They applaud the province for it's leadership in this area and thank them very much for the millions of dollars we will reap from this project.

Well, don't worry taxpayer... our government will have a return on this study on your backs..the carbon tax! Oh the irony....hehe..

How about a feasibility study about less taxes?

Very interesting. So we now pay the industry that is causing the majority of the greenhouse gases to clean up their problem. No doubt they will increase the price of natural gas just a bit, to help fund their green initiative :)

They should be doing this themselves.

hmmm..this sounds a bit strange?
If there is anyone out there that understands the science of this specific plant's out put of each of the components? ie %H2S and the percent of carbon dioxide.
Please tell me what is actually at work here?
Isn't the H2S converted to sulphur or the lions share of it?
Hmmmm..isn't this sulphur transported by rail from this plant to Vancouver like it is in Chetwynd?
Hmmm...whats up with this? Did the market for sulphur just fall through the floor?
Is this a taxpayer injection because the rail will likely stop because of mill closures--and then the economics of trucking sulphur are screwed?
SO...the real question is how to keep the natural gas plant going when there is no economical way to dispose of the sulphur.
No thats probably not the real question either as natural gas is very viable and this giant company is not hurting for money...hmmm?
If CN hasn't got a reason to operate a low tonnage line and they present this "economic" forced closure to the government---the government has the choice to subsidize the railway or subsidize the companies which rely on the railway--don't they? It makes me unneasy that everything points to taxpayors money going to a corporation rather than critical infrastructure.
There has just got to be something wrong here.I could be wrong about all this--but just like the rotten egg H2S gas, something here smells very bad.

Scam, shell game, emporer's new clothes.
Just another swindle by G. Campbell et al.

Governments at all levels and in most developed countries regularly give R&D grants to companies which are engaged in cutting edge research and development projects. It is an investment in the future.

It has absolutely nothing to do with any swindle of any kind.

You don't want companies in Canada to get any R&D grants?

O.k., then just don't complain when all the latest methods and technologies have to be imported from down south or overseas.

diplomat it appears that the dominoes are lining up against your theory. I do support R&D but R&D usually is funded by the companies themselves with govt grants given to our post secondary institutions.
I would have to disagree with you this time. It is more tax money being flushed down out of the economy and into a shareholders pocket, instead of back into infrastructure and the general labour force.

If this story occured say 20yrs ago, then I would support you. But too many things suggest otherwise.

Forgot to add, it would have been better to see this money directed at the mining industry the govt is so desparately trying to woo. Very odd happenings in BC. Carbon neutral? blah blah blah. They took seedlings away from a viable business too...just doesn't add up in my mind. I share similar sentiments as woodchipper...makes me dizzy trying to keep up with Gordo's New Era.

Folks this carbon chase is has turned into a big money making scam. Lets see everything in Gore's hollywood movie has been discounted. The earth has been cooling for the last ten years. 31,000 scientists have signed a petition against man caused global warming. Man caused CO2 only amounts to .28% of total CO2. Think of the O in CO2, that is oxygen and not such a wise idea to bury it. So who are the government hacks getting this money? This whole global warming thing is unraveling so here come the desparate attempts to get on the gravy train before the money pile dries up.

Tinyapplecork. If you think that Canada's custom of letting companies fund their own R&D and giving government grants to post secondary institutions is not putting Canada at a disadvantage - so be it.

If Spectra Energy Transmission decides to do business as usual and not pursue carbon capture will the government shut down its operations?

Is carbon capture mandatory or optional? If it is optional then new R&D is required to achieve it. If R&D proves that it can be successfully done the new technology which has been developed by the funding will be an asset for the future and perhaps even patentable and exportable.

The EU has set a target of cutting its carbon emissions in half by 2050. Every country there gives government funding for the required R&D to achieve this goal.

I suspect that Canada will eventually help them paying for it by buying their new technology from them at a very expensive premium because we will have been sitting on our hands while they were advancing.

definitly corporate welfare, more reason to start withholding your tax payment!

Diplomat in response to your post:
"Tinyapplecork. If you think that Canada's custom of letting companies fund their own R&D and giving government grants to post secondary institutions is not putting Canada at a disadvantage - so be it."

Nowhere in my comments do I see where you draw this conclusion. I do not appreciate others putting words in my mouth! I am quite capable of voicing my own thoughts thank you very much.

To be absolutely clear, so you understand me diplomat, I was merely pointing out that the doling of R&D grants by govt to the SCIENTIFIC AND RESEARCH community is severely lacking at present. This community I refer to is generally our universities. In the past, R&D grants were also given to companies who were sponsoring cutting edge technology as you previously stated. So yes in the PAST I would have no debate about a whopping 3.4Million dollar FEASIBILITY STUDY. However, this is NOT R&D as it is defined nor widely accepted as what research and development is generally understood to be.

Now this money is of course wonderful news for Spectra. I doubt anyone needs to worry about Spectra shutting down without this "donation" of our hard earned tax dollar.
I contend that if in fact it IS GENUINE R&D then all the scientists supposedly yelling about global warming (a scientifically proven fallacy) would be all over this project lining up for R&D funds from the provincial coffers!

I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth and apologize if it looked that way! Don't scientists get R&D funds from governments? If not, who gets funding?

The story: "The Province is contributing $3.4 million to a feasibility project on Carbon capture and storage in northeast B.C. that will cost an estimated $12.1 million."

Spectra gets $3.4 million.

Who gets the rest of the money, do you know?

The story: "The Province is providing Spectra Energy Transmission with $3.4 million for carbon capture and storage *research and development* (my emphasis) at the Fort Nelson gas processing plant."

"However, this is NOT R&D as it is defined nor widely accepted as what research and development is generally understood to be."

If it is not really R&D then the story should not have identified it as such.

R&D is a good thing when it is directed to common good solutions. I even support public money being spent on R&D which is provided to industries or companies that put this to good use and for everyones best interests.
The problem my suspicious mind is having is that it seems this is not really what is at work here. Again I say I might be wrong about this--but where is the science behind this?
Even if we buy into a questionable benefit of trapping carbon which might or might not be a substantial benefit, the next question is why is hydrogen sulphide also included?
My original post was to find the answer of what is going to happen to the production of sulphur if and when the rail closes?
It would not be permitted to be burnt as this would send thousands of tons of sulphur into the air--creating a serious acid rain problem. This dilemma is whos dilemma exactly? Are we being told that there is genuine environmental justification when it really amounts to an economic solution for the company while we do not subsidize our railway--whoops CN railway?
Is this more about a convenient excuse to help a corporate friends bottom line while presenting to a naieve public that BC is a stellar supporter of environmental investments? The premier and his party might be getting a brass trophy which cost us 3.4 million dollars when it should have really looked at maintaining critical infrastructure instead.
I ask these "green-blind" wizards in government which divested our BCR to CN if they have ever considered the environmental benefits of rail over trucking? The fuel requirements, the emissions created in tonnes/km shipped and that the taxpayor constructs/maintains roads for free use of transporting our natural resources. If a railway has to compete with trucking--which it does, then why is it considered fine to provide trucks free roads and not contribute to rail line costs?
If my suspicions are correct, we will be subsidizing the storage of H2S rather than the railway which the WHOLE ECONOMY DEPENDS.

How much research and development money does it take to cut down trees?

Good questions, all of them. According to today's paper this carbon sequestration method has been used by the company on a smaller scale for quite some time.

If the premier travels to some Asian countries like Mike Harcourt did, for instance and offered those companies a plot of Vancouver industrial land for free, free infrastructure (rail, power, sewers, water) and a seven year tax holiday - who were his corporate friends?

Just a question. I am not condoning freebies from any party to anybody, but in this case the comment was made that a swindle is being perpetrated. That is exactly what I am trying to find out too.

Does a university lab and its scientists have access to a two kilometer deep shaft and to beneath a layer of impervious rock where the carbon (and sulfur dioxide) can be deposited and then the effects studied?

Apparently the company does. My previous questions asking if the carbon sequestration is optional or (now) mandatory has been ignored so far. If it is not required by law then the company probably deserves to be compensated for any expenses it incurs while it is venturing into a much larger project at the request of the government.

Your question about the sulfur is a good one. Is it more economical to deposit the carbon and sulfur together at the same time or is there some other benefit or necessity that we are unaware of?

Rail lines should be required to be electrified to get away from the burning of diesel fossil fuels. Let's see if CN will be legislated soon into doing that.

I wouldn't be surprised if CN would get some substantial subsidies to do it.

The question of whether carbon sequestration is mandatory or not is I believe a no answer. The answer I do know is that high volume burning of H2S will not be permitted as it has not been permitted at this scale for many years. Remember the acid rain issues of the late 70s. This gas plant was on the front cover of mcleans magazine during that time as one of the highest (top 10) emmitters of sulphur pollution in Canada.
The sulphur was then forced to be extracted from the process and recovered as a byproduct--thus saving the acid rain problem. I don't doubt that producing gas is much more the profitable part of this business than making sulphur--but isn't it part of the deal? If you look at this from this perspective it looks like we are subsidizing a lucrative industry far more than we are funding a real and justified scientific based green means to dispose of carbon. doesn't it? I welcome someone to explain to me how this works and hope I am wrong.

wow..thank you diplomat! I wasn't seeking a formal public apology. Apology accepted, although it really wasn't necessary :)

It seems that we are all in agreement that there are many unanswered questions.

(PS.I do agree that Canada could and should do more to fund science and technology. As to the how? Well, I need more info before offering an opinion on that. The current fundings just seem odd to me too.)

If I bury a whole bunch of old pencils can I get a cheque for "carbon sequestration"?