Mr. Mark Tushingham (Senior Engineering Advisor, Department of the Environment) at the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee

I have a small deck.

I'm Mark Tushingham. I'm with the oil, gas, and alternative energy division of Environment Canada.

Our deck goes over some of the positives and negatives of carbon capture and storage.

Carbon capture and storage is a very promising technology to reduce CO₂ emissions, particularly in western Canada, where there are favourable geological formations for storage. The storage potential will be more than 20 megatonnes per year in a decade or so, and the long-term potential is huge for this technology.

CO₂ capture and storage reduces the net CO₂ emissions by more than 80%. CO₂ at a plant does go up because of increased energy requirements of the capture and storage system, but the increased CO₂ is then captured.

Carbon capture and storage is likely the only way many facilities can significantly reduce their CO₂ emissions. Storage sites, however, need to be monitored for decades to ensure no CO₂ leakage.

There are some negative environmental implications of carbon capture and storage, but they can be managed. The extra energy needed to capture, transport, and store the CO₂ will cause emissions of other pollutants, such as nitrous oxides and sulphur dioxide. The International Panel on Climate Change found that the capture systems would result in increased emissions. They looked at particularly advanced, fairly low-emitting power plants and found an 11% to 31% increase in NOx and up to an 18% increase in SO₂ unless SO₂-removal equipment was installed, which is required by some capture technologies to work.

These emission increases are still well below the emissions from typical coal-fired plants found in Canada. These increased emissions can be managed through the installation of various emission control technologies and appropriate practices.

Under the clean air regulatory agenda, sectoral emission caps are being established for both nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide for key industrial sectors, including those in the oil and gas sector and the electricity sector, which are two sectors liable to use CCS.

There is a remote health risk, if there is a rapid leak of CO₂; however, this can be carefully managed with the appropriate selection of storage site and through thorough monitoring.

There are also land disturbance issues regarding CO₂ pipelines. These will be managed through environmental assessment processes.

CO₂ storage in the open ocean was once considered; however, there are significant issues around the threat to ocean life. Amendments to the London Protocol on Ocean Dumping allow parties to issue permits for geological storage only; that is, not in the column water or on the ocean floor. This is not to be confused with storage of CO₂ in sub-sea geological formations. Amendments to the London Protocol allowed this option, but there are issues that remain to be settled internationally. These include the long-term monitoring of leaks, defining the purity of the CO₂ stream, export for disposal when it crosses international boundaries, and the liability issue. Storage in the sub-sea geological formation might be a possibility for facilities in Atlantic Canada.

Thank you.