1

OIL SANDS ADVISORY GROUP (OSAG) - RECOMMENDATIONS ON INNOVATION IN THE OIL SANDS SECTOR

December 2017

The following comprises the recommendations from the Oil Sands Advisory Group (OSAG) to the Government of Alberta on innovation as it pertains to the GHG emissions reductions in the oil sands sector. The recommendations provided herein are the second integrated component (the first being the recommendations in connection with the implementation of the Oil Sands Emissions Limit) of the overall set of actions that will be required to effectively implement the Alberta Climate Leadership Plan (ACLP) and achieve the objectives in the plan. The recommendations in this report reflect consensus recommendations supported by all members of OSAG. The OSAG consensus is in relation to the overall package of recommendations on innovation, meaning that consensus may or may not exist with respective to different elements of the package on a stand-alone basis, or if the government chooses to proceed in a manner that is materially different than the substance of these recommendations. That being said, OSAG was challenged by diverse perspectives among its members regarding the manner in which GHG reductions in Alberta will be realized, and the role of oil sands in the transition to a low carbon economy. As specifically noted in Appendices F and G, there is no consensus with respect to these two appendices. The appendices to the report have been provided as background information and context, and are not considered as part of the consensus report. To assist in the development of its recommendations, OSAG established an Innovation Working Group (IWG) in March 2017 (see Appendix A for representatives on the IWG). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Technology and innovation are key enablers in meeting Alberta’s environmental, economic and social imperatives. This report illustrates that the potential opportunity for innovation is very significant, as is the funding requirement. More specifically, the investment of carbon revenues in innovation, together with the overall limit to oil sands GHG emissions, will play a vital role in reducing emissions from oil sands development. OSAG’s work on innovation focused on two broad themes. The first was an assessment of Alberta’s oil sands innovation ecosystem, which is positioned within the broader Alberta innovation ecosystem. The second focused on the allocation of carbon revenue to innovation and the manner in which this funding for innovation should then be allocated to innovation opportunities. In undertaking the review of the oil sands innovation ecosystem, OSAG was mindful that its

2

work must build on prior reviews and existing initiatives. Both informed OSAG’s work and ultimately the recommendations provided in this report. With regard to the assessment of the oil sands innovation ecosystem, OSAG concluded that a culture of innovation in the oil sands must be sustained and supported by the right policies and appropriate levels of funding, engagement of stakeholders in a collaborative environment and clear goals and measures to assess progress toward those goals. Impactful and scalable innovation is most likely to occur within organized and government supported frameworks focused on sectors where Alberta has competitive advantage. The existing oil sands innovation ecosystem compares favorably to global best practice, and the government of Alberta should have confidence in the systems, processes and institutions currently in place in Alberta. That being said, OSAG identified opportunities and provided recommendations in the following areas to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the oil sands innovation ecosystem:

The funding requirements for a healthy innovation ecosystem;

The focus of investment in the innovation ecosystem;

The establishment of a “strategic convener”;

The approach to innovation investment in the oil sands;

Enhancements to the performance management system for innovation; and,

Further work to address innovation separately as it relates to Local and Regional impacts. Further, OSAG suggests that these recommendations be considered by government in consultation with the existing entities within the innovation ecosystem.

OSAG believes the greatest overall benefit to Alberta from investments in greenhouse gas (GHG) innovation will be achieved if all GHG innovation opportunities across the entire economy have an ability to compete for innovation funding within the context of a criteria driven approach, and that the funding envelope for GHG innovation should reflect both the significant GHG reduction potential from innovation and the government’s stated commitment to innovation in the ACLP. Further, OSAG believes the following recommended approach to innovation necessary to achieve the full potential innovation offers in terms of maximizing both GHG emissions reductions and economic growth and diversification within Alberta:

The Government of Alberta should frame a long-term vision for innovation in GHG reductions (the “GHG Innovation Vision), as is currently provided via the key themes of the ACLP and as may evolve over time.

The carbon revenue collected from all large final emitters (LFE’s) should be paid into a GHG innovation Fund and utilized solely for the purpose of innovation directed at reducing GHG emissions in Alberta, as per the definition of innovation provided in this report.

3

Recognizing that renewable energy provides benefit to both the energy sector and the broader public, OSAG recommends one exception to the above, that being the government may elect to reduce the amount of the GHG Innovation Fund by an amount equal to the funds necessary to fund the “contract for difference approach” being utilized to secure the expansion of renewable energy toward the 30 per cent renewable energy target in the ACLP, provided that the reduction to GHG innovation funding will be limited in any given year to an amount equal to the LFE carbon revenue provided from the electricity sector and that all LFE funds generated from the electricity sector and not used to fund the “contract for difference approach” for renewables would remain in the GHG Innovation Fund. (Note: This exception is not intended to establish a broader principle or precedent.)

Any innovation project directed at reducing GHG emissions in Alberta would be able to apply for funding from the GHG Innovation Fund.

Proposals would be objectively analyzed against a set of criteria.

Such objective analysis would be undertaken by an independent agency such as ERA (the “Implementing Agency”).

The objective of the Implementing Agency is to establish, on the basis of the criteria, a portfolio of innovation projects that are aligned with progress toward the longer-term vision for Alberta.

There is a periodic review to determine if the LFE revenue remains the appropriate funding envelope for GHG reduction from innovation (or if it should be increased or decreased).

There is a periodic review of the portfolio of innovation projects and the criteria being used for funding are delivering against the GHG Innovation Vision.

The above is intended only as a summary and further details of the recommended approach are provided in this report in a more extensive and definitive manner. Alberta Climate Leadership Plan (ACLP) First, the vision within the ACLP is that Alberta’s energy industry, including oil sands, is viewed as one of the most environmentally progressive and socially responsible in the world (viewed within context of the environmental, social and economic competitiveness dimensions). Second, the key outcomes of the ACLP insofar as they relate to oil sands are an integrated “package”:

Ensuring the emissions limit is not exceeded;

Maximizing the development potential of oil sands growth within the emissions limit; and,

Incenting technology and innovation that will drive further reductions in emissions intensity.

The following illustrates the interdependence of the key elements of the ACLP.

4

Technology and innovation are key enablers in meeting Alberta’s environmental, economic and social imperatives. Specifically, the investment of carbon revenues in technology and innovation, together with the overall limit to oil sands GHG emissions, will play a vital role in reducing emissions from oil sands development and will create the conditions for the oil sands sector to become more globally carbon and cost competitive. Innovation Supporting OSAG’s Recommendations on Implementation of Emissions Limit OSAG’s work on innovation is directly and explicitly linked to OSAG’s prior report on Recommendations on Implementation of the Oil Sands Emissions Limit Established by the Alberta Climate Leadership Plan (May 8, 2017), which made a number of references to innovation including:

The importance of innovation in supporting and enabling the objectives inherent in the design of the emissions limit implementation;

Incenting technology development and innovation such that, as the oil sands sector grows, the emissions limit, while approached, is not reached;

Ensuring a shared commitment with government and industry to fund improvement in oil sands GHG emissions performance;

Investors will understand there are measures in place to promote technology development and deployment and innovation within the sector, providing the opportunity for companies to grow oil production within the limit;

Using Emissions Reduction Alberta (ERA), Alberta Innovates (AI) and other innovation acceleration vehicles to drive additional innovation stimulus in the oil sands and incremental Government of Alberta funding; and,

Demonstrating the support of the Government of Alberta for innovation and technology, through organizational structure and funding, to drive solutions for GHG emissions reductions within the oil sands sector.

5

FRAMING INVESTMENT IN INNOVATION IN THE OIL SANDS INTRODUCTION Mandate This report focuses solely on OSAG recommendations on innovation as it pertains to GHG emission reductions in the oil sands. OSAG understands that final decisions on policy and regulation pertaining to innovation in the oil sands rest with the government. FRAMING INVESTMENT IN INNOVATION IN THE OIL SANDS Innovation A key question that needs to be addressed in the context of this report is: What do we mean by innovation – what is it, and what isn’t it? The working definition for purposes of this report is as follows:

Innovation is responding to change in creative ways by generating new ideas, conducting research and development and demonstration, converting new knowledge into products and services, and improving processes or modifying products and services to meet social and economic objectives. Technology is the collection of techniques, skills, scientific inventions, methods and processes used in the production of products and services to accomplish those objectives. In the context of this report “Innovation and Technology” does not mean deployment of new technologies, but may include testing and related actions necessary to demonstrate the commercial viability of new technologies.

Innovation in an Oil Sands Context It is important to position oil sands GHG emissions in a broader Canadian and Alberta context, as illustrated in Figure #1. In 2015, five sectors accounted for the majority of Alberta’s GHG emissions: Oil & Gas Mining (133.5 megatonnes (Mt) [where 1 Mt = 1 million tonnes]), Transportation and Utilities (77 Mt), Agriculture & Forestry (22.1 Mt), Manufacturing (20.5 Mt) and Construction and Buildings (20.6Mt) (Source: National Inventory Report, 2015, Alberta emissions). These sectors contributed to Alberta’s GDP in the following order: Oil & Gas Mining, Construction and Building, Manufacturing, Transportation and Utilities and Agriculture & Forestry. Approximately 71Mt of Alberta’s GHG emissions come from the oil sands, making it the sector with the greatest share of Alberta’s GHG emissions.

6

Figure #1: Oil Sands GHG Emissions in Context (Sources: World Resources Institute 2016; Environment & Climate Change Canada. National Inventory Report: 1990-2015)

To secure major reductions in GHG emissions from the oil sands sector, we need to identify and pursue the best opportunities. This requires:

a) Understanding where emissions come from today, and where they are likely to come from in the future;

b) An assessment of the state of technology plays and the potential for success in each area; and,

c) Understanding the investment required and the timeline for each option.

7

Figure #1 identifies the major areas of opportunity for reducing GHG emissions in oil sands. Approximately 37 million tonnes of GHG emissions currently come from surface mining (largely due to upgrading) and 34 million tonnes are from in situ operations (primarily due to steam generation). In fact, steam generation accounts for 56.2Mt of emissions (79 per cent of total emissions). Fifty-six per cent of those steam-related emissions (44 per cent of total emissions) come from in situ operations. As most of the future development in the oil sands will be in situ, reducing steam generation (or the GHG emissions associated with steam generation) provides the greatest potential for reducing overall GHG emissions from the oil sands. Further, CERI’s report, Study 164 – Oil Sands Processes and Technologies (March 2017) identified six potential in situ pathways for keeping GHG emissions under the 100Mt target, all of which are solvent-based. Alberta Innovates has identified a range of potential recovery technologies, which are presented in Figure #2. This also demonstrates the potential impacts of in situ solvents in the medium term. Appendix B provides brief descriptions of the technology families referenced in Figure #2, while Appendix C provides more detailed information on in-situ solvents. Figure #2: Oil Sands GHG Emissions Reduction Technology Families (Source: Alberta Innovates)

Many of the short-term opportunities described in Figure #2 are already being piloted. The medium-term opportunities are well understood and offer the greatest potential for securing meaningful GHG emission reductions pre-2030. The commercialization of these technologies is not risk-free and will need to be field piloted and demonstrated before deployment. Some of the long-term technologies identified in Figure #2 also have considerable commercialization and deployment risk.

8

Focusing only on technologies that we know and that can be deployed rapidly compromises the potential for long-term game- changing solutions. Conversely, focusing solely on the long-term reduces the potential for more immediate impacts on GHG emission reductions. A portfolio-based investment strategy is therefore needed to effectively invest in innovation projects. The increasing prevalence of solvent-based in situ processes could have a significant impact on GHG emissions in the medium term. For example, continued investment in innovation over the period 2014-2030 could see a reduction of approximately 15Mt/year in in situ emissions, along with gains in partial upgrading, energy efficiency and carbon capture and utilization. Given the size of the sector, investments in technologies that offer the potential for significant GHG emissions reductions over the longer term could have the greatest aggregate impact on emissions as compared to any other single sector in Alberta. The investment of carbon revenue must be tied to innovation efficiency (i.e., the significance of the outcome in terms of GHG emission reductions in relation to the funds invested). It is recognized that the Government of Alberta will also desire complementary benefits to investment, such as job creation and economic diversification. Due to scale, though, any improvement in GHG intensity or absolute reductions in the oil sands will be large, justifying the investment, and could have more impact on GHG emissions post-2030 than the phase-out of coal. Investment in those technologies must begin now to deliver the necessary GHG reductions, preserve and increase jobs, and to create local economic benefits and in some cases global export opportunities. Reducing GHG emissions in the context of the oil sands requires consideration of the unique challenges faced by this sector. This context is critical in assessing new technologies, the potential level of emission reductions and the level of investment required. Key considerations include:

a) The immense scale of oil sands operations; b) The application of the emissions limit, which is not applicable to competing resources; c) The urgency of the sector’s challenge to achieve GHG emission reductions (and its

visibility); d) The need to enhance the performance and competitiveness of an entire sector not

individual companies; e) The difference in opportunities between greenfield and brownfield projects, resulting

from the technology currently in place and the amount of capital invested in the latter; f) The substantial differences in opportunities in reducing GHG emissions between mining

and in situ operations; g) The highly regulated nature of the oil sands; h) A business environment driven by the global price of oil; and, i) The exposure of the sector to global markets, challenges with the social acceptance of

the product and uncertainty regarding demand over the longer term.

9

The above has outlined the significant contribution of oil sands to Alberta’s total GHG emissions and has provided an overview of the technology and innovation opportunities potentially available to significantly reduce these emissions. The next sections of the report address the principles that should govern pursuit of this opportunity, the current state of the innovation ecosystem and potential improvement opportunities, and the basis upon which innovation should be funded to unlock these opportunities. Guiding Principles OSAG developed and utilized the following principles in formulating its recommendations regarding innovation in the oil sands sector: Principle #1: Innovation investments are consistent with the key outcomes envisioned in Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan:

Accelerating GHG emissions reductions and promoting investment attractiveness;

Managing local and regional impacts; and,

Strengthening the province’s carbon and cost competitive position in global energy markets.

Principle #2: Perspectives, interests, knowledge and rights of First Nations and Métis peoples are taken into consideration. Principle #3: Perspectives, interests and knowledge of municipalities and other local communities are taken into consideration. Principle #4: Innovation investments leverage carbon revenue through partnerships with industry and other funders. Principle #5: Investments are made in the most beneficial innovation and technology for GHG reductions, considering:

The size of potential GHG reduction opportunities and potential to accelerate significant improvements in the sector;

The economic and social benefits provided to Alberta;

Where Alberta has comparative advantage; and,

A portfolio approach. Principle #6: Investments are indifferent to geography, scouring the world for solutions, which are then proven and demonstrated in Alberta. Principle #7: Innovation investments:

Promote collaboration and knowledge transfer within and outside of the oil sands sector; and,

Are available for, and accelerate, widespread technology deployment.

10

THEME ONE: ENHANCING THE OIL SANDS INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM The first broad theme addressed by OSAG was a review and assessment of the oil sands innovation ecosystem in Alberta, with a view to identifying both strengths (in the context of global best practice for innovation) and opportunities to enhance efficiency and / or effectiveness. This section of the report outlines OSAG’s review, findings and recommendations in this regard. Alberta and Oil Sands Innovation Ecosystem As noted earlier, innovation is a key element of the Alberta Climate Leadership Plan. As such, ensuring that there is an efficient and effective oil sands innovation system that is applying best practices is critical to its success. The oil sands are positioned within a broader Alberta innovation ecosystem. Alberta has a history of pioneering new innovative practices and policies that become industry standards. Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a carbon levy on large emitters. It initially established A lb ert a Oi l s an d s T ech n o logy an d Res earch A u t h or i t y (AOSTRA), followed by Alberta Innovates (AI) and the Climate Change and Environmental Management Corporation (now the Emissions Reduction Agency [ERA]), to focus on technology and innovation and to ensure long-term emissions reductions from industry. The oil sands industry also has a long history of collaboration and technology advancements through joint industry projects (JIPs) and through individual company technology and innovation efforts, either as sole contributors or in partnerships with governments or other agencies. More recently in the oil sands sector Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA) has been formed – an alliance of oil sands companies representing about 90 per cent of production that are using a collaborative model to accelerate environmental performance improvement. COSIA also acts as a technology hub with extended reach through its 37 Associate Members, collaboration fora and an open web-based portal to gather innovative technology ideas from anywhere in the world in a growing global innovation ecosystem. Securing the potential reductions in GHG emissions from oil sands must be accomplished through a robust “Team Alberta” approach to climate-related innovation. This requires long-term commitment and effort by multiple players in the innovation ecosystem and the deployment of multiple complementary mechanisms. Common vision, mission, direction and strategies are required to guide this activity. Figure #3 describes the components of Alberta’s Innovation Ecosystem, many of which are engaged in the oil sands sector. It is also important to note that the Alberta innovation ecosystem is tightly connected to federal entities (e.g. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) that also play a key role in oil sands innovation.

11

Figure #3: Components of Alberta’s Innovation Ecosystem (Source: Emissions Reduction Alberta)

Figure #4 describes the innovation system framework and workflow broadly used by the ecosystem of oil sands innovators to collectively focus effort and accelerate progress. This framework contributes to the most efficient use of available resources - dollars, people, and time. The numbered steps in the diagram are explained in detail in Appendix D. Figure #4: Current Oil Sands Innovation Framework (Source: COSIA)

12

Reflecting the government oversight role of the oil sands resource on behalf of the people of Alberta, and the private sector’s role in developing the oil sands resource to unlock its social and economic value, this framework is largely led by three organizations in deep partnership with the federal government and academia - COSIA, Alberta Innovates (the Government of Alberta’s main innovation delivery entity) and Emissions Reduction Alberta. Importantly, oil sands innovation is also progressed by individual companies, by other partnerships and by a broad network of innovators. These organizations are integrally linked to a web of other contributing entities and interact on an ongoing basis. This is an evolving landscape, as existing organizations are changing in real time to position the innovation system for success in a changing world. As such, the infrastructure pillars needed to fully implement the Alberta Climate Leadership Plan are in place. However, notwithstanding the strengths of the innovation system in the oil sands, it is important to compare the oil sands innovation ecosystem to best practice and to seek improvement opportunities. Assessing the Current State of the Oil Sands Innovation Ecosystem According to the Global Innovation Index, important instruments in setting up a balanced innovation ecosystem are:

a) Government policies to actively support and sustain innovation; b) A culture of innovation; c) An integrated approach to investment which allows targeting investments on the basis

of a specific regional development strategy; d) Specialization strategies for research & innovation; and, e) Regional and industrial policy tools applied in combination to create specialty platforms

which facilitate contacts between firms and clusters enabling access to the innovative technologies and market opportunities.

Nationally, the Pan Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (2016) echoes many of the same messages: “To effectively compete in the global marketplace and capitalize on current and future economic opportunities, Canada needs a step change in clean technology development, commercialization, and adoption across all industrial sectors. Clarity of purpose, investment, and strong coordination that leverages pan-Canadian regional and provincial/territorial strengths are essential to seizing the economic growth and job-creation opportunities of clean technology. International research, development, and demonstration collaboration is also essential.”

With respect to Innovation, the Advisory Panel to the Climate Leadership Plan recommended: a) Refocusing toward a portfolio-driven and outcome-based funding approach; b) Investing in riskier ventures; c) Reducing barriers to the deployment of new technology; and, d) Considering the full range of clean innovation solutions to climate change.

13

Building on global best practices, OSAG concluded that a culture of innovation in the oil sands must be sustained and supported by the right policies and appropriate levels of funding, engagement of stakeholders in a collaborative environment and clear goals and measures to assess progress toward those goals. Impactful and scalable innovation is most likely to occur within organized and government supported frameworks focused on sectors where Alberta has competitive advantage. The oil sands present a globally unique situation for innovation and the oil sands innovation ecosystem therefore needs to be designed to be fit-for-purpose. Nevertheless, comparison versus global best practice is an important measure of the effectiveness and efficiency of the system. The existing system compares favourably to best practice, as can be seen in Figure #5 which compares Alberta’s system against best practices in innovation gleaned from multiple sources. Figure #5: Comparison of Alberta’s Innovation System Against Generally Accepted Best Practices in Innovation

Best Practices Alberta/ Oil Sands Characteristics Well-linked innovation ecosystems

Government-Industry joint planning structures, international connections and networks, research chairs, NRG-COSIA XPrize, and dedicated government research institutions. Framework and mechanisms in place to allow third parties from around the world to connect into oil sands companies and work with them to develop technologies. Examples include: AI, COSIA, NRCan, ERA, Innovate Calgary, NRC / IRAP, SDTC.

Strong innovation infrastructures and senior leadership

Strong governance and oversight provided through forums such as the Oil Sands CEO Council, as well as similar oversight in place within companies and for other innovation pathways.

Specialization strategies Intense focus on oil sands sector in Alberta, commencing with AOSTRA in 1974.

Culture of co-operation and breaking boundaries

History of collaboration and transparent exchange of ideas through PTAC, COSIA and JIPs. The oil sands sector has advanced further than any other sector or groups of companies in the world in this regard. Business sophistication Coordination and deployment of billions of dollars for technology and innovation with far reaching impacts. Continual improvements as COSIA, and other entities mature as organizations. Targeting investments on

basis of specific regional strategy

Clear, actionable innovation goals and priorities agreed at the highest levels of oil sands companies, with shared costs and knowledge to achieve goals.

14

Combining public sector interests with private sector business oriented action

Close co-operation with governments, universities, government funding agencies and other players. Demonstrated ability to leverage funding.

Organized around a core hub organization where key technology decisions are made.

COSIA acts as an important industry hub for the major producing entities within the oil sands sector. Individual corporations and other innovation entities also play a critical role extending the reach of innovation into the broader oil sands community. The addition of a light touch convener would further enhance integration and collaboration.

Based on our broad assessment, the key strengths of the oil sands innovation ecosystem can be summarized as follows:

a) The system values collaboration; b) Alberta has a comparative advantage in the oil sands with the scale of the resource, the

track record of innovation, and the related skills and knowledge of the workforce; c) There is a strong focus and a sense of urgency in Alberta to accelerate GHG emissions

reductions; and, d) Well-established delivery organizations are in place to achieve the intended outcomes,

including Alberta Innovates (AI) re-organized in 2016, the rebranded and focused Emissions Reduction Alberta (ERA), Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA), Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada (PTAC), individual companies and various other related entities and initiatives. All of these organizations work closely with Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) and Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC).

While the system is well positioned for success, there are opportunities for ongoing improvement. These are summarized below, and are also reflected in the recommendations to improve the oil sands innovation ecosystem. Based on our broad assessment, the key gaps/opportunities in the oil sands innovation ecosystem can be summarized as follows:

a) The need for greater clarity and alignment regarding the strategic plan for oil sands innovation, delivered via a robust portfolio of opportunities;

b) The need for a “light touch” convener to further strengthen strategic alignment among industry, academia, governments and innovation delivery organizations;

c) Insufficient aggregate investment of dedicated funding over a sustained period of time; d) Limits on AI and ERA with respect to funds invested per technology or initiative; e) Limited risk tolerance impeding progress; f) Insufficient funding to de-risk commercialization, to develop new technologies, to

access suitable testing facilities for new technologies and to deploy promising technologies;

g) Potential enhancements in the performance management system for innovation in the oil sands, so as to more effectively track progress toward longer term goals and make course corrections as necessary; and,

h) A need to better understand from First Nation and Metis communities, as well as from municipalities and local stakeholders, how they can more effectively participate in the innovation ecosystem.

15

Innovation in the oil sands should be founded on a platform comprised of the following key elements:

a) An aligned longer-term vision and supporting strategy that provides clarity on intended outcomes;

b) A robust portfolio of opportunities assessed against objective investment criteria; c) A sound performance management system; and, d) A mechanism for course corrections and adaptive management.

This framework will lead to effective and efficient investment in innovation opportunities that are much more likely to be successful in moving technology to the deployment phase, while building necessary capability in people, infrastructure, networks and partnerships. Alignment is a moving landscape, as existing organizations are increasingly seeking opportunities to coordinate and collaborate based on the findings and recommendations of other processes focused on innovation [e.g. Climate Technology Task Force, Clean Resources Innovation Network (CRIN). Groups are already beginning to have discussions at a broad strategic level regarding outcomes. As there are multiple government, industry, academic, not for profit and other players in the innovation system, a central convening or co-ordinating role would be beneficial to marshal the significant resources needed to address the challenge of reducing GHG emissions from the oil sands. The informal, ongoing process of alignment would benefit from a more formal convening mechanism or process, creating a “Team Oil Sands” without creating a new organization. In this scenario, senior leaders within the oil sands innovation ecosystem would convene periodically to set strategic goals, enhance alignment and collaboration, track performance and identify course correction opportunities. Further to the above, CRIN is emerging as an entity that has the potential to act as a single point convener to ensure alignment on technology solutions related to GHG reduction and that these opportunities are resourced and have the capacity to deliver outcomes. CRIN is an industry-led approach to enhance connectivity across industry, governments, innovation practitioners/researchers, investors, entrepreneurs, and universities/institutions working in the oil & gas innovation ecosystem. CRIN will identify and align on industry priorities through strong functional joint planning processes and will be flexible in its pursuit of continuous improvement of the innovation ecosystem. A substantial amount of investment is required in order for Alberta to meaningfully reduce GHG emissions. Innovation in the oil sands must be a shared commitment among industry, the provincial and federal governments, academia and others – a “Team Oil Sands” approach. The magnitude of investment required in many projects often places them out of reach of a single funder.

16

The Government of Alberta should not be the major funder of all projects, but neither can it achieve desired outcomes by allocating limited investment over multiple projects. Wherever the Alberta government invests, there should be expectations regarding partnerships with the federal government, industry and other entities. Technical solutions proven in labs or pilots need to be deployed broadly by industry to have a significant impact. The formula for investing in projects will be a function of the nature of the project and the balance (degree of leverage) between government and industry funding will change through the life of a project. Earlier developments will likely have more government involvement, while later developments will likely see an increase in industrial contributions as they are scaled up and ultimately deployed. Public funding should play a key role in de-risking prospective solutions to attract leveraged investment and accelerate the commercialization of technology so as to realize gains more quickly. The traditional Government of Alberta approach of providing grants (often capped) to projects is insufficient to meet the GHG reduction challenge before the sector. Delivery agencies will need to make larger capital investments, take more risks and employ more flexible financing mechanisms and more creative approaches to funding (which may need to be further supported by policy and regulation). Non-financial instruments, including effective policies and communications and engagement are also critical enablers to progress in this area. In regard to financing, there is also a need for creative financial tools to enable broader deployment of new technologies. Failure to address these barriers can limit the value unlocked through innovation, as investors will not be see a pathway to their desired rate of return with consideration for the commercialization risks. These tools could include loan guarantees or subordinate debt. This type of support is outside the scope of innovation funding and should come from other sources, but is a potential barrier to innovation if not addressed. Given the scale, costs and risks of oil sands innovation, it is unsurprising that a major obstacle to the deployment of technology is the need for late stage technology development (especially final, commercial-scale testing and demonstration), which inherently requires patient capital and an acceptance of the risk profile. These issues can be mitigated if facilities for testing new technologies are available at an appropriate scale, recognizing that some technologies are reservoir-specific. To meet the objectives of the Alberta Climate Leadership Plan, knowledge and technology resulting from public investments in innovation to reduce GHG emissions need to be available, both within and outside the oil sands sector. To be efficient, public investment should focus on opportunities where there is the potential for widespread commercial deployment of resulting knowledge and technologies. One of the considerations in this regard is to ensure that any barriers to sharing intellectual property are addressed so the benefits of innovation investment are fully realized.

17

Measuring performance over the scale and timelines of innovation in the oil sands is challenging. Existing organizations active on innovation in the oil sands each utilize their own measures for reporting performance against their objectives. Appendix E presents an approach to the development of an overarching performance management plan that would help to consolidate the work of these organizations and provide an integrated system-wide assessment of performance with respect to innovation to reduce GHG emissions in the oil sands. This would then provide the basis for an assessment as to whether adjustments are required in strategic direction, portfolio assessment or delivery within the oil sands innovation ecosystem. Finally, although not part of the OSAG mandate on innovation, the social and cultural impacts of innovation need to be acknowledged. The oil sands region is home to a number of Indigenous communities and there are requirements to consult with these communities on developments in the region. All new technologies deployed in the oil sands present their own challenges and there is a need to assess and mitigate potential impacts on local and Aboriginal communities and their activities. While investment in innovation and technology can provide economic opportunities for local Indigenous peoples, technologies that improve the efficiencies of industry may have other impacts on the region. There is an opportunity for enhanced engagement with Indigenous peoples in the innovation process, with the objective of improving overall environmental outcomes. RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE OIL SANDS INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM Funding Requirements for a Healthy Innovation System

a) OSAG recommends that the Government of Alberta ensure predictable and sustained long term funding for innovation.

Focus of Investment in Innovation System

b) OSAG recommends that Innovation should accelerate reduction of GHG emissions and any associated environmental impacts of technology deployment should be considered as part of the investment decision and should be carefully managed through the regulatory process.

Strategic Convener

c) OSAG recommends that a single point “light touch” convener be used to align key participants on the strategic plan for GHG reduction ambition and the resources/capacity needed to deliver such outcomes. Clean Resource Innovation Network (CRIN) is emerging as the forum to bring together the following key players to remove barriers and focus effort (Universities, COSIA, ERA, AI, IOSA, other industry players and other relevant entities that currently exist or may emerge). This forum will help to ensure strong, functional joint planning processes and will be flexible in its pursuit of continuous improvement of the innovation ecosystem.

18

Innovation Investment Approach d) OSAG recommends that funding for innovation and technology in the oil sands should

take a portfolio approach, comprising short to long term investments in low to high risk technologies.

e) OSAG recommends that measures by which to de-risk and accelerate the scale-up of new technology be examined, including evaluating and implementing options to use existing, or develop new, infrastructure for such purpose.

f) OSAG recommends that ERA and AI be given increased flexibility on innovation investments to enable funding of projects that meet the objectives of Alberta’s broad innovation strategic plan.

Performance Management System

g) Regularly assess whether the innovation system is on track to provide the knowledge, practices and technology deployment the sector needs to be successful within the context of the ACLP and the Emissions Limit. (See Appendix E for details on proposed elements of a performance management system that should be considered in evaluation of current performance management systems).

Local and Regional Impacts

h) OSAG acknowledges that the innovation in relation to local and regional impacts of oil sands development, including reclamation, are important to address and should be considered through a separate OSAG or other multi-stakeholder process.

The recommendations provided above should be implemented in a manner consistent with the principles outlined earlier in this report. THEME TWO: INVESTING IN OIL SANDS INNOVATION The second broad theme addressed by OSAG focused on the allocation of carbon revenue to innovation and the manner in which this funding for innovation should then be allocated to innovation opportunities. These recommendations pertain to the expenditure on innovation in relation to achieving GHG reductions across the economy. They do not pertain to innovation in relation to other matters such as local and regional environmental performance. OSAG acknowledges and believes it will be important to pursue innovation regarding such other matters as a separate initiative. For the purposes of these recommendations, the term “innovation” has the same meaning as defined earlier in this report. OSAG was requested to address the following two questions:

a) Of total carbon revenue, how much should be spent on innovation?

19

b) Of the amount spent on innovation, how much should be spent on reducing the GHG intensity of fossil fuels?

OSAG’s following recommendation provides a framework and process whereby these questions can be addressed. There are two different ways to achieve GHG reductions across the economy:

a) Improving what exists today - Innovation that reduces the GHGs within the economy as it is structured today (some place more confidence in this approach);

b) Diversifying the economy - Innovation that helps take the economy in a different direction in a manner that achieves GHG reductions (some place more confidence in this approach);

Both of the above are important in terms of achieving GHG reductions and economic growth; and, while some studies pertaining to other jurisdictions suggest that diversifying the economy likely delivers greater GHG reductions over time, this has not yet been assessed in Alberta. Investment Context Strategic planning within a business or organizational context provides a useful framework to think about the best approach to determining innovation investment, namely:

a) Establish a long term vision; b) Identify the full range of opportunities at a point in time that can potentially contribute

to progressing toward that vision; c) Identify a set of criteria (metrics for measuring outcomes, probability of success) to

evaluate which opportunities (short, mid and long term) are most likely to progress toward that vision;

d) Undertake an objective evaluation of each of the opportunities against those criteria to determine the portfolio of actions (with both short term and long-term impacts) you will deploy at that point in time; and,

Periodically review the portfolio of actions you have agreed upon to ensure that they are delivering

the projected results and, if not, make adjustments to the portfolio over time.

The approach outlined above effectively integrates an “outcome-driven” approach (i.e., an approach whereby innovation investment decisions are driven solely by a longer term vision or goal for environmental, economic and social outcomes, as currently provided in the ACLP) and an “opportunities-driven” approach (i.e., an approach whereby innovation investment decisions are driven solely by the opportunity set that is available at a particular point in time). The strategic planning approach described above can be used to answer the second question identified in Task H of OSAG’s innovation mandate (i.e., of the total carbon revenue directed at GHG innovation, how much should be allocated to reducing the GHG intensity of fossil fuels). The first question - how much of the total carbon revenue should be directed to GHG innovation – could also in theory be answered in this way, but OSAG

20

instead recommends the approach outlined below. OSAG believes that, at least for the foreseeable future, there is value in answering this question using an approach similar to that found in the current Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) framework (i.e., all revenue raised under SGER goes into GHG innovation funding, with one change or exception for specific support for deployment of renewable energy). This approach to establishing the size of the GHG innovation funding envelope is administratively simple to implement, and does not require annual funding decisions by the government as part of the budgeting process (which reduces funding vulnerability within a political context, given that many of the benefits associated with GHG innovation being longer term in nature). GHG reduction innovation across the economy is a key pillar of the Alberta Climate Leadership Plan, and the immense opportunity for Alberta of a well-executed GHG innovation strategy creates an imperative for maintaining a large, stable envelope of GHG innovation funding over time. This approach to defining the size of the GHG innovation funding still leaves a very significant amount of revenue from the broader carbon levy to address social and economic impacts of the carbon levy and for other non-innovation investments to secure reductions in GHG emissions. Further, OSAG believes that seeking to define the size of the GHG innovation funding envelope that should be applied solely to the reduction of the GHG intensity of fossil fuels (as distinct from GHG innovation funding to be applied across other sectors of the economy) is less likely to achieve the objective of maximizing both GHG emissions reductions and economic growth and diversification within Alberta that will flow from GHG innovation funding. OSAG believes that the benefits to Alberta from investments in GHG innovation will be greater if there is not segmented funding to each sector of the economy. Rather OSAG believes the greatest overall benefit to Alberta from investments in GHG innovation will be achieved if all GHG innovation opportunities across the entire economy have an ability to compete for innovation funding within the context of the criteria driven approach, and that the funding envelope for GHG innovation should reflect both the significant GHG reduction potential from innovation and the government’s stated commitment to innovation in the ACLP. This recommended approach means that there is no direct linkage between sources and uses of funds for innovation. The following recommendations reflect how OSAG believes the specific questions put to OSAG in relation to innovation are best answered, and an approach to innovation OSAG believes necessary to achieve the full potential innovation offers in terms of maximizing both GHG emissions reductions and economic growth and diversification within Alberta. OSAG acknowledges that the Alberta government has made short term funding decisions regarding the allocation of carbon revenue that differ from these recommendations.

21

RECOMMENDATIONS ON INVESTING IN OIL SANDS INNOVATION

1. Within the context of all of the foregoing context, OSAG recommends as follows: a) That the Government of Alberta frame a long-term vision for innovation in GHG

reductions (the “GHG Innovation Vision), as is currently provided via the key themes of the ACLP and as may evolve over time.

b) The carbon revenue collected from all large final emitters (LFE’s ) should be paid into a GHG innovation Fund and utilized solely for the purpose of innovation directed at reducing GHG emissions in Alberta, as per the definition of innovation provided in this report. OSAG emphasizes it will be very challenging to adequately fund innovation (see the Lambert report) and it is therefore important that the allocation of funding to innovation in relation to GHG reductions remains at a level necessary to achieve the GHG innovation objectives within the Alberta Climate Leadership Plan and realize upon the signification opportunities available to Alberta from such investments in innovation.

c) Recognizing that renewable energy provides benefit to both the energy sector and the broader public, the one exception to subparagraph (b) that is supported by OSAG is the following:

i. Subject to subparagraph (ii), it is recognized that in the short to mid-term, the government may elect to reduce the amount of the GHG Innovation Fund established under paragraph (ii) by an amount equal to the funds necessary to fund the “contract for difference approach” being utilized to secure the expansion of renewable energy toward the 30 per cent renewable energy target in the ACLP (i.e., the difference between the market price for electricity and the cost of renewables as established through competitive bids);

ii. Within this context, the reduction to GHG innovation funding contemplated under subparagraph (i) will be limited in any given year to an amount equal to the LFE carbon revenue provided from the electricity sector (recognizing that this is not intended to restrict the government’s funding for renewables, as the government can use other sources of funds to support renewables at their discretion).

iii. For clarity, all LFE funds generated from the electricity sector and not used to fund the “contract for difference approach” for renewables would remain in the GHG Innovation Fund; and

iv. This one exception to subparagraph (b), as described above, is not intended to establish a broader principle or precedent.

d) Any innovation project directed at reducing GHG emissions in Alberta would be able to apply for funding from the GHG Innovation Fund (this includes innovation that pertains to GHG reductions across the entire economy, not just LFE sectors, and innovation projects proposed by anyone, not just proponents working within a LFE sector).

e) Proposals would be objectively analyzed against the set of criteria described in paragraph 2.

f) Such objective analysis would, subject to the guidance outlined in paragraph 4, be undertaken by an independent agency such as ERA (the “Implementing Agency )

22

g) The objective of the Implementing Agency is to establish, on the basis of the criteria, a portfolio of innovation projects that are aligned with progress toward the longer-term vision for Alberta

h) There is a periodic review to determine if the LFE revenue remains the appropriate funding envelope for GHG reduction from innovation (or if it should be increased or decreased).

i) There is a periodic review of the portfolio of innovation projects and the criteria being used for funding are delivering against the GHG Innovation Vision.

2. OSAG recommends the criteria currently used by the Implementing Agency in undertaking

the objective evaluation of innovation proposals contemplated in paragraph 1 be reviewed to reflect the following opportunity and success criteria, all of which will comprise the criteria used as the basis for innovation investment decisions: a) Opportunity Criteria

i. GHG reductions achieved (GHG intensity reductions, total GHG reductions, investment efficiency in the context of GHG reductions).

ii. Contribution to economic growth (GDP, jobs, investment, value creation, investment efficiency in the context of economic growth).

iii. Contribution to transition to a low carbon economy [which includes both improvements in GHG intensity in what exists today (e.g. oil sands) and diversification to other lower GHG intensity opportunities (e.g. other sectors that will contribute to a low carbon economy].

iv. Contribution to knowledge spillover (the potential for the innovation to be applicable to a broader range of opportunities across the Alberta economy or create innovation and technology export opportunities for Alberta).

b) Success Criteria i. Comparative advantage of Alberta in developing such technology.

ii. Potential to scale up the technology. iii. Scale of required investment relative to the pool of available capital for such an

investment in Alberta

3. OSAG recommends the criteria described in paragraph 2 should be reviewed within the context of existing funding criteria used by the Implementing Agency and finalized by the Government of Alberta in collaboration with the Implementing Agency.

4. OSAG recommends that the decision-making governance of the Implementing Agency

Recommended in relation to project selection (i.e., for undertaking the objective assessment of innovation projects against evaluation criteria) include: a) Provisions to ensure that the portfolio of opportunities developed based on the criteria

in paragraph 2 is broadly assessed for alignment with the GHG Innovation Vision (as is currently provided via the key themes of the ACLP and may evolve over time), such that there is a pathway to achieving intended longer-term outcomes and ongoing accountability for same through the performance management system (the expectation

23

is that the portfolio would include a mix of short and long term projects, higher risk and lower risk projects, big bets and smaller bets projects, etc.).

b) Provisions to ensure there is no bias inherent in the opportunity assessment and selection process such that the portfolio selection considers opportunities for GHG reductions arising from both improving what exists today and diversifying into new opportunities (e.g. designing the calls to be technology / sector indifferent).

5. The recommendations provided above should be implemented in a manner consistent with

the principles outlined earlier in this report.

APPENDICES The following appendices were solely developed by the Innovation Working Group and were used by OSAG as input to inform its report and recommendations. As noted in Appendices F and G, there is no consensus with respect to these two appendices.

Appendix A – Members of the OSAG Innovation Working Group

Appendix B – Technology Development Description

Appendix C – Primer on In situ Solvents

Appendix D – Oil Sands Innovation System Framework and Improvement Opportunities

Appendix E – Oil Sands Innovation and Technology Performance Management Framework

Appendix F – Outcome-Driven Approach to Establishing a Longer Term Vision for Innovation (Illustrative Only)

Appendix G – Opportunity-Driven Approach to Establishing the Oil Sands Innovation Portfolio (Illustrative Only)

24

APPENDIX A: MEMBERS OF THE OSAG INNOVATION WORKING GROUP Tzeporah Berman OSAG Co-Chair and Environmental Task Team Lead Veronica Bliska OSAG Member and Community/Aboriginal Task Team Lead Anne Downey OSAG Member and Industry Task Team Co-Lead Arlene Strom OSAG Member and Industry Task Team Co-Lead Sara Hastings-Simon Associate Regional Director, Pembina Institute Lee Kruszewski Executive Director, Science and Innovation Policy and Strategy, Alberta

Economic Development and Trade Bob Phillips Métis Nation of Alberta Elizabeth Shirt Executive Director, Policy and Planning, Emission Reductions Alberta Fred Walter Advisor, GHG Emissions, MEG Energy Dan Wicklum Chief Executive Officer, Canada’s Oil Sands Innovation Alliance John Zhou Vice-President, Clean Technology, Alberta Innovates Paul Griss Project Manager and Facilitator

25

APPENDIX B: TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTIONS 1. Solvent-Based Processes Steam-Solvent Co-Injection Processes (in situ) Example processes and technologies include: ES-SAGD, SA-SAGD, LASER, SAP, Conden-SAP Steam-solvent co-injection processes are deployed in SAGD facilities in which a light hydrocarbon (e.g. propane, butane, diesel, condensates, etc.) is added to the steam utilized for recovery of bitumen. The solvent content is approximately 20 per cent of the steam-solvent volume injected. Potential GHG intensity reductions are due to reductions in steam oil ratio (SOR) and reductions are approximately 25 per cent compared to a SAGD baseline. Hybrid Steam-Solvent Processes (in situ) Example processes and technologies include: eMVAPEX, Solvent Driven Process Hybrid steam-solvent processes involve starting production in SAGD facilities with steam for a period of one to three years. When the reservoir has a sufficiently developed steam chamber, injection is switched from steam to almost pure solvent injection (with enough steam to vaporize the solvent). Solvents are light hydrocarbons, typically propane. Potential GHG intensity reductions are due to reductions in steam oil ratio (SOR) once the solvent injection has started and reductions are anticipated to be approximately 40 per cent compared to a SAGD baseline. Cyclic Solvent Processes (in situ) Example processes and technologies include: SAS, CSP Cyclic solvent processes involve production from in situ facilities with cyclic stimulation of horizontal wells. Solvents are light hydrocarbons, typically propane, and injected in a liquid phase over multiple cycles of injection and production. No steam is used. Potential GHG intensity reductions are due to reductions in steam oil ratio (SOR) and are anticipated to be approximately 60-90 per cent compared to a comparable steam-based process baseline. Pure Solvent Processes (in situ) Example processes and technologies include: Nsolv Pure solvent processes involve production from in situ facilities that inject pure solvent into horizontal wells. Solvents are light hydrocarbons, typically propane or butane, and may be

26

heated to vaporize the solvent prior to injection. No steam is used. Potential GHG intensity reductions are due to reductions in steam oil ratio (SOR) and are anticipated to be approximately 70-80 per cent compared to a comparable steam-based process baseline. Solvent-based extraction (mining) Example processes and technologies include: HBEP An aqueous/non-aqueous hybrid bitumen extraction process involves the addition of a light hydrocarbon, typically kerosene or diesel oil, added early in the extraction process prior to ore slurry conditioning. Potential GHG intensity reductions are due to improved extraction efficiency when compared to the Clark Hot Water Process and anticipated to be in the range of 25-50 per cent (to be confirmed). 2. Other in situ technology development

CO2 Co-injection CO2 co-injection processes are deployed in SAGD facilities in which CO2 is added to the steam utilized for recovery of bitumen, taking advantage of the solubility of CO2 in bitumen. The CO2

content is approximately 10 per cent of the steam volume injected. Potential GHG intensity reductions are due to reductions in steam oil ratio (SOR) and reductions are approximately 5-20 per cent compared to a SAGD baseline. Direct Contact Steam Generation Current SAGD facilities generate steam in large once-through steam generators or drum boilers and indirectly heat water in tubes via convective and radiant heating from a flame. Direct contact steam generators allow water to directly come into contact with a flame to generate

steam that is mixed with CO2 and the other products of combustion. This steam-CO2 mixture is

injected into horizontal wells and production of bitumen proceeds as in a typical SAGD process. Potential GHG intensity reductions are due to efficiency gains in the steam generation process

and reductions in steam oil ratio (SOR) due to linkage with CO2 co-injection. Reductions are

approximately 25-50 per cent compared to a SAGD baseline. Flash Steam Generation Current SAGD facilities generate steam in large once-through steam generators or drum boilers and indirectly heat water in tubes via convective and radiant heating from a flame. Flash steam generators drop the pressure of a high-pressure condensate to produce steam that can be injected into a reservoir.

27

Potential GHG intensity reductions are due to efficiency gains in the steam generation process and reductions are approximately 10-12 per cent compared to a SAGD baseline. Radio Frequency And Electric Reservoir Heating Example processes and technologies include: ESEIEH, Acceleware Electromagnetic (radio frequency) energy is converted into heat in situ to reduce the viscosity of bitumen and allow production from horizontal wells. This process can be done with or without solvent injection to enhance production. Potential GHG intensity reductions are due to efficiency gains in the reservoir heating process and reductions are approximately 60-75 per cent compared to a SAGD baseline. Facilities with CO2 Capture Example processes and technologies include: MCFC-4CC-SAGD (Molten carbonate fuel cell for carbon capture in steam assisted gravity drainage), MCFC-4CC-PH (Molten carbonate fuel cell for carbon capture for process heaters) Traditionally, fuel cells have been used in power generation plants to convert fuel into heat and electricity. Fuel cells can also be adapted to capture CO2 from the exhaust streams of natural gas fired power plants, refineries and upgraders or oil sands facilities. This adaptation may help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from energy production in the province. GHG capture potential is due to the separation of CO2 from exhaust gas in once through steam generators or process heaters and is approximately 70-90 per cent of emissions. 3. Building Blocks (individual processes) of Partial Upgrading Technologies Visbreaking: the technology mainly targets viscosity reduction using heat or other energy such as magnetic frequency, cavity (altrasound, hydro) or plasma. The energy is needed to break the large molecules in heavy fraction of bitumen into smaller ones. This technology can also slightly reduce the density of bitumen. It produces H2S and olefins that need to be treated. Solvent De-Asphalting (SDA): This technology removes the heaviest fraction (asphaltenes) from bitumen using a paraffinic solvent to reduce the viscosity and density and improve the quality of bitumen for refining. Asphaltenes are about 14-17 per cent by weight (11-15 per cent by volume) of Athabasca bitumen, but this fraction is responsible for the majority of the undesired properties of bitumen - high viscosity, high contaminants (74 per cent of the metals, 56 per cent of the coke precursors, and 28 per cent of the heteroatoms – sulphur, nitrogen and oxygen). This makes bitumen very challenging to process into clean and valuable products. The SDA process produces asphaltenes as a by-product that need to be managed.

28

De-Contamination (selective removal of sulfur, nitrogen or metals): This technology targets selective removal of contaminants to improve the bitumen quality and produce new products (such as metals Ni, V) for targeted markets. The technology usually needs to add a reagent such as reductive metal (Na), or oxidant (O2) to achieve the goal. It therefore requires the reagent supply or recycle facilities. This category also includes some targeted quality improvement processes such as TAN reduction, clay fines reduction and additives for viscosity reduction. Olefin Treatment: This technology mainly targets olefin reduction for partial upgraded oil to satisfy the pipeline specification and refinery requirement. The technology may or may not use hydrogen to achieve the pipeline specification. Emulsion SDA: This technology will remove asphaltene with fines and water from the bitumen emulsion, either coming from SAGD or mining froth, and producing a clean partially de-asphalted bitumen for further processing or transportation. This process could capture the waste energy and share the infrastructure with recovery operations, therefore improve the overall efficiency of bitumen production and processing, reducing the cost and environment footprint. Novel Catalysis: This technology is targeting breakthrough technology for bitumen residue (fractions with boiling temperature over 545°C) hydrotreating. New catalysis chemistry and technology is being developed to significantly reduce the temperature and hydrogen pressure for residue hydro-processing, critical for reducing capital and operating costs of hydro-processing of bitumen. Selective Processing: This technology is designed to selectively convert or remove certain fractions or components without impacting other fractions. The idea is similar to injecting drugs to cancer cells without killing the healthy cells. Current AI R&D activities include olefin cyclization, metal removal, S, N and O removal. Value creating and maximization combined with Bitumen beyond Combustion: This technology is designed to produce high value products from bitumen fractions, reducing combustion fuel product ratio to address the requirements of a future low carbon economy. Bitumen can produce feed for a wide range of consumer products from cosmetics, cloths, paints to airplanes. Current technologies are able to use light fractions of bitumen to produce petrochemicals and materials. New technologies are desired for processing heavy fractions to fibers and chemicals, or producing new materials/products from bitumen. 4. Functional Partial Upgrading Technologies: Visbreaking + De Asphalting + Olefin treatment: These types of technologies process bitumen to produce a heavy sour crude, satisfying the pipeline specification and serving the heavy sour crude market. Potential CO2 reduction is around 20 per cent, compared with the delayed coking baseline.

29

Visbreaking with Hydrogen donor + Olefin treatment: This technology processes bitumen to produce a blend crude that is similar to WCS using a traditional thermal visbreaking configuration. It requires co-feeding a hydrogen donor solvent, or diesel or SCO with bitumen to achieve the desired viscosity and density reduction. Olefin treatment is also required. Potential CO2 reduction is in the 5-10 per cent range compared with baseline. Emulsion De-Asphalting +Visbreaking + Olefin treatment: This technology processes bitumen emulsion from SAGD to produce a heavy sour crude satisfying the pipeline specification and serving the heavy sour crude market. Potential CO2 reduction is in the range of 10-20 per cent compared with baseline. Selective sulfur removal using molten sodium + sodium recovery + hydrotreating: This technology uses Na metal to remove the sulfur, oxygen and heavy metals (contaminates) from bitumen and convert bitumen to a pipeline or rail spec crude. This technology requires a facility for recycle and recovery of Na. Fugitive emission reduction: There are three major emissions from upgrading: (i) methane combustion for process steam, heating and hydrogen production, (ii) SO2, fines and CO2 associated with the coking process, and (iii) volatile organics emitted from the facilities. A functional partial upgrading technology, through its low intensity process design and process integration could significantly reduce these emissions. Bitumen cleaning or partial upgrading: These technologies use a combination of processes to achieve certain quality improvement to meet the market needs (may still use diluent), including mild visbreaking or additives for viscosity reduction, TAN reduction, removing fines and water. Effective full conversion to a new slate of products including high value chemicals or materials: A future upgrading plant could take bitumen feed and produce a slate of new products that capture the full value of bitumen for Alberta.

30

APPENDIX C: PRIMER ON IN SITU SOLVENTS SUMMARY In-situ solvent technologies are processes using solvents to recover bitumen from oil sands reservoirs, with or without steam. Solvents used for bitumen recovery are mainly propane, butane, and other light hydrocarbons found in natural gas liquids. Compared with steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), in-situ solvent technologies have the potential to improve bitumen recovery while substantially reducing the GHG-emissions intensity and water-use intensity. Through decades of lab testing and field pilots, in-situ solvent technologies are poised to be commercially deployed in Alberta’s oil sands. From Steam to Solvents Steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) is the primary technology deployed for the in situ recovery of bitumen. This approach involves injecting steam into the reservoir via a horizontal injection well, to heat and mobilize the bitumen to flow by gravity to a horizontal production well. Steam provides the thermal energy required for bitumen production, but its generation is responsible for over 90 per cent of GHG emission in the recovery process. In-situ solvent technologies are solvent-assisted or solvent-based processes to recover bitumen. The solvents used in these processes are propane, butane, and other light hydrocarbons found in natural gas liquids. In solvent processes, hydrocarbon solvents dissolve into the bitumen to reduce its viscosity. The processes have the potential to improve the in situ recovery of bitumen while reducing the demands for steam, thereby also reducing both the GHG-emissions intensity and water-use intensity for production. In-situ solvent technologies have been in development for decades. Dr. Roger Butler proposed the solvent-based vapor extraction or VAPEX process in early 1980’s. The VAPEX process involves the injection of vaporized solvent such as propane or butane, a heated liquid solvent, or solvent/gas mixtures. Since that time, various researchers and developers have proposed the VAPEX process and other in-situ solvent technologies. Many have been tested in field pilots since the early 2000’s. These processes are organized into three categories and summarized briefly below. Solvent-Assisted Recovery: Steam-Solvent Co-injection (e.g. ES-SAGD, SAP, SA-SAGD, LASER, SAS) Solvent-assisted processes involve co-injection of solvent with steam in SAGD. The process operates like SAGD, with 5 per cent to 25 per cent solvent in the steam. The injected solvents range from butane to diluent/condensate (C4 to C10+). Co-injection is intended to accelerate bitumen recovery and reduce energy intensity. Steam-oil ratio reductions are between 18 per cent and 30 per cent, with corresponding GHG emissions reductions and water-use intensity reductions. High solvent recovery and recycle is critical to economic viability. Up to 75 per cent solvent recovery has been demonstrated in some pilots.

31

Hybrid SAGD-Solvent Processes (Cenovus Solvent-Driven Process, MEG eMVAPEX) In hybrid SAGD-Solvent processes, production starts using SAGD process. After the reservoir is heated and a steam chamber developed, steam is replaced by almost pure solvent injection for the remainder of the life of the wells. By switching to solvent injection following SAGD, the residual heat in the reservoir and continued solvent injection for the remainder of the production period sustains bitumen recovery. The steam can be redirected to other well pairs, effectively accelerating development of new wells. Once solvent injection starts, the instantaneous steam-oil-ratio for a well pair will be almost zero and the cumulative steam-oil-ratio over the life of the well will be reduced by approximately 40 per cent. With solvent recovery ranging from 50 per cent to 90 per cent of the solvent injected, the cost of bitumen recovery can be reduced. A demonstration of this process has not been completed and the technology is not considered fully de-risked. Solvent recovery has not yet been fully demonstrated and will become increasingly critical to project economics as larger volumes of solvent are injected. Solvent-Based Recovery: Advanced Pure Solvent Injection (Imperial CSP, NSolv BEST, Suncor/ Nexen/Devon/Harris ESEIEH) A number of pilots have progressed from the VAPEX process with solvent-based processes. The Imperial Cyclic Solvent Process injects a heated solvent, such as propane, into single horizontal wells. The solvent injection cycles are followed by production cycles to enable bitumen production with no steam injection. The NSolv process injects a warm solvent vapor, such as propane or butane into horizontal injection wells while bitumen is produced from parallel production wells like in SAGD. The ESEIEH project uses electromagnetic radio frequency energy to heat the reservoir in conjunction with solvent injection like propane or butane. Bitumen is produced from horizontal wells like in SAGD. In solvent-based recovery processes, GHG-intensity and water-use intensity can be reduced by 60 per cent to 90 per cent depending on the technology deployed. The low operating pressure may allow production from reservoirs with shallow depth, thin pay, carbonates, gas-over-bitumen, and water-over-bitumen. Desired solvent recovery has not yet been fully demonstrated and will become increasingly critical to project economics as larger volumes of solvent are injected. Processes described above are in the initial pilot stages and will require further demonstration before they can be considered commercially ready.

32

In-Situ Solvent Technologies in a Glance

Technologies Solvent-Assisted SAGD-Solvent Hybrid Pure Solvent-Based Process Solvent and steam are

co-injected into SAGD well pairs

SAGD for 2-3 years, switch to nearly pure solvent for the remainder of production

A heated solvent is injected into SAGD well pairs

per cent Solvent

5 per cent - 20 per cent wt. solvent

80 per cent to >90 per cent solvent injection

100 per cent solvent injection

Injection injection with steam with steam Type of Solvent Propane, butane, C5- Propane Propane, butane

C10, and others

GHG Reduction Potential

Up to 30 per cent Approximately 40 per cent 60 per cent to 90 per cent

Technology Readiness

Commercialization Demonstration Development/ Demonstration

Projected Time 1-2 year 3 – 5 years 5 – 7 years

to Commercial Deployment

Commercial applications submitted

Field pilots and commercial- scale demonstrations are

Field pilots are underway or completed, commercial-scale

to the AER underway demonstration required

Acronyms:

33

BEST: Bitumen Extraction Solvent Technology CSP: Cyclic Solvent Process eMVAPEX: Enhanced Modified Vapour Extraction ES-SAGD: Expanding Solvent Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage ESEIEH: Enhanced Solvent Extraction Incorporating Electromagnetic Heating LASER: Liquid Addition to Steam for Enhancing Recovery SAGD: Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage SA-SAGD: Solvent Assisted Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage SAP: Solvent Aided Process SAS: Steam Alternating Solvent VAPEX: Vapour Extraction

APPENDIX D: OIL SANDS INNOVATION SYSTEM FRAMEWORK AND IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES Introduction This document presents the current oil sands innovation framework (Figure #4 in the main body of the report). The framework is separated into numbered steps described below. The framework is presented as a series of steps rather than a series of organizations. This approach allows organization roles to change and evolve, as potential system improvements are understood and actioned. Background Many players in the oil sands innovation ecosystem have reorganized and focused themselves recently to ensure they can play as productive a role as possible in the innovation ecosystem. For example, the Government of Alberta formed the Oil Sands Advisory Group (OSAG), industry launched COSIA, Alberta Innovates reorganized and amalgamated, and Emissions Reduction Alberta (ERA) rebranded and refreshed its mandate. Although the oil sands innovation system is working, and global innovators now come to Alberta seeking advice on how to structure an innovation system, there is and always will be opportunities to improve. Improvement opportunities are presented at the end of the document. 1. Define Desired Outcomes

a) Innovation is a tool to attain a desired outcome. It is not an end in itself. If you don’t define what outcome you are trying to achieve, how will you know when you are successful? Desired outcomes often come in the form of government policy and/or regulation. Policy or regulatory push is a key element of understanding desired outcomes.

b) Alberta’s oil sands benefit from clearly defined policy outcomes from the Climate Leadership Plan, which include growing the oil sands industry while keeping GHG emissions under a 100 MT limit.

c) Market Pull is a key element of achieving the desired outcome, especially when considering short to medium term oil sands GHG reduction outcomes. Industry needs to understand and support the development of technologies because they are the only organizations that will implement the technologies.

2. Articulate Knowledge and Innovation Gaps

a) With the desired Outcomes clearly defined, knowledge and innovation gaps can be

34

defined. Experience has shown that the more specific the gaps and challenges are, the better innovators understand the needs and the more successful the system is at developing ideas on how to close the gaps and address the challenges.

b) In many cases, industry is best placed to define and articulate the challenges to meeting

a desired policy outcome. For example, COSIA has developed a planning framework for defining innovation gaps and challenges specific to the oil sands.

c) Governments and other funding entities often fund, and government research and academic institutions articulate gaps and challenges in areas that are not yet developed enough to attract industry attention. The development of SAGD is a good example in this regard.

3. Communicate Gaps

a) The more organizations and people that understand the gaps the better. b) Governments and industry communicate these gaps and challenges, using oil sands

specific tools like the COSIA Associate Member Program, as well as more generic tools like calls for proposals and prizes.

c) In the COSIA model, gaps are defined and refined (via peer feedback), and communicated to key innovators in the COSIA Associate Member Program.

d) Key players like Alberta Innovates, ERA and other funding organizations understand what the innovation gaps are and they use the gaps to focus their innovation work, with or without oil sands company involvement.

e) Industry also communicates GHG challenges globally via a challenge communication strategy, designed to make sure key global innovators understand oil sands innovation needs

4. Innovators

a) Smart motivated people from government, academia, industry and elsewhere are the key to an innovation system. It is important to realize that entrepreneurs and SMEs are important innovators, but they are not the only ones in the system. Oil sands companies, government organizations, and universities are important sources of innovators. The most impactful innovations such as SAGD, solvent-assisted and solvent-based recovery processes, paraffinic froth treatment, slurry-transportation, and truck and shovel mining of oil sands are all significant innovations made by industry-government-university players.

b) The more innovators can interact with each other, the more ideas are generated that

would not have been generated by one person or organization alone. These “collisions” are a key component of a good innovation system. A global innovation system targeting oil sands gaps is developing.

5. Propose Ideas to Fill Gaps

a) Once innovators understand what is needed, they are remarkably good at coming up

35

with ideas on how to address gaps and challenges. b) But, there needs to be a way for innovators to propose their ideas for consideration by

companies and/or funders. c) In the COSIA model Industry accepts ideas from anyone in the world via the

Environmental Technology Assessment Portal on the COSIA website for review by all willing companies.

d) Individual companies and governments also accept ideas. 6. Convert Ideas to Projects

a) Converting ideas to projects is not always easy. b) Often multiple organizations [e.g. companies (large, medium or small), governments,

funders, universities, others] combine forces to participate in a single project to make sure different perspectives, capacity and funds are combined in ways to allow a project to go forward.

c) There are many kinds of ideas - some are very early stage (discovery) and some are

already very well developed and simply need to be tested at a large commercial scale (deployment).

d) Different organizations play different roles, depending on how well ideas are developed. e) Many tools and approaches are used to understand, screen and evaluate which ideas

should be advanced to projects and which should receive public funds.

A key part of converting technical ideas into a project is securing funding. Funding from both private and public sources is required to advance innovation to address most oil sands gaps or challenges. a) Private investment is a strong indicator that the innovation will be demanded by the

market place and is a solution that can address the challenge. b) Public funding can help mitigate the risk of failure inherent in innovation. c) Funders like Alberta Innovates and ERA use rigorous and transparent review processes

and criteria to collect, consider, and approve proposed ideas for funding. 7. Portfolio of Projects launched

a) A key approach to making sure technology solutions are developed is to take a “portfolio” approach, where some projects designed to have a high probability of success (but potentially have only an incremental impact) are advanced, while other projects that have a lower probability of success but could have a transformational impact are supported.

b) Management tools are used to make sure an innovation portfolio is optimized for success.

8. Sharing Knowledge and Learnings

a) Not all projects end up as planned, but we can learn from all projects. Key to a robust innovation system are good mechanisms to communicate among innovators what the

36

current project portfolio is, what is working, what is not working, what knowledge is created and what lessons were learned.

b) This is currently done via meetings, conferences, newsletters, update events, and writing reports and papers.

9. Commercial Scale Testing

a) An important characteristic of oil sands innovation that is not a factor for many other sectors and their innovation system is the difficulty to get technology that worked at small scale (e.g., on a lab bench or prototype scale), to work at a commercial scale.

10. Technology Implementation

a) Once technologies are proven successful and economic at a commercial scale companies can implement technologies and realize the GHG reduction benefits.

37

APPENDIX E: OIL SANDS INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK As aligned with overall Climate Leadership Plan objectives, the intent of the framework is to suggest how further progress toward the Government of Alberta’s oil sands innovation objectives might be measured and assessed. Elements of this framework might be used to develop a more comprehensive performance evaluation plan. The performance measures (see suggestions below) would need to be defined to provide a description of what success for oil sands innovation investment would look like overall and will be used to assess if/how the oil sands innovation ecosystem is moving in the right direction to achieve these outcomes. Government could play a key role collecting information on projects (cost, development stage, type of technology used, etc.) from individual entities (industry, government agencies, universities) and assembling an integrated view of the progress of GHG reduction innovations developments in the oil sands. This would help inform more effective and efficient innovation activities and relationships and also deployment investment decisions. The framework incorporates four reporting and assessment perspectives in order to demonstrate success in reaching the innovation objectives, with subsequent perspectives informed by earlier results: 1. Status Reporting: Regular internal briefings on investments, activities, actions and programs

should be developed as needed to satisfy short term management needs.

2. Progress on Actions (Annual): Assessing achievement of the actions needed to realize the innovation objectives. In order to achieve the intended objectives, specific actions will be implemented. Through both qualitative information and quantitative performance indicators, progress on the actions will be reported, typically annually. By assessing actions and their effects within a shorter time frame, this type of reporting presents opportunities for refinements to the actions as required. Tangible incremental impacts of innovation [e.g. at the project(s) or technology category level] should be reported as this information emerges.

3. Progress on Innovation Objectives (three to five years): Reporting on the initial effectiveness in achieving innovation objectives at the ecosystem level. This type of reporting requires a longer reporting cycle, such as every three years, to be most effective in assessing progress. To demonstrate the degree to which the innovation objectives have been accomplished, reporting will include qualitative information and quantitative indicators. This formative evaluation will focus on assessing progress on actions, initial progress in achieving the innovation objectives, consider the impact of external forces on the objectives, and identify opportunities for adjustments to the innovation plans for oil sands development which may then more effectively achieve the intended objectives. Tangible cumulative impacts of yearly innovation efforts should be reported to track

38

progress e.g. validation of new commercial, deployment-ready classes of technology; initial commercial deployments and related GHG impacts; evidence of policy enabling effective technology innovation and ecosystem collaborations/progress.

4. Assessment of Overall Effectiveness and Impact (five to 10 years): Evaluating the overall effectiveness and impact in contributing to the innovation objectives and the Climate Leadership Plan in Alberta (e.g. significant GHG intensity reductions from broad deployment of new in situ and other GHG reduction technologies across the industry). This perspective on reporting has a longer time horizon. It takes time to see change in the broader oil sands innovation system arising from the knowledge generated and applied as a result of today’s investment. This impact assessment is typically completed after 5 to 10years.

Organizations responsible for oil sands technology development and deployment (e.g. AI, ERA, COSIA, etc.) should be accountable for reporting to the Government of Alberta on progress toward meeting objectives. The Government of Alberta should be responsible for the overall oil sands innovation objectives and monitoring program, both ecosystem-level and overall performance. The government should also rely on the innovation community, partners and stakeholders (such as industry and environmental non-government organizations) to further the achievement of the intended outcomes through additional actions. Reporting The oil sands innovation objectives need to be part of a long-term, strategic approach to oil sands innovation investment focused on areas of strategic priority for Alberta. An oil sands innovation roadmap to year 2030 with annual milestones should be used to track progress and make course corrections as necessary. Progress toward the innovation objectives, especially from more transformative technology solutions, will take time to achieve. A formative evaluation should be considered in the 2020-22 timeframe. Overall progress on actions should be assessed. The relationship of the actions to the innovation objectives should be evaluated to provide evidence of the impact of the actions on the intended objectives. Progress on the innovation objectives should be evaluated, and the impact of driving forces on the objectives described. Data sources should be of both a quantitative and qualitative nature, and drawn from data collected via the progress and achievement reporting process, and from other sources such as agency, institution and government of Alberta reports. Examples of Performance Measures Progress on actions should be reported on using both qualitative and quantitative performance indicators and measures. Examples of potential performance indicators and measures might include:

Absolute oil sands GHG emission levels and GHG intensity reductions resulting from oil

39

sands innovations.

Number of proven effective pilots and demonstrations.

Examples of technology deployments in industry.

Number and nature of breakthrough innovations and benefits to companies (e.g. cost- savings, new products and processes).

Number and type of technologies, processes, goods or services commercialized by industry and supported by GoA.

Number and nature of market outcomes (e.g. increased market share or new markets accessed).

Examples of policy tools introduced or in-place (e.g. oil sands procurement policy; industry regulations & standards) and evidence of relevance and use of the policies introduced/in place (e.g. uptake).

Government investment in oil sands innovation infrastructure and number of companies using infrastructure to validate new technology and productivity.

Leverage ratio: evidence of government resources leveraged with other investors and industrial adopters for technology solutions scale-up, demonstration and first deployment.

Number and type of technology development connections/partnerships and collaborations established and the associated benefits to industry including reducing GHG to meet environmental obligations and enhancing oil sands competitiveness.

40

APPENDIX F – OUTCOMES-DRIVEN APPROACH TO ESTABLISHING THE OIL SANDS INNOVATION PORTFOLIO This document was prepared by ENGO participants on the Innovation Working Group as an input into working group discussions. Industry participants on the Innovation Working Group do not agree with the approach and the analysis in this Appendix and, as such, there is no consensus on this Appendix.

41

42

43

44

APPENDIX G – OPPORTUNITY-DRIVEN APPROACH TO ESTABLISHING THE OIL SANDS INNOVATION PORTFOLIO (ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY) This document was prepared by industry participants on the Innovation Working Group as an input into working group discussions. ENGO participants on the Innovation Working Group do not agree with the approach and the analysis in this Appendix and, as such, there is no consensus on this Appendix. The purpose of the following is to illustrate how an opportunity-driven approach could be used to establish the oil sands innovation portfolio. It is for illustrative purposes only. Summary and Conclusions

a) There is a very well established portfolio of oil sands GHG reduction technology projects, that if further developed will allow substantial GHG reductions in the short and medium term (before 2030).

b) With the right investment and focus, eliminating GHG emissions from the production of oil sands is possible in new production over the long term (production brought online post 2030).

c) Opportunities exist for GHG emission reduction in each of in situ, mining, and partial and full upgrading: d) In situ represents the best potential for GHG emissions reductions in the short and medium.

Methodology

a) Experts in industry and government experts were asked to identify:

The most promising oil sands GHG reduction technologies in development, in three oil sands sub-sectors (in situ, mining and upgrading and partial upgrading).

The potential GHG reductions that could be delivered by those technologies in the short, medium and long term (to 2022, to 2030, and post 2030).

The likely cost to develop those technologies to first use.

45

Estimated timeframes required to validate technology such that it could be sanctioned for first commercial scale deployment

Short Term (before 2022) Medium Term (2022 to 2030) Long Term (2030 or later)

In S

itu

Bit

um

en P

rod

uct

ion

Promising Technology Platform

Solvent Enhanced Recovery Non-Condensable Gas (e.g. CH4,

CO2)

Optimization

Non-Aqueous Solvent Novel Heating (e.g. Radio frequency, Thermal Assisted Gravity Drainage Very low Steam-to-Oil Hybrids Direct Contact Steam Generation Active innovation space MCFL integrated w/SAGD/CSS including CO2

storage 7 extending beyond coal experience

NG Decarbonization Carbon Capture & Utilization Steam from Renewables Cold Solvent

Potential GHG intensity reduction

10 – 30 per cent 30 - 90 per cent 50 – 100 per cent

Estimated Cost to Develop to 1st Use

$ 250 – 300M $300 - $500 M > $500M

Probability of Success

High

Potential annual CO2e emissions reduction (MT)

3.7 – 7.5 MT 15.2 MT Net zero GHG emissions for production brought on-line after 2030

46

Estimated timeframes required to validate technology such that it could be sanctioned for first commercial scale deployment Short Term (before 2022) Medium Term (2022 to 2030) Long Term (2030 or later)

Min

ing

and

Ext

ract

ion

Promising Technology Platform

Waste Heat Recovery Utilities Slurry Solvent recovery in real time downstream of FT circuit Ore Characterization /Optimization

Ore transport improvements (e.g. LNG heavy equipment, electrification, automation) Solvent bitumen recovery 100 per cent solvent Solvent enhanced aqueous recovery Tailings Technologies to reduce tonne/km and associated energy requirements enhanced dewatering, eliminate re-handle.

NG Decarbonization: Partial oxidation then oxidative coupling ‘Affordable’ CO2 capture & storage

technologies (including utilization) MCFC: Coupled w/ CO2 storage &

or utilization SMNR * High regulatory uncertainty CO27CCs through reclamation/biology

Potential GHG intensity reduction

5 -10 per cent 5 – 10 per cent 50 – 90 per cent

Estimated Cost to Develop to 1st Use

$65M $320M > $500M

Probability of Success

Medium Potential annual CO2e emissions reduction (MT)

1.0 MT 1.5 MT while growing mining production by 50 per cent

Net zero GHG emissions for production brought on-line after 2030

47

Estimated timeframes required to validate technology such that it could be sanctioned for first commercial scale deployment Short Term (before 2022) Medium Term (2022 to 2030) Long Term (2030 or later)

Up

grad

ing

and

Par

tial

Up

grad

ing

Promising Technology Platform

Upgrading energy efficiency & Integration (across the board including Utilities) [Optimization Demos] Partial Upgrading by improving, adapting, and combining established technologies (e.g de- asphalting, vis- breaking, hydrogenation)

Novel U/G (continuous x-flow cracking acoustics) Novel Partial Upgrading (e.g. super critical water cracking, Field U/G: Molten Sodium, Jet Shear cavitation) NG Decarbonization In-Situ Upgrading (e.g. Asphaltene rejection methods, in-situ coking, selective, solvent utilization)

Non Thermal (Non Catalytic) e.g. oxidative de-sulphurization & viscosity reduction Novel U/G: Ultrasonic, high energy election emission cracking Alternative (Low Carbon) Hydrogen Generation

Potential GHG intensity reduction Improvements

5-25 per cent 10 – 50 per cent 20 – 40 per cent

Estimated Cost to Develop to 1st Use

$220 – 550M $900 – 1350 M $>500M

Probability of Success

Medium

Potential annual CO2e emissions reduction (MT)

10.7 MT 10.7 MT 14.1 MT