Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy

It seems to be coming out widely today that Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology is a bit of a farce. While it can store some carbon dioxide away from the atmosphere, its primary purpose in the business world at the moment, and into the foreseeable future, is to extract MORE oil from exhausted oil fields.

So why are Alberta, and Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall so strongly behind the technology? It’s good for business. It helps oil companies appear greener, while actually increasing their production of the products that cause pollution. In Saskatchewan’s case, the CO(2) being sequestered, is piped up from the United States! Of course in the grand scheme, it doesn’t matter where the CO(2) is captured and stored from, but what are we doing with ours? It goes into the atmosphere. Our testbed for capture from a “dirty coal” plant (note that no clean coal exists) is releasing the captured gas after it runs through the test site.

Oil companies are putting a lot of money into universities (ie. the UofR) to study improved capture and sequestration methods. Yet it remains difficult to get comparable funding for clean power generation research. Wall doesn’t want to lose the money invested by pointing out that the oil companies have pipe dreams. Surely he understands that he’s not going to find a silver bullet for pollution from companies that base their profits on taking oil and coal out of the earth so it can be burned? Is he delusional?

Is there potential for capture and sequestration to reduce atmospheric emissions? Yes, but never enough to make oil or coal burning carbon neutral. When might it approach a nearly neutral level? Not in the near future.

Rational people shouldn’t focus on reducing emissions in the oilsands through carbon capture and storage.
- David Keith, professor of petroleum and chemical engineering at the University of Calgary,

How bad are things when they won’t take our money? When not even money can buy the truth back…

Dear [Saskboy],

Thanks for sending a message to ABC last week. We delivered your note along with over 220,000 others. We had such a large response that the ABC website temporarily stopped accepting messages from anyone, anywhere.

You also helped build buzz — lot of blogs and media outlets highlighted ABC’s decision not to run our ad as both surprising and unfair. Great articles appeared in the Christian Science Monitor and Columbia Journalism Review, for example.

And the comments We members sent to ABC were fantastic…

Preston A. from Madison, Wisconsin, put it well:

“Along with thousands, I paid to help fund the airtime for this specific ad, and I expect you to do the right thing, right now, and run it. Be neutral, allow access, let America decide what it wants.”

Eileen D. from Winthrop, Washington, sent a message that asked the crucial question:

“What side will history show you were on, as our hurricanes blow harder, our floods go higher, and our fires rage hotter?”

ABC still refuses to run the ad but the good news is that in the last few days, our Repower spot was watched over 200,000 times online. Members shared our story with over 190,000 more people. In the coming weeks we’re going to keep pushing back on the influence of oil and coal companies in the public dialogue.

We will keep engaging until our messages get fair access to the airwaves. We know you will, too. Thank you for all your efforts.

Sincerely,

Cathy Zoi
CEO
www.wecansolveit.org

What do you have to do to get arrested in this town? OR
What do you have to pay to get ABC to air an anti-pollution ad?

-Chickadee

Mandryk keenly demonstrates how Brad Wall’s government is giving the benefit of the doubt to Stephen Harper, and is raking Stephan Dion over the coals for his better Green Shift federal income tax reduction.

–
Hat tip to MrvnMouse

What fantastic timing this article has? In the same day that the We Campaign notified me that ABC rejected to broadcast this inoffensive and important ad, the Planet S paper let me know that my interview was published.

-Tell ABC to air the ad tonight.

I talked with the paper about media bias, and interaction with bloggers. The article author, Stephen LaRose, notes that most main stream media is owned by large corporations that are profit driven. Providing the public with information is secondary to making a lot of money. If a choice has to be made between providing information that offends, or making more money, money will win the toss up. That leads to a dumber population, and there’s no doubt about that.

Of course, the only people who would find the We Campaign offensive would be companies like Exxon. ABC decided that airing the ad might lose them a continuous stream of oil money, on the less funded and low frequency appearance of the truth. They made a decision to turn down money from an anti-consumerism and energy efficiency organization, and instead take ad money from oil companies.

==

On the front page of the Leader Post this morning, they declared Ralph Goodale to have about a 15 point lead over Michelle Hunter of the Conservatives. The NDP and Greens trail with about 11 and 3% respectively. The paper also got George Wooldridge’s name wrong, calling him “Stephen”. Stephen Harper, and Stephen Moore must have been on their brains, but it’s sad that they’d butcher a man’s name so badly when it’s probably his first appearance on the front page of the Regina daily (owned by CanWest Global). I hope they publish a front page correction tomorrow morning.

She makes at least as much sense as McCain does, and she’s “hawt” to boot. Too bad her “limited” off shore oil drilling plan won’t work since it won’t produce a DROP of oil for at least 10 years. Al Gore in the mean time says America can be oil-power FREE by the time those same 10 years are up!

I know Gore’s plan can be done - the States built a fleet of the world’s most feared and powerful military planes and military vehicles in less than 5 years (and that was 60 years ago!). They can do the same (minus the fear part) with their existing civilian fleet of cars and planes, and rejuvenate the Rust Belt at the same time. Better still, they don’t have to ship the new fleet over to France, Germany, and Japan because the point is to use them at home instead.

I took a day off work, and went on a trip to Estevan that the UofR put on, so I saw the SaskPower Boundary Dam coal fired electricity plant from the outside, and the inside of a test CO(2) capture facility.

Unfortunately it’s just a test, and only separates out 4 tons a day, when we need to catch closer to 4000 tons (as of about 10 years ago in my opinion). And of course when I got home, there was a new SaskPower bill waiting for me in the mail…

South of Weyburn is the Encana oil pumping and monitoring facility.

They inject pure and (process-naturally) odourized CO(2) into the ground to increase oil extraction.

Unfortunately, there isn’t everything we should try just because Alberta does it first, and bigger.

Brad Wall is spitting in the face of infrastructure planning. Right on the heels of publicly seeking advice of an architect of the Alberta oil boom, Minister Boyd has indicated that Sask. won’t adjust our take of oil royalties for at least 12 years. This is terrificly poor planning. I know they are trying to create stability, but it will only make the pending and required adjustments worse for the oil industry in the next decade.

We know one thing - we don’t know what the next 12 years will bring, aside from oil shortages. I’ve asked before: where’s the fire? Why are we rushing to set up the oil economy when the resource is only getting more valuable as the years wear on?

You know, I rarely agree (never before) with Pat Atkinson, but when she’s the voice of reason, the Sask Party must really be way out to lunch. Why are they telling the supposedly non-political Enterprise Saskatchewan how to manage oil industry growth. It’s especially stupid if it’s not coupled with a planned housing boom.

–

UPDATE: It’s worth noting that if the NDP are labour controlled, that the Sask Party is business controlled. The sword cuts both ways. We need a government who can act fairly, in the interests of both sides.

After all, if labour money can buy off the NDP, why wouldn’t we assume that the Saskatchewan Party’s $668,016 in corporate donations has influenced its policies? Wouldn’t we also assume that the tens of thousands of dollars the Saskatchewan Party has received over the years from implement manufacturers (who demanded changes to the union certification laws) or from former media baron Conrad Black (who loved to crush unions) [Saskboy notes: and who operated the Leader-Post for a time] is the driving force behind Bills 5 and 6?

Wouldn’t the millions Wall has raised in Alberta make him a puppet to the oil patch? Is that the only reason this government is refusing to raise oil royalties?

If so, don’t we need to fix this by banning all union or corporate donations?

Or should the Saskatchewan Party simply refrain from cheap hypocrisy and cheesy sanctimony that’s bad for everybody?

- Mandryk is the political columnist for the Leader-Post.