Carbon capture and storage at the Scotford Upgrader could reduce direct CO2 emissions of the upgrader by up to 40 per cent from business as usual, significantly reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of the Athabasca Oil Sands Project.

...from the Quest public disclosure document.

Up to 40% reduction from the upgrader alone. I wonder what is the total carbon footprint of tar sands development, and how big (or small) a dent this puts in that footprint.

That wont happen as long as we have SH as PM.

ai_vin:

And SH is still young and there are no 2-terms limit yet.

Would it be possible to create a national clean up fund financed with extrated crude/oil sand and NG? Something like a 2% to 3% levy could do it.

Resources paid to the clean up fund would be quickly passed on to the end users in Canada and more and more in USA as NG and Oil are exported. Some would call it a disguised carbon tax, if they wish.

Politicians work on a 4 year election cycle. I can't believe this guy is still our PM.

The $2 billion that the Alberta gov’t has committed to CCS is expected to capture & store 5 million MT of CO2. That’s $400 per MT of CO2.

One alternative is the Hyperion Nuclear Reactor. With 70 MW thermal output, well suited for providing process heat in the Tar Sands. Cost C$32 million. See:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/hyperion-power-generation-uranium.html

With a zero CO2 output, it will produce 6.2 TWh of heat within 10 years, before needing refueling. Displacing NG, that will amount to 1.2 million MTs of CO2 avoided. Displacing Coal Thermal energy, that will amount to 1.8 million MTs of CO2 avoided.

Cost of NG CO2 avoided = C$32 million / 1.2 million MTs = $27 per MT.
Cost of Coal CO2 avoided = $17 per MT.

Compare with the Alberta Gov’t CCS special of $400 per MT.

But wait, were not done yet. That’s just using one fuel cycle. What about including two or three fuel cycles? Probably drops below $10 per MT. And then there is the destructive Coal mining and NG fracking pollution, NOx, SOx, H2S, mercury, arsenic and other pollutants avoided, with their associated health and environmental costs.

But there’s more to consider. We are also avoiding the cost of the Natural Gas or Coal fuel over the 10 year Hyperion fuel cycle.

Taking NG @ a forecast price of $7 per GJ, and using a 5%, 10 year bond to finance the NG purchases, that yields a Present Value of $121 million, fuel cost.

Taking Coal @ a delivered price of $50 per ton, that would be $43 million fuel cost.

Conclusion. Each Hyperion Nuclear reactor used instead of CCS, would save $480 million in CCS costs, and $121-$32 million = $89 million in NG fuel costs, or $12 million in Coal fuel costs. IN OTHER WORDS CCS IS NOT ONLY A FREE BONUS, BUT A MONEYSAVER!! AND THAT’S JUST FOR ONE FUEL CYCLE!!

YCSTS:

What would be best way to go during the next 10 to 20 years:

1) progressively charge $400/tonne on all GHG emissions or/

2) progressively ban GHG emissions.

For example, if your vehicle produces about 8 tonnes of GHG a year and consumes about 2500 liter of fossil fuel a year you would eventually have to pay about $3200/year or $1.28/liter in GHG taxes. If applied over 10 years it would mean only $0.128/liter extra per year or half that rate if applied over 20 years.

Of course, well + transportation + refining GHG would also have to be added. That could be a lot for fossil fuels from tar sands but much less for other sources of liquid energy. Electric cars, when operated with wind-solar-hydro-nuclear and other clean e-energy sources would have a well deserved advantage.

In other words, a $400/tonnes progressive GHG tax could accellerate the transition to e-vehicles and cleaner sources of electricity. If done on a worldwide basis by 2030 we would all be better off. Worldwide application can come about by charging GHG taxes on all imported goods and services at the same or higher rates. No other form of import duties would be required.

Resources paid to the clean up fund would be quickly passed on to the end users in Canada and more and more in USA as NG and Oil are exported. Some would call it a disguised carbon tax, if they wish.
club penguin cheats

Like stretch mark said, I'm also intrigued on the Canadian quest of CCS. That large amount of money could be spend at other more needed technology by Canadians. Our country are also having issues like that but I guess homeless people should be their priority first. I'm just having my opinion because I'm already seeing those issues here in my country for years already. Investing big money for technology which might fail. I hope you get my point.

Migz of skin moles

Shell hopes that CCS technology will reduce the emissions from carbon-intensive projects such as this Athabasca oil sands project. Too bad that CCS will do absolutely nothing for the water intensity of these projects, nor toxicity of that water afterwards.

I follow your blog for quite a long time and should tell that your articles always prove to be of a high value and quality for readers. Keep up the great work.venapro venapro side effects

Would it be possible to create a national clean up fund financed with extrated crude/oil sand and NG? Something like a 2% to 3% levy could do it.get your ex back !venapro reviews

That's really such a huge amount, I guess there must be return therefore they invested that amount ! wartrol

I guess that's huge amount of investment but there will be seen return profit therefore someone invested money into it ! venapro