Weyburn, Saskatchewan: Land fizzing like soda pop

January 14, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

There have been warnings before this, but as the article identified farther down shows, Saskatchewan now, too, finds that CO2 injected underground leaks to the surface, but why should anyone be surprised?  Blowing CO2 down Mother Earth’s derriere is not a good idea.

In the case of the Shell CCS Project in Alberta, it is not even done to increase oil production.  Shell will do it for no other reason than to use up money (a billion dollars of taxpayer money) to alleviate superstitious hype and hysteria.  Shell intends to do it in Alberta so as to appease bureaucratic pressure fueled by political expediency.  Not only that, but Shell’s “solution” is a condition for receiving the operating permit for their Scottford Upgrader Project.  Shell would surely not bother with their CCS Project if they would not be pressured into it.  Still, why not?  It is the taxpayers who will be paying the lion’s share of the cost.  That is “free” money, isn’t it?

The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION

Land fizzing like soda pop: farmer says CO2 injected underground is leaking

By: Bob Weber and Jennifer Graham, The Canadian Press

Posted: 01/11/2011 10:22 AM

A Saskatchewan farm couple whose land lies over the world’s largest carbon capture and storage project says greenhouse gases seeping from the soil are killing animals and sending groundwater foaming to the surface like shaken soda pop.

The gases were supposed to have been injected permanently underground.

Cameron and Jane Kerr own nine quarter-sections of land above the Weyburn oilfield in eastern Saskatchewan. They released a consultant’s report Tuesday that links high concentrations of carbon dioxide in their soil to 6,000 tonnes of the gas injected underground every day by energy giant Cenovus (TSX:CVE) in an attempt to enhance oil recovery and fight climate change….(Full Story)

A couple of the comments provided by readers of the article identify that CO2 is an essential plant food and that the Earth is currently in a CO2 dearth, which is correct, as plant growth will shut down when the atmospheric CO2 level drops to 150 ppm or less.  However, the vast majority of the comments are not confidence-inspiring and indicate an astounding lack knowledge about the role of CO2 in the environment.

Lack of knowledge is of course the reason why the proponents of environmental alarmism can get away with pulling the wool over people’s eyes.

Thanks to wattsupwiththat.com for the tip on this article.  If you wish to gain a realistic understanding of what is involved, don’t bother reading the reader comments at the Winnipeg Free Press, but read instead the comments at wattsupwiththat.com.  See for instance this exchange at wattsupwiththat.com:

R. Gates says:

January 11, 2011 at 11:08 am

I’m skeptical that CO2 could kill any animals as the effect would be logarithmic and would amount to very little effect even at high concentrations. I would look toward solar or ocean influences…it’s natural variation.

REPLY: You also aren’t very good at looking beyond your nose:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/quote-of-the-week-36-carbon-sequestrations-fatal-flaw/

CO2 is of course heavier than air, the gravel pit [in Weyburn] makes a perfect trap for small animals and unsuspecting humans.

Read up on Lake Nyos and Lake Kivu. Note the pictures of the dead animals here.

Then tell us again how CO2 in high concentrations leaking out of the ground aren’t a problem. CO2 bubbling out of the ground from any source, be it natural or sequestered, will find any low spots on the surface, and any living things in that low spot have the potential to be killed by asphyxiation. Even something as simple as making wine can kill you if you allow the CO2 to collect around you. It only takes 8% air concentration to kill you in about 10 minutes. See this hazmat source.

However, I predict you’ll try to save face and come up with some lame excuse as to why your version of “no worries” is right and we are wrong to be concerned.

-Anthony

It will without a doubt be interesting to watch for what will happen next, but it seems to me that Richard Courtney, a frequent commenter at wattsupwiththat.com, has a good idea on what to do about cheap and practical CO2 disposal if that should ever be necessary.  In the meantime, until the necessity for that arises, if it ever does, why not just release CO2 into the air? After all, it does wonders for increasing agricultural productivity, the greening of the Earth and solving world hunger. We would save a lot of money that way, and no one would have to worry about anyone getting killed by it.

 

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Taxes, Propaganda debunked, Community & Industry, Pollution: Health Issues | Print | No Comments »

Earth’s atmosphere not like a greenhouse

January 7, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Thanks to Climate Realists:

Canada Free Press
2011 01 06

Blinds on the greenhouse window create cooling. Clouds are nature’s blinds

Greenhouse Effect; Everybody Talks About It But Few Know What It Is

By Dr. Tim Ball

It is amazing how people have very strong opinions about ideas and terms they don’t understand. Greenhouse effect is one of these and lack of understanding about it is exploited to dictate global energy and economic policies at great and unnecessary expense.

They claim the Earth’s atmosphere is like a greenhouse. It isn’t. Most don’t know how ‘official’ greenhouse science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim it works. Some think it’s the same as global warming because they associate greenhouses, which some call hothouses, with high temperature….(Full Story)

_______________
Dr. Tim Ball’s explanation of the “greenhouse effect” illustrates that fears of it are overblown, based on superstitions, that the”science” of global warming is a misrepresentation and at best not settled.  The conclusion is unavoidable that projects like Shell’s CCS Project near Bruderheim serve no practical purpose other than that they are expensive appeasements of climate-alarmism cultists designed to defraud the taxpayers for the sake of political expediency.

Posted in Climate Craziness, Shell CCS Project, Propaganda debunked, Corruption & Fraud, Community & Industry | Print | No Comments »

Global-warming alarmism is a cult

January 7, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Thanks to Climate Realists:

Right Side News
2011 01 06

It’s Time to Bow to the Flying Global Warming Monster

By Daniel Greenfield

…Global Warming is not science, it’s six-tenths greed and four-tenths ideological fanaticism angled against the unlimited potential of humanity. Some will grow rich off it. Most will be impoverished. Like most cults only a privileged few are allowed at the top….

(Full Story)

Posted in Climate Craziness, Shell CCS Project, Propaganda debunked | Print | No Comments »

Energy from Thorium

January 2, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Energy from Thorium — A website and discussion forum devoted to the discussion of thorium as a future energy resource, and the machine to extract that energy–the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor.

This is about liquid-fluoride thorium reactors, a means of producing nuclear energy without weapons proliferation, producing it in an inherently safe manner, from fuel that is fairly abundant and cheap, without having to worry about long-term radioactive waste-disposal and -storage, at a cost per MWh that is an estimated 30 to 40 percent lower than that of energy produced from conventional nuclear sources, which would make it far cheaper than energy produced from coal.

All of which makes it more attractive than any other method of energy production on a small to large scale. More on the principles involved: Thorium and the Liquid-Fluoride Reactor: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Imagine what could be done to develop world-wide, secure energy production if the $1.2 billion slated for the useless Shell CCS Project were to be injected instead into development efforts for Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor technology.  This is not something totally new, but it is an issue that is being ignored in favor of wild-goose chases like trying to to the impossible, using CO2 as as a thermostat to regulate the global climate.   Take for example this article:

The Telegraph, 29 Aug 2010

Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium

If Barack Obama were to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project, he might reasonably hope to reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years….(Full Story)

The article in The Telegraph is only one of the latest in a long line of such articles during the past couple of years or so.  Still, why would anyone expect the U.S. to take the lead on developing a secure energy future?  The headline for the article could just as well read: “Canada or the U.K. could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium,” or perhaps it should read “China”.

Is it “Big Oil” that calls the shots on this? Who knows?  Someone surely is putting on the brakes.

Nevertheless, the media are given to hype, and there is no conceivable good reason why Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology would kill fossil fuels overnight.  Cars, trucks, trains and airplanes still have to operate as always, and no one will be able to put an LFTR into everyone’s trunk or into every airplane (although one in every container ship or tanker is a distinct possibility).  Still, what would be wrong with coal-to-liquid-fuel conversion at a cost of $30 a barrel for synthetic crude, using cheap energy produced by a local LFTR that won’t even require an upgrade of the capacity of the transmission-line network to bring the electric energy to the point of crude production?

Would it be wrong to develop Canada’s lead in LFTR technology?  Why not?  We have plenty of thorium and, unlike uranium, more than we can ever use up.

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Energy Issues, Alternative Energy Sources | Print | No Comments »

Topple the “carbon” fraud

December 23, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Carbon Sense *

20th December 2010

Time to Topple the Pyramid of Frauds

By Viv Forbes

One of the fastest growing industries in the world is based on a pyramid of frauds and its inevitable collapse will be worse than the sub-prime crash.

The Global Warming Industry is now fed by billions of dollars from western taxpayers and consumers. It is based on the unproven and now discredited claim that man’s production of carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming.

The basic fraud is this:

There is no evidence that carbon dioxide controls world temperature – just a theory and the manipulated results from a handful of giant computer models that very few people have checked or understand….

…those who waste millions on projects designed to prove the feasibility of burying carbon dioxide are committing a fraud on taxpayers and shareholders. There are no benefits of burying atmospheric plant food from any source. With zero benefits and huge costs CCS can never be “economic” and it is fraudulent to pretend it can ever be otherwise….

Full Story  (70kB PDF file — Printer-friendly, includes links to information sources)

____________
* “Carbon Sense” is a newsletter produced by the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational and sustainable use of carbon energy and carbon food.

Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.

For more information visit our web site at www.carbon-sense.com

Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed.

Viv Forbes MS 23, Rosewood Qld 4340 Australia. info@carbon-sense.com
07 5464 0533

A printer-friendly PDF (70kB) of this newsletter is accessible here:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/pyramid-of-frauds.pdf

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Alarmist Insanity, Corruption & Fraud, Alternative Energy Sources, Community & Industry | Print | No Comments »

Challenging Climate Orthodoxy at Cancun UN Conference

November 27, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Anyone who thinks that we cannot do without Shell’s CCS Project in the Fort Saskatchewan - Bruderheim area needs to read the following and monitor what will develop from it.  It is necessary to do that to prevent wasting more than a billion dollars on a project that will have absolutely no benefits for people or the planet.

From wattsupwiththat.com:

Dr. Roy Spencer & Lord Christopher Monckton to Challenge Climate Orthodoxy at Cancun UN Conference

Posted on November 27, 2010 by Anthony Watts

I wonder if the “Climate Science Rapid Response Team” is going?

From PR Newswire Available for Radio and All Media

CANCUN, Mexico, Nov. 24, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — CFACT, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, will feature two prominent experts on climate science and policy at COP 16, the UN conference on climate change which convenes next week in Cancun.

Continue reading →

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

Why should I believe you?

November 22, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

It was a few years ago, when I said that the media don’t always tell the truth, and that even the evening news on TV are often used to tell falsehoods, either by distorting the truth, putting the wrong spin on things or by not reporting some things at all, and someone commented: “Why should I believe you, when professionals tell me something that is quite different from what you tell me?”

Well, it seems that a good answer to that is not that easy to come by; but is that true?

I have not ever knowingly tried to pull  a fast one on people by deliberately telling a lie in anything I told on this blog or anything else I presented as the truth on the Internet.  Still, why should anyone believe me?

The answer to that is that no one needs to believe me or believe anything I state, but if they don’t believe me, why should they believe anyone else who is making an effort to tell them anything? The truth is out there, and, thanks to the Internet, the truth about anything is as accessible as are lies about it.  All that is necessary is to be able to tell the truth from lies that are intentional or unintentional.  The difference is often easy to tell.

Let’s take the truth with respect to what is being told in Richard Lindzen’s testimony to the US Congress about global warming hype and hysteria and compare it to what some parties like Shell, the Canadian federal government and the Alberta provincial government want us to do.  That is, buy in and pay for, at a billion dollars and more a shot,  to allegedly alleviate the consequences of global warming through Shell’s CCS project that is proposed to be constructed in Alberta’s Industrial Heartland, north-east of Fort Saskatchewan and north of Bruderheim.

Richard Lindzen, one of the foremost climatologists in the world, said in concluding his testimony to the US Congress, Nov. 17, 2010, that,

You now have some idea of why I think that there won’t be much warming due to CO2, and without significant global warming, it is impossible to tie catastrophes to such warming. Even with significant warming it would have been extremely difficult to make this connection.

Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age.

Richard Lindzen provided the following information on slides 11, 12, and 13 of his presentation to the US Congress:

(Click on each image to see it in full resolution.)

Will anyone in their right mind truly believe that the range of temperature trends for global average temperatures (the area covered by the red line in the preceding image) compared to local measurement for Boston (or anywhere else for that matter) will be impacted in any measurable fashion by what is contemplated through Shell’s CCS Project?  After all, the width of the red line would at best be reduced by no more than an infinitesimally tiny fraction of 4 percent of the width of the red line.

Mind you, Richard Lindzen uses well-mannered language in his presentations.  Instead of using words like “anyone in their right mind”, he uses words such as these: “Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.” (Emphasis as in the original on page 4 of the full PDF file of Richard Lindzen’s testimony to the US Congress)

Whether one says “anyone in their right mind” or that the claims of global-warming alarmism are based on ’settled science’ is “offensive to any sentient individual,” makes little difference.  Someone who is right in his mind is a sentient individual, and the facts are the same.  Cries of climate alarmism and all attempts to use “Carbon Capture and Storage” as a thermostat for regulating global temperature trends are bunk.

______________
By the way, besides Richard Lindzen, there were other prominent authorities who set straight the facts at the US Congress Hearing on Global Warming:

Watch: The House Hearing on Global Warming today

Posted on November 17, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Taxes, Censorship, Shell CCS Project, Alarmist Insanity, Corruption & Fraud, Community & Industry, Climate Change, Health issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

Killed climate change bill flawed: Harper

November 18, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Defeating legislation passed by House unprecedented, opposition parties say
Last Updated: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 | 4:53 PM ET
CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has defended Tory senators who voted down a climate change bill ahead of an upcoming United Nations meeting on the issue in Mexico.

Harper, in responding to a query from NDP Leader Jack Layton in question period Wednesday in Ottawa, said Conservatives have been consistent and clear in their opposition to Bill C-311, which the prime minister called “a completely irresponsible bill.”….(Full Story)

That is an interesting development.  I wonder what the financial impact of that will be on Shell’s CCS Project.  From what Shell told me at their Bruderheim open house (Nov. 3, 2010), at which they promoted public awareness and acceptance of their proposed CCS Project, the contributions by the federal and provincial governments are supposed to be $150 million and $700 million, respectively, with an additional 20 percent of the overall price tag to come from funding by Shell.

A few hundred million here, a few hundred million there, and soon we are talking about real money — all of which is no skin off  the backs of either the governments or of Shell, as it will be the end consumers and taxpayers who will shell out the money for the Shell CCS Project, even though CCS will not have the slightest impact on global climate trends.

CO2 comprises 390 parts per million of our atmosphere (0.0039%). All man-made contributions of CO2 in the world amount to about 4 percent of total atmospheric CO2 content (0.000156% of total atmospheric CO2).  Canada’s contributions amount to a very tiny fraction of that.  The amount of CO2 that would be sequestered by Shell’s CCS Project would be an even much tinier fraction of that, at a price of more than a billion dollars.  The effect of that on global climate trends cannot ever be measured and would be exactly what?

I had asked Shell about that at their Bruderheim open house (Nov. 3, 2010).  They could not tell me then, and I am still waiting for their answer.   I expected no better and am not disappointed, even though common sense would demand that a corporation spending more than a billion dollars of the people’s money to do good would be able to tell the world how much good they will do at that price.  However, this is not about common sense.  It is propaganda, very expensive propaganda.

It is a good thing that Stephen Harper and the Canadian Conservative Party put an end to the waste.  Let’s hope that the provincial government will do the same, but that would be taking a page out of the book by the Wild Rose Party, and that would never do, unless the voters wake up and do something about it, right?

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Climate Change, Community & Industry, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

CCS can have impacts on freshwater aquifers

November 18, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Potential Impacts of Leakage from Deep CO₂ Geosequestration on Overlying Freshwater Aquifers

Mark G. Little*^† and Robert B. Jackson^†‡

Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, United States, and Nicholas School of the Environment and Biology Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0338, United States

Environ. Sci. Technol., Article ASAP

DOI: 10.1021/es102235w
Publication Date (Web): October 26, 2010

Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society

* Corresponding author phone: (919)681-7180; fax: (919)660-7425; e-mail: 6r4h@post.harvard.edu., † Center on Global Change., ‡ Nicholas School of the Environment and Biology Department.

Quoted from the abstract:

Carbon Capture and Storage may use deep saline aquifers for CO₂ sequestration, but small CO₂ leakage could pose a risk to overlying fresh groundwater….(Full Story and links to study report and supporting information)

(Thanks to Anthony Watts at wattsupwiththat.com)

The study report is behind a pay wall.  The cost of accessing the report is $30 for 48 hours — more than I can afford to pay.

The Shell CCS Project (CCS meaning Carbon Capture and Storage or, correctly, CO2 Capture and Storage or Sequestration) in the area NE from Fort Saskatchewan, with a CO2 pipeline proposed to run north of Bruderheim, crossing the North Saskatchewan River and then running to the vicinity of Thorhild, where the CO2 is to be injected at a depth of about 2,400 m underground, will inject the CO2 into deep layers of porous rock that may border on saline aquifers into which the injected CO2 may and quite possibly will expand.

The study by Mark G. Little and Robert B. Jackson from Duke University identified that when CO2 was bubbled for more than 300 days through core samples from injection sites, “CO₂ caused concentrations of the alkali and alkaline earths and manganese, cobalt, nickel, and iron to increase by more than 2 orders of magnitude.”  That means  increases in concentrations a hundred-fold and more.

The study furthermore showed, “Potentially dangerous uranium and barium increased throughout the entire experiment in some samples.”

However, although some of that is bad news, the study also identified that “Manganese, iron, calcium, and pH could be used as geochemical markers of a CO₂ leak, as their concentrations increase within 2 weeks of exposure to CO₂.”

From reading Shell’s information that has been provided to me as of now, I neither recall that Shell’s CCS Project (also known by the creative name “Quest”) will employ such markers nor what action will be taken by Shell if a CO2 leak occurs underground at their CO2 injection sites.  That does not mean that Shell does not have contingency plans for possible CO2 leaks into overlying fresh groundwater.

Shell could well have contingency plans for possible underground CO2 leaks, but from the information provided at their Bruderheim open house (Nov. 3, 2010) it appears that Shell relies on the assumption that the CO2 they propose to inject will not move to the surface for at least a thousand years.

It is comforting to know that if nothing goes wrong with the premises of Shell’s CCS Project,  the residents who draw their drinking water out of the wells in the large area into which the injected CO2 will expand will be safe for at least for an estimated 1000 years.

Mind you, if something does go wrong, then all bets are off, and there is no telling as to what steps may  need to be taken to alleviate the impact of increases of mineral and metal concentrations in drinking water to objectionable and dangerous levels.

Have a look at what a CO2-driven water geyser looks like.  Here is more information on how the Chaffin Ranch Geyser came to be.

Posted in Health issues, Shell CCS Project, Climate Change, Community & Industry, Heavy-Metal Poisoning & Pollution, Pollution: Health Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

No price too high for appeasing climate alarmists

November 6, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Friends, neighbours, offspring,

Yesterday I had a bit of a problem with this blog and the associated website.  In retrospect, it is laughable and embarrassing that it occurred, but I won’t bore you with the details, other than that, while I was busy writing about what follows in this posting,  I copied and pasted the piece a number of times in trying to fix the problem I had been trying to cope with.  Every time I did that, I also thought of a better title for the piece.  The last two candidates I rejected in favor of the one I chose were these.

Constructing the global thermostat, a billion dollars a project

Blowing CO2 up Mother Earth’s derriere

If you can think of a better one, let me know, but it’s too late for this posting.  Large newspapers have headline writers who do that sort of thing for a living.

A few concerns emerged through correspondence from Shell, through a phone call from Integrity Land Inc. and through the discussions I had with Shell personnel I met at Shell’s open house in Bruderheim, Nov. 3, 2010, in connection with their proposed CO2 project and pipe line.

Although in my case I have grave concerns about lost-opportunity-costs due to land-use restrictions (which restrictions will also affect all other land owners near the proposed CO2 pipe line), my concerns are not just my own but apply to all land owners whose properties are located on or near the CO2 pipe line.  Furthermore, I have concerns about the lack of wisdom driving the project.  It is a make-work project with non-existent, at best questionable benefits that will not ever justify the expense of the project.

Shell’s CO2 project will not even come remotely close to paying back what the taxpayers must pay into it: at the very least close to a billion dollars, about $270 for every man, woman and child in Alberta — and that is just for the first billion dollars in expenditures for such useless catering to people who well know that their intentions are futile., and I don’t mean the poor people at Shell who for all intents and purposes are being forced to construct “their” CO2 capture and storage project  (they did not tell me that, but that is the way it is).  The project is a waste of good money, the taxpayers’ money.

Regulating atmospheric CO2 content is not possible.  Attempts at controlling man-made CO2 emissions will not affect total atmospheric CO2 contents by one Iota.  It is not possible to construct such a project and to see it put to use as a thermostat that will regulate the global climate.  After all, man-made CO2 contributions comprise no more than 4 percent of total atmospheric CO2, a trace gas.  The other 96 percent of atmospheric CO2 result from natural processes over whom mankind has not the slightest control.  Besides, CO2 is a vital life-giving gas without which no life as we know it would exist on Earth.

We must find ways to stop insanities like this that amount to nothing more than expensive sacrifices by taxpayers to political expediency through catering to alarmist hype and hysteria.

Together, and with the help of others who cannot or don’t want to shell out useless environmental head-taxes of $270 a shot, we will be able to do it.

The following will explain some of the details of what it is all about.

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:	CO2 pipe line: concerns
Date:	Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:58:02 -0600
From:	Walter H. Schneider
To:	Ian Silk [at Shell]
CC:	Margit Phillips[at Shell]

Hello Ian,

It was a pleasure meeting you at Shell’s Nov. 3, 2010 Bruderheim open house, where I had promised to send you a copy of a letter, dated October 18, 2010, that had been send by Shell to me.  (Copy appended; two files, one each for page 1 & 2 of the letter).

Obviously I did not remember key issues correctly when I told you about the letter at the open house, such as the changes in pipe diameter and operating pressure.  It is good that I was wrong.  That will simplify things, but I still have grave concerns.

As I had mentioned, someone from Integrity Land called the other day (I believe it was Ken, on Nov. 1st or 2nd) to tell us on Shell’s behalf that the letter we had received had been sent in error and should not have been sent.

Looking now at the letter again, I wonder whether it truly had been sent in error and whether it is Integrity Land or Shell that is a bit mistaken.  Of course, if the contents of the letter that was allegedly sent in error that I hold now in my hands contains erroneous information, I may not need to worry about much, but I wonder.

I will explain what I conclude on the face of the evidence.

Shell envisions that my land at NW2-57-20-W4 will be encroached by an Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) that extends to a distance of 450m from your proposed CO2 pipe line.  That is an encroachment which does not presently exist but will occur if your proposed CO2 pipe line goes into operation.

It is not clear from either that letter or from the information I observed at the open house with respect to the proposed CO2 pipe line right-of-way, how wide the EPZ will be, that is, whether the proposed CO2 pipe line will run along the centre-line of a 450m EPZ or whether the EPZ will extend 450m in either direction from the proposed CO2 pipe line.  I would appreciate having you provide a map that will clear that up and show whether and which portions of my land at NW2-57-20-W4 will be affected by the EPZ.  That should remove or confirm all of our doubts relating to that.

When Integrity Land called, they told me that I should not have received the letter, and the caller apologized on Shell’s behalf for the fact that I did.  Shell’s October 18, 2010 letter informs me that Shell understands (sic, implying that Shell does not know with certainty) that I am “located further” (sic, I assume what was meant was “farther”) than 450m from the proposed CO2 pipe line and that I am “no longer located in the EPZ.”  I truly wonder which of those truly confusing contradictions would stand up in court, but there is more.

Logically, I never was and never will be located in the EPZ, given that I reside in Bruderheim and would find myself in the EPZ only if I were to visit or work within it.  However, some of my land would be, and any of its occupants could be, located within the EPZ, contrary to Shell’s assertions that imply that no portion of my land is within 450m of the proposed CO2 pipe line.  After all, If I were to walk 450m in a westerly direction from the location of the proposed CO2 pipeline east from our quarter-section of land, I would find myself on our land and not quite a quarter mile away from the residence located there.

Is that why Integrity Land called me to say that the letter is wrong?  Are portions of my land located within the EPZ?  If so, which portions are they?  A map that shows the EPZ superimposed on my land would make that perfectly clear.  Therefore I request that you provide such a map to me.

Still, it seems to me that I am not the only one who errs now and then.  Shell’s letter dated October 18, 2010 indicates that, “These changes [that is, the reduced outside diameter of 12″], combined with a reduced operating pressure, still being calculated [as you also confirmed at the open house], will also result in a reduced Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of approximately 450m.”  Perhaps the letter should have stated as well that the precise extent of the EPZ cannot be determined until those calculations have been completed.  I expect to be informed by Shell of what the precise extent of the EPZ will be.

I cannot escape the conclusion that portions of my land at NW2-57-20-W4 will be impacted by land-usage restrictions on account of being located within the EPZ.  For example, it may be that nothing is permitted to be constructed on land being put at risk.

Regardless of what the risk would be to any individual who finds himself within the EPZ during a however-unlikely catastrophic failure of the pipe line, land-use restrictions will apply because of the perception of that risk, for which reason the concept of an EPZ exists.  Therefore the term EPZ is a euphemism for the more precise term “activity exclusion zone”.

It is such perceptions that determine the market value of real estate.  The “precautionary principle” (which you so beautifully mentioned in rationalizing the need for Shell’s CO2 project) kicks into action when land transactions take place.  The precautionary principle in this case, regardless of what I personally or any of my descendants may wish for, will materialize in the form of lost-opportunity-costs, through a considerable reduction in the potential sales price for the land of concern.  At land prices that Shell is only too well aware it had to pay in the recent past, the lost-opportunity-costs in the case of our land could easily be in the order of $2 million or more within the foreseeable future.

I had explained that particular concern to you at your November 3rd Bruderheim open house.  You offered to send documentation (in digital form) that will explain in more detail what the specific land-use restrictions in an EPZ are according to applicable legislation.  I look forward to receiving that from you as well.

As things stand, Shell informed me in writing that neither I nor my land will be endangered by Shell’s CO2 pipe line, while I received verbal instructions by one of Shell’s contractors that I should disregard that written statement.  Yet, the facts pertaining to the location of the CO2 pipe line indicate that I must be prepared for  substantial lost-opportunity-costs, while other risk to life, health and property on our land remains undetermined.  I think that Shell needs to do better.  I am not a lawyer, but I know that a lawyer could make a lot out of what Shell informed me off as of now.  It seems like misrepresentation to me.  Shell needs to clarify how things stand.  Am I correct about me being not the only land owner who should be concerned about that compendium of confusion?

Further in our discussions about your proposed CO2 capture and storage project (mislabelled by Shell as “Carbon Capture and Storage Project”, as it is not carbon but CO2 that is involved), I expressed my well-founded concern that Shell’s CCS project, requiring a one-billion-dollar expenditure of taxpayers money, is a wasteful scheme that is not based on settled science.  It is a make-work project that you are being forced to launch to comply with a government-bureaucracy-perceived solution to imaginary problems the perception of which is driven by irrational climate fears, hype and hysteria.

This letter to you is already lengthy enough.  I will therefore continue with addressing that aspect of our discussion through posting at http://lce.folc.ca information that presents rational views and objective facts relating to those irrational fears.

Still, I must add more right now, so as to complete the summary of the impressions I gained at the open house.  My wife and I observed with dismay that some of Shell’s representatives at the Bruderheim open house did not have sufficient scientific education and accreditation to enable them to offer more than unsubstantiated opinions as to the merits of Shell’s CCS project.  They presented what are in essence articles of faith as allegedly indisputable scientific facts.  Most of them had not even any idea that at the most-often visited science blog in the world the latest study reports by prominent climate scientists relating to the role of CO2 in our climate are being presented and discussed.

To the credit of those presenters and upon my insistence, they referred me to someone better qualified to discuss the scientific facts of the impact of CO2 on climate trends.  However, there is no doubt in my mind that many of the visitors to your open houses will fail to perceive such problems and will leave quite satisfied, happy in the knowledge that little tokens like flashlights, plastic shopping bags, memory sticks (containing the slick presentation CCS101.ca — permeated with weasel words), pens and so on (all products from China) are generous gifts, while being totally unaware that they, and only they, will pay the price of an estimated billion dollars (amounting to a cost of at least $270 for every man, woman and child in Alberta for every $ billion so spent) for an enterprise that will do nothing to alleviate an imaginary problem whose science is not settled.  They may as well employ you in the pursuit of a project to lengthen the daylight hours during the winter by having you hire chain-gangs of taxpayers to shovel light into barrels in the summer for release in January.  That at least would be totally safe for the environment and no environmental impact assessment would be required for that, although our government-bureaucrats would probably still insist that one be done for that, too.

It is too bad that our governments cater more to the political expediencies of alarmist climate fears than to the necessities of our lives.  A billion dollars, with more billions to follow, for funding such hare-brained schemes surely would be more appropriately spent in solving a large portion of what is wrong with things that we truly should be spending money on to fix, except that the truly important things that we should do are being neglected on account of government-revenue-shortfalls caused by reckless government-spending.  That needs to be stopped.

Sincerely,

Walter H. Schneider
Bruderheim

P.S. I have a bit of a problem with my regular e-mail account.  Please be so good and respond to walt@folc.ca

Cc: Lamont Leader, some of our descendants, Bruderheim and area residents, http://lce.folc.ca

2 Attachments

— End of quoted letter to Shell —

Friends, if you have come this far with reading about this billion-dollar Alberta CO2 scam, then you may also have some ideas on what to do about it.  I will gladly help with searching for facts, mailing, operating the blog on the Lamont County Environment and such things, but I can no longer be as involved as I was with the opposition to the Hazco Sulphur Project (a project for which we now pay through the nose but on which the bubble is burst, perhaps until someone, about 30 years down the line, begins to blow another bubble).

The interesting aspect of the CO2 capture and storage project is that, although it will do nothing to affect the global climate, once it is in operation, it is estimated that it will add a whopping four percent of nitrogen oxides to the atmospheric nitrogen oxides background levels that already exist in the Fort Saskatchewan area air-shed.

This issue requires someone younger, and I am going the other way.  Please, let me have a bit of rest, just not too much peace and quiet.

Write to me, preferably at http://lce.folc.ca [about this or any other related issue], where others can read what you have to say.  By the way, if I happen to be your father or grandfather, you don’t have to mention it.  Let’s just do what the politicians seems to be incapable of doing, use common sense.

Walter

Posted in Taxes, Deficits and Debts, Shell CCS Project, Propaganda debunked, Alarmist Insanity, Nitrogen-Oxides, Corruption & Fraud, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | 1 Comment »