Friday, March 31, 2017

Calgary Herald 10 hrs · The costs of converting from a carbon-based economy are proving to be significant. #business

The costs of converting from a carbon-based economy are proving to be significant.
#business
The Alberta government plans to borrow more than $2 billion over four years to cover losses from power contracts, despite claims there are cheaper...
CALGARYHERALD.COM
Like
Comment
Comments
Julie Ali Money that could have gone into the continuing care system.
LikeReply6 mins
Joe Buhler As long as the dippers are happy , now where's my damn light bulbs ?
LikeReply39 hrs
Kevin D. Scott Disgraceful. What this money could buy for taxpayers!!!
UnlikeReply12 hrs
Mike Drangsholt I am thinking about becoming a waist of atoms and becoming a socialist.
LikeReply8 hrs
Mike Drangsholt We are so fucked! ( by we I mean anyone willing to work and owe anything)
UnlikeReply18 hrs
Jens Gundermann I wonder what the costs were moving to a carbon based economy? But it was spun as jobs and growth.
UnlikeReply14 hrs
Randal Davidson It is job growth. Green energy is massively labor intensive, requires far more jobs than fossil fuels, and you get less. Makes sence, if you're a dipper.
LikeReply1 hr
Julie Ali What do the NDP care? We are firing them in two years.
LikeReply6 mins
Arlo Haire Lol yup but brad wall doesnt know anything......
LikeReply19 hrs
Julie Ali Brad Wall is no brain trust himself. He wasted a ton of money on the dumb carbon capture and storage business in Saskatchewan. That's all our money down the drain. https://www.saskwind.ca/blog.../2016/11/3/audit-boundary-ccs 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
LikeReplyJust nowEdited
Jason Poirier Lmao drivel
LikeReply19 hrs
Michele Pedersen 2 more years...
LikeReply4 hrs
Julie Ali Yup. And a new group of amateurs in the GOA.
LikeReplyJust now
Jim Phelps NDP incompetent!!!
LikeReply3 hrs

No comments:

Post a Comment