Talk:Boundary Dam Power Station

Reverted to October 21 version
I have reverted the article back to the October 21 version - all of the substantive edits since then are non-neutral and read like an opinion piece. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:OR,WP:SYN and WP:OPINION.--ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your wholesale deletion of the content was a smidge heavy-handed. The plant is the first CCS project in the world to go beyond technology demonstration. SaskPower has hidden its very weak economics, yet the deleted content referenced articles from global sources such as the FT and The Economist. Do we have to wait until SaskPower's story gets written up here before it can be made neutral with the deleted content? --scruss (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We can add, without editorial comment, material that accurately reflects what is in those sources. What we cannot do is synthesise from that material and draw conclusions of our own that are not in the sources to create a totally unbalanced article.--ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been asked here as an admin to see if I can sort things out here... I have edited the information down into a balanced version which keeps much of the useful information that was excised. I found that your edit comment, Ukexpat, "Rv - all of the edits after this point read like an opinion piece and are not-neutral." was a bit too generalised - yes, much of it was synthesising a conclusion... but quite a bit of the information after that point was neutral, and I've reinstated it. The rest though, I left out, as it did go well beyond the usual level of synthesis towards original research and did appear to be pointed. It's still there in the edit history, though, and I'd encourage editors to see if there are single unbiased publications which reach the same (or different) conclusions - they could be drawn on for further expansion of the article. Grutness...wha?  23:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now managed to add back in quite a bit more of the information in a more neutral way. Please remember that being neutral doesn't mean ignoring controversies about the project, it simply means noting both the pluses and the minuses without giving undue weight to different aspects. Grutness...wha?  00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Controversy Section
Hello, I've been asked to provide clarification on the removal of the controversy section of this page. The fact of the matter remains that final costs are still being reconciled and determined with 30 vendors who have contributed contractually to this project. Our organization does not have complete financial data to accurately communicate at this time and won't until late into 2015 when legal contracts and negotiations have been settled. Negative earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization noted from the author of this area is pure speculation at this point based on absolutely no financial data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useredimom (talk • contribs) 17:09, 22 January 2015‎


 * Hi, I added a comment on your talk page about this, but please read up on wikipedia's policies about Conflicts of Interest if you have a direct connection to this article's subject. As far as the edit, I think you might need to explain more clearly what exactly you think is problematic about the controversies section. The section is well supported with reliable sources, are you saying that you think those sources are wrong or incorrect? If that's the case, then you would need to produce some references of your own which challenge what is written in that section, and in the sources which it cites.  Even then, since wikipedia is meant to reflect a neutral point of view, both of those viewpoints would likely remain in the article text. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi - re comments from Useredimom (or should we say 'SaskPower' since that is clearly the entity which is being represented) "Hallo, I've been asked to provide clarification on the removal of the controversy section....". At issue in this article on Boundary Dam is not the costs of the project. We know from reliable public sources (included in our original post to this page) that the total amount is at least $1.355-billion and we do not need to wait until end 2015 for confirmation of that amount. Let us not be distracted from the major concern which is the revenues - or rather the lack of them. It is inconceivable that any corporate entity would embark on a project of this size (i.e. $1.355-billion) without a very good idea of revenues over the project life. SaskPower has however steadfastly refused to provide any information regarding those revenues. As a result we undertook an analysis of public data - most of which is from SaskPower's web site - and all of which is referenced to third-party sources. We presented a summary of that analysis, together with all of our references, on this Wikipedia page. It is unacceptable of SaskPower/Useredimom to state that the extensive material we have provided is "pure speculation ... based on absolutely no financial data". SaskPower, as noted by Fyddlestix, needs to produce some references of its own which challenge what we have provided. If SaskPower is unable to provide such information then it would seem logical to conclude that our analysis is correct.Sktaxpayers (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record: SaskPower today denied to CBC Saskatchewan political reporter Stefani Langenegger (Twitter @SLangeneggerCBC) that they had any involvement with or knowledge of, one of their employees editing the Wikipedia Boundary Dam site. Given Useredimom's comments at the top of this section and SaskPower's denial today, the obvious conclusion is that either Useredimom or SaskPower, is being economical with the truth. Regardless of which of the two is involved, it might reasonably lead one to question the validity of the many edits which Useredimom has made to this site. Sktaxpayers (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have been following the SaskPower Boundary Dam Carbon Capture storage project and the mini-controversy here. I am perplexed by the comment above that there is no verifiable financial data on costs as the proponent SaskPower has stated the approximate cost of the project in many of its press releases and interviews. Granted, this may change somewhat when the final costs come in but the total has been confirmed by the proponent as noted in the sources referred to. Similarly, the comment that estimates of income are "pure speculation based on no financial data" is certainly inaccurate as each of the estimates is based on information listed in solid industry and media sources. I have discussed these amounts with representatives of SaskPower and Cenovus Energy and while they have some points of argument they would not or could not provide any evidence to counter the figures shown in the initial Wikipedia article. There is no way they would not have done projections on this, so they could readily provide their own figures to counter those in the article if they wanted to. I think we have to assume that the estimates in the article are fairly accurate.Earthling9 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

2014 first?
This article states that "In 2014, the Boundary Dam Power Station in Saskatchewan became one of the first in the world to successfully use the technology." Is that true or misleading? Maybe the lead should expand with a key fact about carbon capture technology and this power station. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Current capture rate
Quite a few sources state that the plant has captured less than the 90% capacity. Would anyone be able to find a more reliable source than these articles ? Float59 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Just adding that it would be possible to work out that the capture rate is less than 90% from the graph shown in the s&p article attributed to Saskatchewan Power however I wouldn't want to write these percentages in the wiki since that would be original research. Float59 (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)