Much to the chagrin of the developers and pipeline operators, oil sands has become a climate change flashpoint for groups looking to hasten the exit of fossil fuels from the world’s energy mix.
Let’s face it, oil sands presents a great target. Some of its mining operations are photogenic – and not always in a good way. It’s a relatively new industry attracting capital and labour to Alberta and Canada away from other jurisdictions. And with the closest ocean port more than a 1,000 kilometres away, oil sands production is landlocked, and critically needs societal consensus for construction of big, new pipelines to efficiently supply new and existing customers.
Oil sands emissions
Oil sands development proponents argue that it's unfair and a gross simplification to heap all, or even most of the blame for future climate change on oil sands. Coal has been and continues to be a much bigger – and growing – emitter of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Total oil sands GHG emissions in 2010 were 48 megatonnes, just 3.5% of GHG emissions from the U.S. coal-fired power-generation in 2009, according to Environment Canada. In addition, according to the United Nations Statistical Division and Environment Canada, oil sands accounted for 6.9% of Canada’s GHG emissions and just over 0.16% of global GHG emissions.
Oil sands critics counter that the problem is not today’s emissions but emissions in the coming decades from further development. A recent Greenpeace report, for example, included oil sands in 14 planned coal, oil and gas projects around the world that if all executed would raise GHG emissions 20% by 2020. The problem with this analysis is that it takes no account of the natural replacement of high carbon fuels with lower carbon fuels, let alone the steady growth of renewables. According to the Energy Information Administration , the United States, for instance, saw its GHG emissions fall 13% in the last five years, largely because natural gas from shale deposits (something else environmentalists oppose) displaced coal for electricity generation.
Energy efficiency
Oil sands production is indeed more energy-intensive (and so GHG intensive) compared to conventionally drilled petroleum. On the other hand, and according to Jacobs Consulting, when measured on a full-cycle basis, only 25-30% of oil-related GHG emissions come from extraction and refining, whatever the process used, while about 70-75% from combustion in vehicles.
It is human nature to take comfort in the midst of one’s own problems by pointing out the others who are performing worse (listen to any teenager explaining away their less than stellar test scores). Likewise, when it comes to GHG performance, it’s tempting for oil sands boosters to respond to criticism by shifting focus to other larger sources of emissions like coal.
Reducing GHG emissions
The industry approach, however, has been to take the challenge head on. We know that energy intensity is an issue for oil sands. Since 1990, GHG emissions associated with every barrel of oil sands crude produced have been reduced by 26%, according to Environment Canada figures. As GHG emissions are a focus area of the oil sands industry, we expect this reduction to accelerate.
Continued improvements in energy efficiency are vital to the long-term acceptability of oil sands. Absolute emissions across the industry have steadily increased and are expected by the federal government to double between 2010 and 2020.
As we’ve said in a past OSQAR, the climate doesn’t care where GHG emissions come from. A GHG is a GHG, whatever the source or the country. What’s important is that we curb the finger pointing and instead channel our effort into considering and addressing GHG emissions from all sources.
