Tar sands: Still dirty after all these years

Posted on  

"Tar sands: Still dirty after all these years"

X-axis is the range of potential resource in billions of barrels. Y-axis is grams of Carbon per MegaJoule of final fuel.

On Sunday, I wrote about how Lindsey Graham had drunk the tar sands Kool-Aid: “It is less carbon intensive than oil we find in California,” extraction “really blends in with the natural habitat.”

David Sands of the Government of Alberta pointed out in the comments that CERA had done a study supporting the view that that the tar sands were not overly carbon intensive.  Unsurprisingly, that analysis turns out to have multiple flaws, as NRDC scientist and former EPA analyst Simon Mui explains in “Tar Sands: Why Alberta Has A Credibility Problem” (reposted below).

In fact, EPA’s unusually blunt July letter to the State Department sharply criticizing their draft Environmental Impact Statement on the 1,700 mile pipeline to bring dirty tar sands oil from Alberta to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast states:

Our calculations indicate that on an annual basis, and assuming the maximum volume of 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of pipeline capacity, annual well-to-tank emissions from the project would be 27 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) greater than emissions from US “average” crude. Accordingly, we estimate that GHG emissions from Canadian oil sands crude would be approximately 82% greater than the average crude refining the US, on a well-to-time basis.

It’s times like these that I remember how much I miss my friend and colleague Alex Farrell, the passionate analyst.  He’s the one I would normally turn to to debunk CERA’s report.  He did the best analysis of the climate risks of unconventional oil I know of, “Risks of the oil transition” and is the source of the outstanding figure above.

The tar sands are GHG-intensive.  Yes, you can whip up an analysis that shows it isn’t so bad as people think compared to not-quite-conventional oil, but you have to do a lot of massaging of the data, as NRDC’s Mui explains in his critique:

It’s clear that the Alberta government has a credibility problem regarding tar sands. After years of academic and government studies showing tar sands being significantly dirtier than conventional sources of crude, they’ve now unleashed a wave of oil industry consultant studies. These industry consulting studies attempt to show emissions from producing unconventional petroleum sources like Canadian tar sands aren’t as bad as the science shows.

Time after time, however, the reports still show that global warming pollution from tar sands are higher — often significantly higher – than what the U.S. currently uses. At a time when the U.S. is trying to reduce the environmental impacts from our oil dependency, Alberta and the oil industry are trying to sell us on how clean their tar sands product really is.

The latest salvo from oil industry comes from IHS CERA’s “Oil Sands, Greenhouse Gases, and the US Oil Supply,” purporting that a review of the literature shows “only” 5-15% higher emissions. Putting aside for the moment that even CERA’s range is actually significant – for instance, the entire U.S. biofuels mandate of 36 billion gallons by 2022 will result in only 3% lower carbon-intensity in our fuel pool – there is another big problem here. How did IHS CERA actually come up with this range?

The answer is: it’s really hard to tell. I’ve personally asked IHS CERA to be more transparent in their meta-analysis and how they converted these estimates from the literature. Earlier this summer, NRDC surveyed the results from published studies and  showed that the results show a much higher and wider range of emissions. The link is here.

http://docs.nrdc.org/energy/ene_10070101.asp

When we take the primary source numbers from literature, the range shown is  actually 8 to 37% higher in carbon-intensity compared to the 5 to 15% range given by CERA. So what gives? I’ve tried to figure this out and as far as I can tell from the limited information from the CERA study, the difference is due to:

  • Their lower end range (5%) is actually a mixed barrel of tar sands and a low-carbon source (natural gas condensates called diluent), lowering the apparent impact of a barrel of tar sands. This is like mixing a dirty fuel and a clean fuel and saying you can now ignore the dirty fuel’s impacts. Unfortunately, that’s not how environmental impacts and emissions work.
  • The study doesn’t account for the fact that in-situ production (a process that heats up the ground to extract bitumen) is expected to be the dominant source of tar sands over time. In-situ production generally results in emissions on the higher end of the 8 to 37% increase. There is real reason to believe that the tar sands industry emissions will only increase over time absent a clear carbon signal.
  • They leave out important parts of the life-cycle impacts, such as energy inputs into the facility that can have significant emissions themselves, as well as land-use impacts. For instance, natural gas is one of the primary inputs to these facilities yet they do not include the emissions associated with producing that natural gas.
  • They appear to leave out venting, flaring, and fugitive emissions which can be high particularly for mining processes.
  • Emissions from land use change aren’t accounted for in CERA’s study and many of the others. Large tracts of land are dug up or altered. Particularly in the cases when Boreal forests and peatlands are lost, the emission releases can be significant and need to be included.

I’d like to see the CERA report be more transparent and show how they adjusted numbers from the primary literature sources to get at their range. I’d also like them to include the emission sources that have been identified as missing from their estimates. Until then, Alberta tar sands and oil industry will continue to have the same credibility problems that have plagued them for years.

Also, as I’ve said many times, a full lifecycle analysis of a kind that is rarely done would draw the circle large enough to include the opportunity cost of the natural gas.  Canada is diverting a considerable amount of its natural gas resources to extract and process the tar sands. That natural gas could be used to shut down Canadian and US coal plants, reducing their emissions by some two thirds. Even if the tar sands had CCS, you’d still be wasting vast amounts of natural gas and creating an immense “opportunity carbon cost.”  As long as people are burning massive amounts of coal, natural gas is simply too precious a carbon-reducing fuel to waste on making another carbon-intensive fuel like the output of the tar sands.

The Catholic bishop whose diocese extends over the tar sands posted a scathing pastoral letter last year – see Canadian bishop challenges the “moral legitimacy” of tar sands production — which notes the “environmental liabilities that result from the various steps in this process are significant and include”:

  • Destruction of the boreal forest eco-system
  • Potential damage to the Athabasca water shed
  • The release of greenhouse gases
  • Heavy consumption of natural gas
  • The creation of toxic tailings ponds

Daily Kos notes a ” just-published report of significant surface water contamination associated with tar sands extraction“:

Research published online yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that 13 elements classified as priority pollutants (PPEs) by the US Environmental Protection Agency were found in the Athabasca River in the province of Alberta1. Seven of these were present at high enough concentrations to put aquatic life at risk. The findings are also of concern to human health….

He and his team found that there were higher concentrations of PPEs in the Athabasca River downstream of tailing ponds and other tar sands development infrastructure, and in areas downstream of watersheds stripped of soil and vegetation in preparation for mining, than there were at sites upstream of mining projects.

No surprise, then the Toronto Star reported last week, “Deformed fish found in lake downstream from oilsands“:

The fish are hard to look at.One whitefish has a golfball-sized tumour bulging from its side. Another is simply missing part of its spine, its tail growing from a stumpy rear end.

One has no snout. Another is coloured a lurid red instead of a healthy cream. Others are covered with lesions and still others are bent and crooked from deformed vertebrae.

All were taken from Lake Athabasca, downstream from the oilsands in northern Alberta, and were on display Thursday. All are reasons, say a group of scientists and aboriginals, for the federal government to conduct an independent study on what’s happening to the

I’ll spare you the many grotesque photos, but you can look at a bunch here:

A Smoking Gun on Athabasca River: Deformed Fish

Top water ecologist cites evidence of extreme pollution near oil sands.

I’m reminded of my 2008 post, “Gates and Buffett to invest in tar sands and spawn more two-headed fish?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/fi/7/73/Two_Cars_in_Every_Garage_and_Three_Eyes_on_Every_Fish.png

The tar sands are a dirty business.

Related Posts:

Tags:

« »

9 Responses to Tar sands: Still dirty after all these years

  1. Daniel Ives says:

    Wow. Based on the figure, it looks like Oil Shale is about four times more carbon intensive than coal to liquids per MJ. Am I reading that correctly? That is quite shocking. I hear plenty about how cTL would be ruinous for the planet’s climate, but that figure makes oil shale look like a downright catastrophe. I guess that is why Jim Hansen believes (in his book) that if we pursue oil shale and tar sands we could send the Earth into a runaway state. Thanks for the perspective Joe. So how do we fight oil shale development?

  2. Barry says:

    David (#1), the chart seems to show the averages for CTL is around 45gC/MJ and for Oil Shale around 55gC/MJ. Significant but not four times. Dirtiest Oil Shale is listed as almost double the C of “cleanest” CTL.

    Dr Hansen in his book called Jimmy Carter the worrier-in-chief in his approach to energy. And points out he had good reason to worry as he is the one that really pushed to commercialize oil shale. Had he been successful in that we would much farther down the path to a dead planet than we are already.

    As Hansen points out from the data, humanity must leave most of the coal and unconventional fossil fuels in ground permanently if we want to keep the climate and biosphere that humanity evolved and thrived in.

    One last point Hansen makes about unconventional fossil is that the emissions from them will have an even larger climate impact per CO2 molecule than current fossil burning. That is because the climate is increasingly sensitive to CO2 as the ppm of CO2 increase. Future emissions will overheat planet more than current ones as the U-shaped climate sensitivity curve starts trending upwards.

    The worst thing about tar sands from Canada is that it gives Americans an excuse to delay the transition off oil as it comes in quantity from friendly neighbour and so removes one of the short-term threats to American security from oil imports.

  3. mike roddy says:

    Thanks for this- I miss Alex, too.

    Tar Sands carbon analysis doesn’t even include loss of fertility in the Athabasca watershed. Those toxic ponds and toxic ruined landscapes are killing all kinds of creatures, and shattering the area’s ability to sequester major amounts of carbon in the future. Alex would have been on top of this- you may want to look around for a forest carbon analyst here. The best is probably Mark Harmon from Oregon State. Other resources are Birdsey of USFS, Mackey from Australia, and Franklin from UW.

  4. Michael Tucker says:

    Oil shale is so foul that it still isn’t processed into any economically important oil products. It is still largely experimental but now China is becoming interested in developing its own oil shale deposits.

    Tar sand and oil shale development has been sought for many decades and tar sands have made it to market first. Why develop these filthy resources? Demand and profit! The world needs oil products and, if the profit is there, those deposits will be exploited. While the economically important part of tar sand, bitumen, is considered a petroleum product, the stuff we get from oil shale is not. What they find in the shale is called kerogen and it can be processed into synthetic oil similar to what they do in the coal-to-oil process. It is an expensive and filthy process but these are the resources we have left to supply our economy.

  5. Andy says:

    Barry #2:

    “The worst thing about tar sands from Canada is that it gives Americans an excuse to delay the transition off oil as it comes in quantity from friendly neighbour and so removes one of the short-term threats to American security from oil imports.”

    Boy you hit the nail on the head. I could not agree more.

  6. Dan says:

    The more I discover about Alex Farrell’s work, the more I recognize how tragic his death was.

  7. Artful Dodger says:

    “Oil” is a dirty business Joe, “Conventional” or not. Have you calculated the carbon intensity of keeping a tank division, and two carrier battlegroups in the Persian Gulf? How about the B-52′s and C-17′s grinding back and forth daily so you can secure your supply of light sweet crude? Clean petroleum doesn’t exist. If you’re burning oil, your hands are dirty.

  8. Tarmo says:

    By exposing bad examples.
    By putting pressure on Estonian Oil Shale and Estonian Energy via EU.
    I believe Estonia puts out around 12 million tons of CO2 annually – that is about 1/2500 of the world, while our population is 1/5000. The ground water waste is largely unaccounted for (undertaxed, I mean). Estonian Energy is developing an oil shale project in Jordan (I can’t figure out where do they get the water for that) and has been giving consultations to China and the USA.

  9. Milan says:

    The problem with the oil sands is actually the sheer size of the fossil fuel reserve.

    The amount of climate change the world experiences depends fundamentally on how much of the planet’s remaining fossil fuels we burn, and how much we leave underground.

    If we are to avoid dangerous climate change, the great majority of the coal, oil, and gas remaining need to be left underground – including in Canada’s oil sands. Moving to renewable forms of energy is not optional, since fossil fuels were always going to run out. Making that transition now, rather than later, will reduce the risks associated with climate change. It will also reduce the harm generated by the toxic air and water pollution associated with fossil fuel use.