CARBON REDUCTION
Tar sands
THE SANDS
OF TIME
To many campaigners Canada’s open-cast bitumen mines are a symbol of climate catastrophe, while for the
oil industry they appear a powerful resource. But could it be that the exploitation of non-conventional oils may
actually be foolish both in terms of emissions and long-term fuel supply too? David Strahan reports
C
riticising the Canadian tar sands used approach, environmentalists risk boosting the while those for the average barrel consumed –
to be so simple. Environmentalists prospects of the oil they most love to hate. including imports – were about 40kg, accord-
condemned them as a “climate crime”, There’s no doubt that fuel made from tar ing to a US government report. By contrast,
while peak oilers argued they could never fill sands produces more CO
2
than those made average emissions from production and
the gap left by conventional depletion. It turns from conventional crudes – but not three upgrading of tar sands are about 80kg per
out neither critique captures the full magni- times more, about 20% more on average barrel for mining and around 115kg for steam-
tude of the problem. In the light of the latest according to the International Energy Agency. assisted production, according to a study from
science, exploiting the tar sands threatens to The confusion is between upstream and lifecy- consultants IHS CERA. So, depending on
damage not only the climate but also the long- cle emissions. which benchmark and production process you
term fuel supply. Turning solid, sticky bitumen into some- choose, the tar sands’ upstream emissions look
The tar sands are widely seen as climate- thing resembling crude oil involves quite a two to five times higher.
enemy No 1. With their 400-tonne dumper performance. Shallower deposits are mined But for both conventional crude and tar
trucks and toxic tailing ponds, the open-cast using massive mechanical shovels and trucks, sands, far more carbon is contained in the end
bitumen mines of Alberta are the very symbol while deeper deposits are produced by inject- products – petrol, diesel and jet fuel. About
of climate catastrophe. So you can hardly ing steam underground to melt the bitumen, 450kg CO
2
e per barrel is emitted through the
blame protesters for their choice of whipping to be pumped out using conventional wells. exhaust pipe, whatever the feedstock. Roughly
boy. But some of the criticism is misguided. In Then the bitumen has to be separated from the another 50-70kg is released during refining,
a typical attack, a First Nations campaigner sand using hot water, diluted to flow down a and much smaller amounts by transportation
visiting the climate camp in London in 2008 pipeline, and leavened with hydrogen stripped to and from the refinery.
declared: “Tar Sands produce three times as from natural gas to produce a synthetic crude. This has two implications. First, the differ-
much CO
2
per barrel as conventional oil. Only then is it fit to enter a refinery as normal. ence between emissions from conventional
There’s enough under the ground to push us All of that takes far more energy than crude and tar sands on a lifecycle basis – the
over the edge into runaway climate change.” production of conventional crude. In 2005, only one the atmosphere cares about – shrinks
One of those statements is moot, the other production emissions for the average barrel dramatically. The data in the US government
misleading, and ironically, by taking this produced in the US amounted to 25kg CO
2
e, study shows lifecycle emissions from tar sands
24 February 2010 ❘ Sustainable Business
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36