Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Yet Premier Wall as recently as mid-September 2014 touted so-called “clean coal” as an important provincial objective and justified paying a Washington lobbyist to promote it. Wall’s interview in Pipeline News sheds light on his views regarding CCS. The beauty of this technology is there’s no contrivance. There’s no artificer of moving the CO2 around, cap and trading it, shifting it. The companies are buying it. … There’s an underlying economic case beyond coal and heading towards enhanced oil recovery. … We had more than one company who wanted to buy the million tonnes of CO2. … We had a lot of due diligence. We looked carefully. There was still risk. -----------------------So let’s consider how well the Saskatchewan Party government’s three biggest initiatives are working: Carbon capture and storage at Boundary Dam 3: This is critical to Premier Brad Wall because the $1.6-billion CCS expenditure has offset accusations that the Wall government is doing nothing to fight climate change. However, we learned this week SaskPower had shelled out $1.2 million in penalties in the first seven months of the 2016-17 fiscal year to Calgary-based Cenovus Energy (which, coincidentally, has been the Saskatchewan Party’s biggest political donor) for Boundary dam’s failure to provide enough CO2. Previously, the Sask. Party government shelled out $7.3 million to Cenovus in 2015-16 and $12 million in 2014-15 — a grand total of $20.5 million paid to an out-of-province company that is supposed to be paying us. Admittedly, SaskPower is still predicting a $15-million profit from CCS this year, but that Boundary Dam CCS is still working below 60 per cent of capacity isn’t all that impressive. Moreover, the entire CCS debate is now bogged down over whether it is truly the cutting edge technology that China is clamouring for as it brings more coal-fired plants online, or whether China and the rest of world already see CCS as outdated technology and are moving on to greener power options.----------------Julie Ali · University of Alberta The carbon capture business never felt like something any government should get involved with. I am also curious what would happen if the carbon dioxide escaped? Then there are the costs to the business. Carbon capture and storage at Boundary Dam 3 seems to have increased the cost of electricity to consumers in Saskatchewan. http://www.cbc.ca/.../carbon-capture-power-prices-1.3641066 SaskPower is asking for two rate increases this year — five per cent this summer and another five per cent in January. SaskPower bills to increase again President of SaskWind James Glennie says a report from Canada's parliamentary budget office shows carbon capture technology will double the price of power generated from the project. Glennie says SaskPower's wholesale cost of power is about $60 per megawatt hour. The report pegs the cost of removing carbon dioxide through carbon capture at Boundary Dam Unit 3 at about the same price. "So essentially what the report is saying is if you, obviously, add on $60 a megawatt hour for carbon capture that is effectively doubling the wholesale price of power," Glennie said. ***** So citizens are paying more for the carbon capture business and then there are payments to Cenovus on top of these increased electricity costs? So how on Earth does any government justify this project to citizens? Where is the cost benefit analysis? I thought Alberta was badly run but I realize now that Saskatchewan might be even worse than Alberta in terms of poor governance. But no worries, we're about to be fleeced by the NDP folks we hired to replace the incompetent Tories. We're going to be paying more for no reason other than to greenwash the oil and gas industry with a dumb carbon tax and wind farms that would not otherwise happen without our P3 subsidies. Like · Reply · Just now----


I have never been a fan of the carbon capture business. It seems to me both a major waste of public cash (these projects never seem to happen without the public subsidising the building of these projects) and then there is the matter of risk. What are the risks if the carbon capture system fails?

In Saskatchewan we have an ongoing experiment in carbon capture that is seemingly a major waste of public dollars. Citizens had to pay for the entire project believe it or not. Then they pay an oil company Cenovus when there isn't enough CO2 to capture. Then the electricity company increases their rates to pay for these losses. What the heck?  Citizens are paying more for their electricity for political decisions made by the Brad Wall government that hasn't got any excuse for this mess as far as I can determine. The doubling of the costs of electricity doesn't seem to be a good return for the public investment of cash to me. Meanwhile where is the Auditor General of Saskatchewan in this project evaluation? It seems clear to me at least that no one in any of the provincial governments do cost benefit analyses of projects but simply do what is politically expedient. This isn't acceptable government practice and the folks in these provinces need to make their feelings clear by firing these political parties. I suspect this is what will happen in BC and in Ontario. Mr. Wall seems a bit better at the fooling the citizens business but he too isn't looking too bright with this dumb waste of cash. For a Conservative you would at least expect him to be fiscally responsible rather than throw away good public dollars on a project that was not good value for public dollars.

While the public is being screwed some companies are laughing all the way to major profits in this mess:


Carbon capture and storage at Boundary Dam 3: This is critical to Premier Brad Wall because the $1.6-billion CCS expenditure has offset accusations that the Wall government is doing nothing to fight climate change.


However, we learned this week SaskPower had shelled out $1.2 million in penalties in the first seven months of the 2016-17 fiscal year to Calgary-based Cenovus Energy (which, coincidentally, has been the Saskatchewan Party’s biggest political donor) for Boundary dam’s failure to provide enough CO2.


Previously, the Sask. Party government shelled out $7.3 million to Cenovus in 2015-16 and $12 million in 2014-15 — a grand total of $20.5 million paid to an out-of-province company that is supposed to be paying us.
**************
Wow this is major money.
$1.6 billion dollars for the project. Apparently the citizens were made to pay for the entire project. So where does Cenovus come into this business?

Then ongoing hemorrhage of money because there isn't enough carbon being captured? What the heck?


I go looking for more details and I find them here:

https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/2016/11/3/audit-boundary-ccs

Audit request re Boundary Dam Carbon Capture Scheme

In the twenty months since we produced our detailed financial analysis of the Boundary Dam Carbon Capture Scheme (BD3CCS) the Federal Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) produced their own report. It confirmed our conclusion: Carbon Capture at Boundary Dam doubles the price of electricity. In so doing, the PBO report again raised the question of why SaskPower proceeded with a project when it knew, or should have known, that it would needlessly add $1-billion of costs to the bills of electricity consumers province-wide.
Despite all this evidence and perhaps because the sole beneficiary of the project is an Alberta-based oil company which was the largest donor to the SaskParty in 2013 and 2014, SaskPower has refused to provide any form of financial accounting to justify the project.  This is particularly troubling since Premier Wall recently appealed for $2-billion of federal funds to invest in more Carbon Capture projects (as well as nuclear). We are also concerned that, while public funds continue to be used to subsidise coal, wind energy will be disadvantaged in forthcoming tenders for new generation capacity.
Consequently today we wrote to the Provincial Auditor to request a full audit of BD3CCS.
Alternatively the full text (with references where applicable) follows;


Ms. Judy Ferguson
Provincial Auditor of Saskatchewan
1500 Chateau Tower, 1920 Broad Street
Regina, SK. S4P 3V2                                                                                                         3 November 2016
Dear Ms. Ferguson,

Boundary Dam Carbon Capture and Storage Facility
We contact your office in its capacity as provider of independent assurance and advice on the management, governance and effective use of public resources. Our concern relates to the $1.5-billion Boundary Dam Carbon Capture and Sequestration facility (BD3CCS), which was commissioned in October 2014 and financed entirely using public funds.
Given the sizeable quantity of those funds, the questionable economic merits of the project and the availability of significantly cheaper alternatives; one might reasonably have expected SaskPower to have released financial information in justification of the project. That information was, however, not forthcoming when the project was commissioned and was still not available six months later. Consequently, in March 2015, we released our own analysis .
Although BD3CCS was billed as an environmental initiative, that analysis indicates its primary purpose is to supply publicly-subsidised CO2, at well below cost, to the oil industry for use in Enhanced Oil Recovery. We believe it will result in at least $1-billion of losses for SaskPower: those losses can only be recovered through increased electricity rates. Indeed, since January 2013, SaskPower has announced six separate electricity rate rises amounting to a compounded increase of 28.2% .
While BD3CCS leaves SaskPower (i.e. all electricity consumers of Saskatchewan) with major losses, it appears to generate $1-billion of profits for Cenovus Energy: an Alberta-based oil company which also happens to have been the largest corporate donor to the SaskParty in 2013 and 2014 and the second largest in 2012.
In April of this year the Parliamentary Budget Office concluded that BD3CCS doubles the cost of electricity  and, in so doing, they largely confirmed our conclusions. Nonetheless; SaskPower and the SaskParty have, to date, been dismissive of our analysis but unwilling to justify BD3CCS with their own.
Yesterday, however, the following was in the National Post;



“SaskPower won’t recover its $1.5 billion investment. Over the next 30 years it will run up additional operating losses totaling $651 million, according to a report by Saskatchewan Community Wind.
SaskPower doesn’t dispute the numbers but says there’s a cost for pioneers”
— The National Post. 'Take into account captured carbon’s use and Saskatchewan coal plant just as dirty as others, critic says'. By - Evan Balgord. 2 November 2016
It is concerning that SaskPower, notwithstanding its own admission of the questionable economics of CCS and the presence of significantly cheaper alternatives, is still considering two additional Boundary Dam CCS units at a cost of at least $2-billion. Also rather puzzling, given the weak economics of CCS, is Premier Wall’s request, two weeks ago in his ‘Climate White Paper’, for $2-billion+ of federal funds for additional research into CCS and nuclear.
Noticeably absent in all of this is a transparent financial accounting of BD3CCS: something which SaskPower has thus far been unwilling to provide. Surely this is owed to the population of Saskatchewan given the $1.5-billion of public funds involved. We believe there are six key questions which would benefit from your attention;
1)    Did SaskPower’s investment represent efficient operation of the corporation’s business for the public good ?
2)    Were risks and rewards allocated in a manner consistent with SaskPower’s fiduciary duty to safeguard public funds?
3)    Did Crown Investments Corporation exercise its supervisory powers in the interests of all Saskatchewan residents ?
4)    Given its knowledge of the influence of BD3CCS costs in SaskPower’s October 2013 multi-year rate application; was the Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel justified in its conclusion that the application was fair and reasonable for the people of Saskatchewan?
5)    Would SaskPower’s planned investment in two additional CCS units at Boundary Dam be an efficient use of public funds given the known cost of alternatives?
6)    Does the Province of Saskatchewan own the intellectual property associated with Carbon Capture technology and, if not, how will international sales of CCS technology benefit Saskatchewan ratepayers?
While your office may have reservations about questioning this Government’s energy policy; it may be of note that the Ontario Auditor appears to have no such qualms. It has, in the last five years, conducted at least three major reviews on the subject: a 2011 audit of the Green Energy Act   as well as two in 2013 of the Oakville   and Mississauga  Gas Plant cancellation costs.  The Auditor, in undertaking the 2011 review, noted: "The objective of our audit was to assess whether the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority had adequate systems and procedures in place to ensure that renewable energy resources are obtained in a cost-effective manner and within the context of applicable legislation and government policy."
We look forward to your answer to these questions and to your view on whether low-carbon energy resources were, and are, being obtained by SaskPower in a cost-effective manner within the context of applicable legislation and government policy.
Regards,


James Glennie. MBA, CFA
President, SaskWind


 

*****************
Why is Cenovus even involved in this business?

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Saskatchewan%20Office/2015/02/Saskpowers_Carbon_Capture_Project.pdf

Looks like Cenovus is in the deal to make major profits as per this publication:

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Saskatchewan%20Office/2015/02/Saskpowers_Carbon_Capture_Project.pdf

Potential Rewards from the Boundary Dam CCS Project

The balance sheet, Boundary Dam Capital Investment and Operations, provides a very rough estimate of the revenues and expenditures of the Boundary Dam plant incurred over a 20 year period and compares them to the investment, revenues and expenditures to operate the CCS plant. It also shows Cenovus’s potential revenues versus Saskatchewan governments royalty revenues. There are a large number of unknowns and costs that have not been included in this balance sheet; however, it does provide enough basic data to draw conclusions about the fiscal responsibility of the CCS project.

Revenues from the Boundary Dam Station and CCS Facility

The following is an assessment of the accuracy of Glennie’s cash flow estimate: 1. Sale of CO2, estimated to be $450 million, may be too high. SaskPower has agreed to provide Cenovus Energy a million tonnes of CO2 per year for ten years, but the actual price per tonne has not been made public and it is not known whether Cenovus is able to lower the amount purchased at any time. Estimates range in the neighborhood of $20 to $25 per tonne over 20 years: thus total revenues could be $400-$500 million. But it is also questionable whether the Weyburn field will have an additional twenty year life span even with enhanced oil recovery technologies are applied. Will Cenovus continue to operate its enhanced oil recovery operation should the price of oil drop below $70 per barrel for extended periods of time as low prices negatively affect profit margins? With West Texas Intermediate oil dipping below $50/barrel in early 2015 Cenovus may not purchase the contracted amounts of CO2, and as a result SaskPower will forego revenues and be required to inject the CO2 in its Aquistore site and take on additional operating costs. Many risk factors are at play regarding the sale of CO2. 2. Sale of sulfuric acid and fly ash over the next twenty years has been roughly estimated to be about $60 million. This figure may be relatively accurate. However, the revenues from fly ash could instead be applied to the revenues on the coal-fired plant side of the ledger as fly ash segregation and sale has been a normal part of Boundary Dam operations for many years. 3. This balance sheet does not consider the possible revenues earned from the Shand

Test Facility. Additionally, it does not estimate any future sales of the CCS technology that SaskPower is bringing on stream. Does SaskPower have patents or any other intellectual property that it may be able to sell to other utilities in the future? Apparently it does not have patents on the amine stripper or the CanSolv process. Pipeline News confirms this, and further states that the Shand CCS Facility will test a wide variety of vendor-specific technologies to validate performance of their equipment and systems.22 But there is no estimate of revenues from this, as SaskPower’s partner in this venture, Hitachi/Mitsubishi will be conducting most of the testing (8,000 – 12,000 hours) in the first year of operation. Mike Monea in Pipeline News claims that Boundary Dam 3 CCS has created knowledge that SaskPower can monetize: “Right now we are waiting for some direction from our government on how to do that. … SaskPower has gained knowledge on construction and integration that nobody really has. … The next plant will be 20-30% less expensive.” 23 This is a very ambitious and optimistic prediction — is it rooted in reality or in sales talk? 4. What is the likelihood of utilities purchasing SaskPower’s CCS technology? SaskPower admits they do not own the “technology of capture.”24 As in the Kemper case discussed above, scalable CCS projects seem unlikely for decades, especially for profit driven privately owned utilities. SaskPower’s partners in the Shand Facility Shell, Hitachi/Mitsubishi, and SNC Lavalin own the technical applications and will mainly benefit from future sales of amine strippers. Again many potential revenues and expenditures are undisclosed or difficult to estimate accurately as the market for future CCS projects is highly suspect. 5. Net loss in revenues from the CCS facility as estimated in the cash flow analysis above at $295 million may be underestimated.
****
Wow. Looks like citizens in Saskatchewan got royally screwed but the Cenovus folks are making money like bandits:
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Saskatchewan%20Office/2015/02/Saskpowers_Carbon_Capture_Project.pdf

Financial Rewards Gained by Third Parties Cenovus will purchase one million tonnes of CO2 annually for enhanced oil recovery in the Weyburn oil field. Each tonne of CO2 increases Cenovus’s oil production in Weyburn by two or three barrels. In 2013 WTI oil was valued at approximately $90/barrel: thus each tonne of CO2 would have provided $180 to $270 of increased revenues. In January 2015 that number is 50 per cent less. If Cenovus pays $25/tonne for CO2, then Cenovus still earns on average $100 to $150 in additional revenues from increased productivity occurring as a result of CO2 injection. PTRC reports that “The Weyburn oilfield was producing only 8,000 barrels per day by 1990. CO2 began to be injected in 2000, and within 5 years oil production had grown to nearly 30,000 barrels per day” and remained at those levels until 2010.27 If injection maintains production levels at 30,000 barrels per day for the next five years, Cenovus will produce an additional 10.9 million barrels per year and about 50 million additional barrels in only five years. The balance sheet below estimates that over 20 years a potential gross revenue gain of $3.45 billion for Cenovus, which is a conservative estimate of the value of the oil produced (even with WTI oil at $50/barrel).28 SaskPower has taken on almost all of the financial risk but Cenovus will reap the greatest rewards.

*****
Seems like the Saskatchewan government is even more in the pockets of the oil and gas industry than the PCs were in Alberta. Only ones to benefit from this junk bond project have been the folks in Cenovus and maybe the construction companies. The premier seems to be promoting the private interests of the companies involved rather than considering the public interest. Politicians simply don't seem to care about the costs of projects but go ahead based on ideology.


https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Saskatchewan%20Office/2015/02/Saskpowers_Carbon_Capture_Project.pdf

As demonstrated above, SaskPower’s CCS decision has led to several financially damaging outcomes: • SaskPower’s financial health has been severely impaired for several years. • All Saskatchewan purchasers of electricity will be saddled with higher cost electricity. • With the cost of electricity at 12-14 cents per kilowatt-hour and rising, the province’s economic competitive position will be weaker. Saskatchewan no longer has affordable electricity and it is likely to get more expensive in future, especially if Boundary Dam 4 CCS is built. • The financial rewards from future sales of CCS technology are highly questionable making the return on the CCS investment nearly impossible to attain. On the environmental side the CCS decision has brought about very small rewards. Shutting down Boundary Dam permanently would have resulted in no future GHG emissions. The one million tonnes captured amounts to only about seven per cent of all GHG’s created by SaskPower’s coal-fired generation, and less than two per cent of the province’s total emissions. SaskPower could have made the decision to begin moving away from coal just as Ontario has successfully done. The decision to build a $1.5 billion CCS facility was ultimately a political decision approved and then promoted by the provincial government. Premier Wall has stated that he had to convince a SaskPower board committee to support the CCS project.48 In the past several years Saskatchewan’s energy/environmental policy has been to maintain the status quo. Saskatchewan government has seemed to willfully ignore the shift to renewables as their efficiencies have improved and costs have dropped.49 Adopting CCS allows Saskatchewan to appear to favour an environmentally sound policy. Even though both British Columbia and Alberta have a carbon compliance scheme in place, Saskatchewan has never proclaimed regulations to the 2009 Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Act, which has been rewritten along Alberta lines to set emission targets and allow corporations to make compliance payments. New environmental regulations and a phased-in Saskatchewan carbon tax would have allowed the government to put in place a 21st century environmental regime. The government fully understands that at a time, perhaps as early as 2018, SaskPower will have to phase out Boundary Dam 4 plant when federal GHG regulations are enforced. Yet Premier Wall as recently as mid-September 2014 touted so-called “clean coal” as an important provincial objective and justified paying a Washington lobbyist to promote it. Wall’s interview in Pipeline News sheds light on his views regarding CCS. The beauty of this technology is there’s no contrivance. There’s no artificer of moving the CO2 around, cap and trading it, shifting it. The companies are buying it. … There’s an underlying economic case beyond coal and heading towards enhanced oil recovery. … We had more than one company who wanted to buy the million tonnes of CO2. … We had a lot of due diligence. We looked carefully. There was still risk. … The new technology came in on time and on budget.50 Answering the question “Does the project equate to having an ace up your sleeve when dealing with the US?”, Wall replied It does. They [US] want some environmental elbow room from the different NGOs that hate, that don’t like Keystone. They need some environmental room to quote — unquote, “deal with the Canadians” … But also look at it [CCS] as validation that we’re serious about the environment, and tell those worried about Canada in general, they ought not to. In Canada, this is the largest percapita project related to CO2 mitigation.51 Premier Wall’s statements reveal the political nature of the CCS decision. To increase SaskPower‘s debt so substantially in order to garner US support for the Keystone Pipeline demonstrates the government’s commitment to the development of fossil fuels over any other alternatives. CCS may well become an appropriate technology in future for pipelines, some refineries and gasification plants. Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage may become an important carbon-negative technology in the future. But at this time it is far too expensive for coal-fired plants to adopt, and a completely inappropriate technology for Saskatchewan and SaskPower to adopt. The risks greatly outweigh the rewards. There’s little question that the high hopes of [CCS] a half-decade ago are badly faded today, leaving a gaping hole in the arsenal of measures identified to reverse the tide of greenhouse-gas emissions. Even optimistic estimates by Bloomberg New Energy Finance for [CCS] expanding its footprint have it offsetting just 1/1,565th of current global emissions in the coming years.52 The predominant reason for the CCS to go ahead appears to be to recover more oil from south east Saskatchewan and reward the oil producing companies rather than adopting appropriate carbon pricing, and moving forward more rapidly on a menu of renewable energy options.

***
Wow, what a mess.
And I thought Alberta was run badly.


Sask. carbon capture plant doubles the price of power

Wind energy proponent says green energy cheaper than so-called 'clean coal'

By Stefani Langenegger, CBC News Posted: Jun 17, 2016 2:21 PM CT Last Updated: Jun 17, 2016 2:21 PM CT
Saskatchewan's power utility says its carbon capture and storage project at Boundary Dam is the world's first commercial-scale operation of its kind.
Saskatchewan's power utility says its carbon capture and storage project at Boundary Dam is the world's first commercial-scale operation of its kind. (Michael Bell/Canadian Press)
869 shares


Facebook



Twitter



Reddit



Google



Share



Email

Related Stories

A wind power proponent says the latest SaskPower rate increases may be just the beginning of increasing electrical rates in the province.
SaskPower is asking for two rate increases this year — five per cent this summer and another five per cent in January.
President of SaskWind James Glennie says a report from Canada's parliamentary budget office shows carbon capture technology will double the price of power generated from the project.
Glennie says SaskPower's wholesale cost of power is about $60 per megawatt hour. The report pegs the cost of removing carbon dioxide through carbon capture at Boundary Dam Unit 3 at about the same price.
"So essentially what the report is saying is if you, obviously, add on $60 a megawatt hour for carbon capture that is effectively doubling the wholesale price of power," Glennie said.
tp-090608-carbon-capture-saskatchewan-cp-6960727
CO2 is captured from a coal-fired generation unit at Boundary Dam in Estevan. (Troy Fleece/Canadian Press)
The minister responsible for SaskPower, Bill Boyd, says he hasn't read the report by the parliamentary budget office, but he says reducing greenhouse gas emissions isn't cheap.
"It's something that I think the people of Saskatchewan are aware of," Boyd said. "They know very well that the cost of mitigation in these areas is expensive. The cost of any kind of other alternative sources of energy are going to be expensive as well."
But Glennie says the price of wind power has plummeted in recent years, to a level that makes it comparable with natural gas.
Wind Energy
SaskWind's president, James Glennie, says the price of wind power has plummeted in recent years. (Robert F. Bukaty/Associated Press)
He says his group, SaskWind, will be announcing a combined wind and solar project in Saskatchewan's southwest in the next week or two.
Glennie says the $80-million project will be community owned, with shares sold around the province.
SaskPower notes that it, too, is working to add more wind and solar projects to the province's power generation fleet.
The government has promised that by 2030, half of its power will come from renewable sources.

  • Bob Toso
Another screwed up idea from Brad Wall.
  • Dale Sullivan
No money for education. No money for health care. Now this.
  • 6 months ago
James Bilodeau
  • James Bilodeau
@Dale Sullivan Exactly!! Wheres all the money WALL!!!?? Certainly not being spent on Sask hyways and byways. Not being spent on education or healthcare, rates are increasing all over, WHERES THE TAX MONEY GONE BRAD WALL!!??

  • John Gaunt
For most business and manufacturing electricity is a deductible expense.

That leaves those who can least afford it to pay the bill. As usual.
  • Ivan Lund
Brad Wall's very own billion and a half (and still counting) spudco, even Sask power's not-so smart meter fiasco alone cost $10 million more than what spudco cost.

This carbon capture pipe dream was floated when the NDP were governing, now I wonder why that govt didn't go for it? Even if it was working properly, the amount of CO2 sold over 25 years was only going to bring in about $450 million, for someting that cost Sask power rate payers $1.5+ billion.

  • David Creelman
It what seems like a massive wheels falling off the bus week for the Wall government my question is: How is it nobody outside of this government had any idea how truly the well is nearly dry our finances are?
  • 6 months ago
John Gaunt
  • John Gaunt
@David Creelman
The election is over and there is 4 years of clear sailing,, or careening,, depending on your point of view, for the Brad party.
  • 6 months ago
Ivan Lund
  • Ivan Lund
@David Creelman
Most mainstream/local media are enabling it all by being ever silent on the real/hard provincial govt I$$ues.
  • 6 months ago
Ron Vollans
  • Ron Vollans
@David Creelman
Grant Devine has returned. Get ready for bankruptcy.

  • Ivan Lund
And too think this govt even has ambitions of expanding this pipe dream fiasco adding two more of boundary's coal fired units into the equation, and how much will that cost us?

See when they sell Sask Power off for chump change to their private sector handlers, pretty much all of the crown corp's debt will be first transferred to the govt's operational debt before the sale is finalized, just like they did with Potash Corp.
  • 6 months ago
Ron Vollans
  • Ron Vollans
@Ivan Lund
And the new owners will shut down that stupid carbon capture project immediately.
  • 6 months ago
Adrian Janssens
  • Adrian Janssens
@Ron Vollans ...I don't doubt it.
  • 6 months ago

Alex Bolton
  • Alex Bolton
I thought there was something wrong with my bill! How much power can one fridge use up?
  • 6 months ago

Peter Kay
  • Peter Kay
Thanks Badlie Wall for another incompetent move. To those hicks who voted for this snake oil salesman you got what you deserved. The best is yet to come.
  • Bob Toso
Even climate change deniers realize that carbon capture and sequestration is a no go.

"Carbon capture and storage – the Edsel of energy policies"


Given that Brad Wall is a climate change denier, why would he spend so much money on something so questionable while using the excuse of trying to do something to mitigate climate change?

Given that Brad Wall is a climate change denier, one has to wonder why he is harming Sask Power in such a manner -- leaving them with so much debt.

I suspect he is just readying SaskPower for a quick sale to one of his corporate supporters.« less
  • 6 months ago
Adrian Janssens
  • Adrian Janssens
Well said @Bob Toso.

  • Bob Toso
Norway cancelled its carbon capture project in 2013.

"Norway dropped plans for a full-scale carbon capture plant at its Mongstad refinery after cost overruns and delays,"


Norway learned from their mistakes but Brad Wall obviously hasn't.
  • 6 months ago
Ron Vollans
  • Ron Vollans
@Bob Toso
Brad hasn't even learned to admit mistakes exist. An MO he learned from Harper, and look where that got Steve.
  • Dan Cameron
Not included as well is the percentage of the total power generated at Foundry necessary to run the carbon capture process. One report says it consumes 20 % of the power generated.



Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall government's three centrepieces looking tattered

Published on: December 17, 2016 | Last Updated: December 17, 2016 6:00 AM CST
Liquor store privatization is one of the initiatives of the Saskatchewan Party government that has not proceeded very smoothly.
Liquor store privatization is one of the initiatives of the Saskatchewan Party government that has not proceeded very smoothly. GORD WALDNER / THE STARPHOENIX
The measure of success for most governments isn’t so much an economy that politicians can’t control.
Instead, most try to define their success by a series of their own initiatives.
So let’s consider how well the Saskatchewan Party government’s three biggest initiatives are working:
  • Carbon capture and storage at Boundary Dam 3: This is critical to Premier Brad Wall because the $1.6-billion CCS expenditure has offset accusations that the Wall government is doing nothing to fight climate change.
However, we learned this week SaskPower had shelled out $1.2 million in penalties in the first seven months of the 2016-17 fiscal year to Calgary-based Cenovus Energy (which, coincidentally, has been the Saskatchewan Party’s biggest political donor) for Boundary dam’s failure to provide enough CO2.
Previously, the Sask. Party government shelled out $7.3 million to Cenovus in 2015-16 and $12 million in 2014-15 — a grand total of $20.5 million paid to an out-of-province company that is supposed to be paying us.
Admittedly, SaskPower is still predicting a $15-million profit from CCS this year, but that Boundary Dam CCS is still working below 60 per cent of capacity isn’t all that impressive.
Moreover, the entire CCS debate is now bogged down over whether it is truly the cutting edge technology that China is clamouring for as it brings more coal-fired plants online, or whether China and the rest of world already see CCS as outdated technology and are moving on to greener power options.
  • Liquor store privatization: News that Carrot River Valley MLA Fred Bradshaw had a minor share in one successful local hotel bid or even that a former Sask. Party government executive assistant was a key player in another bid have been minor hiccups in what still seems a relatively popular overall initiative.
One bigger snag, however, is out-of-province Sobeys Inc. got the best private store locations instead of local businesses like Co-op stores under Federated Co-op’s umbrella.
Peruse Wall’s Twitter feed and one will find plenty of hashtags promoting buying local this Christmas. But ask his government about the successful Sobeys bids — eight stores expected to do $72 million in annual sales compared with 14 local Federated Co-op-affiliated stores that are only expected to do $19 million in annual sales — and you are told that Sobeys’ bids were far superior.
Well, Sobeys has pulled its grocery business out of Moose Jaw and Yorkton (although the government granted it liquor store franchises in both cities) and is undergoing a serious downturn in its operations. According to its second-quarter results, profits slumped to $33.1-million or 12 cents a share from $68.5-million, and total sales were also down to $5.9-billion from $6.1-billion.
It’s forcing “renewed focus on our business transformation efforts” and significant efforts “to reduce costs and complexity throughout our organization,” François Vimard, interim chief executive officer of Empire Co. Ltd., Sobeys’ parent company, said in a news release.
Profitable Saskatchewan liquor stores may give Sobeys a boost, but what do we get out of this?
  • Global Transportation Hub: Rumours abound that the government would love to see Sobeys take up GTH space (which would explain why Sobeys did much better on the liquor store bids than the Co-ops).
But on top of the highly troubling purchase of 204 acres for $103,000 an acre that produced a substantial profit for friends and business associates of former economy minister Bill Boyd and the Sask. Party, there remain question about the GTH business model.
It is occupied by too many Crown corporation tenants (including SaskPower, which plopped down $25 million to buy so-far-undeveloped property just before the GTH’s $21-million purchase of the 204 acres).
But maybe a more burning question is the long-term sustainability of Regina’s inland port without private sector anchors. Its model is at least partly based on unclaimed port containers making their way this far inland, but new block chain technology that better monitors the flow of these containers may eliminate this part of the GTH business.
So what’s been almost lost in the GTH land purchase fiasco is that this government-backed entity is struggling to be viable.
All in all, this is bad news by even the government’s own standards.
Mandryk is the political columnist for the Regina Leader-Post.  


The carbon capture business never felt like something any government should get involved with.

I am also curious what would happen if the carbon dioxide escaped?

Then there are the costs to the business. Carbon capture and storage at Boundary Dam 3 seems to have increased the cost of electricity to consumers in Saskatchewan.


SaskPower is asking for two rate increases this year — five per cent this summer and another five per cent in January.

SaskPower bills to increase again

President of SaskWind James Glennie says a report from Canada's parliamentary budget office shows carbon capture technology will double the price of power generated from the project.

Glennie says SaskPower's wholesale cost of power is about $60 per megawatt hour. The report pegs the cost of removing carbon dioxide through carbon capture at Boundary Dam Unit 3 at about the same price.

"So essentially what the report is saying is if you, obviously, add on $60 a megawatt hour for carbon capture that is effectively doubling the wholesale price of power," Glennie said.

*****
So citizens are paying more for the carbon capture business and then there are payments to Cenovus on top of these increased electricity costs? So how on Earth does any government justify this project to citizens? Where is the cost benefit analysis?

I thought Alberta was badly run but I realize now that Saskatchewan might be even worse than Alberta in terms of poor governance.

But no worries, we're about to be fleeced by the NDP folks we hired to replace the incompetent Tories. We're going to be paying more for no reason other than to greenwash the oil and gas industry with a dumb carbon tax and wind farms that would not otherwise happen without our P3 subsidies.
Whatever happened to the government staying out of business? Is that not supposed to be the plank in the Sask party platform? It looks to me like they are involved right up to their necks.
Like neo-conservatives everywhere. Helping the few at the expense of the many!
Unlike · Reply · 6 · Dec 17, 2016 5:42pm
And yet, the blind-to-the-truth followers still love bankruptcy brad and his band of merry crooks. So are you all going to blame the NDP when they finally get elected to clean up the mess AGAIN???
Sorry to let y'all know but the NDP in Alberta aren't cleaning up anything. They are now the new PCs. But of course you won't believe this until you hire the NDP folks.
It's best to realize that all political parties are the same. They don't work for us. They work for themselves and their political donors.
Citizens are only significant in order to get re-elected. Straight after election we can be forgotten until the next election. At least this is the way it is in Alberta.
Like · Reply · 10 mins
Had Team Wall ONLY modeled their governance after neoliberalism by co-constituting a PROVINCIAL econonomic model with an International/Globalist (out-of-province) one then "things" might of worked out better. But all three of these mega-projects not including that Smart-Fire-Meter fiasco are focused on International Globalist Finance. Big Government dollaras going to Big Out-Of-Province COmpanies. With little to almost nothing going to Local Rural/Urban Economies. It's as if that CRASH of 2008 never happenned in Saskatchewan and now wqe are going to go full on TRANSFORMATIONAL REFORM towards which other Planetary life forms other than Earthlings? Meanwhile any opposition to Team Brad's Economics has refused to offer up any other alternative Economic life-form which actually lives in this Province.
It's time to, Co-Constitute a Rural/Urban Northern/Southern Economy into Economies (Plural) which work independently as well as in tandem with this current one which isn't doing every-day people who live here in Saskatchewan any damn good.

No comments:

Post a Comment