Eliminating oil sands would increase global GHG emissions

[Merry]

The following quotes are from a very interesting article in the Globe and Mail (my bold):

Keeping oil sands in the ground and stopping new pipelines will actually increase global GHG emissions.

In 2014 – on a well-to-wheel basis – the average oil sands barrel emitted between 6 per cent to 9 per cent more GHGs than the average barrel consumed (refined) in the United States. This number has come down over the past two years in existing facilities primarily because oil-sands projects are using less energy to produce the same amount of oil.

In fact, newer projects are proving that oil sands can compete on a low-carbon basis. The Paraffinic Froth Treatment (PFT), for example, brings oil sands GHG emissions close to the average crude; it has a low boiling point (so it requires less heat and steam) and it eliminates the need to build upgraders.

According to a 2014 IHS Markit report, the GHG intensity of oil sands crudes are the same as that of 45 per cent of crude oils supplied to U.S. refineries in 2012. Two-thirds of the crudes in this range came from Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and some U.S. domestic production. Each new oil-sands facility produces less GHG-intensive product and, ironically, it is this newer oil that would use the pipelines being protested.

If U.S. refineries – which consume heavy oil – were to take more production from the oil sands, it would most likely displace a similar crude oil with a GHG intensity in the same range. It would not replace the average U.S. barrel. If, for example, an oil-sands barrel replaced a Venezuelan Petrozuata barrel, there would be a net GHG benefit as the Venezuelan barrel has a GHG intensity that is higher than the average oil-sands barrel – and significantly higher than oil from newer oil-sands projects.

Alberta’s climate policies – which are very stringent compared with other oil producing regions – create additional incentive to drive down oil-sands emissions. Alberta now has a 100MT cap on oil-sands emissions and a $30/tonne carbon price that pushes all oil-sands facilities to perform at a level already achieved by high-performing facilities. There should be little doubt that these twin policies will decrease the carbon intensity of oil-sands facilities.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e34162796/

[rustled]

Nothing's every as simple as it seems. IMO, we really need to shift our focus back to this sort of thing:
http://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/190 ... ll-leaking

[maryjane48]

you only use one hand at a time ? both can be done and oil is on its way out .


to merry is the same logic as saying the way to prevent oilspills is to pave every squareinch of the earth ? or to prevent cancer you must die ?

[hobbyguy]

The key to it all is offering better alternatives, and they are fast coming.

I was watching "Wheeler Dealers" and they had a guy with an old VW split window bus, converted to electric drive. His greatest fun is to pull up beside a Porsche 911 at a stoplight, hammer the accelerator, and blow them away

[The Green Barbarian]

and oil is on its way out .
?

I must say, your confidence in the nuclear industry is very refreshing.

[Queen K]

AB just announced new funding for solar power.

Very exciting.

[Merry]

I agree with you maryjane that the focus needs to be on all types of industrial environmental issues, not just on oil. I've never understood why the environmental movement puts so much of it's energy into mainly this one issue, while ignoring all kinds of other environmental issues such as leftover pollution from bygone eras when laws were not as strict, or the ongoing pollution by some communities of our oceans and rivers with raw sewage .

But as for your comment about oilspills, you clearly didn't read the article I posted, because it wasn't about oil spills. It was about how our oil is a lot cleaner than Venezuelan oil (which is the kind of oil that would most likely be used to replace our oil if ours wasn't available). And the article also deals with the issue of "oil being on it's way out" by pointing out that day is a lot further into the future than some folks like to admit.

The fact is that oil is going to be with us for quite a few years yet, and we may as well use the stuff that comes from the least polluting source (which is from the oilsands, given that its replacement would likely be from a place like Venezuela).

Go and read the article in full, and you'll understand the argument.

[vegas1500]

[d0nb]

Nothing's every as simple as it seems. IMO, we really need to shift our focus back to this sort of thing:
http://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/190 ... ll-leaking

If politicians would pay half as much attention to the dangers posed by real problems like mercury contamination as they do to absurd climate predictions (Climate change predicted to transform Vancouver into San Diego - http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news ... heavy-cost) we'd all be safer.

[rustled]

The key to it all is offering better alternatives, and they are fast coming.

I was watching "Wheeler Dealers" and they had a guy with an old VW split window bus, converted to electric drive. His greatest fun is to pull up beside a Porsche 911 at a stoplight, hammer the accelerator, and blow them away

Better alternatives are what we're after.

That means we need to quit misidentifying the problem and look at practical alternatives that are genuinely an improvement, cradle-to-grave.

Genuinely better alternatives won't come with a host of unintended consequences for the environment, and will allow people to maintain a reasonable standard of living: clean air, clean water, reasonably priced heat and food, reasonable access to transportation.

[maryjane48]

I agree with you maryjane that the focus needs to be on all types of industrial environmental issues, not just on oil. I've never understood why the environmental movement puts so much of it's energy into mainly this one issue, while ignoring all kinds of other environmental issues such as leftover pollution from bygone eras when laws were not as strict, or the ongoing pollution by some communities of our oceans and rivers with raw sewage .

But as for your comment about oilspills, you clearly didn't read the article I posted, because it wasn't about oil spills. It was about how our oil is a lot cleaner than Venezuelan oil (which is the kind of oil that would most likely be used to replace our oil if ours wasn't available). And the article also deals with the issue of "oil being on it's way out" by pointing out that day is a lot further into the future than some folks like to admit.

The fact is that oil is going to be with us for quite a few years yet, and we may as well use the stuff that comes from the least polluting source (which is from the oilsands, given that its replacement would likely be from a place like Venezuela).

Go and read the article in full, and you'll understand the argument.

yea i did read it , but my point is until you can drink it clean oil is a well intention fantasy. more people in usa work in green energy sector than the carbon one and the ship has sailed .if mr jt keeps pushing oil i will vote ndp until the cons move to the left .

[rustled]

Nothing's every as simple as it seems. IMO, we really need to shift our focus back to this sort of thing:
http://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/190 ... ll-leaking

If politicians would pay half as much attention to the dangers posed by real problems like mercury contamination as they do to absurd climate predictions (Climate change predicted to transform Vancouver into San Diego - http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news ... heavy-cost) we'd all be safer.

Couldn't get the story to load, but found some similar ones, probably the same report.

One quoted the experts as saying the modeling isn't perfect and climate, like weather, is unpredictable, and this is a "maybe", and it's not going to happen overnight. Common sense is making a comeback.

I do think we're in an extended warming period. While that tells some people we have to immediately tax the snot out of carbon and build solar and wind farms, what it tells me is we need to make sure we have the energy infrastructure to support more air conditioning without shutting down industry. Australia's a good example of failing to plan, focusing narrowly on carbon emissions instead of broadly on climate and population.

What this report from the Globe and Mail tells some people is that we must pave every squareinch of the earth and other incomprehensible nonsense. What it tells me is that as we work toward phasing out reliance on fossil fuels, we'd best fully consider the implications of relying on others.

[maryjane48]

when we went from horse and buggy to cars was there a big world debate? thats absurd and un human. adventure and advancing is our destiny

[Veovis]

when we went from horse and buggy to cars was there a big world debate? thats absurd and un human. adventure and advancing is our destiny

Yes and when the first car drove through town they didn't round up and shoot every single horse. They waited until it had grown and achieved a viable ability to be a new transportation and then the horse went away. Now some people still use horses for enjoyment and so will many still use gas items someday, but until the other options become viable choices, we need to have government ease up on shooting all the horses first.

Especially since it is done with the feelings of a high school election and not fully sounded out facts.

[maryjane48]

noone is saying over night just steady progress towards that goal