Brad Wall’s Beef With A&W is 100% Bull Something

“TPP would allow milk from cows receiving hormones into Canada
U.S. allows bovine growth hormone currently banned in Canada”
Continue reading

Joe, You Can Go Now

Why I’m really, really, really glad Joe Oliver isn’t Finance Minister anymore:

Keystone XL would have created jobs, bolstered ec growth, strengthened nat’l security, reduced GHG emissions and enhanced N Am energy indep
Therefore, disappointing President Obama rejected Keystone X. See yesterday’s article where I discuss implications. http://business. financialpost. com/fp-comment/..[thiscrapisntworthreadingfurther]
See my interview #CBC #newsworld on disappointing Keystone rejection & triumph of politics & symbolism over facts.

Enabling more bitumen to flow from Alberta would not lower GHG emissions, so you can bet the rest of his claims are false too.

The day before:

See my article in Nat’l @nationalpost on need to diversify energy mkts given likely rejection of Keystone XL.

So, is diversification of our economy a good thing, or do we want to focus only on oil and gas? Go and eat your cake Joe, and then have it too.

Transit Removes Benches At Request of Police

John Klein:

I was on TV on Friday, for asking a question on Twitter. I guess social media does work a bit.

Originally posted on John Klein - Regina:

I open my mouth with a guess that disappointingly turned out to be completely accurate:

turning one of the busiest interections in Regina into a seat-free wasteland for customers, isn’t a smooth move.”

“What could make this decision worse is to have describe how they can’t give tickets for loitering on benches.” – Me. Why did I open my mouth? It got worse. Global learned that some anonymous officer advised Regina Transit to remove the benches there.

Walking over to the bus stop on Friday to meet with the

View original 570 more words

Too Fast To Be Absorbed

The scandalous details are piling up too quickly to take in. Or, did my blog post title mean that the CO2 is being injected too quickly to be sequestered? We may never know.

Aquistore will permanently sequester only 350,000 tonnes, or 1.2%, of the of 30-million tonnes which will be captured at BD3.

Of the rest going toward “Enhanced Oil Recovery” (basically replacing oil with CO2 liquid pushed underground), only some of that remains sequestered underground. So even if the BD3 plant attains its still out-of-reach 90% capture rate, that doesn’t accurately reflect the amount of CO2 prevented from entering the atmosphere. It’s somewhere far south of the 50% figure, making clean coal half clean, and half deadly, depending on how you want to view that filthy cup.

It’s a Gas

CCS, what is it good for? Absolutely money. Not for you and I, no, it’s good for oil companies.

We’re talking about this because the only “clean coal” plant isn’t working properly yet, and it opened over a year ago (late). The delay is costing SaskPower customers tens of millions of dollars in penalties to pay to the oil company Cenovus.

SaskWind explains:

350,000 tonnes will be permanently sequestered in Aquistore
Aquistore’s own web site describes itself as a “storage site for the world’s first commercial post-combustion CO2 capture, transportation, utilization, and storage project from a coal-fired electrical generating station”. However SaskPower, in its ‘Case for Carbon Capture and Storage’ confirms that Aquistore will permanently sequester only 350,000 tonnes, or 1.2%, of the of 30-million tonnes which will be captured at BD3. This small amount confirms that BD3 was only ever about providing CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery. In other words: the tiny percentage that is permanently sequestered at Aquistore is simply a fig leaf to disguise the true nature of BD3 – the production, at public expense, of CO2 for the oil industry.

-emphasis added

I’ve been writing about the true purpose of CCS for years and years. Others have realized it too.

We’ve roughly months left in the world to stop building coal fired electricty infrastructure, without certainly stranding those assets when we have to dismantle them in coming years before the plants recoup their investments.

Continue reading

Touted CCS Technology Not Working As Boasted About

SNC-Lavalin-built carbon capture facility has ‘serious design issues’: SaskPower
Despite conflicts, SaskPower gives SNC another multi-million dollar contract

Mind you, the fact there’s legal action in the cards hasn’t stopped SaskPower from awarding the firm a $4 million portion of the $45-million Island Falls Powerhouse Concrete Rehabilitation project.

Nor did a September 2014 SaskPower carbon capture briefing note, obtained by the NDP, which says SNC “is more concerned about getting paid for the 6.5 million than fixing the deficiencies of our plant.”

It goes on to note “very poor to no support from SNC Lavalin,” and “serious design deficiencies” in the project.

SaskPower CEO Mike Marsh says “because there’s a contract dispute (with SNC) on one job, doesn’t mean we don’t use them on another job.”

I happen to work at the same university, the one primarily responsible for research that made Boundary Dam CCS possible:

Associate professor of marketing at the University of Regina, Lisa Watson, says “of course people are going to be upset” over the issues at Boundary Dam.

The bigger question, she says, is whether they should be.

The consumer push for more environmentally sustainable options and clean energy is a “major change” for government, she says, and perhaps people shouldn’t be upset when projects involving groundbreaking technology don’t go as planned.

Carbon capture has “huge potential, and if it was working properly, we’d be shouting from the rooftops,” she says, and “to not do it at all, I don’t think that’s the right thing.”

Premier Brad Wall touts Sask. carbon sequestration project
Some premiers are sitting out today’s climate change summit in Quebec City, but Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall is there, talking up the province’s efforts to capture and store carbon dioxide.
Wall told an audience that the world needs to follow Saskatchewan’s example if there are to be serious reductions in greenhouse emissions.

I tried to find Brad Wall on a rooftop shouting to people about it, instead there is video of him on Sun News TV boasting about it to Brian Lilley, and more than a smattering of articles on the Web boasting about it.
“YouTube’s great, you can learn anything on YouTube.” – Premier Wall

Wall at Boundary Dam CCS

Boyd admits issues surrounding the plant have “a bit of a negative connotation,” adding “I think any time there’s losses, any time there’s problems, there’s certainly a degree of loss of confidence.”
On the other hand, he thinks taxpayers “would rather have SaskPower delivering power to them,” rather than the private power companies that operate in other jurisdictions.

Wow, neat way for Boyd to suggest the alternative to fixing SaskPower is only to ditch the Crown Corp and go with a rob-you-blind private power corporation instead. (The Saskatchewan Green Party is proposing converting SaskPower into a Crown Co-op instead.)

An aware commenter notes:

Myek O’Shea:

Holy spinning neckties Batman! Our loss of confidence is with Bill Boyd and those politicians that chose carbon sequestration over renewable energies. The Sask Party keeps green washing this sequestration turd as if we asked for it in the first place. Want to restore our confidence? Lets go 40% wind and solar by 2020. But on the other hand, maybe tax payers should waste their money on subsidizing the petroleum oligarchy. Oh and ‘groundbreaking’ here is a pun, nothing more.

There’s also the huge matter of SNC-Lavalin’s criminal charges. The Federal government stopped dealing with HP after a bribery conviction for that company.

More from Global News Regina.
“SaskPower says the project is now on target to be fully operational by the end of 2016.”

“Out of the more than 250 companies year to date on the World Bank’s running list of firms blacklisted from bidding on its global projects under its fraud and corruption policy, 117 are from Canada — with SNC-Lavalin and its affiliates representing 115 of those entries, the World Bank said. “

The Forest For The Trees: Harper’s Fudgey Forestry Figures

I have a feeling that some webpages will be changing significantly in the coming years at the Government of Canada.

“At 0.02% of its forested area, deforestation in Canada is among the world’s lowest”
“That means human activities disturbed 20,000 hectares of pristine forest every day [worldwide] for the past 13 years,” the group said.

Of that degradation, more than a fifth — 21.4 per cent — occurred in Canada, the study found. That’s more than any other country. ”
That’s 94965000 hectares over those 13 years. At 21.4%, Canada deforested virgin forests covering about 20322510 hectares. Each year that’s 1,563,270 hectares disturbed or gone.
The Harper government, not concerning itself with natural forest, claims these numbers:
“In 1990, 64,000 hectares were lost to deforestation and in 2012 this figure dropped to 45,800 hectares [lost that year].”

How could these two claims be reconciled? Look at the satellite imagery for yourselves, perhaps?

The assumption on the ground in northern Alberta is that everything is fine:

Comparing the Huff Po reported study to the Harper Gov site is challenging, because one focuses on deforestation worldwide and of “disturbed” virgin forest, while the Harper figures focus on deforestation rate reduction. That’s the same technique used to give the impression that carbon emissions were going down, when it was intended to show the rate of the increase was going down. Remember the “intensity targets” trick?

Each view gives a maximized number for the shitty situation. The Forest Watch group gets to give a huge number for any area of disturbed, but not totally destroyed forest, and the Harper government peddled the notion that the rate of destruction was falling sufficiently to allay concerns. To know if the rate of deforestation was falling in a meaningful way, you’d have to calculate if the rate of deforestation takes it to zero before too much virgin forests are lost (which will cause species extinctions and contribute to climate change {causing yet more extinctions}).

Harper Government website:

At 0.02% of its forested area, deforestation in Canada is among the world’s lowest, yet many myths exist about the state of our forests. The reality is that Canada is a world leader in sustainable forest management. Canadian forests are healthy, productive and thriving.

Deforestation is an important issue, since shrinking forest cover reduces biodiversity, affects soil and water quality, impacts wildlife habitat and influences climate change. The Canadian government carefully monitors and regularly publishes reports on deforestation. Our scientists combine satellite and aerial images with information about regional development, forest ecosystems, natural processes and local conditions to help monitor and manage the health of Canadian forests.

Here are some key facts about Canada’s low levels of deforestation.
Myth: Deforestation in Canada is increasing.
Fact: Canada’s deforestation rate is among the lowest in the world.

The annual deforestation rate in Canada in 2010 was less than 0.02% of our forests and the rate has been declining for over 25 years. In 1990, 64,000 hectares were lost to deforestation and in 2012 this figure dropped to 45,800 hectares.

Today, Canada’s 348 million hectares of forest lands represent about 9% of the world’s forest cover, but account for only 0.3% of global deforestation.