Protecting the Public Interest-The Evolution of Sulphur Recovery and Solution Gas Conservation in Alberta
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Alberta has used two different approaches in developing new requirements for sulphur recovery and for managing solution gas flaring in Alberta. Both processes have used multi-stakeholder input and have demonstrated measurable success. The new sulphur recovery guidelines include clear requirements with both an incentive and enforcement component. The policy developed for solution gas management combines a voluntary approach with a regulatory backstop. The involvement of diverse stakeholders contributed to the success of using novel approaches to find solutions. Introduction As the petroleum industry and concerns with development evolve, a regulator cannot expect to regulate in the same manner as it always has. Even the approach taken for developing regulatory requirements must grow and adapt. In this paper, two examples are explored where a regulator employed different approaches for developing requirements which are in place today and working successively. These novel approaches have resulted in measurable successes, including a 70% reduction in solution gas flaring and a 30% reduction in sulphur emissions from larger, older sour gas plants. Details are provided on the resulting requirements and the paths taken to get there. Key elements that contributed to the successes are highlighted. The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) is a government agency charged with regulating the oil and gas industry in Alberta. In doing so, it must protect the public interest as it relates to the discovery, development, and delivery of oil and gas resources. Regulation is needed so that non-renewable resources are produced in a responsible, efficient, and fiscally sound manner. History of Sulphur Recovery Requirements in Alberta Currently, Alberta has approximately 50 sulphur recovery gas plants producing about 15,000 tonnes of sulphur per day. The average sulphur recovery efficiency for these plants in 2004 was 99.0% Sulphur recovery guidelines in Alberta were set for all plants in 1971. At that time, requirements were in place for recoveries that the technology of that time could not yet achieve. Industry rose to the challenge, drove research, and developed the technology required to meet the new requirements, which became more stringent during a number of upgrades through the 1970s and 1980s. Revisions to the requirements dating from 1988 grandfathered existing facilities unless significant new gas was added. In 2001, the sulphur recovery guidelines were revised to provide clarity regarding when upgrading of grandfathered plants (plants not meeting the requirements of new plants) was required as a means to improve regulatory certainty, consistency, and fairness in interpretation. Consultation that preceded Alberta's current sulphur recovery requirements included a discussion paper issued to solicit broad input, plus recommendations from a multi-stakeholder advisory group consisting of the public, environmental organizations, industry, and academic stakeholders. This group advised the EUB in several areas, one of the most difficult being when the requirements for new plants should be applied to grandfathered plants. The advice of this group formed the basis for the current requirements. Current Requirements The requirements set out in August 2001 in EUB Interim Directive 2001–03 have three components that contribute to their success:
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».