Made-in-Alberta solution would cost oil, natural gas industry $700-million over 8 years
The Government of Alberta committed to reduce methane emissions by 45 per cent. Industry created competitive plan to achieve this in the most efficient way while protecting 7,000 jobs and balance environmental and economic priorities, according to an analysis conducted by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).
The Alberta Energy Regulator is currently drafting requirements that deal with methane emissions. A recent Markham On Energy column explains the pros and cons of prescriptive, carbon levy, or industry lead methane reduction.
“Canada is already leading in front of the United States on methane reductions – and with smart action can protect the environment and jobs for Albertans,” said Tim McMillan, president and CEO.
The Alberta government and the oil and natural gas industry must work collaboratively to reduce methane emissions by 45 per cent by 2025 from 2014 levels according to the analysis, by:
- Creating an approach that stimulates the use of innovation and technology;
- Recognizing early action on methane reductions by the oil and natural gas industry;
- Establishing risk-based cost-effective methods aimed at decreasing venting and detecting leaks faster;
- Adopting a continuous improvement approach at new operating sites; and
- Leveraging a fleet average approach to achieve reduction targets.
This made-in-Alberta solution would cost the oil and natural gas industry $700-million over 8 years, but would result in the most competitive approach.
It will prevent the cumulative loss of nearly 7,000 jobs from a prescriptive approach, see $710 million in capital reinvested in Alberta’s economy and boost our gross domestic product by $2.5 billion.
“Any approach to methane reduction will have impacts and won’t be easy but we owe it to our employees and communities to find the most efficient model that will limit the impact on jobs and the economy,” said McMillan.
This flexible approach will achieve the emissions reduction target, prevent inefficiencies in its application and minimize the impact on Alberta’s economy.
As a tax specifically applied to the energy sector we find that $125/tonne of benefit in CO2 equivalent reduction.
If Manitoba believes their cost for tax is $25/tonne and Ontario March is $13.17 tonne CO2, why does the energy sector assigned a tax in regulation well out of proportion?
Cost of programs must be tested for reason