Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Canada Embracing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to Reduce Emissions and Sustain Energy Industry

Published

3 months ago

9 minute read

From EnergyNow.ca

Alberta has firmly led the Canadian charge on CCS. It has more CO2 storage capacity than Norway, Korea, India, and double the entire Middle East, according to the Global CCS Institute.

Back in 2007, the Alberta and federal governments established a task force on carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a way of reducing emissions from oil, gas, and energy operations. That led to a report in 2008 that said: “CCS is seen as a technological solution that allows Canada to continue to increase its energy production while reducing (carbon dioxide) emissions from these activities. . . .

“CCS is strategically important to Canada for several reasons. First and foremost, Canada is endowed with an abundance of fossil fuels (including an unparalleled oil sands resource).”

The task force noted that public support for CCS was high, with 64% of the public being open to the idea of government financial support for CCS. All that happened under the Conservative Stephen Harper government, which, in 2015, lost power to the Justin Trudeau Liberals.

Trudeau himself went on to say in 2017 these memorable words: “No country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and leave them there.”

That’s not a message repeated since, and certainly not by his relentless minister of environment and climate change, Steven Guilbeault. On CCS, Guilbeault maintains that while carbon capture and storage “is happening in Canada,” it is not the “be-all and end-all.”

Much more positively, we now have Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s energy and natural resources minister, saying he expects 20 to 25 commercial-scale CCS projects to break ground in Canada within the next decade.

And we finally have what Ottawa first promised in 2021: a system of tax credits for investments in carbon capture — which industry sees as a way to get those 20 to 25 carbon-capture projects built.

The tax incentive covers up to 50 per cent of the capital cost of CCS and CCUS carbon-capture projects. Although energy company Enbridge points out that tax incentives in the U.S. are more attractive than what Canada is offering.

“CCUS” is one of the carbon-capture models. It stands for Carbon Capture Use and Storage or Carbon Capture Utilization and Sequestration. Under CCUS, captured carbon dioxide can be used elsewhere (for example, to increase the flow from an oilfield, or locked into concrete). Or it can be permanently stored underground, held there by rock formations or in deep saltwater reservoirs.

Canada’s climate plan includes this: “Increased use of CCUS features in the mix of every credible path to achieving net zero by 2050.”

As well, the feds have supported a couple of smaller CCS projects through the Canada Growth Fund and its “carbon contract for difference” approach.

To date, Alberta has firmly led the Canadian charge on CCS. It has more CO2 storage capacity than Norway, Korea, India, and double the entire Middle East, according to the Global CCS Institute.

post-image_(1).jpgFrom the Alberta government’s Canadian Energy Centre

In the most recent move in Alberta, Shell Canada announced it is going ahead with its Polaris carbon capture project in Alberta. It is designed to capture up to 650,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually from Shell’s Scotford refinery and chemicals complex near Edmonton.

That works out to approximately 40 per cent of Scotford’s direct CO2 emissions from the refinery and 22 per cent of its emissions from the chemicals complex.

Shell’s announcement sparked this from Wilkinson: “The Shell Polaris announcement last week was a direct result of the investment tax credit.”

Also in Alberta, the Alberta government notes: “The Alberta government has invested billions of dollars into carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) projects and programs. . . . The Alberta government is investing $1.24 billion for up to 15 years in the Quest and Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL) projects.”

Quest is Shell’s earlier Scotford project. “The project is capturing CO2 from oil sands upgrading and transporting it 65 km north for permanent storage approximately 2 km below the earth’s surface. Since commercial operations began in 2015, the Quest Project has captured and stored over 8 million tonnes of CO2.”

The Alberta Carbon Trunk Line is a 240-km pipeline that carries CO2 captured from the Sturgeon Refinery and the Nutrien Redwater fertilizer plant to enhanced oil recovery projects in central Alberta. Since commercial operations began in 2020, the ACTL Project has captured and sequestered over 3.5 million tonnes of CO2.

Shell and partner ATCO EnPower now plan a new CCS project at Scotford. And, on a smaller scale, Entropy Inc. will add a second phase of CCS at its Glacier gas plant near Grande Prairie.

And those are just two of Alberta’s coming CCS projects. That province is working on at least 11 more that could lead to over $20 billion in capital expenditures and reduce about 24 million tonnes of emissions annually — the equivalent of reducing Alberta’s annual industrial emissions by almost 10 per cent.

And then there’s the giant CCS project proposed by the Pathways Alliance, a partnership representing about 95% of Canada’s oil sands production.

“The project would see CO2 captured from more than 20 oil sands facilities and transported 400 kilometers by pipeline to a terminal in the Cold Lake area, where it will be stored underground in a joint carbon-storage hub. . . . A final investment decision is expected in 2025.”

Alberta alone has more CO2 storage capacity than Norway, Korea, India, and double the entire Middle East, according to the Global CCS Institute.

When Wilkinson spoke in favor of CCS, Capital Power had just backed away from building a carbon-capture facility at its Genesee power plant in Alberta. But Enbridge, which would have built the associated storage hub, is still “strongly interested.”

In Saskatchewan, which also offers government support for CCS, more than 5 million tonnes of CO2 have been captured at SaskPower’s Boundary Dam 3 power plant. “Someone would have to plant more than 69 million trees and let them grow for 10 years to match that.”

In B.C., natural gas company FortisBC offers small-scale carbon-capture technology to help businesses that use natural gas to save energy and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

And the B.C. government says that, potentially, two to six large-scale CCS projects could be developed in northeast B.C. over the next decade.

“Small-scale operations currently exist in B.C. that inject a mixture of CO2 and H2S (hydrogen sulfide) deep into underground formations. This process, which is referred to as acid-gas disposal, already occurs at 12 sites.”

Elsewhere, CCS projects are operating or being developed around the world, including in Australia, Denmark, and the U.S. A CCS project in Norway has been in operation for 28 years.

It took a while to get the ball rolling in Canada, but CCS/CCUS is here to stay, reducing emissions and keeping industries alive to contribute to the economy.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 3 hours ago

Alberta government announces review of Trudeau’s euthanasia regime

Censorship Industrial Complex / 3 hours ago

Congressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies

Bruce Dowbiggin / 6 hours ago

The Pathetic, Predictable Demise of Echo Journalism

Energy

What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?

Published on November 20, 2024

By

From Resource Works

Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more. 

Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?

It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.

That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.

The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.

I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.

Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?

I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.

To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.

Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.

Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?

It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.

But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.

The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.

Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?

I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.

That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.

I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.

Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?

Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.

I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.

We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.

It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.

Continue Reading

Energy

What Will Be the Future of the Keystone XL Pipeline Under President Trump?

Published on November 18, 2024

By

From EnergyNow.ca

By Terry Winnitoy, EnergyNow

The Keystone XL Pipeline, proposed in 2008, was designed to transport Canadian crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the United States, specifically to Steele City, Nebraska, and onward to refineries in Illinois and Texas, as well as to an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.

Spanning approximately 1,179 miles and designed to transport up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day, the pipeline promised significant economic and energy security benefits. However, it became a focal point of political and environmental controversy, leading to its eventual cancellation by Presidents Obama and Biden.

Here’s a brief look at its history, the reasons it should have been built, the political dynamics that led to its cancellation and will President-elect Trump revive it?

Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Have Been Built

Economic and Job Creation

The pipeline was projected to create thousands of construction jobs and several hundred permanent jobs, providing a significant boost to the economy. It was also expected to stimulate economic activity through the development of related infrastructure and services.

Energy Security

By facilitating the efficient transport of a large volume of oil from a stable and friendly neighboring country, the pipeline would have reduced American dependence on oil imports from more volatile regions, enhancing national energy security.

Environmental Safety

Pipelines are generally safer and more environmentally friendly for transporting oil compared to rail or truck, with lower risks of spills and accidents. The Keystone XL was designed with the latest technology to minimize leaks and environmental impact.

Regulatory Oversight

The project underwent extensive environmental reviews and was subject to strict regulatory standards to ensure it adhered to environmental protection and safety measures.

Political Reasons for Cancellation

Environmental Activism

The pipeline became a symbol for environmentalists who opposed further development of fossil fuel infrastructure. They argued it would contribute to climate change by enabling the extraction and consumption of oil sands, which are more carbon-intensive than other oil sources.

Obama’s Cancellation

President Obama rejected the pipeline in 2015, citing environmental concerns and its potential impact on global climate change. He argued that approving the pipeline would have undercut America’s leadership on climate change.

Trump’s Reversal and Biden’s Final Cancellation

President Trump revived the project in 2017, citing economic benefits and energy security. However, President Biden canceled it again on his first day in office in 2021, fulfilling a campaign promise to prioritize climate change issues and transition towards renewable energy.

Political Symbolism

For both Obama and Biden, the decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline was also a symbolic gesture, demonstrating a commitment to environmental sustainability and a shift away from fossil fuel dependence in line with their administrations’ climate policies.

Will President-Elect Trump Reinstate It?

Currently, there is no definitive answer on whether President-elect Trump will reinstate the Keystone XL Pipeline. His previous administration showed support for the project, citing its potential economic and energy security benefits. However, reinstating the pipeline would require navigating significant political, legal, and environmental challenges that have developed over the years.

It would also depend on the current geopolitical, economic, and environmental priorities at the time of his taking office. The Keystone XL Pipeline’s history is a complex tapestry of economic aspirations, environmental concerns, and political maneuvers.

Its cancellation has been a contentious issue, reflecting the broader national and global debates over energy policy and climate change strategy. Whether it will be reinstated remains a significant question, contingent on a multitude of factors including political will, environmental policies, and market dynamics.

That all said, re-instating its approval might be the perfect “in your face” moment for Trump to Obama and Biden as he begins his second term of presidency. We’ll have to wait and see.

Continue Reading

Trending

X