One of the most contentious criticisms made against oil sands is that gasoline and diesel produced from them is associated with an exceptionally high level of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) compared to fuel from conventional crude.
Is the EPA giving the whole picture? Not really. What the EPA is comparing is “well-to-tank” emissions – those associated with the drilling, refining and delivering of crude to the gas station.
But a “well-to-tank” analysis is fundamentally flawed because it ignores all the GHGs associated with consuming the oil in our cars and trucks. As the Alberta Energy Research Institute (PDF) shows, this is a major omission: some 70%-80% of oil’s GHG emissions come from actually using it.
Under a “well-to-wheels” comparison, as recently calculated by the Alberta Energy Research Institute (AERI), lifecycle emissions (PDF) from oil sands crude are not far above conventional crude. It found they are in fact broadly comparable, with a difference of only 5-15%. This can be even less once the use of co-generation at oil sands (using waste heat to generate electricity) is factored in.
A selection of three crude oils in the following chart shows each of their relative emissions and the extent fuel combustion plays overall.
Excerpted from Jacobs Consultancy, Life Cycle Assessment Comparison for North American and Imported Crudes (PDF), June 2009.
Even this relatively small 5 to 15% difference in emissions is closing, as oil sands producers become more energy-efficient. The gap could probably narrow even further, as an increasing amount of the rest of the world’s available oil becomes heavier crude - over time, non-oil sands GHG emission intensity can be expected to increase.
The bottom line is that the atmosphere doesn’t care about the source of CO2; it only cares about the total amount. This includes CO2 from in-situ and oil sands mining, CO2 from upgrading, CO2 from the refinery and the CO2 from our cars and trucks.
If we are serious about reducing GHG emissions associated with oil, we need to look across the spectrum, including the energy efficiency of transportation, from which 75 to 80% of emissions currently come.
In fairness, some environmental groups already know this. This month the Pembina Institute issued a report (PDF) with suggestions on how Ontarians can change behaviors to reduce the GHG impact of their daily commute. While some of the projects are specific to Southern Ontario, many of their ideas are applicable to all governments, commuters and regions.
This is not to argue that the oil sands industry can be complacent. We too need to change behaviors to continually reduce the carbon intensity of oil sands development, especially as production expands. But the point is that the problem of reducing GHG emissions is everyone’s responsibility – policy makers, city planners, consumers, as well as industry - and all need to be involved in solutions.
