It's a surprisingly complicated question. There are few reliable sources of data on just how much energy and resources are involved in extracting petroleum from the bitumen-laden sands of northern Alberta. But the inertia that comes with the tens of billions of dollars that have been invested in the tar sands so far means that it's an important question that needs to be answered as we plan our future energy portfolios. Keeping the planet's temperature to a habitable range depends on which fuels we use.
All of which means it's critical to carefully evaluate claims about the greenhouse-gas intensity of the tar sands operation. Among the more recent high-profile estimates comes from Peter Voser, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, which has a serious stake in the tar sands. At an industry event last week in Calgary he said:
Today, fuel from oil sands produces 5 per cent to 15 per cent more carbon dioxide than fuels from conventional oil when measured from "well to wheel." We are determined to narrow that gap even further.
Which doesn't sounds like much. And yet much of the opposition to developing the tar sands comes from people who insist tar sands oil is among the dirtiest (and GHG-intensive to produce) on the planet. So who's right?
According to Andrew Nikiforuk, who's report on the tar sands was published at about the same time Voser was talking, the answer is "we don't know," but we're pretty sure it's a lot more than Voser's estimate. Here are a few excerpts from the report. First:
To date, Canada has yet to produce a comprehensive report with real, up-to-date bitumen production data from various mining and steam projects. The Centre for the Study of Living Standards has also concluded that, "publicly-available scientific estimates of future GHG emissions from the oil sands are limited.
In other words, there's no reliable objective estimate of just how much more GHGs are released from the production and use of tar sands oil, compared with conventional sources of petroleum, Some of the estimates come with ridiculously wide margins of error. But there some educated guesses:
Given that Canada contributes the largest amount of foreign crude to US refineries, the US National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) recently analyzed GHG emissions from bitumen and synthetic crude (well-to-wheel) using real 2006 data from Imperial Oil and Syncrude. Due to "energy intensive extraction processes and pre-processing," the NETL concluded that bitumen had "GHG emissions several times greater than that for extraction of conventional crude oil." The NETL also revealed that emissions from the extraction of bitumen and synthetic crude easily trumped the footprint of most major US imports.
Comprehensive NETL studies also show that well-to-tank emissions for jet fuel made from bitumen were three times greater than those from US domestic crude. Diesel fuel refined from Canadian bitumen also had the highest well-to-tank emissions of any imported fuel, or 144 per cent greater than those of domestic crude. As a consequence, the NETL concluded that $19 billion worth of imported Canadian bitumen used for diesel fuel created twice as many as emissions as domestic crude oil.
Nikiforuk's report contains pages and pages and sources and sources of this kind of thing, all of it heavily footnoted. Among the sources that are easily downloadable on the net is the NETL analysis. There are some good graphs in that one that make it quite clear the tar sands aren't anything like a standard oil well when it comes to carbon footprints.
So on the one hand, Shell's CEO puts the GHG cost of tar sands oil production at 5 to 15 percent greater than conventional oil. On the other, you've got the U.S. government and several other independent sources putting the figure much much higher, perhaps as much as several hundred percent greater than conventional oil.
- Log in to post comments
CEOs lie. Hardly surprising, innit?
Note that Voser was talking about "well to wheel" and so including the emissions for actually using fuel as well as extraction and processing.
The explanation is more simple: Estimates such as the commonly quoted "three times greater than conventional oil" are based on extraction of the oil only. That is, however, only about 20% of the total emissions you'll get from any barrel of oil. The studies that show oil sands within 5% to 15% of other crudes - and in fact lower than some - are based on the full lifecycle of the oil, or "wells to wheels." Here's a discussion of that contrast, with links to the latest examinations:
http://alberta.ca/blog/home.cfm/2009/9/9/Natural-Resources-Defense-Coun…
Sorry, G of A, but that's a red herring. The difference between well-to-tank and well-to-wheel is inconsequential when comparing the sources of gasoline and diesel fuels. As the NETL report notes: "the GHG emissions from combustion of petroleum-based fuels are not expected to be impacted by crude oil source."
If you can supply a citation for a study, from someone other than an industry or government source, that concludes tar sands oil compares favorably on GHG emissions in a full life cycle analysis, I'd be happy to give it as much attention as this blog can generate. --jh
Note the comment from the "Government of Alberta." I have noticed of late that vested interests for various energy options, like hydrogen, some types of biofuels, and now tar sand oil, ride herd on blog and news posts that have comment fields. When they see a post about their product some individual (I'm guessing an employee with this as part of their job description) will appear to defend it. I also received a comment from the Government of Alberta on a recent article I posted comparing biofuels to the tar sands.
Tar sand oil is analogous to coal mining in many ways. There is no doubt that it falls somewhere between conventional oil wells and oil made from coal (as is done in South Africa). The only way to keep humanity from dipping into the energy cookie jar is with a price on carbon.
JH, the studies I linked to were done by internationally reputable firms, not by us, not by industry. But I understand your reluctance to accept information from a flack at face value. I will point you to this, rather more objective source, which references the same issue: http://www.slate.com/id/2220878/pagenum/all/#p2
Mr. Finley, you are entirely correct (in our case) that it's part of my job to read blogs, twitter, etc. and engage in conversation where appropriate. We, as Government, realize the media world has changed. If we're not welcome here, that's OK, just say so. I don't mean to offend anyone, just offer some sources of additional information to a clearly intelligent, articulate group of writers and readers.
Cheers,
- David Sands, for the Government of Alberta
Mr. or Dr. Hrynyshy, I think I can in fact do better, and under your parameters.
IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) Special Report, 2009, Growth in the Canadian Oil Sands: âTotal GHG emissions from oil sands are approximately 5 to 15 per cent higher than the average crude oil consumed in the United States.â
Go to www.cera.com (or this direct link, which might not survive the comment box: http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/search/search.aspx?Ntt=Growth+in+the+Canad…)
I havenât got much more than that study, the two AERI studies, and thereâs a RAND study out there somewhere, too.
If you still prefer Greenpeace and the journalist Andrew Nikiforuk, I'm sure you've found grounds for that.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to discuss, and thanks for your blog bringing important issues forward.
- David Sands
As for David Sands' "reference" in #6, apparently it is always the best answer, when asked for a science reference, to offer industry economic consultants as your source. What part of "ScienceBlogs" did you miss?
You've offered exactly what James said he didn't want. If you can't find material to support your position that can meet the standard he explicitly asked for, don't just continue to throw s*** at the wall hoping it will stick.
Apparently my provincial government doesn't believe that the oil industry is able to defend itself from criticism. Or maybe that the Conservatives are finally admitting that they really are completely in their pocket. Defense of a major economic driver is one thing, uncritical boot-licking is another.
Just for information:
Oops. Missed a tag there. Last para is mine.
I guess, in part, it depends on how you define dirty - as in what adds to that. Oil companies working the tar sands are using humongous amounts of fresh water, turned to steam, to extract the oil, and then returning that dirty water to the environment. This is becoming a huge problem, particularly as global climate change, population growth, increased agricultural needs etc are making the need for access to clean drinking water ever more important
3 thoughts/comments:
- Give some points to gov of alberta actually owning up to where he's coming from. He could have just come in as David Sands. Much more honest and up front this way. Thankyou David.
- There is a bit of a point in difference between ground to tank and ground to wheel when you look at percents, isn't there. If one source burns the equivalent of 5% of the energy in the tank to supply that oil, and another source needs 15%, then the second method is requiring 3 times as much, right. It may be an attempt at spin to say 15% isn't bad, but it's not a lie.
- and DarkDad... what gave you the impression there was a difference between your prov gov and the oil industry?... different branches of the same concern.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/…
The Tar Sands represent the end of easy oil. This is the hard stuff: oil mixed deep into a sandy soil. The process of extracting it, refining it, and shipping it adds up to an oil dirtier, more polluting, and more harmful to our climate than all the oil that has gotten us into this mess. Global-warming emissions from Tar Sands oil production are three to five times greater than from conventional crude production.
To squeeze just one barrel of oily sludge from four tons of Albertan soil in Canada, industry must destroy Boreal forests, drain wetlands, and consume natural gas that could otherwise generate electricity or heat homes. Then, because the sludge is permeated by toxic heavy metals, more natural gas must be used to give the sludge a hot bath. The result: three barrels of drinking water destroyed for every barrel of sludge washed, and lakes of toxic waste so large they can be seen from outer space.
In short, the Tar Sands represent the swapping of nature for Tolkeinâs Mordor.
The US government hasnât yet grasped the magnitude of the impending disaster.
Note that Voser was talking about "well to wheel" and so including the emissions for actually using fuel as well as extraction and processing.
Oops. Missed a tag there. Last para is mine.
I just went through both Government of Alberta sponsored studies.
Well to wheel is an inappropriate way to look at this problem because it's about comparing gasolines, not how those gasolines are used. Adding GHG emissions from the transportation of that gasoline to the market and the eventual burning of the gasoline is just diluting the real differences between the fuel sources. Of course, this suits the Gov of Alberta and tar-sands producers mandate very well, so it's no surprise that it's the methodology for these studies.
Some interesting things can be inferred from these reports, however:
http://eipa.alberta.ca/media/39643/life%20cycle%20analysis%20tiax%20fin…
If you look at well-to-tank emissions on page 71 to 74 of the TIAX Alberta-sponsored study (linked to at the link above), you'll see that GHG emissions from gasoline derived from conventional oil are far better than GHG emissions from gasoline derived from the tar sands. Things only even out when the burning of that gasoline occurs.
I'll also accept that gasoline derived from the tar sands is only a little worse than Nigerian crude as based on the immense amount of gas flared. Congratulations, Canada, you're little better than a third world nation.