Alberta's Energy Future in Carbon Capture and Storage: A Comparative Analysis of CCS Legislation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interest in climate change policy by governments is greater than it has ever been before. With two Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) projects set to be in operation in Alberta by 2015, it is a good time to examine and evaluate the legislation that these projects will be operating under. By undertaking a qualitative cross-jurisdictional analysis, this report determines the best practices that exist within the written CCS legislation of other states when compared to Alberta’s law. By examining CCS legislation passed in Wyoming, Kansas, Montana and the States of Victoria and Queensland in Australia an understanding of the positive and negative elements of the written CCS legislation in Alberta is formed. In order to understand where the Albertan legislation fails, the report address three policy problems that currently sit within The Carbon Capture and Storage Amendments Act. These are: 1. Payments into the Post Closure Stewardship Fund 2. Monitoring Measurement and Verification (MMV) Plans 3. Time frames for the transfer of liability The report concludes that Kansas’ coverage of fees is preferable to look at for CCS in Alberta, the State of Victoria has the most comprehensive MMV plans to learn from and, that Montana’s time frames for the transfer of liability will ensure a smoother transition once liability is taken over by the government. Knowledge sharing from other jurisdictions is vital to determine where Alberta’s laws fall flat. In order to ensure that legal coverage for the sequestration of CO2 in Alberta is undertaken properly it is important that the Government of Alberta correct these policy issues in order to ensure a well-functioning legal environment is in place.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".