Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
The Pathways Alliance’s proposed carbon capture and storage megaproject has not begun construction or even received approval, and yet its business model is already collapsing, according to a global think tank.
In a study published Thursday, the international Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found the $16.5-billion project to pipe carbon dioxide captured from 13 oilsands sites in northern Alberta to an underground storage site south of Cold Lake, using 600 kilometres pipelines, is facing spiralling cost challenges with limited revenue. Together, the factors are conspiring to threaten the project’s profitability — and therefore, its ability to go ahead.
“Most businesses, when you have an increase in costs, you can increase your revenue to offset that,” said Mark Kalegha, an energy finance analyst with IEEFA, in an interview with Canada’s National Observer. “But if your revenue can't move, and you can't control your costs, the picture becomes clear that this is not a good investment.”
The business model of a carbon sequestration project is essentially this: companies capture and store carbon dioxide, earn credits for doing so, sell the credits to others, and generate revenue. The revenue is used to recoup construction costs, pay for the energy used to capture and transport carbon dioxide, monitor the storage site and more. Whatever is left over is profit.
According to IEEFA, the Pathways Alliance, whose members include Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil, MEG Energy and ConocoPhillips Canada, which collectively represent 95 per cent of oilsands production, is facing increasing operating costs, the same problem experienced with other carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. Since 2016, Shell’s Quest project has seen operating costs grow 118 per cent. Similarly, Wolf Midstream’s Alberta Carbon Trunk Link has had costs balloon more than 60 per cent since 2020.
“If operating costs rise at currently observed industry rates for the life of the [Pathways] project, then total cost per tonne of CO2 at the proposed facility would balloon to levels that make breakeven or profitability highly improbable,” the study found.
A CCS project can only be profitable if it can earn credits for less than the price on carbon, and then pocket the difference. But in Canada, there is effectively a ceiling of $170 per tonne on how much a carbon credit could be sold for. That’s because the federal carbon price is scheduled to rise to $170 per tonne in 2030, and paying the carbon price is a company’s alternative to reducing emissions.
Think of it this way: with a carbon price in place, a company has two options. It either cuts its emissions to lower its costs or it pays the carbon price. Buying carbon credits is one way a company could reduce its emissions. So a company would only be interested in purchasing carbon credits if they cost less than the carbon price, because if they cost more it would make better financial sense to just pay the price on carbon.
That means a carbon capture business, like any business, is incentivized to push its costs down as much as possible. If a company could capture a tonne of CO2 for $50, it could sell for $100 on the market and would likely find buyers because that’s cheaper than paying the full $170 carbon price.
And there’s competition on the way, further undermining the Pathways business case. Alberta has shortlisted several facilities to capture up to 56 million tonnes of CO2 by decade’s end. That means up to 56 million carbon credits could flood the market and push cost per credit down even farther.
If Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives form government and scrap the carbon price as promised, the Pathways Alliance project would be even less likely to be built because the carbon price is the backbone to a carbon market. Without an incentive to reduce emissions, there’s little reason to build a business model around selling carbon credits.
“If there's a penalty for pollution…, you have to purchase these credits in order to compensate for your pollution,” said Kalegha. “If you don't have to buy carbon credits in the market, then what then is the value? There's no revenue for these CCS projects.”
It’s not just Pathways staring at the writing on the wall. Last year, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, whose company boasts of capturing 40 per cent of all anthropogenic CO2 ever captured, told investors on a shareholder call it’s a steep challenge to reduce costs, and there is still no workable business model for the industry.
An unprofitable carbon capture project will not provide lasting benefit for communities because they will be unable to create sustainable job opportunities or lasting infrastructure development. Rather, communities could end up saddled with environmental risks with no long-term benefit, IEEFA warns.
The project “is probably going to lose money without subsidies,” Kalegha said. “That's the only way this becomes viable is if there are external subsidies to plug in this gap.”
The Pathways Alliance claims the project is critical to their ability to cut emissions and has aggressively lobbied for government subsidies to help build it.
The federal government is offering a 50 per cent tax credit the Pathways Alliance members could use to slash approximately $5.7 billion from the project’s total cost, while Alberta’s carbon capture incentive program offers grants expected to cost Albertans between $3.2 billion and $5.3 billion.
But according to an alliance official, the federal government is still not offering enough. At a senate committee meeting in May, Mark Cameron, Pathways Alliance vice-president and former senior advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said the group is looking to recover at least two-thirds of its costs.
Offering to cover 50 per cent of carbon capture costs “doesn’t stack up to what the U.S., the U.K., and Norway have,” Cameron said. “In those jurisdictions, there are more generous financial incentives for carbon capture.”
Kalegha said the fact the Pathways Alliance members, who are already cash rich, are reluctant to invest their own money in the project is evidence they're aware this is not a viable business model. Subsidies would be required to bridge the revenue shortfall, he said.
“Taking a cue from the TMX [Trans Mountain pipeline expansion] debacle, care must be taken that subsidies … do not become open-ended commitments that effectively hook taxpayers into footing the bill for massive cost overruns,” the study found. “If anyone, the primary emitters should bear the financial burden and take the risk for pollution prevention and remediation initiatives.”
Carbon capture projects come with significant risks to the environment and climate too. According to the IEEFA analysis, industry claims it can capture 95 per cent or more of its carbon dioxide, but projects have failed to achieve those targets in practice.
On top of that, carbon capture can only address some of the emissions from extracting, transporting and refining fossil fuels, but is irrelevant to the majority of emissions from oil and gas that occur when the fuel is burned, like in the engine of a car. That means global emissions can still increase even with a successful carbon capture industry.
As previously reported by Canada’s National Observer, the Alberta Energy Regulator will not subject the Pathways project to an environmental assessment, as requested by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and a coalition of environmental organizations.
Denying a full assessment is concerning to environmental advocates, Indigenous leaders, and health experts because when CO2 pipelines fail, they can fail catastrophically.
In recent years, the most alarming example of a CO2 pipeline failure occurred in 2020 when a rupture happened in the small town of Satartia, Miss., causing a mass poisoning that hospitalized about 50 people. When the pipeline burst, a massive cloud of concentrated carbon dioxide exploded into the air, but because CO2 is heavier than air, it didn’t dissipate. Instead, it settled into a thick fog rolling through the community, displacing oxygen and dropping people to the ground as they struggled to breathe.
Comments
"Together, the factors are conspiring to threaten the project’s profitability …"
Why should O&G companies hope or expect to make a profit on pollution-controls like carbon capture and storage (CCS)? Why should O&G companies depend on a financial incentive to reduce emissions?
Do coal-fired power plants expect to make money on installing scrubbers. The only financial incentive for installing them is to avoid fines for exceeding regulatory limits and breaking the law.
Curbing emissions is a business expense.
Pollution control, clean-up, reclamation — all standard business expenses. The costs of doing business. "Polluter pay", remember?
Profits = revenues – costs.
If companies and industries cannot recover their costs from their customers, such businesses are unviable and should be allowed to fail.
Do O&G companies expect to make a return on well clean-up and reclamation? Do oilsands companies expect to make a return on oilsands clean-up and reclamation?
As IEEFA says:
“If anyone, the primary emitters should bear the financial burden and take the risk for pollution prevention and remediation initiatives.”
Why is this even a question?
The second issue, of course, is public liability for industry's costs.
Why should taxpayers pay even a cent for pollution control, clean-up, and reclamation?
Maybe we should pay for Suncor's pencils, paper, and photocopying too? Does poor CEO Rich Kruger need a new private jet?
When a construction company takes a load to the dump, the company pays for it. It passes its waste disposal costs onto its customers. The company is not entitled to pass on its costs to government and taxpayers. That is not what taxes are for. Free market, remember?
I run a business. Government does not pay for my supplies. Government does not pay for my advertising, my projects, my construction costs, or my waste disposal. Nor do I expect it to.
Did it never occur to oilsands companies that they should set funds aside from windfall profits and use them to cover business expenses? Save for a rainy day?
Why should taxpayers give uberwealthy O&G companies a nickel?
Staggering sense of entitlement.
Privatize the profits, socialize the costs. The fossil fuel industry's business model.
A brilliant inversion.
How did we get here?
"The project 'is probably going to lose money without subsidies. That's the only way this becomes viable is if there are external subsidies to plug in this gap.'"
By any definition of free-market economics, a project dependent on subsidies is unviable and should not proceed. And, if it proceeds, it should be allowed to fail.
Funnelling public dollars from government coffers and taxpayers' pockets to the largely foreign shareholders of Canada's O&G industry. Voodoo economics.
Say no to corporate welfare.
"Offering to cover 50 per cent of carbon capture costs 'doesn’t stack up to what the U.S., the U.K., and Norway have.'"
The global O&G industry has perpetuated its CCS scam on governments around the world.
If other governments fall for this scam, Canada's should too.
If other nations jump off the bridge, Canada should too.
So much for that logic.
In Canada, the largely corporate-sponsored Pembina Institute has long supported both carbon capture in Canada's O&G sector and massive public subsidies to fund it. ENGOs universally reject CCS. Over four hundred scientists and academics signed an open letter in January 2022 advising against federal support for carbon capture (CCS) in the O&G sector.
Pembina's participation in the O&G industry's deceptions and delay tactics is unfathomable. Why is the Pembina Institute so keen on this taxpayer-funded CCS charade when its own reports cast doubt on its effectiveness in the oilsands?
The Pembina Institute's perennial promotion of oxymoronic "responsible oilsands development" should be a red flag.
"According to the IEEFA analysis, industry claims it can capture 95 per cent or more of its carbon dioxide"
As the Pembina Institute notes, in the oilsands sector "most CO2 is emitted in low concentration streams, and the efforts to capture it will be challenging and expensive." Where CO2 sources are small or diffuse, e.g., in the oilsands apart from upgraders, CCS is not economical or practical.
The IPCC ranks CCS as one of the least-effective, most-expensive climate change mitigation options.
The Alberta Govt recently advised Ottawa that carbon capture (CCS) cannot be counted on to meet emission targets:
"Alberta's formal response to Ottawa's proposal says … oilsands production has already risen above the forecasts that were used to establish the proposed 100-megatonne limit and that the technology needed to bring emissions down enough doesn't yet exist."(Calgary Herald, 05-Feb-24)
Energy ecologist Vaclav Smil: "Mark my words, there'll be no massive sequestration of carbon. There hasn't been any, and there'll not be any next year, or 2025, or 2030."
American Petroleum Institute: "Some estimates suggest that the amount of infrastructure necessary to perform geologic storage on a meaningful level is equivalent to the existing worldwide infrastructure associated with current oil and gas production."
Great questions and points, Geoffrey. Obviously politics has been bought out by private money in more than one jurisdiction. Perhaps the easiest course of action would be to start ignoring the fossil industry's pleadings for subsidies and let it stand on its own feet, while upholding pollution regulations. Industry is not blind, though it often pretends to be when it comes to the rise of cheaper renewables now multiplying in its export markets. Meanwhile, greater investments can be made in renewables and energy efficiency while couching it in terms of creating jobs.
Thank you, GP, for yet another poignant response/rebuttal.
Mind you, it is depressing to see your valuable summaries of reality, only to have to live with irresponsible ‘behaviours’ in government and industry – decade after decade, with no relief in sight. Wish you were in a highly responsible position in a highly responsible government, which we haven’t had in several decades or more.