Comments on: Apparently, I’m an enemy of Canada

By: Don

Don — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:44:57 +0000

Instead of claiming that CO2 is the “real reason” we should oppose oil sand development, we should state it is “another reason.” The issue is complex, and so are the confounding factors. Focusing on one or another weakens our arguments that overall it is a bad idea. The accumulated benefits are outweighed by the accumlated problems.

By: SoundOff

SoundOff — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 03:26:29 +0000

I’m not an expert in the production of oil from Alberta’s bitumen sands but I believe (from my readings and my work) that the wells-to-wheels CO2e emissions cost of bitumen-derived oil is, on average, around 17% higher than conventional oil. The exact percentage depends on the extraction method – surface mining (lower emissions) or the more energy-intensive in situ process * – and on how the energy inputs are accounted for.

For example, if some of the extracted crude is used as feedstock to fire the upgraders instead of bringing in cleaner natural gas (as is usual), this changes the accounting picture. The quality of the bitumen (hydrogen-carbon ratio) extracted affects the percentage too as this partially determines how much CO2 is formed when burned. The bitumen quality (density rating in this case) affects the ultimate split in terms of gas, diesel, avgas, etc. during refining, and each produce different amounts of emissions when burned. Most of the higher emissions come from the upgrading process.

If wells-to-refinery gate is measured instead, that changes the denominator and the percentage changes quite a bit too (higher). Measuring wells-to-tank gives yet a different percentage. So any percentage might be right if the measurement being made isn’t well defined.

* The in situ process entails heating and diluting the bitumen underground before pumping it to the surface. There are 2 types: CSS & SAGD. About 45% of oil sands oil came from in-situ operations in 2007.

The 17% figure comes from …

http://climate.uvic.ca/people/nswart/original_images/Alberta_oil_sands_well_to_wheel_warming.pdf

More info at …

http://www.oilsandsdevelopers.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Extraction-Fact-Sheet-October-2009.pdf

By: jyyh

jyyh — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:51:10 +0000

>I recall railroad rights of way weren’t worth a lot for hauling material — but they were bid up by people installing optical and copper data routes, because the train rules had provided for

I think I saw an article from Germany recently that was combining microgrids and their electricity transfer routes to railways but then they have a lot of electrified railways.

By: Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:43:01 +0000

I had heard that Tar Sands need 5 times more energy input to process them into useable fuel (i.e. 500%) – is that bad enough for you?

By: Miken

Miken — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 05:06:57 +0000

>Tar sands are even more carbon-intensive than regular oil,

Isn’t it just 20% more? If this were regular oil, would you be OK with the pipeline?

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:20:12 +0000

I’d look carefully at the documentation for the right-of-way for any big pipeline from Canada to Texas. My own hunch is they want an easement broadly worded to transfer fresh water down the same route in a few years.

Any linear right of way — railroad, pipeline, cable — crosses a great many local jurisdictions and trumps them all to maintain continuity end to end. The trick is in how that’s worded, what rights and what materials or information can preempt any local regulation across that right of way.

At one point a few decades back, I recall railroad rights of way weren’t worth a lot for hauling material — but they were bid up by people installing optical and copper data routes, because the train rules had provided for data communication alongside the rails.

By: climatesight

climatesight — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:04:04 +0000

Yes, that was another comment from a minister that astounded me…

By: Martin Lack

Martin Lack — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:17:21 +0000

Hi Kate,

Are you aware of jpgreenword? A fellow Canadian – and new to WordPress – he has recently published a very good piece on the British Columbia pipeline:
http://jpgreenword.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-visual-reason-argument-against-the-northern-gateway-pipeline/
…and much more besides…

By: pendantry

pendantry — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:53:52 +0000

The pipelines are a sideshow. The real issue is the fact that we (humanity) should be investing in renewable energy resources instead of frittering away the remainder of our civilisation’s cheap energy chasing the dwindling remnants of fossoil.

By: rumleyfips

rumleyfips — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:31:06 +0000

Not only am I an enemy too. On search warrents I support the terrorists and the child pornographers.

John McManus