Cenovus has always been bloody arrogant.
This only proves it will always be.
We the tax payer are supposed to pay for their going green??
What a joke, try cash flow from your current business.
Oh wait you like to give that away monthly in dividends!!!
Go peddle that nonsense somewhere else, Pourbaix.
Reduce shareholder payouts and use more of your profits to finance your industry. The public is already having to cover costs of industry negligence; let’s not add to it by financing your development more than we are now.
Johnny Credit Reply to Jim Blackstock:
Best joke of the day. Increase the carbon tax and they will “wash” and “clean” their own oil like Trump cleaned his coal. At the same time make them clean those cesspools at Fort Mc.
Polluter-pay out the window?
Txpayers on the hook to cut industry’s emissions?
Emissions control and clean-up are standard business costs. If the oil industry can’t afford clean-up, it can’t afford to be in business. And we can’t afford the oil industry.
Capturing upstream emissions does not capture downstream (Scope 3) emissions at the consumer (combustion) end, which accounts for minimum 80% of emissions from a barrel of oil.
Carbon capture and enhanced-oil recovery are greenwashing to perpetuate fossil fuels. Big Oil’s idea is to “green” fossil fuels, not shift away from them.
CCS means fossil fuels for longer. Allowing industry to expand oil production.
A climate plan certain to fail.
We may need CCS for hard-to-decarbonize processes like steel and cement. If carbon capture is used to extend the lifetime of the fossil fuel industry, the result will be more emissions, not less.
Alberta’s two CCS projects depended on hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to capture a small volume of emissions from large emitters. CCS is one of the most expensive and least efficient methods to reduce emissions. Enormous opportunity costs. Carbon capture does not capture other air pollutants, either.
CCS keeps us dependent on fossil fuels — not a transformative solution.
Time to shift away from fossil fuels and reduce pollution. Take sunset industries off life-support.
Default User Reply to Geoffrey Pounder:
Hey Cenovus. You made your bed, you lay in it. Why burden tax payers with your problems
Cenovus chief urges Trudeau to pay for greening of Canada’s oilsands, Canada’s oil could be the ‘cleanest in the world’ but it will take $75 billion to get there by Derek Brower, Aug 09, 2021, Financial Times
Canada’s government should pay for up to 70 per cent of a proposed $75 billion project to decarbonize the country’s controversial oilsands and protect a critical engine of the country’s economy, one of the proposal’s backers said.
“If we’re able to solve the puzzle of making Canadian oil significantly lower carbon intensive,” the oil would be the “cleanest in the world,” Alex Pourbaix, chief executive of Cenovus Energy, the country’s second-largest oil producer, told the Financial Times.
But Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, which last year committed Canada to slashing emissions by 40-45 per cent below its 2005 levels by 2030, must pay up to make it happen, he argued.
“It’s going to take tens of billions of dollars over 30 years to decarbonize [our oil] industry,” said Pourbaix. “But at the same time that will protect something in the range of $3 trillion of GDP.”
Pourbaix and industry group the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (Capp) also urged the federal government to extend tax credits to oil companies that would use captured carbon to produce more oil.
The calls for federal funding will complicate matters for Trudeau amid criticism that Canada is not moving quickly enough to meet its climate targets while his government defends its high-emissions oil industry, the biggest petroleum exporter to the U.S.
Despite imposing an aggressive carbon tax regime, the federal government lobbied for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas — which was cancelled by U.S. President Joe Biden earlier this year — and is funding another export pipeline development from the oilsands to Canada’s west coast.
“Our prosperity and our economy are still highly dependent on” the oil sector, Seamus O’Regan, the country’s Liberal federal resources minister said in a recent interview with the FT. “It is what we do.”
Last month Cenovus joined the four other largest producers in Canada’s oil and gas sector, the biggest single contributor to the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, to propose a vast carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) project they said was “the only realistic proposal” to curb pollution. CCUS has nothing to do with curbing pollution. It’s a money laundering scam, steals from taxpayers to give to polluters, to let polluters escalate their deadly pollution, tucking billions of our dollars into already rich CEO pockets, under the lie of reducing emissions.
Critics of CCUS say the technology, mentioned for years as a solution to emissions, remains too expensive to achieve the scale needed.
Pourbaix said it showed operators were now “attuned to where the world is moving.”
The proposal includes installation of a trunk line capturing carbon from oilsands projects and other industries near Fort McMurray, in northern Alberta, and storing it further south near Cold Lake. Where tarsands frac’ers have severe leaks and groundwater contamination? 2014: AER, Alberta’s new energy regulator seeks the world’s trust, as Alberta’s caprock is frac’d “to Hell”
That CO2 will for sure not stay put “stored” any where the oil and gas industry has frac’d the caprock to hell (most of Alberta and Sasktchewan, and much of the rest of Canada). Just another lie to steal from us, while polluting us, and destroying the earth’s ability to sustain life. Stuff your con Cenovus & CAPP, you know where.
The proposal came as the Canadian government mooted an investment tax credit designed to accelerate development of a domestic CCUS industry. The credits are due to begin next year.
Pourbaix urged the federal government to reverse a decision to exclude enhanced oil recovery — a method of reinjecting the captured CO2 to help produce more oil — from the tax incentive scheme, saying the EOR could make the CCUS projects economic “right out of the chute.”
Tim McMillan, Capp’s chief executive, welcomed the federal government’s focus on CCUS to help meet its emissions goal, but said “excluding EOR from the federal programme will create substantial challenges to the government in reaching this goal.”
A spokesperson for O’Regan’s office said CCUS was “one of many technologies that will get us to net zero by 2050,” It for certain will not do that; it will only pollute and harm more but did not say if the federal government would help pay for the oilsands companies’ proposed project.
The government has set aside $319 million for research into CCUS and is working on a new strategy to promote it.
The oilsands sector is recovering from last year’s crash. But operators continue to face opposition from climate activists and environment-focused investors because of the higher emissions associated with producing the heavy, bituminous oil found in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan.
International oil supermajors, including Shell, TotalEnergies and Equinor, have pulled investment from the region, home to the world’s third-biggest oil deposit.
Alberta’s provincial government has fought aggressively to protect the sector, including a recent failed legal challenge to stop the federal carbon tax.
Pourbaix said he supported the new carbon pricing scheme and his company has a “long-term ambition” to achieve net zero emissions from its operations. But like other oil sands operators, Cenovus would not commit to a net zero target for its so-called scope 3 emissions — the pollution caused by the burning of the products its sells.
“Scope 3 is largely the responsibility of consumers,” said Pourbaix. “And kind of absolving the consumer of accountability for this doesn’t make sense.”
Refer also to:
2021 07: 500 international, US, Canadian groups open letter to leaders to “reject carbon capture and storage.” CCS is high risk like frac’ing, another scam used by gov’ts to give oil and gas companies $billions of public money to produce more pollution
2021: North Dakota: Judge rules ‘pore space’ bill unconstitutional because it took property from landowners, destroyed its value, gave it to corporations: “The taking of pore space from surface owners is clearly and unambiguously for the constitutionally impermissible purpose of economic development to benefit private parties, i.e. the oil and gas industry.” Bill 2344 (2019) responded to Mosser v Denbury (2017). Alberta gov’t stole pore space from landowners in 2010.
Douglas Malsbury Administrator Alberta Surface Rights Group FB Page:
Bill 24 the “Carbon Capture and Sequestration Statutes Amendment Act” may have been the greatest theft of all the land theft bills in Alberta! In one swoop the “Crown” seized real property with no compensation and no due process of law.
In my view, the Alberta gov’t stole the pore space from landowners, notably freeholders (own the mineral rights), also to give it to the oil and gas industry via Bill 24 (2010) and others, to feed the free-for-all of frac fluids, waste, and acid gases (injected for carbon capture/storage/sequestration), trespassing under and above ground and into drinking water supplies, like Hell erupting everywhere. I attended most of the govt’s dog and pony shows that rolled out the new laws; the information provided was horrific.
Frac’ers knew early on they were unable to control their fracs or their acid gases injected, and there was my pesky lawsuit filed in 2007, so companies went to the Alberta gov’t demanding new laws to 1) free companies of liability from their trespassing fluids injected for profit; 2) free companies from the trouble and costs of having to pay Land Agents to sign up leases for pore space with any landowners across the province; and 3) set up corporate welfare making the public pay billions for carbon capture (and it’s many deadly harms and trespasses) as an emissions reductions technology but which is really enhanced oil recovery for private profit with the added bonus of gov’ts, CAPP and companies propagandizing/promising carbon capture/sequestration will save us.
Then Alberta MLA (Finance Minister, then Energy Minister), American Republican Ted Morton, gave industry everything it demanded and more via Bill 24 and others. (The gov’t could have said no.)
2019: Encana, one of the world’s 47 most polluting companies, named “morally responsible” for death & destruction; First time a human rights body stated fossil fuel companies can be found legally and morally liable for harms linked to climate change.
2016: Harmful Levels Benzene, CO2 Detected at MidWest School Surrounded by 744 Active & Abandoned Oil Wells Within 1 Mile Radius, Including CO2 Injection Wells for Enhanced Recovery by Anadarko, Now Owned by Fleur de lis
2016: AER grants Granite Oil Corp. approval for gas (CO2, H2S, N2, Propane, Butane?) injection enhanced oil recovery across 23 contiguous sections of Bakken land in Alberta
2013: Denbury fined $662,500 for Mississippi blowout of CO2 injected in high pressure enhanced oil recovery, So much carbon dioxide came out that it settled in hollows, suffocating deer and other animals
2012: CO2 in Stream, Dead Ducks Prompt Wyo. DEQ Citation
2010: Carbon Capture and Storage Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, SA 2010, c 14, Bill 24, 3rd Sess, 27th Leg Royal Assent: 2010-12-02, Canlii
2008: Bachu, S., Buschkuehle, B.E., Haug, K. and Michael, K. (2008): Subsurface characterization of the Edmonton-area acid-gas injection operations; Energy Resources Conservation Board, ERCB/AGS Special Report 92, 134 p.Currently publicly available here: https://ags.aer.ca/publication/spe-092.
In case AER removes the report from public access (as occurs too often after I go public with damning data/reports/papers), I uploaded it to my website.
From Page 88:
Figure 59 shows the extent of the Acheson original Blairmore T and subsequent St. Albert-Big Lake Ostracod A pools, and of the Strathfield (undefined) gas reservoir in the context of lithofacies changes in the Lower Mannville Basal Quartz and Ellerslie formations. When approval was granted for acid gas injection at Acheson, the regulatory agency required the operator to file annually with EUB and each other operator in the Acheson Blairmore T and St. Albert-Big Lake Ostracod A pools progress reports that “shall include the impact of acid gas injection on the performance of offsetting producing wells”. In March 2004 the operator at Acheson reported that CO2 was detected in 2003 in well 10-22-53-26W4 in the St. Albert-Big Lake Ostracod A pool, located at 3,625 m north from the acid-gas injection well. No H2S has been detected in the produced gas. Since at Acheson the average composition of the acid gas is 87% CO2 and 11% H2S (Table 14), with H2S being denser and more viscous than CO2, it is expected that CO2 would show first at a producing well. In addition, diagenetic processes within the reservoir could have reduced the H2S concentration in the injected acid gas as a result of pyrite precipitation, if an iron source was available. The issue was brought to EUB’s attention and was heading to a hearing, but the operator at Acheson has indicated to the regulatory agency that it has initiated an Appropriate Dispute Resolution process Anyone participating in AER’s ADR must sign a gag order as the first part of the regulator’s super secret evil “resolution” process with the operator of the offset producing well to address the issue of CO2 breakthrough, and that this situation “will be addressed pursuant to the terms of the Mediated Settlement Agreement”.
This case shows that, after 13 years of injection, CO2 has migrated northward a distance of [nearly 4 km] mostly under the combined drive of injection and production. The drive into the St. Albert-Big Lake Ostracod A gas pool has increased lately with the large spike in gas production from this pool (Figure 57b). There are five producing wells much closer to the acid-gas injection well (Figure 59) that did not report CO2 breakthrough, but these wells are owned by the same operator that operated until recently the Acheson acid-gas injection site. If acid gas broke through at any of these wells, it is most likely that the operator just stripped the acid gas from the sour reservoir gas and re-injected it, as the produced gas in this area is sour to begin with. Understanding the migration path and fate of the injected acid gas at Acheson requires a separate study that is beyond the scope of this report.
Below from the Abstract:
Lateral migration within the gas reservoir has been recorded in 2003 at Acheson, where, after 13 years of injection, CO2 has been detected at an offset producing well at 3,625 m distance in the same gas pool. However, migration within the same unit, particularly in a gas reservoir, is expected and its occurrence should not come as a surprise. …
….the possibility for upward leakage of acid gas exists along wells that were improperly completed and/or abandoned, or along wells whose cement and/or tubing have degraded or may degrade in the future as a result of chemical reactions with formation brine and/or acid gas. A review of the status and age of wells that penetrate the respective injection unit at each site shows that most wells were drilled in the 1950s and 1960s, and that the majority of wells are abandoned. …
2006: The Role of the Upper Geosphere in Mitigating CO2 Surface Releases in Wellbore Leakage Scenarios
The cement seals can degrade by chemical action or by fracturing, which increases the effective permeability of the cement. The seal between the cement and the casing and between the annulus and the surrounding formations can also degrade or be faulty at the time of cement emplacement.