biochar-based forest restoration at a far north ontario ... · (puga, 2016). although a variety of...

Biochar-based Forest Restoration at a Far North Ontario Mine:

An Economic Analysis

by

Annonciade Murat

Recipient of the 2017-2018 Fred G. Jackson Prize for the best “Research Paper in Forest

Conservation” of the year at the Master of Forest Conservation (MFC)

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of the Master of Forest Conservation (MFC)

Faculty of Forestry,

University of Toronto

Supervisor: Dr. Sean Thomas

© Copyright by Annonciade Murat, February 2018

Biochar-based forest restoration at a Far North Ontario mine: an economic analysis

A. Murat

2

ABSTRACT

The mining industry generates millions of tons of tailings in Canada that are a major concern for

the environment, commonly inhibiting the regrowth of vegetation and therefore presenting a long-

term risk for metals leaching, as well as reducing other environmental services of natural

ecosystems. Charcoal used as a soil amendment ("biochar”) has recently been proposed as a

mitigation tool for the restoration of these sites as it promotes plants growth and directly sequesters

carbon in the soil for hundreds to thousands of years. One critical step in examining operational

use of biochar are analyses that examine the economic and environmental costs and the benefits

of restoring mine tailings with biochar.

In this study, we investigate alternative economic and environmental solutions to restore the native

forest with biochar at the Goldcorp Musselwhite mine, located in the Ontario Far North Region,

Canada. Based on a discounted cash flow analysis, we reviewed the economic impacts of specific

biochar amendment rates coupled with different alternatives for biochar access. These alternatives

include the importation of high-carbon wood ash from an external supplier, the local production

of biochar, either through the use of a mobile pyrolyzer or a wood gasifier, using various

feedstocks, including local forest residues, wood pallets or imported wood-chips/sawdust. The

environmental benefits of each alternative were also measured in terms of C sequestration, with

an estimation of the potential carbon credit income that could be generated under proposed Ontario

cap-and-trade guidelines.

Our results indicate that the import of high-carbon wood ash from the Thunder Bay area would be

the least costly and easiest solution to implement for the mine. The possible utilization of high-

carbon wood ash in the restoration of mine tailings has multiple environmental and economic

benefits, as this material is usually sent to landfill at an economic and environmental cost for both

the companies and the public. We also conclude that technical, logistical, and cost barriers

currently limit the implementation of local biochar production in Ontario, and these limitations are

especially pronounced in remote sites such as the Ontario Far North region.


A. Murat

3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the following persons for their time, help and patience throughout the bulk

of the research:

- My supervisor Dr. Sean Thomas

- The Faculty professors: Dr. Shashi Kant for his contribution to the economic analysis,

and Dr. Sally Krigstin for contributing to the chemical analysis

- The Phd Candidates Jillian Bieser, Nigel Gale and Jasmine Williams

- The environmental team of Musselwhite Mine

- My brother Guillaume Dechambre (BMO) for his help in designing and automating the Excel

Cash Flow analysis

- Brad Everatt (OMNRF, Sioux Lookout District), for having spent valuable time to explain to me

Ontario regulations; also Jay Flinders (Wood measurement section, OMNR) and Doug Reid

(Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, OMNRF) for their contributions

- Malcolm Cecil-Cockwell (Haliburton Forest) for the indispensable economic and technical

forestry data

- Marcin Lewandowski (Ecostrat) for his consulting expertise and essential economic data

- Olivier Lepez (Biogreen) for his professionalism and detailed quotation on the Pyrogreen, which

is one of the pyrolysis unit of Biogreen’s

- Jonah Levine (Biochar Solutions Inc) for detailed pricing and technical information on the BSI

Double pyrolysis unit, and for other technical data

- Gerry McKenna (Ontario Power Generation) for the technical details on their wood ash and his

colleague Darcey Bailey for pricing

- Brian Coghlan (Wood Ash Industries) for his help in calculating wood ash transportation cost

and for the in-depth technical knowledge about his wood ash

- Dale Thomas (Borealis Wood Power) for his comprehensive explanations on their innovative

Combined Heat and Power generator

- Grant Rawcliffe (Heizomat) for the detailed information on woodchippers

- Daves Miles (IMT Inc) for the pricing of the cross-belt separator (on a Sunday) and cooperation

- Dario Presezzi (Bioforcetech corp) and Nando Breiter (Carbon Zero)

- Stephanie Poirier (Canadian Wood Pallet & Container Association)

- Martin Kaiser and Ashleigh Marchl (Resolute Forest Products)


A. Murat

4

Contents

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Biochar, wood ash and charcoal: definitions ........................................................................................ 6

Biochar dosage ........................................................................................................................................ 7

Charcoal as a tool against climate change ............................................................................................ 7

Biochar production in Canada .............................................................................................................. 9

Economic analyses of biochar for mine tailing restoration ................................................................. 9

Current experiment of the University of Toronto at the Musselwhite mine, Ontario .................... 10

Specific project objectives and questions ............................................................................................ 11

METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 11

Clarification about units used in this report ...................................................................................... 11

System boundaries ................................................................................................................................ 11

Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Details on the experimentation ........................................................................................................... 13

1. biochar/wood ash rate of amendment ........................................................................................... 13

2. biochar/wood ash application ........................................................................................................ 13

Economic analysis ............................................................................................................................... 13

Alternatives considered ........................................................................................................................ 14

Option 1: Industrially produced high carbon wood ash is supplied by a third party, transported up to

the mine and applied on the mine tailings .......................................................................................... 15

Option 2: Biochar is produced on-site with a local pyrolyzis unit or a wood gasifier. ........................ 15

Economic costs ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Equipment prices ................................................................................................................................. 18

Energy consumption ............................................................................................................................ 19

Feedstock prices .................................................................................................................................. 22

Operating costs ................................................................................................................................... 23

Carbon assessment ................................................................................................................................ 28

Carbon price ........................................................................................................................................ 28

Carbon sequestration .......................................................................................................................... 28

Carbon emissions ................................................................................................................................ 29

Conversion between Carbon and CO2 ................................................................................................. 31

Estimating distances ............................................................................................................................. 31

Limitations of the study ........................................................................................................................ 31


A. Murat

5

RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 32

Time to completion of the project ........................................................................................................ 32

Discount rate.......................................................................................................................................... 34

Total costs .............................................................................................................................................. 34

The influence of transportation on final costs .................................................................................... 36

Relation between distance, conversion yield, moisture content and transportation cost .................. 36

The influence of time over costs .......................................................................................................... 38

Relation between labor cost and duration of the project ................................................................... 38

The impact of harvest cost .................................................................................................................. 39

Energy cost .......................................................................................................................................... 39

Cost of goods ....................................................................................................................................... 39

Net capital cost ................................................................................................................................... 40

Cost per ton of biochar ........................................................................................................................ 40

Environmental benefit of the projects ................................................................................................. 41

Potential carbon income ....................................................................................................................... 42

Other considerations and overview ..................................................................................................... 44

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................ 45

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 48

LIST OF PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ...................................................................................... 49

LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................................ 50

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 62

Appendix A: Literature review for biochar dosage ................................................................................. 62

Appendix B: A reel feed/mixer wagons allowing to mix and spread sand and biochar at the same time

................................................................................................................................................................ 64

Appendix C: Regulations ........................................................................................................................ 65

Appendix D: Pictures of the burnt forest near Musselwhite ................................................................... 67

Appendix E: Equipment prices ............................................................................................................... 68

Appendix F: calculation of crown forest charges ................................................................................... 69

Appendix G: an example of a 40ST container sized pyrolyzis unit ........................................................ 70

Appendix H: Decision Matrix ................................................................................................................. 71


A. Murat

6

INTRODUCTION

Mine tailings represent a difficult environment for plant establishment. Although this varies

greatly with tailings geochemistry, in many tailings the toxicity of metals, such as copper (Cu),

lead (Pb), nickel (Ni) and zinc (Zn), are a serious limiting factor to the development of even the

most metal-resistant plants (Wong, 2003). This often results in very limited vegetation recruitment

on tailings sites. In addition to metals toxicity, mine tailings sites are often characterized by

extreme pH values, low fertility, low water-holding capacity, and poor soil structure that further

limits plant establishment (Puga et al., 2016). However, the restoration of a vegetation cover is a

necessary step to the remediation of these sites as it stabilizes sites, limits contaminants’ leaching

to groundwater and transport of toxic particles by wind associated with soil erosion (Beesley et

al., 2013, Puga et al., 2016). Since 1990 mines in Ontario have been required by legislation to

“restore the site to its former use or condition” after the end of their operations (Ontario Mining

Act, 1990). Similar laws pertain elsewhere.

Biochar, wood ash and charcoal: definitions

It has recently been suggested that biochar could be an appropriate remediation tool for mine

tailings (Fellet et al, 2011, Beesley et al, 2011, Zhang et al, 2013; Fellet et al, 2014, Paz-Ferreiro

et al, 2014; Hossain et al, 2015). Referring to the use of charcoal as a soil amendment (Thomas

and Gale, 2015), biochar is a solid porous material produced by pyrolysis of organic residues

(Puga, 2016). Although a variety of pyrolysis processes have been developed, slow pyrolysis has

most commonly been used for the production of biochar, resulting in typical yields of 35-50 wt%

at temperatures ranging from 300-500 °C (Manya, 2012; Brownsort, 2009; Homagain et al, 2014).

Another product containing appreciable amounts of charcoal is wood ash, which is produced

through combustion in the presence of oxygen (Reed et al, 2017; Lucchini et al, 2014). Wood ash

has similar properties to wildfire residues: it increases soil pH and nutrient availability, but can

also increase concentrations of metals (Demeyer et al, 2001; Hannam et al, 2016). In general, field

and greenhouse experiments have confirmed that wood ash promotes plant growth on acid soils

(Demeyer et al, 2001). Wood industries and power generation plants produce large quantities of

wood ash that are used as a liming agent in some part of Canada (Quebec, British Columbia,

Alberta) or as both a fertilizer and a liming tool (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia) for agriculture

and/or forestry (Hannam et al, 2016). Nevertheless, in the rest of Canada, Ontario included, this

wood ash is often sent to landfill with a high economic and environmental cost for both the

companies and the public (Hannam et al, 2016). Wood ash produced industrially often contains a

mix of fine fly ash and of bottom ash (Omil et al 2013). In general, fine fly ashes have a lower

carbon content and higher concentration of heavy metals than bottom ash, therefore bottom ash,

with a higher charcoal content, is generally more desirable as a soil amendment (Omil et al, 2013).

Some bottom ashes are consider “high-carbon ash”, and overlap in properties with material

classified as biochar.

Charcoal, whether found in biochar or in high-carbon wood ash, generally has high adsorption and

holding capacity for heavy metals (Baker et al, 2011; Beesley 2013; Puga et al, 2016; Thomas and

Gale; 2015), and thus can reduce the metals bioavailability on mine tailings. For example, a study

by Baker et al. (2011) revealed that charcoal in contaminated mine area had 40 times the level of

metals found in the surrounding soils, suggesting that it successfully adsorbed the contaminants

from the soils. Such contaminants can be locked in the charcoal for very long periods of time, thus

preventing them from leaching into the soils (Thomas and Gale, 2015). Moreover charcoal has a


A. Murat

7

high capacity in retaining plants nutrients (both cation and anions), as well as water in the soil

(Thomas and Gale, 2015). For these reasons, it has positive effects on plant growth – for instance

an average increase of 41% in tree growth was recorded after the addition of biochar (Thomas and

Gale, 2015).

Biochar dosage

The dosage of biochar necessary to obtain desired benefits for restoration is a critical input to any

analysis. Direct experiments in the context of mine tailings, industrial, poor or contaminated soils

are very limited. In general there is a consensus that an increase in biochar dosage will promotes

higher plant growth up to a saturation point. For instance, in a dose-response trial of two temperate

herbaceous species, plant biomass increased by 28% at 6 tons per hectare amendment rate, by 78%

at 13 tons per hectare and by 115% at 19 t/ha compared to non-treated plants; however, growth

response declined beyond 30-40t/ha (Gale and Thomas, 2018). A saturation point of 25 tons per

hectare was reported with mine tailings (Roberts et al, 2015), and between 26t/ha (Rajkovich et

al., 2012) to 180 t/ha (Rondon et al, 2007) in agricultural soils. When reviewing the literature

(Appendix A) for recommendations on amendment rates for poor forest or agricultural soils, mine

tailings, and industrial areas, contradictory recommendations were found. Some researchers (6

articles) have used application rates below 10t/ha (all except one concerned non-contaminated

soils). Others, the majority of which concerned contaminated soils, soil with low PH,

unconsolidated geological material, or mine tailings, recommend dosages of 10-15 t/ha (7 articles).

Additional recommendations (5 articles, mainly on agricultural soil) promote application ranges

of 20-26 t/ha, and the remaining (11 articles) propose rates between 40 and 120 t/ha (6 of which

relate to mine tailings or industrial soils). Overall recommendations for mine tailings and

contaminated soils seem to favor higher rates of application (above 40 t/ha), due to high content

in heavy metals and the generally low pH of soil. A few studies report positive vegetation response

on mine tailings with lower dosages, for instance with 10 t/ha (Phillips et al, 2016; Roberts et al,

2015). Kuttner and Thomas (2017) reported that biochar additions of 5, 10 and 20 t/ha on a poor

sand substrate successfully enhanced biomass growth by 14-250%. However, so far only one study

has considered a very low dosages: i.e., 1.5 t/ha on a heavy metal (cadmium) contaminated soil

(Zhang et al, 2016), with results showing positive outcomes on rice yield and reduced

accumulation of Cd into the plant.

Charcoal as a tool against climate change

Biochar/charcoal has also additional benefits as a mean of carbon storage, and has thus been

promoted as a management tool to fight climate change. Carbon dioxide is initially stored in the

plants and trees during the process of photosynthesis. When burnt (e.g., in wildfire or traditional

swidden agriculture) ~97% of the carbon stored is immediately released (Sombroek, 2003).

Similarly when dead wood is left for decay, approximately 50% of the carbon that was stored is

released into the atmosphere over a period of 5 to 10 years (Lehman et al, 2006), though this varies

with species and environmental conditions. However, when the wood is converted to biochar, most

of this carbon is stored almost permanently within the biomass (Lehman et al, 2006). Due to its

recalcitrant nature, charcoal decomposes very slowly (Thomas and Gale, 2015). The stable content

of carbon in the biochar is estimated to be at minimum 50% (Lehmann et al, 2006) and up to 68%

(Hammond et al, 2011) or even 80% (Galinato et al, 2011; Roberts et al, 2010), the rest being

released into the atmosphere during the first few years as CO2 (Roberts et al, 2010). The stable

content of charcoal can remain for a very long time, at least for more than 100 years (Hammond

et al., 2011; Lehman et al, 2006; Roberts et al, 2010; Thomas and Gale, 2015), or even up to


A. Murat

8

10,000-100,000 years (Spokas, 2010). In the Amazon basin of Brazil, “terra preta” soils appears

to have been amended with charcoal by Pre-Columbians from 500 BC to 1640 AD resulting in

very dark fertile soils that have persisted to the present day (Heckenberger et al. 2003; Sombroeket

al, 2003).

The initial carbon content of biochar depends mainly on the feedstock (Galinato et al, 2011;

Roberts et al, 2010) and is usually higher in wood due to the high quantity of lignin (Galinato et

al, 2011). The carbon content is also influenced by the mode of pyrolyzis (Galinato et al, 2011).

As temperature increases, the yield of biochar decreases, but the content of carbon increases

(Brownsort, 2009; Al-Wabel et al, 2013; Shaaban et al., 2014; Hu, 2014). For instance, Ogawa et

al (2006) reported that a temperature increase from 300 to 800°C, caused a biochar yield decrease

from 66.5% to 25.6%, but fixed carbon content increased from 55.8 to 93.5%. The amount of

initial carbon produced by slow pyrolysis typically ranges between 50 and 85% (Hammond et al,

2011; Galinato et al, 2011), but can be much higher (Ogawa et al, 2006). In Haliburton Forest,

which currently is the only known commercial producer of biochar in Ontario, carbon contents in

wood biochar have range between 77% and 87% (Gale et al, 2016; Gale et al, 2017; Kuttner and

Thomas, 2017; Mitchell et al, 2016). In wood ash, where carbon is generally oxidized and gasified

during the combustion process, the amount of carbon is usually much lower or even absent

(Demeyer et al, 2001). Wood ashes from boilers and cogeneration plants have carbon content

typically around 10-20%. However wood ash with higher carbon quantity, up to 30% or even 60%

(James et al, 2012) are not uncommon. The presence of “high carbon wood ash” can be caused by

a short residence time or poor aeration within the boiler system and/or by ash particles covering

the char, resulting in incomplete combustion (Demeyer et al, 2001; James et al, 2012).

It has been estimated that the utilization of sustainable biochar in agriculture could offset up to

12% of global GHG emissions annually and sequester up to 130 gigatons of carbon over the course

of 100 years (Woolf et al, 2010). As pointed out earlier, biochar or charcoal can facilitate

regeneration of the forest on mine tailings, further enhancing the benefits of carbon storage through

increasing live biomass. Such approaches could even generate substantial income in carbon credits

(IBI, 2017). In Canada recent proposals (Ontario Government, 2017a) will allow for the issuance

of offset credits to initiatives that avoid or reduce at least one ton of carbon dioxide. Some example

of initiatives includes “a tree planting project – trees absorb carbon and store the carbon, which

reduces the amount of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere” (Ontario, 2017). The Ontario

Government (2017a) does not mention specifically biochar/charcoal-based projects, however

projects on “manure management project that captures and destroy methane gas” are being

considered. The general intent of the new regulation is to give “incentives […] to implement

project fighting climate change” (Ontario Government, 2017a). Since biochar is a soil amendment,

like manure, and stores carbon within the soil, while allowing the forest to regenerate (storing

additional carbon), it is likely that forest restoration at a mine tailing with biochar would qualify

for the issuance of a credit offset. In order to be eligible, the project should allow the carbon to be

sequestered for at least 100 years (Ontario Government, 2016). So far developing protocols on

reforestation have been focused on the managed crown forest with the Area of the Undertaking

(AOU), but the initiation of projects on managed Crown forests may allow future policies to be

developed for non-crown forests or even the Far North. Furthermore, since crown forest are already

required to meet some standards of excellence under the Crown Sustainable Forest Act (1994),

new forest protocols will require projects to go beyond “business-as-usual” or to bring in

“additional” benefits in order to be eligible for carbon offsets (Cheminfo, 2017). The future value


A. Murat

9

of carbon price in Ontario is for the moment unknown, and will likely vary depending on different

factors such as market, climate change, and technological innovation. According to Environment

and Climate Change Canada (2017a and b), the minimum carbon price should be $10 per ton, with

an increase of $10 per year to reach at least $50 per ton in 2050. When accounting for carbon

credit, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommends considering a low

and a high price scenarios with values of $20 and $80 per ton of CO2 (IPCC, 2007; Roberts et al,

2010).

Biochar production in Canada

With 347 million hectares of forest, amongst which 270 million ha are boreal forests, Canada has

an estimated stock of about 47 billion m3 of wood (Natural Resources Canada, 2017c). The boreal

forests are often subject to major natural disturbance such as wildfire. It is estimated that between

1970 and 2010, the mean burned area in the boreal forest reached 2,900 km2 per year (Barrette et

al, 2015). Salvaged wood of dead trees following natural disturbance has been acknowledged as

an important opportunity for the production of bioenergy (IPPC, 2011), especially in area where

the wood is devoid of timber value (Barrette et al, 2015). Therefore large areas of the boreal forests

affected by wildfire could be a promising source of feedstock for biochar. It is not well known

how wood decay of wildfire-killed trees could affect the quality of biochar, but wood

decomposition in the boreal forest is generally slow (Barrette et al, 2015). One of the reasons for

low decomposition rate is the low temperature occurring for much of the year, preventing the

development of fungi and subsequent decay. In addition, standing dead stems can dry quickly (as

low as 30% moisture content), which further limits decomposition of the wood (Barrette et al,

2015).

In spite of important resources for bioenergy feedstock in Canada, little of this material is utilized

due to low prices of alternative fuels, as well as the high costs of harvesting and transportation

(Stokes, 1992). As a result, the collection of forest residues for bioenergy in Canada is usually not

a stand-alone enterprise, but is integrated in the supply chain of more valuable wood products, thus

reducing the overall cost of bioenergy production (Stokes, 1992). In Sweden, thinning operations

often occur prior to the final commercial harvesting to improve the general health of the forest

(Stokes, 1992). The majority of these first-thinning trees are between 6-10 cm DBH and they are

collected mainly for the production of bioenergy. Feller-bunchers or forwarders with grapple saws

are used to remove the small stems, allowing the recovery of more fuel wood at lower cost. Similar

operations are found in the UK and in Italy. Research is still ongoing for small-scale mechanized

harvesting system (Stokes, 1992). In the US, fuel harvesting is usually not profitable. However

California, thanks to government incentives, has a very active biofuel market derived from the

thinning of small trees. Wood chips are usually processed at roadside with a truck-mounted wood

chipper (Stokes, 1992).

Economic analyses of biochar for mine tailing restoration

Biochar is considered a low-cost material with the potential to result in net negative effects

on carbon balance, especially when derived from unclaimed local feedstock, such as forest

residues, or from wood/organic waste, and where transportation emissions are low (Jiang et al.,

2016; Puga et al., 2016; Thomas and Gale, 2015). In addition, the use of charcoal as a mine tailing

remediation tool could generate local employment and business opportunities (Keske et al, 2012).


A. Murat

10

Nevertheless there is currently a lack of economic studies on biochar-based mine tailing

restoration. The most closely related published studies rather have concentrated on agricultural

applications (McCarl et al., 2009; Galinato et al, 2011; Shackley et al., 2011; Dickinson et al, 2015)

and biochar production system (Field et al, 2013; Miller-Robbie et al, 2015).

Petelina et al (2014b) completed a life-cycle cost analysis of a potential biochar-based restoration

at the 53-ha Gunnar mine tailings in Saskatchewan. They concluded that a 3-year revegetation

project with commercially produced biochar at a rate of 100 t/ha would be cost-deterrent (Can

$20.4 Million), but that locally produced biochar would be much more cost-effective (Can $4.9

Million) and would have no net carbon impact on global warming (0t CO2eq/t biochar vs 3t

CO2eq/t biochar for commercially produced biochar). If the Gunnar mine study had considered a

lower rate of application (for instance 5 tons per hectare), the economic outcome would have

certainly been very different. As noted above, there is not a scientific concensus on optimal

application rates. Although a number of publications seem to favor high charcoal amendment

dosages on contaminated sites, lower dosages could be more economically feasible for the

restoration of mine tailings located in remote areas. In such areas, the transport of feedstock and

equipment can be challenging due to the distance from the suppliers. The use of energy (diesel,

propane, electricity) is also an important consideration in terms of cost and environmental impact.

Current experiment of the University of Toronto at the Musselwhite mine, Ontario

Located in the Ontario Far North region, the Musselwhite Gold mine (Goldcorp Canada

Ltd.), is currently looking for viable solutions to restore its mine tailings. The mine is located

approximately 76 km southeast of Round Lake First Nation, 130 km north of Pickle Lake and 728

km northwest from Thunder Bay. The tailings impoundment has an estimated area of 100 ha

(Email exchanges with Musselwhite mine’s Environmental Department, August 2017) that will

require restoration, but this area could increase depending on the future needs of the mine to

expand its operations. The tailings have appreciable concentrations of toxic metals and metalloids,

such as copper, iron, zinc, chromium, lead, thallium, selenium and arsenic, resulting from the gold

extraction processes. Many of these metals could potentially leach into the environment.. An

environmental study conducted by the mine in 2014 revealed that copper and arsenic surpass safe

concentration levels for humans and the environment as set in the Canadian Council of Ministers

of the Environment standards (Goldcorp, 2015). In addition of being contaminated with heavy

metals, the soils of these area are also slightly acidic (pH 6.2), which further limits the

establishment of vegetation cover. Closed areas of the tailings impoundment have been capped

with local sand at a depth of ~100 cm, and this approach is likely to be implemented at closure.

The University of Toronto has been conducting experiments on the Musselwhite mine tailings for

the past few years in order to test how biochar can promote forest restoration in this environment

(Dr. S. Thomas, J. Bieser and J. Williams, personal communication, 2017). The trials have used

both natural charcoal from an adjacent areas affected by wildfire and high-carbon wood ash

obtained from Wood Ash Industries, based in Kirkland Lake, Ontario. Positive responses from the

vegetation have been recorded both in small-scale field experiments and in the laboratory (J.

Bieser, personal communication, 2017). In August 2017, a larger-scale experiment was set up over

12 plots of 10x10 m each, amongst which 9 were amended with high carbon wood ash at the

various amendment rates of 6.4, 12.8 and 19.1 t/ha and the remaining left without amendment for

control (Dr. S. Thomas and J. Williams, personal communication, 2017). Saplings, consisting of

two-thirds Jack pine (Pinus banksiana) and one-third mixed hardwoods (aspen (Populus


A. Murat

11

tremuloides), paper birch (Betula papyrifera) and willow (Salix bebbiana)) from nearby

regenerating forests, were transplanted into experimental blocks at a density at the upper range

used in operational forestry (3600 stems / ha: Dr. S. Thomas, personal communication, 2017). The

result of this experiment will inform the desirability of a potential full-scale wood char restoration

at the mine closure and provide data on responses to dosages that could likely be implemented at

this scale. To support this research, an economic analysis assessing the feasibility of biochar use

as a major component of restoration at the mine tailings is needed. Such a study should consider

the best alternatives to provide the wood char, as well their economic and environmental impacts.

Specific project objectives and questions

In this study we will assess the main alternatives available to effectively restore the mine

tailings with wood char. Using discounted cash flows in Excel, a detailed analysis on the economic

costs and environmental impacts in term of carbon sequestration/emission will allow quantitative

analyses of alternative options for restoration.

Questions addressed in this report include the following:

Is it better from an environmental and economic point of view to produce the biochar

on site (and if so from which feedstock, with what methods?), or to transport

biochar/wood ash from the supplier to the mine?

Could relatively low amendment rates of biochar (5-20 t/ha) be more economically

feasible for the restoration of mine tailings located in remote area?

Is producing biochar locally from salvaged dead trees following wildfire a sustainable

and economically viable option?

Of the alternatives examined, which is the lowest cost option?

We will qualitatively assess options in terms of environmental and social benefts.

METHODOLOGY

Clarification about units used in this report

All the quantities expressed as “tons” (“t”) in this report refer to tonnes or metric tons. There is no

mention to “US tons” unless otherwise specified.

System boundaries

Stakeholders

The Musselwhite mine needs a specific solution to sustain their commitment to the

“revegetation of disturbed sites” (Goldcorp, 2010) to meet provincial legal requirements.

Following the recommendations of a previous consulting work, the 2010 Closure amendment plan

included the design of a tailing overtop made of 1.0 m of sand and gravel or till on top of 0.3 m of

clay, coupled with 0.1 m of peat destined to provide a “growth medium” for native plants

(Goldcorp, 2010). At the time, the design appeared to be mainly a recommendation before

determination of “the final cover design”, yet the addition of 1.0 m of sand has been implemented

on certain unused mine tailings. Other measures taken so far include an inventory of the initial

vegetation (Goldcorp, 1995) and the identification of Jack pine as the preferred seedling species

for rehabilitated sites (Goldcorp, 2010). Nevertheless, the 2010 Closure amendment plan does not

include a specific plan on how to restore the vegetation on their now 100 ha mine tailings.


A. Murat

12

In the 1990 Mining Act, the Ontario government requires mines to “restore the area to its

original state” after closure, without specifying what is meant exactly. More recently, the 2009

revision to the Ontario Mining Act introduced additional specific requirements and guidelines,

including consideration of “success of natural revegetation and species present”, “use of native

species”, “application of soil to a depth sufficient to maintain root growth and nutrient

requirements”, and “the incorporation of organic materials, mulches and fertilizers based upon soil

assessment”. In addition, the Ontario’s 2016 Climate Change Action Plan and new Cap-and-Trade

proposals promote a low carbon economy. In this economy carbon sequestration could potentially

generate income for the industry. It is difficult to make any prediction until the Cap-and-Trade is

fully implement. However the government of Ontario made it clear that a carbon offset project

could be any “tree planting project – trees absorb carbon dioxide and store the carbon, which

reduces the amount of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere” (Ontario, 2016a). Moreover,

quantification of the persistent carbon component of biochar could generate additional revenue on

Ontario carbon markets (IBI, 2017) although it is still unclear to what extent.

In the region of the Musselwhite mine can be found 13 First Nations communities, the closest

being the Kingfisher Lake First Nation. These communities are likely to be impacted by any local

project (or lack thereof) and by the mine tailings state. Musselwhite was one of the first mines in

Ontario to put in place a comprehensive agreement with local First Nations and 19% of their

employees are indigenous (Natural Resources Canada, 2017d). However, First Nations

communities are concerned about the potential environmental damages from mining activities

(Mining Watch Canada, ND). The restoration project could give them employment opportunities

and help them transition during the mine closure to other economic activities.

The general public is also an evasive, yet important stakeholder. Public outcry and negative

reports from NGOs, such as Mining Watch Canada (ND), could tarnish Goldcorp reputation. On

the other hand, successful land restoration, with an innovative technique such as biochar, could

positively impact Goldcorp’s corporate image.

Expected time frame

According to the most recent Closure Plan Amendment (Goldcorp, 2010), the mine is expected to

cease operations by 2028-2030, after which a monitoring period of 10 years would be implemented

(e.g., between 2028 and 2038). However delays could be expected if new unexploited ore resources

are found in the meantime. Since its implementation, the Musselwhite mine also has also

considered the “progressive rehabilitation” of unused sites, which as of 2009 consisted in a total

restored area of more than 21 hectares (Goldcorp, 2010).

Since at the present time both the exact closure time and the desired time frame are unknown, we

do not have a set time frame for this project. Instead for each alternative, we studied the minimum

achievable time given the technical and physical limitations in place. However since the life

expectancy of the main equipment items is estimated to be 20 years, we did not consider projects

with a longer completion time to be realistic.


A. Murat

13

Details on the experimentation

1. biochar/wood ash rate of amendment

Our review of the literature shows that there is currently a lack of consensus in the literature

regarding the correct dosage to use and that further experimentation is needed. There seems to be

a slightly higher number of article defending rate of 40 t/ha or higher. However given the

remoteness of the mine and the difficulty to transport or produce biochar onsite, such high rates

would be physically difficult to implement on a large scale (100 ha). Looking at the lowest

application rate possible, dosages of 12.75 and 19.125 t/ha currently experimented at the mine

seem reasonable. Furthermore, since there is a lack of experimentation of small dosages on mine

tailings, the application rate of 6.375 t/ha (also currently tested at Musselwhite) seems an

interesting alternative to consider.

For simplification purpose, we will round up the current amendment rates of 6.375, 12.75 and

19.125 t/ha to 6, 13 and 19t/ha.

2. biochar/wood ash application

In order to limit the wind/water erosion to which the biochar dust is susceptible as pointed in

Kuttner and Thomas (2017), we will mix the biochar with sand on the mine tailings up to 10 cm

deep. Musselwhite has already been covering unused mine tailings with 1.0 m sand as

recommended in its 2010 Closure amendment plan, so we will not account for the cost of buying,

transporting and applying the sand. Sand and biochar will be mixed with a reel feed/mixer wagon

that mixes and spreads at the same time (See Appendix B).

Economic analysis

This economic study is based on a cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit is a tool used to measure the

strengths and weaknesses of a project and compare its alternatives in order to determine the best

option(s) (European Commission, 2015). In this study we focuse primarily on the costs generated

from the project, but also consider related benefits/income. The sums of these annual costs and

incomes, or cash flows, are calculated in an Excel spreadsheet model based on specific parameters

and items. Cash flows are the sum of all costs, consisting of biochar application, energy, labor,

harvesting, taxes and fees (crown charges), transportation costs. In some case, we consider

potential savings from electricity produced during the process. In addition, we also consider

environmental benefits, in term of CO2 gain – which hypothetically could also generate income in

terms of carbon credit.

Moreover, to allow comparison of the projects that occur in different times, annual future cash

flows are discounted to obtain their present value (European Commission, 2015). Discount rates

allow to actualize the cost of a future dollars to its present value, considering the fact that money

spent on a project could have been invested elsewhere by the company (Canada, 2007). Choosing

a discount rate is always a contentious and problematic aspect of cost-benefit analysis (Canada,

2007). According to the government of Canada, the typical discount rate for the evaluation of a

project in Canada was estimated to be 8%, but the social discount rate taken into account is much

lower at only 3% (Canada, 2007). In this analysis, since the discount rates should inform on the

cost of the decision for Goldcorp inc, the rate applied will refer the cost of the debt generated by


A. Murat

14

the company. Consequently the analysis uses a discount rate of 3.7% corresponding to a 1 billion

dollars fixed rate bond issued by Goldcorp inc in 2017 and maturing in 2013 (MorningStar, 2017).

To acknowledge for the arbitrarily of this rate, a range of error for each considered amendment

rate (6, 13 and 19t/ha) will be calculated based on a variation in discount rate of +/- 1%.

The main parameters used for this analysis are a 20 year amortization period for the equipment,

amendment rates of 6, 13 and 19t/ha and an area to restore of 100 ha.

The present analysis studies costs minimization of the various options considered and their

environmental benefits (in terms of CO2 gain) – the combination of which should define the

optimum solution.

Alternatives considered

Due to the significant numbers of possibilities, we had to limit our study to a few outcomes.

Specifically, the search for new available feedstocks will be limited to a sustainable radius of

1,000km, both due to economic (transportation cost) and environmental (emissions of CO2)

reasons.

To reach the intended goal of a based biochar/wood ash forest restoration at the Musselwhite mine

tailings, the case study concentrates on the following scenarios (see figure 1 for summary):

Figure 1. Summary of options considered


A. Murat

15

Option 1: Industrially produced high carbon wood ash is supplied by a third party, transported

up to the mine and applied on the mine tailings.

The wood ash comes from wood-fired co-generated power plants, located at a “reasonable”

distance of less than 1,000 km. We obtained the analysis of the wood ash, including carbon, basic

properties and main toxicants. In order to assess their relevance as soil amendment, the results of

these analysis were compared with the standard maximum allowable thresholds for toxicants as

listed in the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) for “Standardized Product Definition and Product

Testing Guidelines for Biochar That Is Used in Soil” (2014, Table 2). Whenever different property

values are available for each wood ash, we used the mean value in our estimates.

Three major suppliers of wood ash where found within the distance criteria. Wood ash Industries

Inc is located 1,588 km away from Musselwhite at Kirkland Lake Ontario, but it has been

supplying U of T with the wood ash used for the current and past experiments at the Musselwhite

tailings. As a result, we will include this option in our analysis. An experienced and licensed

wholesaler, Wood ash Industries Inc have been selling wood ash since 2002 for agricultural and

horticultural usage. The material originates from a wood fired co-generation power plant located

in Kirkland Lake, Ontario and has an average carbon content of 41.5% (Wood ash Industries, ND).

This is considered as a sub-option in which commercial wood ash is obtained “at a cost”.

Other major suppliers of wood ash were identified at Thunder Bay and Atikokan, which are

respectively 728 km and 651-690 km away from Musselwhite and the closest major city. Resolute

Forest Products (RFP) generates a large volume of bottom ash from their Thunder Bay pulp and

paper mill boilers. Laboratory analysis reviewed two ash samples valued at 65.4% and 43.2% ash

content respectively (University of Guelph, 2017). In addition, Ontario Power Generation (OPG)

transitioned from charcoal to wood biomass energy generation in recent years. The OPG Atikokan

cogeneration plant is located some 650 km away from the mine. OPG has another cogeneration

power station at Thunder Bay. Laboratory analysis obtained from the Atikokan power plant reveals

carbon content up to 92.05% (OPG, 2014). OPG contributes to Ashnet, a collaborative research

initiative studying the utilization of wood ash in forest soils (Canada, 2018). To simplify we

considered in this sub-option that wood ash would be obtained from Atikokan For

simplification, in this sub-option, we considered that wood ash would have a mean carbon content

of 66.88% (average of 65.5%, 43.2% and 92.05%) and it would be obtained from Atikokan within

the distance of about 700km. Since the wood ash from RFP and OPG is currently sent to landfill

(D. Bailey, personal communication, September 2017; A. Marchl, personal communication,

September 2017) at a significant cost for the companies, it is assumed that the wood ash could be

obtained at “no cost” or at a very small fee for the purpose of this restoration project. However,

the final pricing will be subject of negotiation with the supplier at the time of undertaking the

project

The regulations pertaining to the transportation, storage and application of wood ash are detailed

in Appendix C.

Option 2: Biochar is produced on-site with a local pyrolyzis unit or a wood gasifier.

No commercial producer of biochar could be found in a radius of 1,000km. In Ontario, the

Haliburton Forest & Wildlife Reserve Ltd. has a commercial biochar facility, but this is located


A. Murat

16

2,000km from Musselwhite mine, which we did not consider sustainable both at a financial and

environmental levels.

Biochar could be produced on site with various technologies and feedstocks, which we will review

in the following paragraphs.

Possible feedstocks

In this option we consider the production of biochar from locally sourced or imported wood

biomass. Unfortunately, the trees cleared for the construction of Musselwhite were burnt gradually

to avoid any safety hazard from the accumulation of firewood (Environmental Department,

Goldcorp, personal communication, June 2017). As a result, there is very few to no forest residues

left on site.

Nevertheless, the area surrounding the mine has been repeatedly affected by wildfire over the past

40 years and a great amount of small dead trees and stumps with an average 10 cm DBH have been

identified as possible feedstock (see Appendix D for pictures) for local pyrolyzis. Wildfire near

the mine affected 2,700 ha in 1979, followed by 1,200 ha (25 km South from the mine) and 950

ha (7km to the South Easth of Musselwhite) in 1989 (Golder Associate, 1995). Then in 2011,

112,000 ha of the Sioux Lookout district were burnt (The Timmins Times, 2011). These dead

trees could therefore be a potential feedstock for local pyrolyzis.

Forest harvesting in the Ontario Far North Region is theoretically not impossible, although has not

been performed yet for environmental and economic reasons. The Ontario Far North Region

contains the largest intact forest in the world, the third biggest area of wetlands and the second

largest area of peatlands in the world (Ontario Far North Science Advisory Panel 2010). On the

economic side, the closest commercial forest from Musselwhite is the Whitefeather forest located

at 764 km South West of Musselwhite. The closest mills are in Thunder Bay, Ontario, 728 km

away from the mine. Aside from these economic considerations, any harvesting activity would

have to comply with both the Far North Act (2010) and the Crown Forest legislations. A formal

review process would need to be performed from the OMNRF (B. Everatt, personal

communication, August-December 2017). The required steps, including application,

documentation and consultations required with First Nations are included in Appendix C. Once

approved, any harvesting activity (including the harvest of dead trees) would be subject to the

crown charges consisting of stumpage fees and renewal charges.

When the wood feedstock is being harvested near the mine (approximately 5 km based on similar

estimation made by Petelina et al, 2014b), it is wood-chipped at roadside, transported to the mine

where it is processed into biochar through pyrolyzis or into wood ash through a wood gasifier. A

moisture content of 42% for the harvested trees was assumed as recommended per Homagain et

al (2014) in a review of biochar-based bioenergy in Northwestern Ontario. However it must be

noted that standing dead trees after wildfire disturbance could dry out quite rapidly to attain a

moisture content as low as 30% after a 1-year period (Barrette et al., 2015).

Alternatively, the Environmental Department of the mine (Personal communication,

August 2017) mentioned that the mine accumulates on a yearly basis approximately 1,400 m3 of

wood waste, mainly composed of wood pallets (. The 1,400 m3 wood waste/ wood pallets found

at the mine were converted from m3 to metric tons using a conversion ratio for Construction and


A. Murat

17

Demolition (C&D) Other Recyclable Wood category from the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA, 2016). According to EPA, waste wood can be classified in C&D. Since the first

C&D categories were “clean dimensional lumber” and “clean engineered wood” which usually

corresponds to destroyed hardwood floor and furniture and/or other “clean” wood, it seemed

reasonable to use instead “other recyclable wood”, which would typically include wood pallets. In

this classification 1 cubic yard in volume corresponds to 169 pounds of waste wood. Given the

fact that 1 cubic meter equals 1.3 yard and that 1 pound is equivalent to 0.00045 metric tons, then

1m3 of wood waste would corresponds to 0.1 tons (169 x 1.3 x 0.00045). Therefore there is

approximately 140 metric tons of wood pallets every year.

Most European countries have a standardized moisture content of 20% or less for wood

packaging (including wood pallets) in order to prevent the development of fungi (Timcon, ND).

Since 2005, Canada adheres to the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measure No 15

(ISPM) of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Any wood product packaging

being imported to or exported from Canada must now comply with the ISPM 15, where heat

treatment and, in some case, kiln dried treatment are being required to kill all risk of pest, mold or

fungi. Moreover, the majority of the Canadian softwood lumber for construction and housing has

been traditionally submitted to kiln drying, reducing the moisture content to an average of 9-20%

(Canada Border Services Agency, 2014). Compliant wood products wear the stamps “KDHT”

where KD means Kiln Drying and HT heat treatment. Therefore we estimate the maximum

moisture content of the wood pallet to be 20%. If most pallets are free of non-wood materials, they

nevertheless have nails (Badger, 2002) that need to be removed prior to pyrolyzis. When shredding

the wood pallets with a low speed shredder, an integrated band magnetic separator can be used to

remove the ferrous metals (G. Rawcliffe, personal communication, October 2017).

The possibility to import wood-chips, priced at $25-30 per ton and with an average 37.5%

moisture (M. Lewandowski., personal communication, September 2017), was also considered.

However, we could not find any supplier at a “reasonable distance” (less than 1,000 km). The

biggest mill in the area of Thunder Bay, with an annual capacity of 539,000 metric tons wood

(Resolute Forest Product, 2017), is run by Resolute Forest Products and would probably produce

enough woodchips to produce the desired quantity of biochar. However all the woodchips

produced are consumed in the manufacture of newsprint and kraft pulp at Resolute’s pulp & paper

mill (M. Kaiser, personal communication, September 2017). Nevertheless, for the purpose of this

analysis, we consider that the wood chips are purchased at and imported from Thunder Bay.

Assuming the price of wood pellets to be between $238-245 per ton (National Bank of

Canada, 2017; Wood Pellet Association of Canada, 2017), we consider the price of this feedstock

as cost-deterrent.

Pyrolysis parameters:

The above described feedstocks are converted into biochar either with the use of a pyrolyzis unit

or with a wood gasifier.

On-site field trials will be needed to determine the exact parameters of the pyrolyzis treatment.

However since the most desirable output is biochar, we estimated that slow/intermediate pyrolyzis

should be used. The highest biochar yield is obtained with slow/intermediate pyrolyzis (35-50wt%


A. Murat

18

versus 15-25wt% for fast pyrolyzis) at 300-500°C and has traditionally been used for the

production of biochar (Manya et al, 2012, Brownsort, 2009, Homagain et al, 2014). At

temperatures ranging from 300-500°C, with a wood moisture content ranging from 10-15%,

slow/intermediate pyrolyzis yields range from 30-40% (Brownsort, 2009) to 35-50% wt (Manya

et al, 2012) versus 10-20% (Brownsort, 2009) or 15-25% (Manya et al, 2012) for fast pyrolyzis.

Therefore we asserted the use of intermediate pyrolyzis at 500 °C would produce at least 35%

yield from dry feedstock (with less than5% moisture content), which is also confirmed in

Homagain et al. (2014). It must be noted that the real yield would most probably vary depending

on the exact pyrolyzis parameters (temperature, pressure, residence time) and the type of feedstock

(Kloss et al., 2012).

It is assumed that the pyrolyzis units only operates for 300 days/year, the remaining 60 days being

used for maintenance. Since the wood gasifier is supposed to operate continuously to generate

enough electricity, we assumed that it would be operating for 340 days a year.

Both equipment units work with regular sized wood chips at a maximum moisture content of 10-

15%. Based on suppliers’ information, we assumed that the pyrolyzis/wood gasifier generates

enough energy to heat its container in winter and to dry the wood chips from the initial to the

desired moisture content.

The quantity of biochar obtained from initial feedstock is calculated as follow: B = (W-MC*W)*Y

Where B is the final quantity of biochar obtained, W is the weight of the wood feedstock, MC is

the moisture content and Y the yield (35% for the pyrolyzis unit, 10% for the wood gasifier).

Based on the Haliburton Forest biochar carbon content (Gale et al, 2016; Gale et al, 2017; Kuttner

and Thomas, 2017; Mitchell et al, 2016) we presumed the biochar in this study to have an average

of 85% in carbon when produced with the pyrolyzis unit. According to internal analysis provided

from the supplier of the wood gasifier, the average carbon content of the biochar produced is 62.7%

(Borealis Wood Power, 2014).

Economic costs

Whenever possible, we used real market prices to assess the cost of the restoration project. Values

reported were obtained directly from suppliers or online companies’ price listings. Other costs

were obtained from the literature, using Web of Science and Google Scholar searches.

For feedstock (wood chip) and soil amendment (wood ash), we primarily considered suppliers

located at a “reasonable” distance (less than 1,000 km) from the mine.

Equipment prices

When looking for pyrolyzer and wood gasifiers prices, we used Google and previous department

research (Ana Almira, BSc, major in forest conservation, 2015) to identify approximately 20

potential suppliers of biochar production systems, located in Canada, China, Europe and the USA.

Due to the remoteness of the mine, we only looked at container sized and/or “mobile” pyrolyzis

system that could easily be transported by truck to the mine. We inquired for system capacity

ranging from 1t to 6t per day and producing biochar as their main input. Suppliers were mainly


A. Murat

19

contacted via email. As a result of these inquiries, 7 detailed quotations were obtained from

different suppliers. The prices, converted into CAD at the Bank of Canada conversion rate (as of

August 3, 2017), are included in Table 2. Since the pyrolysis supplied by Carbon Zero, a company

located in Switzerland, is the cheapest alternative, this is the one that we used in our economic

analysis.

Table 2: pyrolyzer and gasifier prices

Notes: *Prices are converted in CAD at the August 3, 2017 Bank of Canada exchange rates; **

the pyrolysis unit was purchased by Haliburton Forest, but the original supplier name is unknown.

Other equipment’s’ price (Appendix E), such as dryers and wood chippers, were assessed through

Google search and by questioning professionals.

For the production of biochar with a wood gasifier, we looked at locally available container-sized

wood gasifier plants with a tracking record in servicing remote communities and identified one

possible supplier (Borealis Wood Power), located in Ontario, Canada.

It is assumed that Goldcorp would purchase the pyrolyzis unit and other equipment and then sell

them at the residual accounting value at the end of the project. For amortization purpose and based

on information provided by the suppliers, the life expectancy of all equipment is estimated to be

20 years.

Energy consumption

The propane and electricity used to operate the pyrolyzis are calculated based on the information

supplied by one of the suppliers, Biochar Solutions Inc, for its ½ sized BSI unit, which produces

1 ton of biochar per day (J. Levine, personal communication, July-November 2017).

For the wood gasifier we are using the details provided by Borealis Wood Power (D. Thomas,

personal communication, September – November 2017) regarding its small CHP (Combined Heat

and Power) unit producing maximum 0.1 ton biochar per day. Energy and mass balance of these

specific pieces of equipment are presented in Figure 1.

Energy consumption from the wood chippers is provided by Heizomat Canada (Table 3). We

supposed that the energy produced by the pyrolyzer and the wood gasifier would be sufficient to

power up the dryer without the need of external output.


A. Murat

20

Pyrolyzer and gasifier’s energy consumption is provided in Figure 2. Energy consumed by the

wood-chippers is detailed in Table 3. The wood chipper used for the forest residues (HM6-300)

has a shredding capacity of 2.5 green ton per hour (Appendix E). The one used for wood pallets

(SPE-1300) can shred up to 30 pallets, 5m3 or 0.5 tons of wood waste per hour (Appendix E).

1) Pyrolysis parameters: J. Levine, Biochar Solution (July-October 2017)

1) Gasifier parameters: D. Thomas, Borealis Wood Power Corp. (Sept-Nov 2017); 2) Energy

generated by: 2.a. Wood = 17.9MJ/Kg; 2.b. Biochar = 32Mj/Kg (Ronsse et al, 2013); 2.c. Propane

energy = 22.8Mj/L (The Physics Factbooks, 2002)

Figure 2.Mass Energy balance of the pyrolyzer and the gasifier


A. Murat

21

Table 3: Energy consumption of wood chippers

The PTO chipper (HM6-300), used for the forest residues option, operates with a 100-130

HP farm truck (G. Rawcliff, Heizomat Canada, personal communication, November 2017):

Example of farm truck AGCO RT 130 DIESEL

HP 130

fuel used Diesel

fuel consumption at max power

(gal/hr)

8.28

fuel consumption (L/hr)

31.34

Source: Nebraska Tractor test laboratory

(https://tractortestlab.unl.edu/documents/AGCO%20RT130.pdf) and Tractor Data

(www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/003/2/8/3281-agco-rt130.html)

The SPE-1300 Pallet Chipper can shred wood pallets and separate the nails from the wood

to avoid contamination in the final production. Its energy consumption is equivalent to a 22KW

diesel generator (Heizomat, https://www.heizomat.ca/chippers/) with the below estimated fuel

requirements:

Diesel generator’s fuel requirements: www.whisperpower.com/4/5/184/products/generators-sq-

series-(low-rpm)/m-sq-22-marine-(usa).htm

We considered that the electricity required to run the equipment would be produced through diesel

generators, which of course increases the cost of energy. The mine is connected to a small power

line running from Pickle Lake (approximately 100km away), but since it has a limited capacity, it

also uses diesel generators for additional requirements. Therefore it is likely that the use of diesel

generators may be required for this project. Besides we think that this calculation truly reflects the

cost of electricity for Far North Ontario remote communities that often rely on diesel generators

for their daily energy consumption (Canada, 2011).

The electricity generated by the wood gasifier is considered as an income, based on the cost that

would be occurring otherwise to produce the same amount of energy with a diesel generator.

The price of diesel is estimated to be $0.89 per liter (Natural Resources Canada, 2017b). The

propane, used for the pyrolysis unit, costs $90.90 cents per liter (Natural Resources Canada,

2017a).

https://www.heizomat.ca/chippers/


A. Murat

22

Feedstock prices

Wood ash

According to the commercial supplier, Wood Ash Industries (B. Coghlan, personal communication

August 2017), wood ash can be supplied in bulk at a price of $400 per truckload of 40 tons

($10/ton). At the time this report was written, and for the sole purpose of UofT experimentations

at the mine, OPG (Ontario Power Generation) offered to provide a “small quantity” of wood ash

for free (D. Bailey, personal communication, September 2017). Nevertheless, if a full scale

restoration was being undertaken by Goldcorp, contractual negotiations would need to determine

the final pricing (D. Bailey, personal communication, July 2018). The wood ash produced at the

Atikokan power plant is sent to landfill (D. Bailey, personal communication, September 2017) and

not sold commercially. Thus we assume in this analysis that it might be obtained free of charge.

Wood chips/sawdust

Wood chip/sawdust price ($45/ton on average and $30/tons respectively) and moisture content

values were provided by a consulting company Ecostrat Inc, Toronto, Ontario (M. Lewandowski,

personal communication, September 2017) and from Haliburton Forest (M. Cecil-Cockwell,

personal communication, October 2017).

It must be noted that we could not find any major supplier of wood chips at a maximum distance

of 1,000 km. Resolute Forest Products produce an important amount of wood chips and sawdust,

but wood chips are fully used in the production of pulp and paper and sawdust transformed into

value-added wood pellets (M. Kaiser, personal communication, September 2017).

A summary of all the feedstock prices and characteristics are available in table 4.

Table 4: Feedstock used. Prices and main characteristics

Based on feedstock characteristics and pyrolyzer/gasifier parameters, table 5 presents the

feedstock to biochar conversion factors.


A. Murat

23

Table 5: Initial feedstocks-biochar/wood ash conversion factors (“conversion yield”). For

each alternative, number of tons needed to obtain 1 dry ton of biochar/wood ash.

Note: * there is no conversion needed for wood ash, therefore we consider its yield to be 100%.

Operating costs

Harvesting – operating costs and crown fees

The cost of harvest is difficult to estimate due the remoteness and the specificity of the site. In the

Crown boreal forests of the North Ontario, harvesting costs range between $55 and 100/m3 (D. E.

B. Reid, personal communication, August 2017). This largely depends on the cost of transportation

to the mill, so if the harvest occurs near the mine then the cost would likely be at the lowest of the

range, that is $55/m3 (D. E. B. Reid, personal communication, August 2017; M. Cecil-Cockwell,

personal communication, October 2017). Harvesting costs were calculated using the 2016 average

of Quebec harvesting costs reported by the government of Quebec (2016), which is $51.79/m3.

Since the government of Quebec (2016) reports that in 2014 Ontario harvesting cost (operations

only) were higher by $1.45 per cubic meter, we estimated this operating cost to be $53.24/m3.

The composition of the wood feedstock is based on a consultant report (Golder Associates, 1995)

made for the Environmental Impact Statement of the Musselwhite mine project. As pointed out by

Golder Associate (1995), there has been no previous vegetation study in the area. Zoladeski and

Maycock (1990) give a general description of the forest types in the region. Sim et al (1989)

produced a field guide for the forest ecosystem classification (FEC) in north-western Ontario

(Golder Associate, 1995) but Musselwhite mine is located north of the zone described by Sim et

al (1989) (Golder Associate, 1995). No recent inventory of the area has been found. According to

the Golder Associate report (1995), the most common trees at the Musselwhite mine site and

nearby were Black spruce (Picea mariana), followed by Jack pine (Pinus banksiana), Trembling

aspens (Populus tremuloides) and White birch (Betula papyrifera). Golder Associate (1995) did


A. Murat

24

not include specific inventory data in their report, therefore we are taking the assumption, based

on their description, that the tree cover was composed at 90% by conifers such as Black spruce

(50%) and Jack pine (40%), while the remaining (10%) consisted of various hardwood species,

such as Trembling aspen. The density of green wood in Ontario is on average 437 kg/m3 for Black

spruce, 418 kg/m3 for Jack pine and 387 kg/m3 for Trembling aspen (Gonzales, 1990). This results

in a total average density of 0.4244 tons per m3 or 2.36 (1/0.4244) m3 per ton (Table 7).

Since the price of harvest is $53.24./m3, the price of harvest per ton will be $125.44

(53.24x(1/0.4244)).

Table 6: Average density of Musselwhite forest wood based on a hypothetical forest

composition and Gonzales (1990) wood densities:

In addition, based on email exchange with the OMNR Sioux Lookout District (B. Everatt, personal

communication, August-December 2017), unless a salvage rate was applied, the harvest would be

charged the full current stumpage fee, plus the specific renewal rate. Stumpage fee per m3 are

found on the website of the government of Ontario (Ontario, 2017b, see Appendix F for details of

the calculation). For the onsite production of biochar to be used as soil amendment, the category

fee to be used would be the “NES” (Nowhere Else Specified) column (B. Everatt, personal

communication, August-December 2017). This amounts to $9.75/m3 for Black spruce/Jack pine

as of October 2017. The harvest may also contain hardwood such as poplar (Populus spp.), White

birch (Betula papyrifera) or other hardwood. Since it is unknown how much hardwood would be

present in the residues, we estimate the stumpage fee of hardwood based on an average of the 3

rates. For “other hardwood” we took the assumption that the residues would qualify for the

cheapest category of $1.52/m3 since the only wood harvested would be the stems of dead burnt

trees that are usually of small size (Appendix D). In this high stumpage fee scenario, the maximum

would be $9.04/m3. However in a low stumpage fee scenario the OMNRF would recognize the

operation as a “bioproduct” harvest, then the rate falls to $1.11/m3 (J. Flinders, personal

communication, December 2017). In order to be eligible for the “bioproduct” rate, the mine would

need to obtain a license for the production of bioproducts (J. Flinders, personal communication,

December 2017). Licensing can be obtained through registration with the Canadian Food

Inspection Agency (CFIA) after submitting a “Fertilizer and Supplement Registration

Application” (Schock, 2014). Such application can be a lengthy process as the CFIA processing

time is 1 year from the date of submission (Schock, 2014). More details about the content of the

application are being included in Appendix C, but we invite readers to consult Schock (2014) for

detailed description about the process and requirements. Another option would be to have the

harvest recognized as a salvage operation, in which case only 75% of the regular fee is paid (B.

Everatt, personal communication August-December 2017). A renewal rate may also apply, but


A. Murat

25

such rates are very case specific and are determined by the district when the harvesting license in

acquired. Based on the closest forest management unit (FMU), the Whitefeather forest (764 km

South from Musselwhite), and with the previous harvesting assumptions, the renewal rate would

be on average $3.65/m3.

Total crown charges would range between $10.56/tons and $29.90/tons (Table 7).

Table 7: Total estimated crown charges:

Given the current indecision regarding crown charges, we presents results for the highest (Regular

rate – “Nowhere Else Specified” / NES) and the lowest (salvage rate Bioproduct) fee scenarios.

Biochar/wood ash application cost

The application cost of biochar/wood ash, including implement cost, fuel and labor, was estimated

to be $26.69 per ton of biochar based on Dutta and Raghavan (2014) biochar life cycle analysis in

Quebec

Labor cost

The cost of labor was estimated to be $25/hr. One technician is needed to operate the pyrolyzis

unit/wood gasifier. Another one is required for operating the wood chipper in summer for 3 months

per year. Harvesting can only be performed in summer, so we only accounted for the cost of harvest

labor over a period of 3 months (in summer). Modern commercial equipment required for the

operation would include a bundling machine able to withstanding harsh off road driving conditions

and a wood chipper at roadside with a grapple. With such equipment, a crew of 2 members could

expect to collect up to 200 tons per day (M. Cecil-Cockwell, personal communication, Oct 2017).

However the initial capital cost of this machinery is expensive (Table 8). Contracting the closest

commercial forest, the Whitefeather forest, located 764 km away, might be possible. However it

is not guaranteed that they would be willing to lend their men and machinery during their busy

harvesting season – unless for a substantial contracting fee. Therefore we are considering instead

a more labor intensive option with 3 local workers bundling up forest residues with a small grapple

skidder, dragging them with another cable skidder to roadside where they would be chipped in a

truck mounted chipper and blown directly into a reasonable sized loading truck. We took the

assumption that their maximum productivity would be 50 green tons per day.

The below tables 8-10 compare the equipment and workforce scenario, as well as the productivity

under the two scenarios and the time needed for completion of the harvest.


A. Murat

26

Table 8: Harvest Equipment and workforce scenarios

Commercial forestry process More labor intensive option

Equipment bundling

machine

road side

chipper with a

grappler

small grapple

skidder

small grapple

skidder with

cables

small grapple skidder

charge residues into

the wood chipper

Price 567,000 1 150,000 2 20,000 3 20,000 66,000 4

Process

create bundles

and drag them

to roadside

chipped and

blown into a

loading truck.

create

smaller

bundle

drag the

bundles to

roadside and

load into

chipper

chipped and blown

into a loading truck.

Labor 2 crew member can perform 200

tons/day 5 3 crew member can perform 50 tons /day

Sources: 1(Rummer and al, 2004); 2(G. Rawcliffe, Heizomat Canada, personal communication,

October 2017.); 3(price of a John Deere 548D 1987 Grapple Skidder, Forestry equipment sales,

Oct 2017); 4(G. Rawcliff, Heizomat Canada, personal communication, Oct. 2017); 5 (M. Cecil-

Cockwell, personal communication, Oct. 2017).

Table 9: quantity of wood biomass to be harvested:

Note: More wood is needed for the wood gasifier because of the lowest biochar productivity

compared to a pyrolyzis unit.


A. Murat

27

Table 10: time needed to complete harvesting for each option (pyrolyzis unit/gasifier unit)

and given the harvest productivity rate.

Transportation costs

For the cost of the pyrolyzis unit transportation via truck, a quotation received from one of the

suppliers (D. Presezzi, personal communication. August 2017) was used as a reference after

calculating the road transportation price per km ($5/km).

Cost of sea shipping of the pyrolysis where estimated from Searates.com as recommended by

Hashim and Aktas (2016).

All transportation costs are based on a 40’ST container size (12(L)x2.4(W)x2.6m(HI)) which

corresponds to the average size of our mobile pyrolysis (see Appendix G for an example picture).

This cost is not included in the discounted cash flow, but rather considered as a part of the capital

cost and as such it is also amortized.

Since our analysis is based on the theoretical assumption that the pyrolysis unit is purchased

from the firm Carbon Zero, we calculated the pyrolysis transportation cost from Aston, Switzerland

where the company is located (Table 12).

The wood gasifier transportation is calculated on a 2,094km road distance from Etobicoke,

Ontario, Canada, where its supplier is located (Table 11).


A. Murat

28

Table 11 cost of transportation per pyrolyzer/gasifier

Note: *USD Sea shipping costs converted into CAD at a rate of 1.3 (Bank of Canada, August

3rd 2017 exchange rate); ** the supplier of the Haliburton Forest pyrolyzer is unknown and

therefore we did not calculate shipping cost for this unit. Other transportation costs, such as

transportation of harvested biomass, wood ash, wood chips/sawdust were assessed based on two

quotations received internally by the Musselwhite mine’s Environmental Department

(Musselwhite mine, August 2017) and by the commercial wood ash supplier, Wood Ash Industries

(B. Coghlan, personal communication, August 2017). According to both quotations the transport

of a 40 ton truckload of wood ash between Kirkland Lake and Musselwhite mine would be priced

at$5,000 per truckload for a 1,588 km distance, resulting in a rate of 0.08 $/t-km.

Carbon assessment

Carbon price

The Ontario carbon price is still unknown as the Cap-and-Trade system is still in the process of

being implemented. However based on the Canadian Federal Government’s declarations, we took

into account a minimum ($10/t) and a maximum ($50/t) carbon price scenarios (Environment and

Climate Change Canada, 2017a and b).

Carbon sequestration

1. Carbon content of the forest restoration

Since the new forest protocols require a “beyond business-as-usual” approach, it is unlikely that

“actions required by law” (Cheminfo, 2017), such as restoring mine tailings to its initial vegetation

state as required under the Mining Act (1990), will be eligible for carbon offsets. Therefore we

will not include the amount of CO2 sequestrated from the regenerated forest in this analysis.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the restoration of the forest will have an important

environmental benefit. The Far North Ontario, covering more than 42% of Ontario landmass

(Ontario, ND), is home to one of the largest unmanaged boreal forests in the world (Gonsamo et

al, 2017). The region is known for being the largest soil carbon storage in the world, but little is


A. Murat

29

known about the carbon stored by its forests (Gonsamo et al, 2017). The total vegetation carbon

stock for the period 1901-2004 was estimated to be on average 20.2 t Carbon per hectare for non-

wetland Far North Ontario forests (Gonsamo et al, 2017). For the period 2007-2100, Gonsamo et

al (2017) estimate that the Far North Ontario forest will store between 19.1 and 22.6 g of carbon

per m2 and per year under various scenarios. At Pukaskwa National Park, located 315 km West

from Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, Nalder and Merriam (1995), estimated that the carbon stored

by trees peaks when they reach 30 year-old (3.97 kg carbon per m2) then slowly decreases over

time, reaching 3.45 carbon per m2 at 100 years. In a study located 150 km North of Thunder Bay,

from 49827’N to 49838’N and from 89829’Wto 89854’W, and at the limit of the Far North

Ontario, Seedre and Chen (2010), estimated that the total live vegetation regenerating 92 years

post fire disturbance accumulates on average 109.2 t C/ha. Given the similarity of treatment

between fire disturbance and the addition of biochar/wood ash, we could reasonably estimate that

the 100 ha regenerated forest could accumulate at least 1,000 tons of carbon (3670 tons of CO2).

Besides carbon sequestration, the Canadian boreal forest also delivers other ecosystem services,

such as flood control and water filtering, biodiversity, pest control by boreal birds, nature-related

activities, biodiversity values, estimated at $154 per hectare (Anielski and Wilson, 2009).

2. biochar: carbon content and valuation

As per Roberts et al (2010), there is two approaches to value GHG offset, either value the total life

cycle GHG emission in the entire biochar system or to value only the stable C in the biochar. For

this study we chose the second method.

We base our estimation on the stable carbon stored in the biochar for at least 100 years. As

reviewed earlier, the stable carbon is a minimum of 50% (Lehmann et al, 2006), up to 68%

(Hammond et al, 2011) or 80% Galinato et al, 2011; Roberts et al, 2010). Based on these figures,

we conservatively estimate that 60% of the initial carbon content is stable (table 11).

Table 12: stable carbon content for each feedstock.

Carbon emissions

Following Gifford (1984) and Lal (2004) classifications, we have grouped our emissions source

in 3 categories:

1. Primary emissions from mobile operations

Primary emissions as per Lal (2004) include mobile operations such as transport, harvesting, tillage

and application


A. Murat

30

The carbon emission from the transport of feedstocks (wood ash, woodchips, harvested

wood) and equipment (pyrolyzis unit, wood gasifier, wood chipper, etc.) to the mine were

calculated using the following formula (Mathers et al., 2014):

Greenhouse gas emissions = D x W x EF

Where D is the Distance traveled (in miles), W is the Weight of the shipment and EF the mode’s

specific emission factor (CO2 per Ton-miles)

Data for the mode’s specific emission were taken from the latest United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA, 2015) ( emission factor data sheet, according to which the CO2 emission

factor equals 0.146 kg per ton-mile for medium and heavy-duty truck.

For the weight of the pyrolyzis unit, we used the gross weight (maximum cargo weight that a

container can carry, including the weight of the container itself) of a 40’ST container as

approximately 30,480 kg (Searates, N.D.a).

Harvesting fuel consumption is estimated to be 3.2 L/m3 by Wyatt and Fredeen (2014)

when assessing the harvest of deadwood in BC for the production of wood pellet. Considering an

emission factor of 2.66 kg of CO2 per liter of diesel (Natural Resources Canada, 2016), the CO2

emission per m3 of wood harvested is 3.2 x 2.66 = 8.5 kg CO2 per m3.

For the carbon emission generated during the application of biochar, Dutta and al (2014)

indicated the carbon emission to be “5 Mg per hectare”. To date, this is the only estimate published

for the application of biochar. However looking at other fuel consumptions (EPA, 2015; Wyatt and

Fredeen, 2014; Lal, 2004), we believe that it was meant to be 5 kg/ha, which is what we used in

our analysis. Indeed when reviewing the literature on farm’s carbon emission, Lal (2004) shows

that fertilizer spreading generates between 5.1 and 10.1 kg of Carbon Equivalent (CE) per hectare.

Even the “most intensive C operations” such as corn silage (13.2-26.0 kg CE/ha), corn harvesting

(8.5-11.5 Kg CE/ha), Forage harvesting (9.2-18.0 kg CE/ha), tillage (1.2-20.1 kg CE/ha) are very

far from reaching one ton of CE per hectare.

2. Secondary sources of emission

Secondary sources of emission as per Lal (2004) would include carbon emission from

manufacturing (pyrolyzis), and storing.

We do not take into account carbon emissions from pyrolyzis or wood combustion. During

the process of pyrolyzis (and to a greater extent wood gasification) there is indeed volatile carbon

released into the atmosphere from the wood (Brownsort, 2009). However the process is considered

as “carbon neutral” because it would have occurred anyway through decomposition of the wood

(Brownsort, 2009). Besides, the pyrolyzis process stabilizes carbon into the biochar, and as such

can be considered as a carbon sink rather than a carbon source.

Moreover, in order to avoid double accounting, we do not account for the carbon emissions

generated during the production of wood ash since these emissions would have been accounted in

the primary cause of carbon emission (electricity generation from combustion of wood pellets by

the co-generation plant). Besides, the wood ash is considered as a waste by the industry generating

it and it would have be sent to landfill if not used as a soil amendment.


A. Murat

31

Last, we do not account for the volatile carbon released by wood ash/biochar during their

storing period. Volatile carbon is already discounted from the analysis since we only consider the

amount of stable carbon in the calculation of carbon sequestered.

3. Tertiary source of emissions

Carbon emission from the acquisition of raw material, fabrication of equipment and building.

We consider the emission from the acquisition of the raw material to be already included in the

primary and secondary sources. For simplification purpose, we will not take into account carbon

emissions from the fabrication of equipment and building.

Conversion between Carbon and CO2

Greenhouse gas impacts are measured in term of CO2 emission. Whenever necessary we convert

carbon into CO2. Taking into account the atomic mass of carbon (12 atomic mass), and the atomic

mass of CO2 (44 atomic mass units because it includes two oxygen atoms, each with a weight of

16 atomic mass units), we know that 1 ton of carbon equals 3.67 ton of carbon dioxide (44/12) or

that 1 ton of carbon dioxide corresponds to 0.28 tons of carbon.

Estimating distances

To calculate the GHG emissions and economic costs, distance had to be estimated. For distances

travelled via roads, Google maps estimations were used with the shortest road available.

For sea transport routes, we used the online resource of Searates.com (Searates, N.D.b) to estimate

distance between ports as recommended by Hashim and Aktas (2016).

Limitations of the study

Storage costs were not taken into account because the biochar could be easily stored on site

and because we assumed that in the summer it would be applied immediately onsite. However the

construction of a small storage unit may be necessary for the winter months. The biochar could

also be stored under tarps at a lower cost.

We did not estimated the environmental and health impact of not performing a mine restoration

tailings and therefore we are unable to estimate the benefits generated in this regard by the

restoration.


A. Murat

32

RESULTS

Time to completion of the project

The time to completion varied with the alternative and the amendment rates, ranging from 2 years

(the shortest) for forest residues/woodchips/sawdust with pyrolysis at an amendment rate of 6t/ha

to 169.6 years (the longest) for wood pallets with gasifier at an amendment rate of 19t/ha (Table

13).

Based on our time constraint (less than 20 years), only the following alternatives were considered

viable (Table 13): wood ash (all amendment rates), Forest residues (all amendment rates with the

pyrolyzis unit, but only 6 tons per hectare with the wood gasifier), wood chips/sawdust with

pyrolyzis (all amendment rates) and only at 6 tons per hectare for the wood gasifier. Within a

timeframe of 20 years, the wood pallet option would only be eligible at a rate of 5t/ha, when

converted to biochar with a pyrolyzis unit, and at a rate of 2t/ha with the gasifier (Table 13, Figure

3).

Table 13: relation between equipment used, amendment rates and viability of outcomes.

The main factors that defined the duration of the project were the daily production capacity of the

pyrolysis/ wood gasifier unit and the limitation of available resources. For instance, wood gasifier

has only a maximum capacity of 1 green ton per day, producing a maximum of 0.1 tons biochar

as output. As a result, with a minimum amendment rate of 6 tons biochar per hectare, the shortest

time to completion for this alternative would be 17.6 years. Another alternative, the production of

biochar from wood pallet with a pyrolyzis unit, was limited by the low amount of yearly wood


A. Murat

33

waste available (only 140 tons per year). When working on the resolution of this alternative it

became quickly evident that a pyrolyzis unit with a daily capacity of 1 ton would be under-utilized

since there is a maximum daily wood waste amount of 0.41 tons (140 divided by 340 operating

days) so we tested the use of the wood gasifier. However the wood gasifier would only attain the

target in 53.6 years for 6t/ha because the average char yield is limited to 10% (compared to 20%

with a pyrolyzis unit). Even with a low capacity, the wood gasifier could process up to 1 ton of

wood waste per day, which is more than twice the amount currently available. Wood ash, not being

a limited resource, is viable in any amendment rates. In fact the completion of the project under

this alternative could have been shorter if the number of truck had not been limited to 1 vehicle

every 2 weeks during the 4 summer months.

A continuous analysis (Figure 3) revealed that the options forest residues/wood chips/sawdust with

the pyrolyzer could be eligible to a maximum amendment rate of 60t/ha within the time frame

limit of 20 years, whereas a maximum of 32t/ha of wood ash could be applied within the same

period. Again the limitations for the wood ash option are mainly set by the transportation

parameters. Increasing the number of truck per week would allow to reach or exceed the

performances of the other alternatives.

Figure 3. Continuous analysis of the relationship between time of completion per option and

amendment rate, within a 20-year timeframe limit.


A. Murat

34

Discount rate

Considering a possible error range of +/- 1% in the discount rate, and based on the differences in

cash flows obtained for the amendment rates of 6, 13 and 19t/ha at 3.7% and at 2.7% or 4.7%

discount rates, we calculated that the error range in resulting cash flows was +/- 2% for 6t/ha

amendment, +/-4% for 13t/ha and +/- 6% for 19t/ha. These error ranges will be represented in the

next bar charts in the form of error bars.

Total costs

The cheapest option (Figure 4) considered was by far the wood ash –even when obtaining the

wood ash at a cost (High price scenario) and from Kirkland Lake, which is twice as far as suppliers

found in Thunder Bay. Restoring the tailings with wood ash does not require any capital cost,

energy budget (there are no major equipment used –except maybe for the “sprayer” which is

accounted for in the application cost) and it involves minimum labor cost (there is only the labor

for applying the wood ash, which we considered to be included in the application cost).

The most expensive options are forest residues with gasifier at a rate of 6 tons per hectare and

forest residues with pyrolysis at rates of 13 and 19 tons per hectares. For forest residues with

gasifier, the electricity income generated allows to considerably decrease the total costs, but is not

sufficient to offset costs such as labor and harvest (Appendix H).


A. Murat

35

Figure 4. Total discounted cash flows for eligible options, with (zebra colors) or without

(plain colors) electricity income and within a high (H)* or a Low (L)** price scenario

Note: *High pricing scenario includes: commercial wood ash, forest residues with a regular NES

crown charge and wood chips. ** Low pricing scenario includes the following feedstock: free

wood ash, forest residues with a salvage rate bio-product crown charge and sawdust.


A. Murat

36

The influence of transportation on final costs

Between 91 and 98% of the operating costs for the wood ash alternatives consist in transportation

costs (Appendix H).

Switching to a commercial option ($10/ton of wood ash) would slightly increase the total costs for

wood ash (Table 13), especially as you increase the total amount of feedstock, but overall would

not greatly affect the cost per ton of wood ash. However, Wood Ash Industries Inc being located

at Kirkland Lake (1588 km away from Musselwhite), which is much farther than Thunder Bay

(only 728 km), it would raise the cost of transportation by 54% (Table 14).

Table 14 Wood ash – comparison between free and at cost option. The real difference of

pricing consists in transport, rather than in the purchase cost.

The cost of transportation is also important for the alternatives involving wood chip/sawdust,

representing between 20 and 41% of total cost for these options (Appendix H).

Relation between distance, conversion yield, moisture content and transportation cost

Aside from distance, an important factor is the amount of feedstock required to produce the

intended quantity of biochar. This quantity varies with the capacity of the pyrolyzis unit/wood

gasifier (conversion yield) and the moisture content of the original feedstock. Lower capacity

pyrolysis/gasifier requires more feedstock, therefore increase transportation cost. In addition the

moisture content weights down the feedstock, increasing the cost in transportation (Table 15 and

Figure 5).

Table 15 Transportation costs in dollars per ton-kilometer ($/t-km)

$/t-km is calculated as: 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 ($)

(𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑖𝑜𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟 𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑜𝑜𝑑 𝑎𝑠ℎ (𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠)∗𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 (𝑘𝑚))


A. Murat

37

Note: transport cost is not discounted for simplification reason.

Notes: 1) transport cost is not discounted for simplification reason, 2) for conversion yields see

Table 5

Figure 5. Impact of the conversion factor on the unit cost of transportation ($/t-km). both

the moisture content and the capacity of the conversion equipment (pyrolysis/wood gasifier)

impact the cost of transportation.

For instance, for the same transportation distance (728 km), the cost of transportation is higher for

woodchips than for wood ash because the conversion factor (Table 5) is also higher (8.1 with the

pyrolyzer and 16.1 with the wood gasifier for woodchip, versus 2.0 for wood ash). Furthermore

with the same distance (728 km) and the same feedstock (wood chips), the cost of transportation

is increased when the capacity of conversion of the pyrolysis unit/wood gasifier is decreased. The

yield of a wood gasifier is only 10% against 20% for a pyrolyzis unit, thus the conversion factor

is increased by 50%, resulting in a 50% increase in of transport cost ($/ton of biochar). The cost

of transportation is low for the forest residues because they are located nearby (5 km away), even

though the forest residue conversion factor (8.6 for the pyrolyzer, 17.24 for the gasifier: Table 5)

is high with the wood gasifier.

-

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

-

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

$/t

-km

Co

nve

rsio

n y

ield

Relation between $/t-km and conversion yield

s/t-km Conversion yield


A. Murat

38

The influence of time over costs

Since it takes more time to obtain higher quantity of biochar/wood ash, time also has an impact on

the overall cost of the budget. As a result, he longer the project is, the higher are the total expenses

(Figure 6).

Figure 6. Impact of time of total discounted cash flow (electricity income excluded) for 3

alternatives. For simplification we excluded from this graph the alternative with gasifier.

Increase in costs in relation to time can be explained by the yearly recurrence of certain linear

costs. For instance the labor cost of a technician to control the pyrolyzis unit/wood gasifier is

constant over time and does not vary with the quantity of biochar produced over year. In addition,

we considered the cost of the pyrolyzis unit/wood gasifier to be constant over time, regardless of

the amount of feedstock processed. If the equipment is underutilized due to a lack of feedstock,

for instance due to a lack of local wood waste/wood pallet, then the project will take longer to

complete and overall costs will increase. In general, the shorter the project, the cheaper overall it

will be.

Increase in costs and in duration can also be caused by the limited capacity of the equipment itself.

For instance, the wood gasifier has a lower production yield, resulting in a higher demand in

feedstock amount and longer processing time to reach the intended target. Similarly, converting

wood pallets/wood waste into biochar would take longer and be more expensive than expected for

similar quantities due to the underutilization of the pyrolyzis unit, resulting in higher energy costs.

Relation between labor cost and duration of the project

One important effect of time is the increase of labor costs over time. Labor costs is almost constant

over time. Whether the pyrolyzis unit runs at its maximum capacity or not, it will still require the


A. Murat

39

presence of a technician to control and monitor the machine. Some harvesting and wood-chipping

labor may vary with the quantity of wood required. Labor is the highest expense for most of the

project -except for wood ash which only “labor” expense is considered as already included in the

cost of application. Wood ash excluded, labor costs represents 27% of all expenses on average.

For the options woodchips/sawdust with gasifier and forest residues with gasifier at 6t/ha, the labor

costs represent respectively 46-49% and 39-42% of the total costs (considering the low and high

price scenarios). This is mainly caused by the long duration of the project (17.6 years for both),

during which the fixed annual labor costs accumulate.

The impact of harvest cost

The harvest costs constitute between 68 and 70% of the alternative involving forest residues and

pyrolysis (at 6, 13 and 19t/ha) and mainly explain why these alternatives are the most expensive.

For example at an amendment rate of 19t/ha with pyrolyzis, the harvest costs can amount up to

2.2-2.5million (low-high costs scenarios). Obtaining a Bio-product salvage rate rather than a

regular full NES rate to calculate the crown charge can save up between $100,000 and $300,000

(table 16)

Table 16: the impact of crown charge categories on the cost of harvest. Switching for a NES

regular fee scenario to a Bio-product-salvage rate can allow saving up to 100 - 300 thousand

dollars.

Energy cost

Although it is theorized that the equipment would run on diesel generator, which is much more

costly that the power grid electricity, the energy cost is minor (1-8%) compared to other costs.

Pyrolysis is usually very energy efficient due to the fact that the energy is mainly derived from the

pyrolyzed wood and therefore there is very little external energy consumed. The wood gasifier

doesn’t consume any energy –except for a few seconds at the start (D. Thomas, personal

communication, September – November 2017). A small energy consumption was added when

wood-chipping is needed (for forest residues).

Cost of goods

Although the cost of goods does not usually constitute a major portion (between 7% for the

commercial wood ash and 30% for the wood whips with pyrolysis), it is important to note that the


A. Murat

40

moisture content can greatly influence this cost. For example, the wood ash having 49% moisture

content, this doubles the weight and therefore increases the purchase price.

Net capital cost

Although the initial purchase price of equipment, such as a pyrolyzer, a gasifier or a dryer are far

from being insignificant, they do not make an important part of the total expenses (3-19%) since

it is considered that the equipment can be sold at the end of the project at its salvage or amortized

value. However the duration of the project has a negative impact on this cost since the older the

equipment, the lower its accounting value.

Cost per ton of biochar

Although the total cost of the project usually increases with processing time and quantity produced,

there is a general decrease of the price per unit ($/ton) when increasing the total quantity produced

(Figure 7).

Figure 7. Unit price ($) per ton of biochar/wood ash. High pricing scenario only. No

electricity or CO2 income included.

This decrease in unit price is due to economies of scale in fixed cost – in particular the capital cost

and the labor cost. When increasing the quantity of biochar produced, the decrease in unit price is

particularly steep for options using the gasifier because the cost of investing in a gasifier is higher

(CAD 515,000) than in a small pyrolysis unit (CAD 156,000). Biochar generated from wood

pallets with a gasifier has the highest unit price because there is very little produced. With the

amount of waste available, there is a production of 11.2 tons of biochar maximum per year, while


A. Murat

41

the wood gasifier optimum capacity is 34 tons per year. In this situation, the wood gasifier is clearly

under-utilized, while yearly fixed cost such as labor costs may be still accumulating. The pyrolysis

is also clearly under-utilized with wood waste, but the price is lower because the capital cost is

less expensive.

Amongst all the options, the unit price for wood ash is the least expensive at the rate of 6, 13 and

19t/ha, while wood chips with gasifier at 6t//ha and forest residues with pyrolysis at 13 and 19t/ha

are the most expensive options (Figure 6 and table 17).

Table 17. Unit price ($/ton) for each options in low pricing and high pricing scenarios and

for the total discounted cash flow without income or CO2 income.

Environmental benefit of the projects

For an amendment rate of 6t/ha (Figure 8), the wood gasification options, both for forest residues

and for the wood chips, rank by far as the highest in terms of gain of CO2 – 4,804 tons of CO2 for

the forest residues and 4,624 tons for the woodchips. This is mainly due to the emission of CO2

avoided (4,535.2 tons of CO2 for both forest residues and wood-chips) when producing electricity

with a wood gasifier rather than with a diesel generator.

For higher rates and other options, the CO2 gains are quite similar.

Amongst higher amendment rates, the conversion of forest residues, with a total CO2 gain between

783 and 2,612 tons (for amendment rates of 6 and 19t/ha), ranks the highest in terms of

environmental benefit. Emissions from transportation, between 2.6 and 8.2 tons of CO2 for

amendment rates ranging from 6 to 19t/ha, are almost insignificant since the harvest is local.

Emissions generated by harvest (between 103.7and 328.5 tons of CO2) and by wood-chipping

(between 172.5 and 546.2 tons of CO2) are more important, but the carbon sequestrated by the

biochar application (between 1,123 and 3,556.2 tons of CO2) is largely sufficient to offset them.

This option is followed closely by wood ash generating only 360 to 1,143 tons of CO2 gain for the

commercial wood ash, but up 796 to 2,525 tons for the “free” wood ash. Higher CO2 emissions


A. Murat

42

from transportation –between 186.8 and 591.6 tons of CO2 – are generated for the commercial

wood ash , while the free wood ash being located closer generates much less CO2 during transport

between 85.6 and 271.2 tons of CO2. In addition the amount of carbon content is lower in the

commercial wood ash compared to the free wood ash. The commercial wood ash, with a carbon

content of 41.5%, stores between 548.3 and 1,736.3 tons of CO2, while the free wood ash (66.8%

of estimated carbon content) can stores between 883.7 and 2,798.3 tonsof CO2. Cautions should

be applied when taking into account the amount of CO2 sequestrated with the wood ash options

as carbon contents were obtained from a limited number of internal analysis that have not been

published nor verified through repeated experimentation. Besides, the amount of carbon could vary

greatly with the samples obtained or depending on the mix of fly ash (lower carbon content) and

bottom ash (higher carbon content).

The option wood-chips with pyrolyzer has a lower environmental benefit (between 732 and 2,402

tons in terms of gain of CO2), mainly because of transportation emission (between 352.3 and

1,115.5 tons of CO2 emitted), which is partly compensated by the high amount of carbon (85%)

assumed in biochar.

Figure 8. Environmental benefit in terms of CO2 gain (in tons)

Potential carbon income

Given the gain of CO2 described previously, there is a potential for the mine to generate future

income within the future Ontario cap and trade. The exact price of carbon credit is for the moment


A. Murat

43

unknown, but as pointed earlier the federal government required the price to be minimum $10 per

ton of CO2 and to be increased to at least $50/ton by 2050 (Environment and Climate Change

Canada, 2017a and b). Therefore, the potential income can be estimated with a conservative low

carbon price of $10/t and with an optimist high scenario of $50/ton.

In this framework, the lowest CO2 income would be $7,290 (free wood ash, low carbon price and

an amendment rate of 6t/ha), while the highest would be between 130,000 (forest residues with

pyrolyzis, high carbon price and an amendment rate of 19t/ha) and 172,803 (wood chips with

gasifier, high carbon price and a rate of 6t/ha).

Total results are presented in Figure 9 and table 18.

Table 18. Potential carbon income to be expected


A. Murat

44

Figure 9. Potential carbon income with a low and a high carbon price

Other considerations and overview

A decision matrix (Appendix H), giving an overview of the main strengths (underlined in green)

and weakness (red) of each option, was compiled. Apart from the economic and environmental

considerations reviewed above, some external considerations such as employment, logistics, time,

etc. were reviewed for each option. The main strengths for the gasifier option is energy

independence (all feedstocks), with added benefit in employment generated when coupled with

forest residues due to local employment opportunities generated from the harvest. However this

option’s main weaknesses are the very high cost, as well as the time and the complicated logistics

of harvesting in the Far North. The main weakness for the wood ash is the lower gain in carbon –

especially when the wood ash is obtained from Kirkland Lake and “at a cost”. However this

weakness is resolved when supplying the wood ash from Thunder Bay (option “free wood ash”).

Some of the main strengths of this option include recycling benefits and ease of the logistics.


A. Murat

45

DISCUSSION

In our analysis, we made the initial hypothesis that smaller quantities of biochar would be

more economically feasible due to the challenge of transporting feedstock and equipment to a

remote area. Looking at our result, it appears that transportation has indeed a great impact on costs

and is a limiting economic factor. However, it also turns out that the cost per ton of biochar

decreases as quantities increases, due to economies of scale, provided there is no limitation in

resources and equipment.

In term of economic considerations, wood ash is the cheapest alternative and thus may be

preferred to restore the mine tailings. This is also the easiest to implement since apart from the

regular transport of wood ash from Thunder Bay, very little logistics would be required. However,

this is not the most environmentally friendly option due to the accumulation of CO2 emissions

from repeated transportation. It is estimated that, with a capacity of 40 tons per truck and a wood

ash moisture content of 49%, between 30 and 90 trucks would be needed in total. The regular

incoming traffic could have an impact on the road, disturb wildlife and/or nearby communities. In

addition, wood ash could generate air-borne fine particles, which may be considered as a health

and safety hazard for the mine and nearby communities. Nevertheless, the recycling of wood ash

is also a great environmental benefit for the society since this material is currently being sent to

landfill at an environmental and economic cost for the public.

The use of sawdust/woodchips at the lowest amendment rate would be relatively cheap,

due to the savings in harvest operations and chipping, but the cost raises rapidly as the quantity

increases due to the cost of transportation. At an amendment rate of 6t/ha, woodchips/sawdust with

a wood gasifier is amongst the most “environmentally friendly” options due to avoided CO2

emissions from the production of electricity. This gain of CO2 could potentially generate $166,409

in a high carbon price scenario. Electricity generated set aside, this option would not offer any real

advantage compared to the wood ash alternative. Sawdust would be needed in a greater volume

than wood ash, requiring more transportation, which would increase the transportation and

emission costs, as well as bring added safety and health hazard in terms of road traffic (between

58 and 172 trucks required when using the pyrolyzis unit for conversion) and air-bone fine

particles. The transportation of wood chips over long distance would certainly generate less air-

bone particles than sawdust, but at a higher purchase price. The production of woodchip/sawdust

with a wood gasifier is amongst the most expensive option as it would require almost 18 years,

resulting in high labor cost and higher transportation cost due to the lower yield of the wood

gasification. In this option, 201 trucks would be required to bring the necessary feedstock to the

mine. Currently there are probably no suppliers in Thunder Bay who can satisfy such a high

demand in feedstock. Resolute Forest Products is the largest producer of wood chips/sawdust in

the area, but all their feedstock is used for their production of pulp and paper and convert into

value-added wood pellets (M. Kaiser, personal communication, September 2017).

The use of wood pallets would have been an interesting option since it would reduce

significantly transportation, which is an important source of CO2 emission besides being

financially expensive. However, at a rate of 2t/ha, this option only generates between $2,743 (with


A. Murat

46

a pyrolizer) and $10,757 (gasifier) carbon credit income within an optimist price scenario,

compared to a carbon credit income of $70,237 for forest residues-gasifier at the same rate and

same carbon price. This is mainly due to the limitation of feedstock requiring to extend the duration

of the project up to 18 years for a total quantity as low as 200 tones. Looking at the rate of 6, 13

and 19t/ha, the amount of yearly wood waste is not sufficient at this time to allow taking this

option. The underutilization of the equipment may considerably extend the timeframe of the

project and raise financial expenses. Besides, all wood pallets may not be proper to be used as a

soil amendment. In particular, contamination concerns may arise, especially with plywood and

painted pallets. In Canada, most pallets are manufactured from green or KD-HT material, and thus

free from chemicals (Canadian Wood Pallet & Container Association, August 2017). Rare

chemical treatments occur however, such as anti-fungal with aspen wood pallets. Certificate or

details on chemical treatment may be obtained from the suppliers. Nevertheless, used pallets may

come into contact with various chemicals during their usage, which is often difficult to control or

trace. Last, pallets from other countries might be at risk of methyl bromide treatments which are

forbidden in Canada (CWPCA, August 2017). In spite of the above, several landscape companies

have been using wood pallets (to the exclusion of plywood and treated/painted pallets) in their

mulch/biochar mix (Ecochips website, conversation with sale on Aug 24, 2017; Roth, 2017;

Thunder Bay Eco Depot website). Provenance and chemical composition of the wood pallets

would need to be determined with the suppliers before confirming their eligibility. For this option

to be viable, additional sources of wood waste should be found to meet the capacity of the pyrolyzis

unit. In this perspective, we recommend that, should further forest harvesting be required due to

possible expansion of the mine, the lumber be conserved for future restoration project.

Alternatively, a pyrolysis with a lower capacity could be used. It is not certain however that a

lower capacity pyrolyzis would result in much lower capital investment. Being in a niche market,

with a limited number consumers and suppliers, even lower capacity pyrolyzis units remain

expensive, especially since they still require a high level of research-development. Besides, labor

cost will probably remain constant as the hire of a technician for the pyrolyzis unit will still be

required.

The production of biochar from forest residue with a wood gasifier was an interesting

alternative since it could have benefited either the mine or the local community by providing

energy independence and employment opportunities. Besides this is also a very environmentally

friendly option, due to the fact that important amount of CO2 is avoided by not producing

electricity with diesel generators. However, the high cost of collecting forest residue, combined

with the low daily capacity of the machine (in term of biochar production), makes it one of the

most expensive alternatives for a low biochar output (up to 600 tons produced in almost 18 years).

This option would only be viable if low biochar amendment rates are proven to promote an

effective revegetation on mine tailings, which in the current state of research is still unclear. In

order to produce more biochar within a reasonable amount of time (less than 20 years) and increase

the daily production capacity, additional investments would be required. For instance, an

additional wood gasification unit could be installed. Such an investment would be partially

balanced by the additional benefits in the CO2 avoidance, as well as added revenue in electricity

production. In addition, the production of power from forest residues can only be viable if it


A. Murat

47

reaches a breakeven point with electricity derived from diesel generators (Stokes, 1992). To

achieve this breakeven point, more research would be needed to reduce the costs of harvest

(Stokes, 1992).

The cost of the capital is an important consideration in any biochar plant facility, however

interesting funding alternatives exist. First of all, as pointed out in this analysis, CO2 sequestrated

and avoided could result in CO2 income in the future when carbon policies are fully implemented.

Secondly, alternative funding may be available for the development of environmental- and/or

community-friendly projects. For example, building a partnership with the nearby community

could allow funding from the federal government to switch the community from diesel generated

to biomass derived electricity. In exchange the mine could receive the production of biochar at a

minimal cost and use it for the restoration of its mine tailings. In 2016, a funding of $317k was

awarded by the ecoEnergy Innovation initiative (ecoEII), an initiative funded by the Canadian

federal government, to fund the Kwadacha Community Energy Project, made from a partnership

between BC Bioenergy Network and the Kwadacha Nation, a remote First Nation community in

BC (Natural Resources Canada, 2017e). The project funded the installation of a wood gasification

plant sold by Borealis Wood Power and producing electricity for the community from wood chips

(Borealis, 2017; Fredericks, 2018). This feedstock was provided by several nearby licensed

sources, including the the Kwadacha First Nation’s woodlot licence (Natural Resources Canada,

2017e)


A. Murat

48

CONCLUSION

Biochar is an innovative and effective solution with undisputable advantages in terms of carbon

sequestration and associated climate change mitigation, which could benefit significantly the

corporate image of Goldcorp Inc at the Musselwhite mine.

It is considered in the literature as a low-cost tool, especially if produced locally and with local

unclaimed wood feedstock and wood waste. However, our research indicates that, in the Far North

Ontario, the high cost of the equipment and of forest residue harvesting remain a barrier for the

development of local biochar production. More research is needed to come up with less expensive

solutions that could greatly benefit both the restoration of mine tailings and the economic

development of remote communities in the Far North.

On the other hand, we found out that wood ash is an unclaimed and disregarded feedstock that is

often sent to landfill with a high financial and environmental costs, both for the companies

generating it and for the society supporting the ecological consequences. Yet, wood ash can be

successfully used for forest restoration, storing carbon in the soil, while allowing the renewed

vegetation to uptake even more carbon from the atmosphere. Because so far wood ash has been

mostly regarded as a waste, it can be obtained at very low cost or free of charge, which is an

important economic consideration. Thanks to its low cost, it may allow Goldcorp to decrease

significantly, the amount of accounting provisions set aside for their tailings restoration and

mitigation.

By showing the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of such a project, we hope to inspire other mines

in using biochar/wood ash for their restoration and mitigation strategy. More economic analysis

and research are needed in this field to promote and resolve the challenges related to the local

production of biochar for mining restoration.


A. Murat

49

LIST OF PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Bailey, D., West Production Manager | Northwest Operations, Ontario Power Generation (OPG).

(September 2017).

Bieser, J., Phd Candidate, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto. (July-August 2017)

Breiter, N. (2017). Carbon Zero, Switzerland. (July 2017)

Cecil-Cockwell, M., Managing Director, Haliburton Forest & Wildlife Reserve Ltd. (October

2017).

Coghlan, B., Wood ash Industries, Ontario, Canada. (August 2017).

Everatt, B, Forestry Technical Specialist, Sioux Lookout District, Ontario Ministry of Natural

Resources and Forestry (OMNRF). (August – December 2017).

Flinders, J. Wood Measurement Officer. Northwest Region. Wood measurement Section.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF). (December 2017).

Gale, N., Phd Candidate, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto. (August 2017- January

2018)

Kaiser, M., Business Optimization manager, Resolute Forest Products (RFP). (September 2017).

Lewandowski, M., Director of Analytics and Risk, Ecostrat Inc. (September-October 2017).

Levine, J., Biochar Solutions Inc., CO, USA. (July-November 2017).

Marchl, A., Environmental Superintendent, Resolute Forest Products (RFP), Thunder Bay

Operations. (September 2017).

Poirier, S. Program coordinator, HT Program. Canadian Wood Pallet & Container Association.

(August 2017).

Presezzi, D., CEO, Bioforcetech Corporation, CA, USA. (August 2017).

Rawcliffe, G., Heizomat Canada, ON, Canada. (October 2017).

Reid, D. E. B., Boreal Silviculture Research Program Lead, Centre for Northern Forest

Ecosystem Research, OMNRF. (August 2017).

Thomas, D., Director of Operations, Borealis Wood Corporation, ON, Canada. (September –

November 2017).

Thomas, S., Research Chair, Forests and Environmental Change, NSERC IRC in Biochar and

Ecosystem Restoration, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto (2017).

Williams, J., Phd Candidate, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto (2017).


A. Murat

50

LITERATURE CITED

Allaire, S.E., Lange, S. (2013). Le biochar dans les milieux poreux: une solution miracle en

environment? Vecteur Environment: 58-67

Anielski, M and Wilson, S. (2009). Counting Canada’s Natural Capital. Assessing the real value

of Canada’s Boreal ecosytems. Canadian Boreal Initiative & Pembina Institute. Retrieved

from: http://www.pembina.org/reports/Boreal_FINAL.pdf

Al-Wabel, M., Al-Omran, A., El-Naggar, A., Nadeem, M., Usman, A. (2013). Pyrolyzis

temperature induced changes in characteristics and chemical composition of biochar

produced from conocarpus wastes. Bioresource Technology 131.374–379.

Badger, P.C. (2002). Processing cost analysis for biomass feedstocks. October 2001.Document

prepared for U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved from:

https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub57254.pdf

Baethke, K.A. (2015). Mine restoration of a native grassland plant community in the British

Columbia Interior: the use of biochar, hydroseeding, and raking. A Thesis submitted in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental

Science. Thompson River University.

Baker, L., Strawn, D.G., Rember, W.C., Sprenke, K.F. (2011). Metal content of charcoal in

mining-impacted wetland sediments. Science of the Total Environment 409: 588–594

Barrette, J., Thiffault, E., Saint-Pierre, F., Wetzel, S., Duchesne, I., & Krigstin, S. (2015).

Dynamics of dead tree degradation and shelf-life following natural disturbances: can

salvaged trees from boreal forests ‘fuel’ the forestry and bioenergy sectors? Forestry: An

International Journal of Forest Research 88: 275-290.

Beesley, L., Moreno-Jiménez, E., Gomez-Eyles, J.L., Harris, E., Robinson, B., Sizmur, T. (2011).

A review of biochars’ potential role in the remediation, revegetation

and restoration of contaminated soils. Environmental Pollution 159 (2011) 3269e3282

Beesley, L., Inneh, O.S., Norton, G.J., Moreno-Jimenez, E., Pardo, T., Clemente, R., Dawson,

J.J.C. (2013). Assessing the influence of compost and biochar amendments on the mobility

and toxicity of metals and arsenic in a naturally contaminated mine soil. Environmental

Pollution. 186. 195e202

Borealis Wood Power. (2017). Kwadacha First Nation taking charge of their own power

generation. Retrieved from: http://borealiswoodpower.com/wp-

content/uploads/2017/09/Kwadacha-Nation-EnergyBlock.pdf


A. Murat

51

Brownsort, P.A. (2009). Biomass Pyrolyzis Processes: Performance parameters and their influence

on biochar system benefits. A dissertation presented for the degree of Master of Science.

University of Edinburgh.

Canada,Government. (2007). Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis Guide: Regulatory Proposals. 4.7.1.

Retrieved from: https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/reporting-

government-spending/what-we-are-doing/canadian-cost-benefit-analysis-guide-

regulatory-proposals.html#Toc178397874

Canada, Government. (2011). Status of remote/off-grid communities in Canada. Retrieved from:

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/canmetenergy/files/pubs/2013-

118_en.pdf

Canada, Government. (2018). Ashnet. Retrieved from: https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/projects/140

Canada Border Services Agency, (2014) Wood Packaging Material Import Requirements

Retrieved from: http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-securite/wp-meb-eng.html

Cheminfo Services Inc. (2017). Ontario public service guidance document for quantifying

projected and actual greenhouse gas emission reductions. Final version1. June 30, 2017.

Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. Retrieved from:

http://www.grants.gov.on.ca/prodconsum/groups/grants_web_contents/documents/grants

_web_contents/prdr017804.pdf

Demeyer, A., Nkana, J.C., Verloo, M.G. (2001). Characteristics of wood ash and influence on soil

properties and nutrient uptake: an overview. Bioresource Technology 77: 287-295

Dickinson, D., Balduccio, L., Buysse, J., Ronsse, F., van Huylennbroeck, Guido, W. (2015). Cost-

benefit analysis of using biochar to improve cereals agriculture. GCB Bioenergy. 7, 850–

864, doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12180

Environment and Climate Change Canada (2017a). Technical paper: federal carbon pricing

backstop. Retrieved from:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/technical-paper-

federal-carbon-pricing-backstop.html

Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2017b). Pricing carbon pollution in Canada: how it

will work. Last accessed in October 2017 at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-

climate-change/news/2017/05/pricing_carbon_pollutionincanadahowitwillwork.html

EPA (United State Environmental Protection Agency). (2015). Emission Factors for Greenhouse

Gas Inventories. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

11/documents/emission-factors_nov_2015.pdf

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-securite/wp-meb-eng.html


A. Murat

52

EPA. (2016). Volume-to-weight conversion factors. An update to EPA’s 1997 report, “Measuring

Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments”. Retrieved from:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-

04/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.p

df

European Commission. (2015). Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects. Retrieved

from: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/cba_guide.pdf

Eyles, A., Bound S., Oliver, G., Paterson, S., Direen, J., Corkrey, R., Hardie, M., Green, S.,

Clothier, B., Close, D. (2013) Does biochar improve apple productivity? Aust Fruitgrower

2013:32–34

Fagbenro, J.A., Oshunsanya, S.O., Onawumi O.A. (2013) Effect of saw dust biochar and NPK

15:15:15 inorganic fertilizer on Moringa oleifera seedlings grown in an oxisol. Agrosearch

13:57–68

Fellet, G., Marchiol, L., Delle Vedove, G., Peresotti, A. (2011). Application of biochar on mine

tailings: Effects and perspectives for land reclamation. Chemosphere 83: 1262–1267

Fellet, G., Marmiroli, M., Marchiol, L. (2014). Elements uptake by metal accumulator species

grown on mine tailings amended with three types of biochar. Science of the Total

Environment 468–469: 598–608

Field JL, Keske CMH, Birch GL et al. (2013) Distributed biochar and bioenergy

coproduction: a regionally specific case study of environmental benefits and

economic impacts. Global Change Biology and Bioenergy, 5, 177–191.

Fredericks, T. (2018). Kwadacha Nation installs wood gasification system. Canadian Biomass

magazine. Retrieved from: https://www.canadianbiomassmagazine.ca/news/green-gas-

kwadacha-nation-installs-wood-gasification-system-6699

Gale, N.V, and S.C. Thomas. 2018. Ecophysiological responses of plants to charcoal soil

amendments: dose-response relationships and the importance of nutrient stoichiometry. In

review, Oecologia.

Galinato, S., Yoder, J.K., Granastein, D. (2011). The economic value of biochar in crop production

and carbon sequestration. Energy Policy 39 (2011) 6344–6350

Gaskin, JW, Speir, RA, Harris, K , Das, KC, Lee, RD, Morris, LA , Fisher, DS. (2010).

Effect of Peanut Hull and Pine Chip Biochar on Soil Nutrients, CornNutrient Status,

and Yield. 102 (2): 623-633

Gifford RM. Energy in different agricultural systems: renewable and nonrenewable sources. In:

Stanhill G, editor. Energy and agriculture. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1984. p. 84–112.

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Gaskin,%20JW&dais_id=11753791&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Speir,%20RA&dais_id=78842195&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Harris,%20K&dais_id=6585902&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Das,%20KC&dais_id=18610790&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Lee,%20RD&dais_id=637648&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Morris,%20LA&dais_id=12715247&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Fisher,%20DS&dais_id=4715992&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage


A. Murat

53

Goldcorp Canada Ltd. (1995). Musselwhite project. Environmental impact statement and

comprehensive study report. Vol II: Environmental description. Placer Done Canada Ltd.

TVX Gold Inc.

Goldcorp Canada Ltd. (2010). 2010 Closure plan amendment Musselwhite Mine, Thunder Bay,

Ontario.

Golcorp Canada Ltd. (2015). Musselwhite Mine: 2014 Assessment of the potential for acid rock

drainage.

Golder Associate (1995). Vegetation Survey results for the Musselwhite project area.

Gonsamo, A., Chen, J. M., Colombo, S. J., M., Ter-Mikaelian, T., and Chen, J. (2017). Global

change induced biomass growth offsets carbon released via increased forest fire and

respiration of the central Canadian boreal forest. J. Geophys. Res.Biogeosci., 122, 1275–

1293

Gonzales, J.S. (1990). Wood density of Canadian tree species. Northwest region. Information

Report NOR-X-315. Forestry Canada. Retrieved from:

http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/?id=11744

Hammond, J., Shackley, S., Sohi, S., Brownsort, P. (2011). Prospective life carbon abatement for

biochar systems in the UK. Energy Policy 39: 2646–2655.

Hannam, K.D., Deschamps, C., Kwiaton, C. M., Venier, L., Hazlett, P.W.(2016). Regulations and

guidelines for the use of wood ash as a soil amendment in Canadian forests. Natural

Resources Canada. Canadian Forests Services. Information report GLC-X-17. Retrieved

from: http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/37781.pdf

Hashim, A.A., Aktas, C.B. (2016). Life cycle environmental and economic performance of biochar

compared with activated carbon: A meta-analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling

118 (2017) 13–26

Homagain, K., Shahi, C., Luckai, N., Sharma, M. (2014). Biochar-based bioenergy and its

environmental impact in Northwestern Ontario Canada: A review. Journal of Forestry

Research (2014) 25(4): 737-748

Hossain, M.A., Akter, F., Solaiman, Z.M., Strezov, V. (2015). Biochar: An Emerging Panacea for

Remediation of Soil Contaminants from Mining, Industry and Sewage Wastes. Pedosphere

25(5): 654–665

Heckenberger, M.J., Kuikuro, A., Kuikuro, U.T., Russel, J.C., Schmidt, M., Fausto, C., Franchetto,

B. (2003). Amazonia 1492: Pristine Forest or Cultural Parkland? Science Mag. 301: pp.

1710-1715.


A. Murat

54

Hu, Y. (2014). Assessing the effect of feedstock and pyrolyzis temperature on biochar stability in

soils. Master Thesis. McGill University.

IBI (International Biochar Initiative). (2014). Standardized Product Definition and Product Testing

Guidelines for Biochar That Is Used in Soil. Retrieved from: http://www.biochar-

international.org/sites/default/files/IBI_Biochar_Standards_V2%200_final_2014.pdf

IBI (International Biochar Initiative). (2017). Biochar and Carbon Markets. Retrieved from:

http://www.biochar-international.org/protocol

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis

Report; Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, R. K., Reisinger, A., Eds.;

IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland; p 104. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-

report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_full_report.pdf

James, A.K., Thring, R.W., Helle, S., Ghuman, H.S., (2012). Ash Management Review—

Applications of Biomass Bottom Ash. Energies, 5, 3856-3873; doi: 10.3390/en5103856

Jiang, S., Huang, L., Nguyen, T.A.H., Ok, Y.S., Rudolph, V., Yang, H., Zhang, D. (2016). Copper

and zinc adsorption by softwood and hardwood biochars under elevated sulphate-induced

salinity and acidic pH conditions. Chemosphere 142. 64–71

Jones, B.E.H., Haynes, R.J., Phillips, I.R. (2010).

Effect of amendment of bauxite processing sand with organic

materials on its chemical, physical and microbial properties. Journal of Environmental

Management. 91 (11): 2281-2288

Kammann, C.I., Linsel, S., Gossling, J.W., Koyro, H.W. (2011).

Influence of biochar on drought tolerance of Chenopodium quinoaWilld and on soil-

plant relations. Plant and Soil. 345 (1-2): 195-210

Keske, C., Lohman, G.G. (2012). Biochar: An Emerging Market Solution for Legacy Mine

Reclamation and the Environment. 6 Appalachian Nat. Resources L.J. 1 (2012). Retrieved

from:

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/anrlj6&div=4&id=&page

=

Kloss, S., Zehetner,F., Dellantonio, A., Hamid, R., Ottner, F., Liedtke,V., Schwanninger, M.,

Gerzabek, M.H., Soja, G. (2012). Characterization of Slow Pyrolyzis Biochars: Effects of

Feedstocks and Pyrolyzis Temperature on Biochar Properties. Journal of Environmental

Quality. Vol. 41 No. 4, p. 990-1000

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Jones,%20BEH&dais_id=8889542&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Haynes,%20RJ&dais_id=6784062&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Phillips,%20IR&dais_id=28420971&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Kammann,%20CI&dais_id=40429535&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Linsel,%20S&dais_id=48768945&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Gossling,%20JW&dais_id=30542780&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Koyro,%20HW&dais_id=44635290&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage


A. Murat

55

Kuttner, B.G., Thomas, S.C. (2017). Interactive effects of biochar and an organic dust suppressant

for revegetation and erosion control with herbaceous seed mixtures and willow cuttings.

Restoration Ecology Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 367–375

Lal, R. (2004). Carbon emission from farm operations. Review article. Environment International

30: 981– 990

Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J., Rondon, M. (2006). Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems – A

review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 11: 403–427. DOI:

10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5

Liu, X.Y., Zhang, A.F., Ji, C.Y., Joseph, S., Bian, R.I., Li, L.Q., Pan, G.X., Paz-Ferreiro, J. (2013).

Biochar’s effect on crop productivity and the dependence on experimental conditions—a

meta-analysis of literature data. Plant and Soil. 373 (1-2): 583-594

Lucchini, P., Quilliam, R. S, DeLuca, T. H., Vamerali, T, Jones, D. L. (2014). Increased

bioavailability of metals in two contrasting agricultural soils treated with waste wood-

derived biochar and ash. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 21,5:32 3230-

3240.

Major, J., M. Rondon, D. Molina, S. J. Riha, and J. Lehmann. (2010). Maize yield and nutrition

during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant and Soil

333:117–128

Manya, J.J. (2012). Pyrolyzis for biochar purposes: a review to establish current knowledge gaps

and research needs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 7939-7954

Mathers, J., Craft, E., Norsworthy, M., Wolfe, C. (2014). The Green Freight Handbook. A practical

guide for developing a sustainable freight transportation strategy for Business. EDF

(Environmental Defense Fund). Retrieved from

http://business.edf.org/files/2014/07/EDF-Green-Freight-Handbook.pdf

McCarl, B.A., Peacocke C., Chrisman R. et al. (2009) Economics of biochar production,

utilization and greenhouse gas offsets. In: Biochar for Environmental Management

(eds Lehmann J, Joseph S), pp. 341–358. Earthscan, London.

Miller-Robbie, L., Ulrich, B.A., Ramey, D.F., Spencer, K.S., Herzog, S.P., Cath, T.Y., Stokes,

J.R., Higgins, C.P. (2015). Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas assessment of the co-

production of biosolids and biochar for land application. Journal of Cleaner Production. 91,

118-127

Mining Watch Canada. (ND). Investing in conflict - Public money, private gain: Goldcorp in the

Americas. Resources was accessed on October 5th, 2017 at:

https://miningwatch.ca/sites/default/files/mininggoldcorpbw042608.pdf


A. Murat

56

MorningStar, 2017. Goldcorp Inc GG. MorningStar rating. Bonds. Retrieved from:

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/stocknet/bonds.aspx?symbol=gg

Nalder, I.A., Merriam, H.G. (1995). Simulating carbon dynamics of the boreal forest in Pukaskwa

National Park. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 82: 283-298.

National Bank of Canada (NBC). (2017). Pellet stoves: what are the advantages? Retrieved from:

https://ideas.nationalbank.ca/pellet-stoves-what-are-the-advantages/

Natural Resources Canada. (2016). Learn the facts: Fuel consumption and CO2. Retrieved from:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/cars-light-trucks/buying/16770

Natural Resources Canada (2017a). Average retail prices for Auto Propane. Information for the

city of Thunder Bay. As of Nov 2, 2017. Retrieved from:

http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/eneene/sources/pripri/prices_bycity_e.cfm?productID=6&locati

onID=66&locationID=23&frequency=W&priceYear=2017&Redisplay=

Natural Resources Canada (2017b) Diesel – Current weekly consumer price for diesel fuel in 45

Canadian cities plus the average Canada pump price. Information for the city of Thunder

Bay. As of Nov 2, 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/fuel-prices/4797

Natural Resources Canada. (2017c). How much forests does Canada have? Accessed in October

2017 at: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/report/area/17601

Natural Resources Canada. (2017d). Musselwhite Mine – Ontario. Retrieved from:

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/publications/aboriginal/bulletin/8818

Natural Resources Canada. (2017e). ecoEnergy Innovation Initiative Demonstration Projects:

Bioenergy. Retrieved from: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/funding/eii/4989

Ohsowski, B.M. (2015). Restoring Grasslands in Southern Ontario Sandpits: Plant and Soil Food

Web Responses to Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Inoculum, Biochar, and Municipal

Compost. A Thesis submitted for the partial fulfillement of the requirements for the degree

of Doctor of Philosophy. the University of British Columbia. Retrieved from:

https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0074440

Ogawa, M., Okimori, Y., Takashi, F. (2006). Carbon sequestration by carbonization of biomass

and forestation: three case studies. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global

Change. 11: 429–444

Olmo, M., Alburquerque, J.A., Barron, V., del Campillo, M.C., Gallardo, A., Fuentes, M., Villar,

R. (2014). Wheat growth and yield responses to biochar addition under Mediterranean

climate conditions. Biology and Fertility of Soils 50:1177–1187.


A. Murat

57

Omil, B., Pineiro, V., Merino, A. (2013). Soil and tree responses to the application of wood ash

containing charcoal in two soils with contrasting properties. Forest Ecology and

Management 295 (2013) 199–212

Ontario Far North Science Advisory Panel [Abraham, K., Gunn, J., Lean, D., Lynham, T., Pearson,

D., Ray, J., Riley, J., Roulet, N., Schmiegelow, F., Thomas, S.C., Woodley, S.] (2010)

Science for Ontario’s changing Far North. Commissioned report, April 2010, Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources.

Ontario Government. (ND). Far North of Ontario. Accessed on October 12, 2017 at:

https://www.ontario.ca/rural-and-north/far-north-ontario

Ontario Government. (2016). Compliance Offset Credits Regulatory Proposal. Pdf. Retrieved

from: http://www.downloads.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2016/012-

9078.pdf

Ontario Government. (2017a). Cap and trade: offset credit and protocol. Retrieved from:

https://www.ontario.ca/page/cap-and-trade-offset-credits-and-protocols

Ontario Government. (2017b). Crown timber charges for forestry companies. Retrieved from:

https://www.ontario.ca/data/crown-timber-charges-forestry-companies

Ontario Mining Act. (1990). O. Reg. 240/00: Mine development and closure under part VII of the

Act. Retrieved from: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/000240

Paz-Ferreiro, J., Lu, H., Fu, S., Mendez, A., Gasco, G. (2014). Use of phytoremediation and

biochar to remediate heavy metal polluted soils: a review. Solid Earth, 5, 65–75

Phillips, C.L., trippe, K.M., Whittaker, G., Griffith, S.M., Johnson, M.G., Banowetz, G.M. (2016).

Gasified Grass and Wood Biochars Facilitate Plant Establishment in Acid Mine Soils.

Journal of Environmental Quality. 45 (3): 1013-20

Petelina, E.; Klyashtorin, A.; Yankovich, T. (2014a). Field trials on use of biochar versus peat for

land reclamation purposes. British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium. Retrieved

from: https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/59367/items/1.0042682

Petelina, E., Sanscartier, D.; MacWilliam, S.; Ridsdale, R. (2014b). Environmental, social, and

economic benefits of biochar application for land reclamation purposes. Retrieved from:

https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/59367/items/1.0042676

Petelina, E., Klyashtorin, A., Yankovitch, T. (2014c). Greenhouse trials on use of biochar versus

peat for land reclamation purposes. Retrieved from:

https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/59367/items/1.0042681


A. Murat

58

Pluchon, N, Gundale MJ, Nilsson M-C, Kardol P, Wardle DA (2014) Stimulation of boreal tree

seedling growth by wood-derived charcoal: effects of charcoal properties, seedling species

and soil fertility. Func Ecol 28:766–775

Puga, A.P., Melo, L.C.A., de Abreu, C.A., Coscione, A.R. (2016). Leaching and fractionation of

heavy metals in mining soils amended

with biochar. Soil & Tillage Research 164: 25–33

Quebec Government (2016). Competitiveness in the Quebec Forest Industry. Budget 2016-2017.

Retrieved from: http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.ca/budget/2016-

2017/en/documents/forest.pdf

Rajkovich, S., Enders, A., Hanley, K., Hyland, C., Zimmerman, A., Lehmann, J. (2012).

Corn growth and nitrogen nutrition after additions of biochars withvarying properties to a

temperate soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 48(3): 271-284

Reed, E., Chadwick, D.R., Hill, P.W., Jones, D.L. (2017). Critical comparison of the impact of

biochar and wood ash on soil organic matter cycling and grassland productivity. Soil

biology and chemistry. 110: 134-142.

Resolute Forest Products (2017). Wood products. Accessed in November 2017 at:

http://www.resolutefp.com/Operations/Wood_Products/

Reverchon, F., Yang, H., Ho, T.Y., Yan, G.J., Wang, J., Xu, Z.H., Chen, C.R., Zhang, D.K.

(2015).A preliminary assessment of the potential of using an acaciabiochar system for sp

ent mine site rehabilitation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 22 (3): 2138-

2144

Roberts, K.G., Gloy, B.A., Joseph, S., Scott, N.R., Lehmann, J. (2010). Life Cycle Assessment of

Biochar Systems: Estimating the Energetic, Economic, and Climate Change Potential.

Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, 827–833

Roberts, D.A., Paul, N., Cole, A.J., de Nys, R. (2015). Algal biochar enhances the re-vegetation

of stockpiled mine soils with native grass. Journal of Environmental Management 161:173-

180

Rondon, M.A., Lehmann, J., Raminez, J. ,Hurtado, M. (2007). Biological nitrogen fixation by

common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increases with biochar additions, Biol. Fertil. Soils,

43: 699-708.

Ronsse, F., van Hecke, S., Dickinson, D., Prins, W. (2013). Production and characterization of

slow pyrolysis biochar: influence of feedstock type and pyrolysis conditions. GCB

Bioenergy: 5, 104–115, doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12018References

http://www.resolutefp.com/Operations/Wood_Products/

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Reverchon,%20F&dais_id=1000902081&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Yang,%20H&dais_id=31877609&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage

http://apps.webofknowledge.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/DaisyOneClickSearch.do?product=WOS&search_mode=DaisyOneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=2Ank6uUTbGr7g3wF4Wz&author_name=Ho,%20TY&dais_id=7125612&excludeEventConfig=ExcludeIfFromFullRecPage


A. Murat

59

Scharenbroch, B. C., Meza, E. N., Catania, M., Fite, K. (2013).

Biochar and Biosolids Increase Tree Growth and Improve SoilQuality for Urban Landsca

pes. Journal of Environmental Quality. 42 (5): 1372-1385

Searates.com. (N.D.a) Parameters of sea containers: 40' STANDARD. Last accessed on October

29, 2017: https://www.searates.com/reference/equipment/2/

Searates.com. (N.D.b) Transit Time, Distance calculator & Port to port distances. Digital broker

and freight forwarder. Last accessed on October 9, 2017:

https://www.searates.com/reference/portdistance

Seedre, M., Chen, H.Y.H. (2010). Carbon dynamics of aboveground live vegetation of boreal

mixewoods after wildfire and clear-cutting. Canadian Journal of Forest Research

40(9):1862-1869.

Shaaban, A., Se,S-M., Dimin, M.F., Juoi, J.M., Husin, M.H.M., Mitan, N.M.M. (2014). Influence

of heating temperature and holding time on biochars derived from rubber wood sawdust

via slow pyrolyzis. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolyzis 107: 31–39.

Shackley, S., Hammond J., Gaunt J. et al. (2011) The feasibility and costs of biochar

deployment in UK. Carbon Management, 2, 335–356

Shock, N. (2014). Biochar policy in North America: Emerging regulatory and certification

frameworks and their application to Haliburton Forest & Widlife Reserve Ltd. University

of Toronto, Master of Forest Conservation Thesis. An electric copy can be obtained from

Professor Sean Thomas.

Sombroek, W., de Lourdes Ruivo, M., Fearnside, P.M., Glaser, B., Lehmann, J. (ND). Amazonian

Dark Earths. Ch7: pp 125-139. Retrieved from:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-2597-1_7

Sovu, MT, Savadogo, P, Oden, PC (2012) Facilitation of forest landscape restoration on

abandoned swidden fallows in Laos using mixed-species planting and biochar application.

Silva Fenn 46:39–51

Spokas, K.A. (2010). Review of the stability of biochar in soils: predictability of O: C molar ratios.

Carbon Management. 1(2), 289–303.

Stokes, B. J. (1992). Harvesting small trees and forest residues. Biomass and Bioenergy. 2 (1-6),

131-147

The Timmins Times. (2011). One of the worst ever forest fire seasons in Ontario comes to an end.

Retrieved from: http://www.timminstimes.com/2011/11/01/one-of-the-worst-ever-forest-

fire-seasons-in-ontario-comes-to-an-end

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/1-4020-2597-1

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/1-4020-2597-1


A. Murat

60

Thomas, S.C., Gale, N. (2015). Biochar and forest restoration: a review and metaanalysis of tree

growth responses. New Forests. 46:931–946.

The Physics Factbook. (2002) Energy density of propane. Retrieved in December 2017 from:

https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/EricLeung.shtml

Timcon, UK timber packaging and pallet confederation (ND). Pallets and packaging: dry pallet –

process standard for timber pallets. Best practice guide. Retrieved from: http://www.cti-

timber.org/sites/default/files/Dry%20Pallet%20-

%20Process%20Standard%20for%20Timber%20Pallets%20-

%20Best%20Practice%20Guide.pdf

University of Guelph. (2017). Wood ash laboratory analysis: Boilers No.6 and No. 3. Provided

internally by Resolute Forest Products.

Uzoma, K. C., M. Inoue, H. Andry, H. Fujimaki, a. Zahoor, and E. Nishihara. (2011). Effect of

cow manure biochar on maize productivity under sandy soil condition. Soil Use and

Management 27:205–2124

Vaccari, F. P, Baronti, S., Lugato, E., Genesio, L., Castaldi, S., Fornasier, F., Miglietta, F. (2011).

Biochar as a strategy to sequester carbon and increase yield indurum wheat. European

Journal of Agronomy. 34 (4): 231-238

Wardle, D.A., Zackrisson, O., Nilsson, M.C. (1998). The charcoal effect in boreal forests:

mechanisms and ecological consequences. Oecologia 115:419–426

Wong, M.H. (2003). Ecological restoration of mine degraded soils, with emphasis on metal

contaminated soils. Chemosphere. 50 (2003) 775–780

Wood Pellet Association of Canada. (2017). Global market outlook in 2017. Retrieved from:

https://www.pellet.org/wpac-news/global-pellet-market-outlook-in-2017

Woolf, D., Amonette, J.E., Street-Perrott, F.A., Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. (2010). Sustainable

biochar to mitigate global climate change. Natures Communications. 1:56.

Wyatt, S.K., Fredeen, A. (2014). Harvesting the dead and decaying forests: potential carbon

storage in harvested wood products. The Forestry Chronicle. 90, 5: 614-619

Zhang, X., Wang, H., Lizhi, H., Lu, K., Sarmah, A., Li, J., Bolan, N.S., Pei, J., Huang, H. (2013).

Using biochar for remediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals and organic

pollutants. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 20:8472–8483

Zhang, Y., Chen, T., Liao, Y., Reid B.J., Chi H., Hou, Y., Cai, C. (2016). Modest amendment of

sewage sludge biochar to reduce the accumulation of cadmium into rice (Oryza sativa L.):

A field study. Journal of Environmental pollution. 216: 819-825


A. Murat

61

Zoladeski, C.A., Maycock, P.F. (1990). Dynamics of the Boreal forest in northwestern Ontario.

The American Midland Naturalist. 124: 289-300.

Zornoza, R., Acosta, J. A., Faz, A., Baath, E. (2016). Microbial growth and community structure

in acid mine soils after addition of different amendments for soil reclamation.

GEODERMA Volume: 272 Pages: 64-72


A. Murat

62

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Literature review for biochar dosage


A. Murat

63


A. Murat

64

Appendix B: A reel feed/mixer wagons allowing to mix and spread sand and biochar at the same

time

Source: http://www.postequip.com/farm-equipment/reel-feed-mixers.php


A. Murat

65

Appendix C: Regulations

Biochar

Any biochar producer or supplier should undergo a registration with the Canadian Food Inspection

Agency (CFIA) which requires the submission of a “Fertilizer and Supplement Registration

Application” including the following information (Shock, 2014; CFIA, 2017):

- identification and description of all materials used in the production of the end-product, the

source and proportion of these materials (“Constituent Materials”);

- identification and description of “Other Qualities”, including physical characteristics, such as

color, phase, etc., the detailed method of manufacture, quality assurance and quality control

forms;

- the Signing Authority;

- the results of Test Analysis;

- a Safety Rationale;

- a Proposed Marketplace Label (if any);

- the Registration Fee ($350 CAD);

- Fee for Safety Data Review ($500+HST CAD)

More details about the application process and categories can be found in Shock (2014).

Moreover, any research applied to biochar, as “any product that are not registered or contain a

novel trait”, requires an “Application for Research Authorization” from the CFIA “prior to the

release into the Canadian environment for research trial purposes” (CFIA, 2017 and P. Wher,

CFIA, Pers. Comm. 2017).

As pointed earlier, a processing time of 1 year is necessary after submission of the application

(Shock, 2014).

Wood ash

The transport of wood ash requires approval from the Ministry of the Environment and

Climate Change (MOECC). The transport must use a “waste management system” defined under

the Environmental Protection Act (Hannam et al, 2016), which requires either

1) to register with the MOECC under the environmental Activity Sector Registry as a « Solid Non-

Hazardous Waste Management System » (See Environmental Activity & Sector Registry (EASR)

User Guide - Non-Hazardous Waste Transportation Systems for registration process & see Ontario

Regulation 351/12 for criteria to meet regulation),

Or 2) submit an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application for a “Soil Conditioner

Waste Management Sytem” (see Guide to Applying for an Environmental Compliance Approval)

Or 3) use a company that already has an ECA from MOECC to transport wood ash (Hannam et al,

2016).

The storage and application of wood ash on non-agricultural site also involves obtaining

an ECA from MOECC as per the Environmental Protection Act (see Guide to Applying for an

Environmental Compliance Approval for details). Since there is no specific guidelines, an approval


A. Murat

66

will be made on a case-by-case basis. (Consult Thunder Bay OMECC local District office at 1-

807-475-1205).

In addition, before any approval for land application can be obtained, the following analysis

will be needed:

- Wood ash analysis for the concentration of 11 trace metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,

copper, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, lead, selenium and zinc). If the wood ash exceed allowable

limits, then it will not be eligible for use a soil amendment

- A chemical analysis of the receiving soil

- Additional analysis (PH, moisture content, etc.) as required

Harvesting in the Far North Ontario

The area that could potentially be harvested around the mine is supervised by the Sioux Lookout

District, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF). A step-by-step process is

described below following the recommendations of this District (B. Everatt, OMNRF Sioux

Lookout District, pers. Comm., August-December 2017)

A formal, written application must be submitted to the (OMNRF), Sioux Lookout District, by the

Signing Authority of the project.

The application must include:

• A detailed map showing the location where the harvesting is to take place and the location

where the mobile pyrolysis unit would be located.

• The size of the area to be logged (shape file of the area is preferred)

• A description of trees to be harvested (live/dead, degree of char, etc.)

• A description of how trees are to be utilized ( will all parts of the tree be utilized, will

slash/debris be left on site and if so how will the slash/debris be dealt with, are harvested

trees to be transported off site and if so where)

• A description of the type of equipment to be used in the logging process

• The time period when logging would take place

• The reason/purpose of the logging (full project description)

Once the application has been received, the OMNRF will begin their review process to

determine if what is proposed can be approved and, if approved, what authorizations/permits

would be required.

The review would include the following steps:

• A review by the Far North Branch to determine if proposed project can proceed


A. Murat

67

• A review of fish, wildlife, and species at risk potentially impacted by the proposed project

(30 days processing time)

• A review of timber values that may be impacted by the proposed project

• A review of the Lands related values that may be impacted by the proposed project

• A review of any Land Use planning initiatives that may be impacted by the proposed

project

• A notification/consultation with all First Nations who may have concerns/be impacted by

the proposed project (6-7 weeks processing time)

• The determination of any Crown charges that would be applied to the wood being harvested

Appendix D: Pictures of the burnt forest near Musselwhite

(Credit photos: Jasmine William, August 2017)


A. Murat

68

Appendix E: Equipment prices

All prices are in CAD, conversion rates as of August 3rd 2017 Bank of Canada

* the pyrolyzis unit was purchased by Haliburton Forest, but the original supplier name is

unknown.

** Other cost includes rental of a truck loading station + installation cost. They are not taken into

account in our LCA for simplification purposes.

*** we only obtained shipping rate for P-Fice/Bioforcetech, so we estimated other shipping rates

based on the $-km rate for this one.

Wood-chipppers:

* The wood chippers considered in this analysis are the PTO chipper (HM6-300) for forest residues

and the SPE-1300 Pallet Chipper for the wood pallets.


A. Murat

69

Appendix F: calculation of crown forest charges


A. Murat

70

Appendix G: an example of a 40ST container sized pyrolyzis unit

Source: http://www.biogreen-energy.com


A. Murat

71

Appendix H: Decision Matrix

Notes for Appendix H:

For simplification purpose, we averaged the cost of harvesting forest residues between NES regular crown charge and Bio-product

salvage rate. For the same motivation, saw-dust and woodchips prices were averaged in a single woodchips/sawdust average price.

Areas in grey show non-eligible options (due to time constraint).

Cells in red show the worst performance and in green the best result.

biochar-based forest restoration at a far north ontario ... · (puga, 2016). although a variety of...

Documents