Alberta’s oil sands have a reputation for being extremely carbon intensive. A report released Tuesday suggests such claims are overblown.
Below are a few things to keep in mind when reading about this study, or any other that compares carbon emissions from different fuel sources.
Tuesday’s analysis comes from the Massachusetts-based IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. It concludes that on a “well-to-wheel” basis, oil sands fuel is on average 5 to 15 percent more carbon intensive than regular fuel.
Here’s how that sentence breaks down. “Well-to-wheel” refers to the complete life-cycle of any given fuel.
First you “extract” (taking the oil out of the ground). Then you “refine” (turning the raw resource into products such as gasoline). Finally, you “combust” (using the fuel to power your car). Emissions are produced at each step.
But as the CERA report points out – and oil industry-types like to emphasize – 70 to 80 percent of all life-cycle emissions come from the “combusting” stage.
Basically, as long as your tank is filled with gasoline, you’re producing emissions. And the amount of greenhouse gases released from an exhaust pipe stays constant, the report notes, regardless of where that gasoline came from.
"On this basis," a press release reads, "[CERA] found that GHG emissions from oil sands product do not differ much from other sources of US crude imports, including crudes from Nigeria, Venezuela and some produced domestically."
Here’s where it gets more complicated. Emissions from different types of fuel sources can vary wildly in the “extracting” and “refining” processes.
Take Alberta’s oil sands. Companies either claw a viscous substance called bitumen from massive open-pit mines, or melt it from underground formations with steam injections. The bitumen must then be heated at high temperatures and diluted with chemicals before it’s even ready to be sent through a pipeline.
Conventional oil, in contrast, is pumped relatively easily from the ground, and does not require nearly as much refining.
So on a “well-to-tank” basis – only including emissions from “extracting” and “refining”, not those from “combusting” – oil sands fuel creates 82 percent more greenhouse gases than regular fuel, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates.
Most "well-to-wheel" fuel emissions come from end users – people driving SUVs, for instance. But the remaining 20-30 percent is still significant in the eyes of many environmentalists.
“Cleaner forms of extraction and refining of fossil fuels offer huge potential for [greenhouse gas] reductions,” reads a recent Friends of the Earth Europe report.
Geoff Dembicki reports for the Tyee.


2
Login or register to post comments
G West
1 year ago
That's TAR SANDS...and Dirty Oil
In the words of Tyee writer in residence Andrew Nikiforuk...
"SAGD technology burns enough natural gas, for boiling water into steam, to heat four million North American homes every day. In fact, natural gas now accounts for more than 60 per cent of the operating cost for a SAGD project. Using natural gas to melt a resource as dirty as bitumen is,..., "like burning a Picasso for heat"...(in fact, in the words of Dr Eddy Isaacs of the Alberta Energy Research Institute)..."the amount of energy required to produce a barrel of synthetic crude oil is about a third of the energy in a barrel of bitumen.""
'Bitumen's low quality energy profile, high carbon content and the destructiveness of its processing and mining cost up to 20 times more than conventional crude...'
'Only complex and costly refining processes can turn this muck into usable products for industrial and consumer use.'
(see Andrew Nikiforuk: TAR SANDS - Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent.)
hakaakah
1 year ago
Cleaner forms of extraction
Cleaner forms of extraction and refining of fossil fuels offer huge potential for [greenhouse gas] reductions,” reads a recent Friends of the Earth Europe report.
Are you freaking kidding me? The fossil fuel bus is a short one with creepy people clawing at the windows. How did fossil fuels ever become or have the ever become "Friendly to our Earth". The nerve. Ahh I see it now. Europe. This is where all the failing subsidized failing so called renewable energy programs are FAILING!
Go Nuclear! Its got a better track record!