blog that has gone unanswered by Rudy Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada Rudy, you and others seem to take offence at concerns of Canadians living in other parts of Canada about the pace of the oilsands development, its environmental costs, and the poor performance of Alberta's Heritage Fund, suggesting 'go to Harvard and learn something that will allow you to fix things instead of criticising what others do with all their hearts and minds.' So, I'm curious what your opinion is of Harvard trained Peter Lougheed, former Premier of Alberta (1971-1986) who was premier when the Syncrude Plant was approved and built (1973-1978). It seems to me he has been quite outspoken on the very same issues that the G&M has been raising this week, and that other readers have commented upon in this forum. During his tenure, he had a 'Czar' who was responsible for the orderly pace of development of the oilsands, a position that was eliminated in the subsequent Klein gov't. He apparently was appalled at the 'mess' that out of control development had created after a helicopter tour of the region a few years ago, and has increasingly been outspoken about his concerns on behalf of Albertans (and Canadians). Coincidently, (perhaps prompted by the G&M series) he was on CBC Radio's The Current yesterday (Thursday) talking about these issues. I will post the link to the interview once it is updated on their website. Is he allowed to raise the same issues? It seems it would be tough for you and other Albertans to discount his criticisms as easily as you do others'.
  38. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Erik Dullerud from Toronto, Canada writes: '... Solving the environmental ills of the oil sands extraction process will take a lot more. Just as important, at least for Albertans, are the huge tailing ponds that are created as part of the heavy oil extraction process. These ponds contain 'pure poison' ... Apparently, no conditions are being placed on the oil companies by the Alberta Goverment, to treat the huge qantities of tailings that go into these ponds and that in fact are becoming enormous 'dead' lakes. ' Erik, you are misinformed. Could you please expand on your 'pure poison' comment? The tailings are primarily sand and fine clay. There are heavy metals that occur naturally and come from oilsand ore. There is a bit of oil floating on the top of the ponds. The heavy metal, fine clay and oil can be removed from the water. The sand dikes for the tailings ponds will go back into the ground so that the ore under the ponds can be mined. There will be end-ponds, and these are problematic. It might be easier to discuss the real problems, if you avoided your false 'pure poison' rhetoric. Note that inside the extraction plants, the oil, water and tailings (sand) are ever present in open preparation vessels. There is no need for special breathing equipment. This would be mandatory if the tailings were 'pure poison'. Think about it.
  39. Don Quixote from the Banana Belt Ont., Canada writes: Check out Petrobanks, their THAI technology of extracting oil from the sands is a lot more environmental friendly than the present mammouth operation.
  40. E. Biggs from Canada writes: I will probably get jumped for this but as a senior tax payer I would have no problem with a carbon tax if I could be assured that the money was going into research and development of infrastruture which would benefit industry and the country as a whole.

    What would happen if something like NRC were charged with the research to determine the best method if reducing the problematic issues with this industry. I would then suggest creating a regulatory body comprised of Gov., industry and some environment people tooversee the implementation and compliance.

    While I partially agree that the industry should bear the majority of the costs I also believe that this is an industry that has benefit for the entire country and therefore I might suggest that Gov either Alta or Canada control the collection and pipeline and charge fees to the industry thus offsetting the costs.

    The above is from somebody who has the interest in the industry but very little expertise or knowledge.

    Stupid?????
  41. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: I appreciate your comments Rudy.
    It's the sound of a pioneer, hard work and determination CAN solve problems. In my experience it's a little tougher to do when you have to drag along with you a bunch of negativity but who are plenty willing to share in the benefits later.

    On a slightly different note I am wondering if it might be feasible to repower some farm machines with steam- directly burn biomass like straw.
    No wasted energy making it into ethanol first and making some farms energy independent from oil.
    I suppose there might also be the possibility of small scale biofuels becoming more affordable if a couple of skid mounted components using computer controlled processes could be designed and mass produced cheap enough. Or would that just create a bunch of wastes scattered all over the place?
    Same for methane gas from manure.
  42. Dan Belaney from Peace River, Canada writes: There is a lot of nonsense posted here. Most 'environmental groups' have a more balanced view of carbon capture and storage than the government-industry fearmongers. Note, the Pembina Institutes website is full of references to carbon capture as part of the solution - going back 5 years - hey they even costed it out. Industry and Government have been talking about it while doing nothing. Where there is divergence is on who pays for it. Make the companies do mandatory carbon capture and storage and no public subsidies to do so.
  43. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Preston Manning on unfettered development: Preston Manning...And I particularly raised this idea that I think Alberta's ripe for a real, concrete marriage between genuine conservation and market-based economics. Where do you see evidence for that? Where's the demand? ----- PM:Well, first of all, the environment for the last five years has shown up as the No. 2 issue, right behind health care in Alberta. Secondly, the growth of these environmental groups -- and these are not all left-wing extreme groups, many of them are very conservative-type groups -- and the numbers of them, the budgets of them, the meetings, the attendance at their meetings, exceeds those of all the provincial parties put together. The fact that the Green party, without much money and really much of a campaign at all, gets 3,000 or 4,000 votes in my old riding, finished second in Wild Rose federal riding, which is one of the most conservative ridings in the country, these are all signs in the wind. And also when I speak to younger audiences -- as I do particularly at the universities -- one of the few issues that seem to motivate younger people to actually consider getting involved with either interest groups or political parties is the environmental one. The example I used at the Tory convention was the ranchers in southwestern Alberta. These people are, as I say, rock-ribbed fiscal and economic conservatives, they've resisted government intervention in their industry more than any other portion of the agricultural sector, and yet they love that land, they're committed to preserving the eastern slope rivers. I say the key question isn't are they red Tories or are they blue Tories, I think they're green Tories, and if someone could articulate that, that's an idea I think whose time has come. And again my question, more to Albertans, was, 'Would you be interested in pursuing and refining and developing that idea?'
  44. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: The big clash is inevitably going to be in the oil sands, isn't it? You're either going to use most of the water in northern Alberta for those operations or you're not. How do you deal with that? ----------- Preston Manning:Well, at least pose the questions. Is there a way to deal more responsibly with, first of all, how we energize the oil sands extraction? We can't continue to use a high-premium clean-burning fuel like natural gas to energize the production of oil sands, so the faster the scientific community, the technological community, the industry -- and people are working on this night and day -- can improve that situation the better. We can't continue to use the volumes of water Alberta is using at the rate we're doing, and is there a place for market mechanisms there to start valuing that resource at its true value and measure our use of it and price it correctly? There are no simple answers to these questions, but I think they're ones that should be front and centre. Am I wrong in suggesting that, historically, Alberta leaders have won office more by running against Ottawa than by talking about Alberta's internal issues? I haven't heard you speak about federal-provincial issues yet.----- Preston Manning Well, in the old West, I think, particularly when the West was not as strong as it is, and certainly Alberta wasn't as strong as it is, a lot of provincial politics centred around grievances that could only be dealt with -- or people felt should be dealt with -- by the federal government, but that's now one of the differences between the old West and the new West. Alberta's able to take care of most of its domestic regional problems very well itself, so there's not that list of grievances to be dealt with, but there are new challenges...Does Alberta want to lead, or does it want to put the wagons in a circle and say, 'To heck with the rest of the country.' I'm not interested in the latter option.
  45. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky Zhoa: and your qualification in enhanced recovery is? Agitprop. As for Peter Lougheed he is entitled to his opinion and of course it is ironic to see some Pembina Institute troll endorsing a conservative former premier... LOL
  46. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: E. Biggs from Canada writes:'... if I could be assured that the money was going into research and development of infrastruture...'

    Fat chance of that. Any tax will just disappear into General Revenue and be frittered away on vote-buying boondoggles and politically attractive but economically idiotic schemes.
  47. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky Zhoa: and your qualification in enhanced recovery is? Agitprop.

    Do you mean like WAG? Reservoir, Ops or Facilities? Never mind. I think we've already learned all of your expertise in two posts. Go grab a planimeter and measure your shadow - you'll find it is quite small (contrary to what you may think).
  48. Erik Dullerud from Toronto, Canada writes: Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks takes exception to my use of describing the tailings from the oilsands extraction process as 'pure poison'. He appears to indicate that the tailings are benign and quite harmless to the environment. Whichever name we place on the talings, it is already clear that the the heavy metals and compounds thereof, which they contain, are infiltrating the local watertable and as well as the Athabasca watershed. ( Amongst others, refer to a recent CBC documentary on the subject.) The contaminants are showing up in fish in the watershed and the local population, who for generations have been dependent on the fish as a food source, have been warned against eating it on a regular basis. As a professional engineer, who has worked in the environmental field for 40 years, I know how difficult it is to completely prevent seepage from a relatively small sewage lagoon even when it is lined with synthetic liners. To completely prevent seepage from the huge (probably unlined) tailings ponds created in Ft. McMurray, is almost impossible, as the evidence is already showing. Therefore, these ponds are going to have adverse impact on the environment. Ask yourself: who in the end will benefit from the oil extaction process unless the environment is safeguarded at the same time? During the 20th century goldmining companies came and went in northern Ontario. Many of them left poorly constructed, leaking tailing ponds after themselves when they either went out of business or took their profits somewhere else. The taxpayers of Ontario ended up having to deal with this legacy deacades later at a cost of 100's of $M. I can see history repeating itself in Alberta, on a much larger scale. I say again: unless the oil companies, which presently operate in Ft. McMurray, can find a way to prevent and pay for serious degradation of the environment, whether it be air or water, they should not be licenced to continue. Think about it!
  49. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Godfried Wasser from Canada writes: This is the best comments stream I have ever read at the Globe and Mail. Lately I was thinking about cancelling my subscription because of the partisan loud mouths not only in the commentaries but especially in the headlines! Comments like above may change my mind.

    Thank you contributors for your insights even though some displayed a bit of malice.
  50. arne bessel from calgary, Canada writes: It is a shame (or maybe it was done on purpose) that the fellow here does not give us any numbers to digest or for him to support his words.
    And words is all he has to offer (Like most green house gas gassers).

    Green house gas production now equals 20,000,000 tonnes/year from oil sands production.
    That is only 2.7% of all the green house gas produced by Canda in a year. Canda produces 747,000,000 tonnes/year.

    And - - the world apparently produces 31,000,000,000 tonnes /year.
    Canada produces only 2.4% of the worlds annual green house gas.

    So what is going on here? Be aware folks. We are not the problem here. The left wing media, universities, and so called environmental people are pushing this. In an effort to do who knows what. Just loike the days of life ending acid rain, ozone depletion and sleepless night you all had worying about atomic bombs not that lobg ago.

    We seem to have a bunch of public servants making a living telling us we are the biggest problem in the world.
    We are not.
    Man made green house gas is not the cause of global warming. You all should be aware of that by now.

    Arne Bessel

    It
  51. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao unmasked! LOL
  52. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: arne bessel from calgary, Canada writes: 'We seem to have a bunch of public servants making a living telling us we are the biggest problem in the world.'

    Arne, I'm all for saving taxpayer dollars on frivolous research, so perhaps you can save us all a few bucks with your insights.

    It seems to me that as a province, with roughly 10% of the poulation, Alberta emits something like 33% of the GHG. And with the projected growth in the oilsands at exponential rates, this percentage can only increase.

    Now, I don't know if the numbers that you report for GHG emissions of oilsands operations includes the emissions of utilities that deliver electricity to the plants/upgraders (typically col fired), but that is peripheral to my question.

    How is it that there appears to be a very strong correlation between the very small percentage of the population who continue to claim, as you do, that AGW plays no role in climate change, with the fact that they appear to reside in Calgary or other parts of Alberta?

    Any further insight you'd care to offer?
  53. alberta clipper from Canada writes: I have just finished reading a book entitled' Taken by Storm' which is a detailed account on how climate models are derived. It is a demanding read and I doubt that anyone with a liberal arts background could read and understand it, but, after reading it I have an uneasy feeling that most of the world is off on a wild goose chase with respect to CO2 and its effect on the world's climate. What is needed at this time are studies that challenge the current model. These studies are presently suppressed which is not the way science is designed to operate. We are on the threshold of spending untold amounts of money based on a model of the world that is at best shakey and NOT proven.
  54. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes:'... strong correlation between the very small percentage of the population who continue to claim, as you do, that AGW plays no role in climate change, with the fact that they appear to reside in Calgary or other parts of Alberta?'

    If you're suggesting that lieu of residence establishes a cui bono interest, you might instead ask why such a large proportion of the more fanatical extremists come from provinces that hope to use an artificial AGW 'crisis' as a pretext to rake off money from Alberta.
  55. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes:

    I'm all for building a firewall around Alberta to contain its emissions, but unfortunately, that dosn't appear to be possible.

    I guess your ideology is based upon what Preston Manning describes as 'The Old West'. (see my post at 02/02/08 at 11:35 AM EST).

    A shame you didn't devote your time and energy to helping to solve the problem within Alberta, but perhaps you haven't yet renewed your American passport for the new border crossing rules.
  56. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: Arne Bessel, you've hit the nail right on the head if you accept the 'science' that this is all man-made. Seems to me, there are more than a few chicken littles running around that seem to think shutting down our economy will save the planet. That isn't to say we shouldn't be taking steps to control pollution and GWG emissions, but let's get a grip on the bigger picture.
  57. E. Biggs from Canada writes: Well guys the quality of the posts was great while it lasted but the last few have been going down hill. Degenerating into the usual rants. Bye
  58. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky, you guess badly. Stick to what you know and can establish.

    What IS possible, of course, is to some extent 'firewall' Alberta against the threat of abuse of process to steal even more money from us.
  59. Still Learning at 77 from Canada writes: Rudy Krueger from High River--- Very good comments on CO2 being pumped back into the ground.

    Thanks and have a good day
  60. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall

    Well GlynnMhor, as has been pointed out in earlier posts by others, I understand you live in the US, so why you continue to say 'we' is a bit disingenuous. I, also, don't know what you are trying to accomplish here if that is the case (which you have yet to deny).

    In any event, I'll take my cue from E. Biggs and sign-off. I think I am getting pulled down to your level of debate.

    Cheers
  61. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: 'Well GlynnMhor, as has been pointed out in earlier posts by others, I understand you live in the US...'

    As *I* said in my more recent post, you guess badly.

    Seriously, I told some clown that Skywall existed in hyperspace, and he decided that must mean in the US, and I must therefore be american. For you to think that I actually am american on that feeble basis explains why you have been so easily misled by the AGW hypesters.
  62. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Sorry, not 'hyperspace', but 'cyberspace'.

    I've been reading too much Analog lately, I guess.
  63. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: My Moniker---Most Canadians don't use air conditioning so hardly an offset. Plus no more idealing cars to keep warm or just to start them. The earth is not a closed system, tons of stellar matter enters earth daily. Most Canadian farmers summer fallow or crop rotate now. Using food (corn) to make fuel is folly and is already causing a shortage of food in Mexico. We need to rethink how to cope with a normal cycle of global warming. We need to think positively, enough 'Chicken Little'
  64. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Dick Garneau from Canada writes: 'Most Canadians don't use air conditioning so hardly an offset.'

    Other than in Calgary, where the evenings are cool, I would say that large numbers of Canadians use A/C.

    In Winnipeg or Toronto the hot humid summers are well nigh unbearable without it.
  65. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: I don't get it. They are talking about methods to increase production when the world needs an 80-90% reduction in fossil fuel production. What am I missing?
  66. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes:'... when the world needs an 80-90% reduction in fossil fuel production. What am I missing?'

    Missing is the fact that the world has no need of a reduction in fuel production.

    There are several problems with the whole Kyoto-ite Anthropogenic Global Warming paradigm, not least of which is the fact that in the face of continually increasing GHG concentrations, global average temperatures have not been rising for the past six years or more:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  67. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: The same old BS, GlynnMhor. Untrue as anyone can see from my website using data from sources like the Hadley CRU and NASA/NCDC/NOAA
  68. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Both the Hadley CRU and NOAA data show continuation of the longterm trend of temperature rise - see my figures 35 and 36. Figures 27 and 28 focus in closely on the most recent years; there is a slowdown in warming since 2001, as there has been many times in the past, and it's predominated by southern hemisphere oceanic changes.
  69. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: The Peter Lougheed question opens up a very worthwhile conversation. Mr. Lougheed is addressing pace of growth. Because of who he is, the many boards of directors on which he sits, access to advice he has and because of his excellent mind, he knows things I may never know. On the basis of what I do know I offer these points personally. Alberta does not have a history of competently managing complex mega projects nor have we a defensible track record of controlling major EPCM contractors. I have tried for hours to describe the nature of the problems in this province, related to the manner in which the major engineering firms handle mega projects. I do not think the Globe and Mail can afford to publish this stuff - but it is not news anyway. Anyone in the mega project world here in Alberta, knows full well what is happening. So, as I understand it, Mr. Lougheed and others are imploring Alberta companies to pick up their feet a bit and stop stumbling while holding the oil sands in trust. Get competent and get confident before taking on another round of mega projects. Albertans should similarly push back. These wasteful and unnecessary cost over-runs are actually paid for by Albertans by the postponement of royalty collection while the gross over-runs of project costs are recovered. This is not necessary.
  70. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: 'The same old BS, GlynnMhor. Untrue...'

    Speaking of 'untrue', Alan, I was looking at your figure 14a 4 and trying to decide how you got those values for solar cycle length. For example, you have a data point in 1996 of about 11.7 years, yet that's the time of the mimimum of the peak-to-peak cycle that was instead 10.7 years in length (1989.6-2000.3).

    You seem to have paired identical datapoints plotted, as if you've plotted the trough-to-trough length twice, once at the initial minimum of a trough-to-trough cycle and then at the maximum of that cycle instead of using the peak-to-peak cycle length at all.