Longannet carbon capture and storage project is no more

October 22, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

There is jubilation and rejoicing over the shut-down of the U.K.’s white elephant of a carbon capture and storage project at Longannet, Scotland.  Shell was one of the parties developing that project.  The project was shut down, because it is too expensive.  Of course, without massive subsidization through tax- and utility-rates no one in their right mind would have expected a profitable rate of return on capital investment.  Read more about it.

There is a comparably-sized CCS project in the planning and engineering stages in Alberta, Canada, Shell Quest CCS project that is supposed to capture CO2 from the Shell Scotford oilsands upgrader, pipe it to Thorhild and blow it down Mother Earth’s derriere through a number of boreholes there, to have it “safely” stored forever, thousands of feet below the surface.

There are CCS projects that use CO2 injection into oil-bearing strata to boost the production of crude oil in oil fields that approach the limits of production by conventional methods.  No one ever made the slightest pretense that the CCS project at Longannet, nor the Shell’s Quest CCS project at Scotford, Alberta, ever were to provide a return on capital investment.  Both projects are manifestations of the politicians’ mania of obsessing with using CCS projects as thermostats with which to regulate what cannot practically be regulated, namely global CO2 contents in the air and thereby our climate trends.

The CO2 that is supposed to be sequestered is a beneficial atmospheric trace gas, a natural fertilizer that increases the productivity of the biosphere and agriculture.  U.K. politicians have come to their senses and put an end to their squandering of more than a billion dollars on a folly that cannot possibly have more than a minuscule, unmeasurable impact on climate trends, while at best the role of CO2 on those trends has not yet been substantiated.  Meanwhile, Canada’s politicians still want to carry on with their obsessing.

About three percent of global, annual CO2 emissions are man-made, 97 percent of CO2 emissions are from natural sources that are not affected in the least by such CCS projects.  The CCS projects that are slated to be put into operation are expensive, and their costs will be born by consumers of electricity and other forms of energy, whose rates will be jacked up considerably to pay for the folly of trying to do the impossible.

Shell’s Quest project at Scotford, Alberta, will be funded mainly by Alberta taxpayers (about $800 million).  Federal tax revenues will provide about $200 million, and Shell will contribute roughly $150 million, which costs will without a doubt be recovered through the price for oil that will be produced and sold by the Scotford upgrader.  Also without a doubt, Shell’s Quest CCS project will generate wealth for Shell (mark-up on oil prices), for the provincial and federal governments (through taxes that are called royalties), while the taxpayers and the consumers of energy will be left holding the bill.  The consumers and taxpayers never turn out to be the winners in these games.

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Taxes, Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

Four fatal pieces of evidence that disprove man-made global warming

September 22, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Dr David Evans: Four fatal pieces of evidence (disproving the anthropogenic global warming nonsense)

Dr David Evans lays out four crucial pieces of evidence, and calls for a debate with Prof Andrew Pitman. But the evidence is so unarguably strong for skeptics, we know that the name-calling-team-who-want-our-money will do anything to avoid a public debate. If the evidence is “overwhelming” why are they so unwilling to explain it?  — Jo Nova

(Full Story )

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Taxes, Propaganda debunked, Corruption & Fraud | Print | No Comments »

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 »

Handbook for Seniors

January 13, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Today I had sent off an inquiry to Leon Benoit, MP (Conservative) for Vegreville-Wainwright, about a URL for the Handbook for Seniors.

In the meantime, I looked for it on the Internet a bit more, and guess what, I found it, in the most logical place for it, on Leon Benoit’s website.  The reason why Internet searches for the Handbook provided no results is most likely that the Handbook had just today been published on Leon Benoit’s website, which is somewhat surprising, given that the document was created and last modified 19/11/2010 6:52:57 AM.

I suppose that my suggestion today to have the Handbook available on-line and that it was posted just today on Leon Benoit’s website is a mere coincidence, however improbable that may be.

Here is the URL for the Handbook for Seniors:

http://www.leonbenoit.ca/media/20110113_Benoit_Seniors%20Handbook%20FINAL.PDF

I downloaded a copy of the handbook (4MB) and will copy it to the PC at the Seniors Club.

Unfortunately, although the Handbook does have an index, the index is not linked, so that it is not a simple matter to go to a specific chapter, section or page. Still, it is possible to navigate to any desired location in the handbook through,

1. Scrolling to the desired page, or through
2. Copying text from the index, pasting it into the PDF search feature and searching for it, after which one just has to click on the instances listed in the search-return list.

That is better than nothing, and one should not expect our governments to weave miracles or even to be practical.  I guess that a linked index for a large PDF file is simply too much to ask for.

The good thing about the Handbook is that even though it contains a large volume of government propaganda, all of the links shown in the document appear to be functional and permit accessing the locations identified.  That even applies to the e-mail addresses shown for the MLAs whose constituencies overlap with that of Leon Benoit, but it stops there.  If you wish to find an e-mail address for any government agency, you will have to go to the website of that agency to be able to obtain it.

To become fully familiar with all of the information contained in the Handbook will most likely require a very large amount of time, probably more time than even retired seniors can or care to devote to that task.  However overwhelming the large volume of information in the Handbook may be, on balance it may be useful, provided one has enough patience to wade through it all, and provided one is willing to spend the time required to separate the wheat from the chaff.

For instance, if one is looking for information on “Tax Savings for Seniors and Pensioners”, it is somewhat difficult to determine how taxes can be saved by anyone, considering that one had to go through a susbtantial amount of information like:

HOW THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT HAS HELPED SENIORS
TAX RELIEF AND MONETARY SAVINGS FOR SENIORS

Our Conservative Government has introduced landmark changes to ease
the tax burden on Canadian seniors since 2006 providing nearly $2
billion annually in tax relief to seniors and pensioners, including:
• Increased the age credit twice, in 2006 and again in 2009, by $1,000
each time, which provides additional tax savings to 2.2 million
seniors
• Provided a one-time 25% reduction in minimum Registered
Retirement Income Fund for 2008
• Budget 2007 increased the age limit for maturing pensions and
RRSPs from 69 to 71
• The Tax Fairness Plan introduced pension income splitting for the
2007 and subsequent tax years

and-so-on…

Highlighting of text in the Handbook, for copying, is difficult and very error-prone, so that it will not be easy to pass information on or to extract just desired portions, deleting extraneous information that is of no use other than to promote good feelings about all the good work that was done on behalf of seniors without actually identifying anything of interest to anyone at the moment.

Most likely, if anyone wishes to point out information in the Handbook that may be of interest to others, it may be most efficient to print out a given page and to highlight the information on it that may be of use.

The considerable amount of time I have spent on the Handbook so far has not helped to enable me to determine what sort of information in the Handbook for Seniors can actually be of use to any seniors (except perhaps things like that immersing a burn in cool water is better than to smear butter on it), although there is no doubt in my mind that I have come across a very large amount of information that stresses that having the conservative government around has been the best thing for seniors since sliced bread was invented, which, given how we were taken for a ride by the Liberals, may well be true.

Nevertheless, I have not been able to find anything that helps seniors with escalating prices for gas, food, energy, taxes and rent, but I suppose that as long as any yuppy is willing to pay ten dollars for a liter of water, gasoline at a dollar a liter should be considered a bargain.  That may as well extend to $1.50 a liter for milk and the price we pay for bread.

However, the words gasoline, bread or milk show up not once in the handbook, while energy is being mentioned in passing — in connection with a questionnaire on the benefits of healthy living.  I guess that milk, bread and other foodstuffs are not as important in that respect as feeling energetic is, even though no healthy living is possible without affordable prices for heating one’s home and for the food one needs to keep alive.

I wish I could afford to do so, and if I could, I would offer prizes for the first three seniors who can demonstrate to me that having the Handbook for Seniors around has actually helped them solve a problem.  However, rest assured that if you are a senior, the handbook will be good for you, because on the last of the 68 pages of the document it states:

Final Thoughts

This Handbook for Seniors is meant to provide an overview of local and national topics relevant to seniors and retirees in the constituency of Vegreville - Wainwright.

Although I have not been able to determine anything that is obviously relevant to seniors in the Handbook, upon much further searching I will without a doubt become more enlightened on that apparent omission.  Still, it seems to me that the one obvious advantage that could have been offered by the Handbook, namely being a concise directory of government services for seniors, has been substantially diluted with overwhelming portions of propaganda that account for the vast majority of the information contained in the 68 pages of the document.

Yes, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for seniors to live well or even only in comfort, but having the Handbook for Seniors around will do a lot to make seniors feel good about that.  See, it is only a matter of mind over matter, and it did not take me 68 pages to state that.

–Walter

Posted in Taxes, Health issues, Bruderheim Seniors | Print | No Comments »

A summary of the history of global-warming alarmism

December 11, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

The Washington Times

6:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Global warming ideology still on top
The science has crumbled, but too much money backs the scare

By Tom Harris and Bryan Leyland

….Republican climate skeptics have taken control of the U.S. House of Representatives, thereby killing any chance of federal “cap-and-trade” legislation for now. Republican congressional leaders also have vowed to use every trick in the book to block Environmental Protection Agency carbon-dioxide (CO2) regulations scheduled to start on Jan. 2. And, not surprisingly, the United Nations’ 2010 Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico, is failing, with Mother Nature helping to dampen warming fears as an early winter sets in across the Northern Hemisphere.

Some commentators tell us that this is the beginning of the end of the climate scare. More likely, it is just the end of the beginning….

Aside from President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, not a single prominent world leader contests the hypothesis that humanity’s CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming. The fact that the basic science behind the scare is crumbling appears to have no impact on these groups….(Full Story)

Posted in Deficits and Debts, The New World Order, Taxes, Corruption & Fraud, Climate Change, Community & Industry | Print | No Comments »

The abdication of the West — the sting at Cancun

December 9, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

BREAKING NEWS!

The abdication of the West — the sting at Cancun

It did seem too quiet at Cancun.

The power hungry tyrants learnt from Copenhagen. They realized that they have a far better chance of success by underselling the expectations and sliding in long impenetrable documents in front of underling bureaucrats. Due to the importance of this I have reproduced Christopher Monckton’s words in full as reported at SPPI (see below).

The UN wants nothing less than 1.5% of our GDP.

That’s $212 billion from the USA every year ($2700 per family of 4).

That’s $32 billion from the UK every year ($2000 per family of 4).

That’s $13 billion from Australia every year ($2400 per family of 4).

Figures calculated from the CIA world Factbook

The Secretariat will have the power not merely to invite nation states to perform their obligations under the climate-change Convention, but to compel them to do so. Nation states are to be ordered to collect, compile and submit vast quantities of information, in a manner and form to be specified by the secretariat and its growing army of subsidiary bodies.

Please send this message on and email politicians. Australian elected representatives are listed here. Once this is quietly established, how will any single nation back out even if it’s citizen vote to do so (other than the US with the military might to match the UN?)

If you would prefer to spend that money on other things. Now is the time to protest. The more money they get, the harder they are to stop.

–  Joanne Nova

The abdication of the West

December 9th, 2010

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

From the SPPI Blog

Cancun, Mexico

I usually add some gentle humor to these reports. Not today. Read this and weep. Notwithstanding the carefully-orchestrated propaganda to the effect that nothing much will be decided at the UN climate conference here in Cancun, the decisions to be made here this week signal nothing less than the abdication of the West. The governing class in what was once proudly known as the Free World is silently, casually letting go of liberty, prosperity, and even democracy itself. No one in the mainstream media will tell you this, not so much because they do not see as because they do not bl**dy care….

Full story at Joanne Nova’s blog

Posted in The New World Order, Taxes, Propaganda debunked, Corruption & Fraud, 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 »

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 »

IPCC Climate “Science” — Damaged Trust

August 31, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

rationaloptimist.com

Reform the IPCC for the sake of science

By Matt Riddley, 2010 08 31

From today’s Times, my op-ed piece.

This month, after a three-year investigation, Harvard University suspended a prominent professor of psychology for scandalously overinterpreting videos of monkey behaviour. The incident has sent shock waves through science because it suggests that a body of data is unreliable. The professor, Marc Hauser, is now a pariah in his own field and his papers have been withdrawn. But the implications for society are not great — no policy had been based on his research.

Yesterday, after a four-month review, a committee of scientists concluded that the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has “assigned high confidence to statements for which there is very little evidence”, has failed to enforce its own guidelines, has been guilty of too little transparency, has ignored critical review comments and has had no policies on conflict of interest”.

Enormous and expensive policy changes have been based on the flawed work of these scientists. Yet there is apparently to be no investigation, blame, suspension or withdrawal of papers, just a gentle bureaucratic fattening of the organisation with new full-time posts….(Full Story)

________________
For another view of the IAC audit of IPCC processes and reporting quality, have a look at this:

Independent Audit Panel Slams U.N.’s Climate Group, by Jeremy A. Kaplan, 2010 08 30, Fox News

Posted in Taxes, Propaganda debunked, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »

A shamble of global temperature data

August 3, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Guelph
Guelph Ontario Canada
July 26, 2010

This is a preliminary version of a report to be published in fall 2010 by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (http://thegwpf.org/) London, UK.

Comments and corrections are welcome: please send them to rmckitri@uoguelph.ca.

A PDF file (1.17 MB) of the preview of the report is accessible here.

For anyone wondering why a professor of economics gets involved in environmental issues, purported climate change trends result in policy decisions that will ultimately cost, globally, trillions of dollars and will make or break not only the economies of nations but the world economy itself.

Ross McKitrick is well qualified to write his current report on the state of the quality of the global surface temperature record and to state his well-founded concerns about the lack of confidence-inspiring quality of that record, expressed in his report, namely that,

The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications. [Last paragraph on page 4 of the report]

Indirectly but inexorably (through vastly rising taxes and living costs), we all are users of the temperature data of unacceptable quality that is being used to justify policy decisions to address problems that quite likely are not man-made and quite likely by far not as severe as they are made out to be.

The policy decisions based on temperature trends derived from temperature data of demonstrated questionable quality will cost us as Canadians hundreds of billions of dollars and will have serious, negative impacts on our quality of life and standard of living.

We should all join in wishing Professor McKitrick the best of success in making policy makers around the world pay close attention to his well-founded concerns.

Once more, read the PDF file (1.17 MB) of the preview of Ross Mckitrick’s report.

Posted in Taxes, Propaganda debunked, Climate Change | Print | No Comments »