There’s an interesting story bubbling up in Saskatchewan, literally.  A farmer that owns land above the Weyburn oilfield in Saskatchewan is claiming that the CO2 that’s being pumped into the field to enhance oil recovery is leaking from his land, causing ponds to bubble and animals to die. If found to be true, this would be a big black eye on the future prospect of CO2 capture and storage, as the Weyburn site is considered one of the few large-scale and successful carbon storage projects on the continent and has been in operation for several years. You can read the story here from Canadian Press. It explains that the farmer who owns the land hired a consultant who verified his concerns, and while the company that operates the site is denying there is a problem this will certainly draw attention to the possibility and require further study. According to the farmer, he has seen water coming out of the ground that would “fizz and foam.” Incredible, if true.

Apparently the short list of clean energy technologies being considered for the climate development mechanism excludes carbon capture and sequestration, aka “clean coal” projects. The clean development mechanism, under the Kyoto Protocol, allows developed countries to invest in certain emission-reduction projects in developing countries to offset their own emissions. Since these projects generally cost less to deploy in the developing world it is considered a cheaper avenue for rich countries to meet their obligation. That was the same thinking around CCS and clean coal, but Brazil has roadblocked the technology for fear that its inclusion in the list would suck financial resources away from other options, such as forest preservation. There have also been concerns expressed about CCS liability issues and guarantees around the permanence of long-term storage.

Obviously, this isn’t great news for the coal industry. What’s that expression — cry me a river? It doesn’t mean CCS can’t be put to good use in rich countries, but obviously that will come at higher cost. Will anyone want to pay developed-world prices to get the needed 100 or so clean coal and carbon sequestration projects working? Tough to say, but I doubt it. Developing-world projects were considered a way to get some volume deployment, and without that, it doesn’t look good for coal. But given what’s on the line for Canada, Australia, the U.S. and others, leaving out CCS doesn’t look good for Copenhagen either, so someone’s going to have to give.

Isn’t international politics fun?

When the Alberta government announced last week that it would be handing over $745 million to Shell Canada so it could move ahead with its Quest commercial-scale CCS project, and when the federal government said it would chip in another $120 million, it didn’t sit well with environmental and energy think-tank The Pembina Institute.

It’s not that Pembina is against developing this technology. What it doesn’t particularly like, and I can’t help but agree, is the fact that the Alberta and federal governments’ are covering two-thirds of the cost for this $1.35 billion project, which will be designed to capture CO2 from the steam methane units at the Scotford Upgrader in Fort Saskatchewan. It’s part of the Athabasca Oil Sands Project, a joint venture among Shell (60 per cent), Chevron Canada (20 per cent) and Marathon Oil Sands (20 per cent).

Why, Pembina asks, are taxpayers covering the majority of a project’s costs when the companies benefitting from this public freebie are some of the most profitable companies in the country? Pembina is also opposed to the governments being “singularly focused” on end-of-pipe technologies, such as CCS, at the expense of investments in technologies and energy sources that reduce or altogether eliminate carbon emissions at the front of the pipe — renewables, energy efficiency, etc…

Rather than carry the load for the private sector, the government should be moving quickly to establish a cap-and-trade regime that would put a sufficient price on carbon, Pembina argues. Ultimately, polluters should cover the whole cost of CCS deployment and that will only happen when they factor in the cost of not doing so once carbon pricing hits their bottom line. Pembina also argues that the government shouldn’t be so narrowly focused on CCS that it ignores the much broader, and less risky opportunities out there. (more…)

I came across this press release from the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory that talks about a “novel” way to monitor whether carbon dioxide is leaking from underground storage sites used for CCS applications.

Researchers co-injected carbion dioxide and chemical tracers into an underground storage site. The tracer makes it possible to differentiate CO2 from the experiment from naturally occurring CO2. They then placed bee hives about 150 metres upwind and downwind of the site, where CO2 from underground was intentionally released as part of the experiment. The idea is that pollen from surrounding flowers would collect the CO2 and be marked by the tracer. As bees gather the pollen, they bring it back to their hives, where researchers collect samples for analysis. If there’s no tracer, there’s presumably no leak.

While a novel idea, I’m not sure I’m comforted by the idea of having bees used to track CO2 leaks over hundreds of years. Also, I wonder if there ever was a major leak whether it would just kill the bees — that to me, is a pretty good sign that something is wrong. Problem is, it would also kill the humans in the area. As a way to pre-test the ability of a site to hold CO2, however, this could be one approach worth employing.

My Clean Break column today takes a shot at the Canadian government for repeatedly touting carbon capture and sequestration as a panacea for the oil sands, while at the same time refusing to recognize — and support — the role that renewable energy can play. It comes on the heels of an appropriately critical National Geographic feature on the oil sands called “Scrapping Bottom,” and the recently yet repeatedly expressed belief of Environment Minister Jim Prentice that technology will save the day.

Perhaps technology will helps prolong our days on this planet, but it won’t be carbon capture and sequestration, which is too expensive, unproven, inefficient and, in some applications, ineffective to tackle the ghost in Canada’s climate-change closet. By refusing to acknowledge the major role that other renewables can play to avoid these carbon emissions in the first place, and to do it more quickly and economically, Stephen Harper is sending Canada’s economy down a path that’s unsustainable. (more…)