I have no idea whether it’s been studied sufficiently, but the author of the article you shared seems to think it can be effective if that step is taken.
I also can’t say whether the site was studied sufficiently, but the timelines talked about in the article combined with bill C-15 allowing ministers to exempt entities from environmental laws if they are pursuing something deemed as encouraging economic growth pushes me well beyond the point where I’m willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt.
the most optimistic proponents of carbon storage argue that it’s a means of mitigating the effects of heavy industry, not of making a meaningful difference in other ways. But they seem to think those mitigating effects can be important, and maybe even necessary?
Maybe, but unfortunately the reality is that:
nearly all CCS projects in the U.S. are actually enhanced-recovery projects that keep the oil and gas flowing, and every new barrel of oil and cubic foot of gas sold and burned is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. So not only do these kinds of projects not help, but they perpetuate our use of fossil fuels at a critical moment in history when we need to do the opposite.
Which is also why O&G advocates like Danielle Smith support it.
I also can’t say whether the site was studied sufficiently, but the timelines talked about in the article combined with bill C-15 allowing ministers to except entities from environmental laws if they are pursuing something to be deemed as encouraging economic growth pushes me well beyond the point where I’m willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt.
Fair enough - the article you linked described the study of Yucca Mountain as a storage for nuclear waste as having taken about 20 years, whereas as near as I can tell, they started exploratory drilling in Cold Lake in 2022. That’s…less than 20 years, no doubt about it.
nearly all CCS projects in the U.S. are actually enhanced-recovery projects that keep the oil and gas flowing
This is undoubtedly the case for his project, as well. Even the most optimistic viewpoint seems to be that it would make the effects of continued drilling and export of oil “less bad,” and do nothing to actually stop climate change.
I also can’t say whether the site was studied sufficiently, but the timelines talked about in the article combined with bill C-15 allowing ministers to exempt entities from environmental laws if they are pursuing something deemed as encouraging economic growth pushes me well beyond the point where I’m willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe, but unfortunately the reality is that:
Which is also why O&G advocates like Danielle Smith support it.
Fair enough - the article you linked described the study of Yucca Mountain as a storage for nuclear waste as having taken about 20 years, whereas as near as I can tell, they started exploratory drilling in Cold Lake in 2022. That’s…less than 20 years, no doubt about it.
This is undoubtedly the case for his project, as well. Even the most optimistic viewpoint seems to be that it would make the effects of continued drilling and export of oil “less bad,” and do nothing to actually stop climate change.