The House is bringing back the Keystone pipeline

  • News
  • Thread starter Topher925
  • Start date
In summary, the House of Representatives passed an energy bill on Thursday that would wrest control of a permit for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline away from President Barack Obama, who has put the project on hold. The bill, part of a broader House Republican effort to fund highways and infrastructure projects, would also expand offshore oil drilling and open up parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Most of what I could find from about 30 minuets of quick research is that the project is going to help big oil by getting crude to refiners easier and cheaper so that big oil will make a profit.
  • #36
WhoWee said:
Isn't the EPA in the process of closing down some of the Gulf refineries?
http://galvestondailynews.com/story/160182

Why not develop a new refinery somewhere on the Great Lakes?

The EPA doesn't directly close refineries. They pulled the air quality permits for both operations. Both companies settled and the refineries are still operational according to this.

Developing a refinery in the Mid-West would do nothing to alleviate refining in Cushing.

I'd still like to see your source for per capita CO2 emissions by country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
CaptFirePanda said:
The EPA doesn't directly close refineries. They pulled the air quality permits for both operations. Both companies settled and the refineries are still operational according to this.

Developing a refinery in the Mid-West would do nothing to alleviate refining in Cushing.

I'd still like to see your source for per capita CO2 emissions by country.

Did I make any type of claim whatsoever regarding CO2 emmissions by country? I commented that if we don't burn the oil - the Chinese will - and we all share the same atmosphere.
 
  • #38
CaptFirePanda said:
Please show me what your source is for this. Everything I find does not support this at all.
I can only find 2008 data at the moment. Back then (metric tons CO2 per capita):
1. Qatar 53.5
2. UAE 34.6
...
8. Luxemburg 21.9
...
11. Australia 18.9
12. US 17.5
...
15 Canada 16.4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Looking further back US emissions per person declined steadily from 1997 up through 2008.

More recently I'm ~relatively sure I read that with the ramp up of the tar sand oil production Canada nudged higher than the US in 2010. Unless and until I can find recent data disregard. I do have the energy use per person (World Bank) data showing Canada uses more energy per head than the US, so one would expect ...
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...idim=country:CAN:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en
 
Last edited:
  • #39
WhoWee said:
Did I make any type of claim whatsoever regarding CO2 emmissions by country? I commented that if we don't burn the oil - the Chinese will - and we all share the same atmosphere.
CaptFP likely meant to direct to me.
 
  • #40
WhoWee said:
Did I make any type of claim whatsoever regarding CO2 emmissions by country? I commented that if we don't burn the oil - the Chinese will - and we all share the same atmosphere.

Yeah, sorry I meant mh. My bad.

mheslep said:
I can only find 2008 data at the moment. Back then (metric tons CO2 per capita):
1. Qatar 53.5
2. UAE 34.6
...
8. Luxemburg 21.9
...
11. Australia 18.9
12. US 17.5
...
15 Canada 16.4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Looking further back US emissions per person declined steadily from 1997 up through 2008.

More recently I'm ~relatively sure I read that with the ramp up of the tar sand oil production Canada nudged higher than the US in 2010. Unless and until I can find recent data disregard. I do have the energy use per person (World Bank) data showing Canada uses more energy per head than the US, so one would expect ...
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...idim=country:CAN:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en&dl=en

Because emissions associated with the oil sands account for only 6.5% of Canada's overall emissions (http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca.energy/files/files/OilSands-GHGEmissions_e.pdf), I wouldn't think that they account for a very large change in the per capita numbers.

Also, efficiences in oil sands production and processing has brought down the total emissions by ~29% since 1990 and are projected to decrease by a further 10% (see the same NRCan Oil Sands document).

As a generally colder country, I am not surprised that energy use per capita is higher in Canada than the US. However, hydroelectric power is a huge source of power for those provinces/territories that can access it. Overall it accounts for a significant percentage of energy compared to the US, which is far more reliant on coal-fired electricity generation (see here for hydroelectricity stats by country)
 
  • #41
I was under the impression the delay was to insure the safety of the Ogallala sp? aquifer.

The old refineries at Whiting Indiana which once supplied most of the middle west are being modernized to refine the Canadian oil. I do have a bit of a problem that the new refineries will be owned by BP.

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7046513

But then they already own and are gearing up other refineries in this country.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9030203&contentId=7055766#7205736

I do have a problem with the oil going to a Texas port. It could end up anywhere, including China.

As for Congress it is all politics.
 
  • #42
SixNein said:
I think renewable energy will look better and better as we head into the future. At a certain point, the economics of renewable energy will look better than fossil fuel. In addition, continuously rising gas prices is going to inject a great deal of poison into the political process. And only God knows how the global economy will respond. My guess is a lot of demand destruction.

The simple fact that we are discussing tar sands and shale should indicate a lifestyle change up ahead.


Firstly, there aren't any renewables fundementally capable of replacing oil. Secondly the main fossil fuel used to generate electricity is coal, which is still fairly cheap and has an abundant supply.
 
  • #43
aquitaine said:
Firstly, there aren't any renewables fundementally capable of replacing oil. Secondly the main fossil fuel used to generate electricity is coal, which is still fairly cheap and has an abundant supply.

Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:

What makes tar sands particularly odious is that the energy you get out in the end, per unit carbon dioxide, is poor. It's equivalent to burning coal in your automobile.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show

There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.
 
  • #44
aquitaine said:
Firstly, there aren't any renewables fundementally capable of replacing oil. Secondly the main fossil fuel used to generate electricity is coal, which is still fairly cheap and has an abundant supply.

I agree in the sense that renewables are unlikely to match the performance of fossil fuels in our lifetime. But fossil fuels are limited, and we are beginning to bump into that reality. Gas prices are bound to rise as conventional oil wells decline. After the prices go so high, even horses may look better than cars. On the other hand, oil does have some amazing chemical properties, and I think it will continue to be used for a long time to come; however, our days of setting it on fire is coming to an end.

In a decade or two, we may very well be having this same discussion on coal. There is a huge demand placed on coal, and eventually we are going to hit limits. People who believe that we can ride exponential growth rates forever are out of their minds.
 
  • #45
edward said:
Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:



http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show

There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.

I agree. There is a perspective on climate change to be considered; however, from my understanding, this forum doesn't have any kind of moderator who is an expert on the topic. So I'll avoid the discussion for now.
 
  • #46
I agree in the sense that renewables are unlikely to match the performance of fossil fuels in our lifetime. But fossil fuels are limited, and we are beginning to bump into that reality.


They never will match fossil fuels because of fundamental limitations on energy density and reliability. The only two exceptions to that, geothermal and hydro, are not portable and are geographically limited. Solar depends on whether or not the sun is out and how good the weather is, but even on a sunny day the energy density is extremely low. Wind is pretty much useless, it too has extremely low energy density and is even less reliable. When the steam engine became prevalent in the second half of the 19th century sails quickly disappeared for anything other than recreation, and it was like that for a reason. Even today's recreational sailing craft usually have gas or diesel engines on them.

In a decade or two, we may very well be having this same discussion on coal. There is a huge demand placed on coal, and eventually we are going to hit limits. People who believe that we can ride exponential growth rates forever are out of their minds.

Coal usage will only continue and even grow if we don't go with nuclear power. Hydro and geo are great, but not everywhere has equal access to them because of geography. Germany has proven this decisively. I submit http://depletedcranium.com/terrified-of-nuclear-energy-germany-goes-for-fossil-fuel/, an analysis of what is REALLY going on in Germany following their unfortunate decision. They're building 26 new coal power plants, second only to China.
 
  • #47
edward said:
Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:



http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show

There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.
Hanson is a noted climate scientist who knows about the impact of CO2 once it gets in the atmosphere. But why credit Hanson with any of the details about oil sand production? Is he also now a petroleum engineer?
 
  • #48
edward said:
I was under the impression the delay was to insure the safety of the Ogallala sp? aquifer.

We have touched on this earlier in the thread. TransCanada has met all of the requirements and special conditions put forward. Based on the high viscosity of dilbit and the depth of burial, risk to the Ogallala is low.

The old refineries at Whiting Indiana which once supplied most of the middle west are being modernized to refine the Canadian oil... I do have a problem with the oil going to a Texas port. It could end up anywhere, including China.

Not wanting oil to go to China is an interesting argument. One, it essentially supports Iranian oil production (they rank 3rd on oil imports to China) while displacing competition to Saudi Arabia. If China is going to have to compete more aggressively with the US for Saudi oil, then the US will, as a result, have to increase imports from Canada (namely, the oil sands).

edward said:
Speaking of coal, according to NASA.s James Hanson:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...eline-protests-mckibben-white-house?page=show

There is much more than just an objection to the pipeline involved.

His remarks seem inflammatory, at best. The fact that bitumen can be marketed with such a relatively low return on energy speaks more to demand than anything else. The oil sands are not produced because they have a low return on energy, they are produced because demand makes them marketable.
 
  • #49
CaptFirePanda said:
The EPA doesn't directly close refineries. They pulled the air quality permits for both operations. Both companies settled and the refineries are still operational according to this.

Developing a refinery in the Mid-West would do nothing to alleviate refining in Cushing.

I'd still like to see your source for per capita CO2 emissions by country.

When I read about the EPA pulling permits - I have to wonder what those shut downs cost the economy?

from the original link
"The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday rejected the air quality permits for 122 industrial facilities in Texas, including the BP and Valero refineries in Texas City.

The pulling of the flexible air permits that are issued by the state under EPA’s authority means the facilities do not have legal operating permits.

EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz said none of the facilities will be required to shut down but all will be required to obtain new permits under stricter guidelines.

Earlier this year, the agency pulled more than 200 permits, citing what it said were deficiencies in the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s flexible air permitting process."
 
  • #51
SixNein said:
I agree. There is a perspective on climate change to be considered; however, from my understanding, this forum doesn't have any kind of moderator who is an expert on the topic. So I'll avoid the discussion for now.

Actually, it's a banned topic - that's why it won't be discussed - isn't it?
 
  • #52
From my understanding it is "banned" because, without a Climate Change expert to moderate the discussions many (if not all) of them were degrading into "My ice cap is bigger than yours" kind of arguments.

So, you're both right maybe?
 
  • #53
CaptFirePanda said:
Because emissions associated with the oil sands account for only 6.5% of Canada's overall emissions ...
Sounds right but then the difference in 2008 emissions between the US and Canada was only 6.7%.
 
  • #54
WhoWee said:
Actually, it's a banned topic - that's why it won't be discussed - isn't it?

Discussion of climate change is in fact band on the forum. I've got the infractions to prove it. I don't necessarily agree with the policy but its not my forum.
His remarks seem inflammatory, at best. The fact that bitumen can be marketed with such a relatively low return on energy speaks more to demand than anything else. The oil sands are not produced because they have a low return on energy, they are produced because demand makes them marketable.

How exactly are his remarks inflammatory? He's only addressing the impact of harvesting non-conventional sources of fossil fuels, not the motivations behind it. No matter which way you look at it, refining oil from tar sands has significantly greater negative consequences than refining conventional crude oil.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
mheslep said:
Sounds right but then the difference in 2008 emissions between the US and Canada was only 6.7%.

Yes, so that would bring them relatively close to one another (if there were no other increases to take into consideration on either end). One must be cognizant of the fact that the 6.5% increase is due to the processing of crude bitumen which, in turn, is being processed to satisfy the demand of a (primarily) US market.

Also, the fact that Canada is a colder country in general accounts for much of the reason why the per capita numbers are similar. Canada is also ~5% larger by area and much less densely populated.


Topher925 said:
How exactly are his remarks inflammatory? He's only addressing the impact of harvesting non-conventional sources of fossil fuels, not the motivations behind it. No matter which way you look at it, refining oil from tar sands has significantly greater negative consequences than refining conventional crude oil.

Inflammatory because his comparison to coal is quite wrong. Also, looking through many of his other statements, he is certainly fictionalizing/exaggerating things.

This diagram:

http://www.oilsands.Alberta.ca/images/FS-CES-GHG-Chart-Well2Wheels.png

shows that emissions from crude bitumen production are only slightly higher than most conventional sources. The tank to wheels numbers (actual consumption of the fuel) is exactly the same no matter what the oil source/type is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
CaptFirePanda said:
...

Also, the fact that Canada is a colder country in general accounts for much of the reason why the per capita numbers are similar. Canada is also ~5% larger by area and much less densely populated.
Yes I'm thinking the average transportation distance traveled per person is large in the US and especially Canada compared to much of the world.
 
  • #57
CaptFirePanda said:
This diagram:

...

shows that emissions from crude bitumen production are only slightly higher than most conventional sources. The tank to wheels numbers (actual consumption of the fuel) is exactly the same no matter what the oil source/type is.
Illuminating chart in several ways. First, it shows how calling the tar sands 'dirty' compared to all other oil is a myth. Second, 20-35% of oil energy is lost before it hits my tank, where another 80% is lost before arriving at the wheels? I had previously seen 10-12% loss at the refinery, but 20-35% in total? Bring on the EV's.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
SixNein said:
I agree. There is a perspective on climate change to be considered; however, from my understanding, this forum doesn't have any kind of moderator who is an expert on the topic. So I'll avoid the discussion for now.

True that we don't discuss climate change anymore. But that doesn't mean that the Sierra club and other green groups are not lobbying heavily against the pipeline. It would be only right IMHO to at least mention this fact.
 
  • #59
WhoWee said:
Will that still be the case after the Idiana site is retrofitted? (from your link)

Good point. The people in Whiting Indiana think the idea is great. The city has been in decline for years.

But this pipleline will not be transporting conventional crude oil as we know it. It is actually a very heavy synthetic crude and needs to have lighter weight hydrocarbons added to pass through a pipeline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

http://news.discovery.com/earth/what-are-tar-sands-110902.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
Topher925 said:
Discussion of climate change is in fact band on the forum. I've got the infractions to prove it. I don't necessarily agree with the policy but its not my forum.

While discussing the details about climate change are banned, I don't believe just stating that climate change exists as a factor in energy policy is banned.

Anyway, I'm having difficulty forming a strong opinion either way about this pipeline. I just don't think it will have a major positive or negative impact on either oil prices, the economy, or the environment, either locally or globally. A few companies will become more wealthy, a few new jobs will be created, and a bit more carbon will be put into the air. Sounds like an even trade to me.
 
  • #61
Jack21222 said:
While discussing the details about climate change are banned, I don't believe just stating that climate change exists as a factor in energy policy is banned.

Anyway, I'm having difficulty forming a strong opinion either way about this pipeline. I just don't think it will have a major positive or negative impact on either oil prices, the economy, or the environment, either locally or globally. A few companies will become more wealthy, a few new jobs will be created, and a bit more carbon will be put into the air. Sounds like an even trade to me.

Has President Obama specifically claimed that global warming/climate change was a factor in his decision to halt the pipeline and all of the jobs and oil - or has he specified the location of the pipeline?
 
  • #62
CaptFirePanda said:
Inflammatory because his comparison to coal is quite wrong. Also, looking through many of his other statements, he is certainly fictionalizing/exaggerating things.

This diagram:
shows that emissions from crude bitumen production are only slightly higher than most conventional sources. The tank to wheels numbers (actual consumption of the fuel) is exactly the same no matter what the oil source/type is.

I don't know what a "CO2e" is but the data on that diagram conflicts with most other sources. Most sources on the subject state a 5-45% increase in CO2 emissions in well to wheels scenario when comparing oil sands to conventional means. And the tank to wheels should be about the same as the modern internal combustion engine is going to have roughly the same combustion efficiency no matter which form the oil comes from. Once should really only care about the well to tank or well to wheals.

It depends on how you measure it. Industry likes to use a so-called well-to-wheel approach, which takes into account all emissions created by a barrel of oil from finding it and pumping it out of the ground to burning it in a gas tank. By that measure, oilsands crude creates between 10 and 45 per cent more carbon dioxide than other crudes, depending on the source.
http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada---World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-disaster%3F/1

The International Energy Agency estimates an average of 20% increase of CO2 emissions when compared to conventional petroleum.

There’s no doubt that fuel made from tar sands produces more CO2 than those made from conventional crudes – but not three times more, about 20% more on average according to the International Energy Agency.
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=527

Even the IHS CERA (which I consider bias) estimates a 5-15% increase in CO2, much more than the percent the diagram states.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/18/us-oilsands-carbon-idUSTRE54H6C220090518

Some consider it even worse when considering the well to tank model.
...a well-to-tank comparison, which excludes burning the final fuel. By that measure, a barrel of oilsands oil creates three times more greenhouse gas than a barrel pumped from the ground.
http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada---World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-disaster%3F/1

So I wouldn't call an increase of ~25%* increase in CO2 emission inflammatory when comparing petroleum to coal.
*http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
aquitaine said:
They never will match fossil fuels because of fundamental limitations on energy density and reliability. The only two exceptions to that, geothermal and hydro, are not portable and are geographically limited. Solar depends on whether or not the sun is out and how good the weather is, but even on a sunny day the energy density is extremely low. Wind is pretty much useless, it too has extremely low energy density and is even less reliable. When the steam engine became prevalent in the second half of the 19th century sails quickly disappeared for anything other than recreation, and it was like that for a reason. Even today's recreational sailing craft usually have gas or diesel engines on them.


Coal usage will only continue and even grow if we don't go with nuclear power. Hydro and geo are great, but not everywhere has equal access to them because of geography. Germany has proven this decisively. I submit http://depletedcranium.com/terrified-of-nuclear-energy-germany-goes-for-fossil-fuel/, an analysis of what is REALLY going on in Germany following their unfortunate decision. They're building 26 new coal power plants, second only to China.

In my opinion, energy storage is the largest obstacle to renewables. If we could just store massive amounts of energy, we could run a much lower energy generation capacity.
 
  • #64
Jack21222 said:
While discussing the details about climate change are banned, I don't believe just stating that climate change exists as a factor in energy policy is banned.

Anyway, I'm having difficulty forming a strong opinion either way about this pipeline. I just don't think it will have a major positive or negative impact on either oil prices, the economy, or the environment, either locally or globally. A few companies will become more wealthy, a few new jobs will be created, and a bit more carbon will be put into the air. Sounds like an even trade to me.

I think its just a bad situation all around.
 
  • #65
mege said:
. . . That should be another key to how urgent the development of these resources are, and help to show that someone is going to use them. It might as well be us IMO.

Also, just because a fringe group protests the tar sands doesn't mean 'the Canadian public' is against it. In fact the article (regarding the protests) mentions that a Greenpeace founder is actually OK with tar sands mining because the area is left generally better than they found it. . .

Emphasis mine.

I wasn't going to reply until I'd caught up with reading everyone's post, but you caught my eye already.

1.) The tar sands oil isn't going to be used by us if XL is approved. The plan is to pipe it to Gulf refineries for major exportation. You posted an article claiming Canada responded to Obama saying they would sell to Asia. In reality, exporting was the plan all along. XL will actually raise oil prices in the U.S. midwest by allowing easier exportation of Canadian oil. Your statement is disinformative.

TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”
This benefits 'us IMO' how?

2.) Tar sands mining leaves the area generally better than when they've found it? You believe that? Provide evidence for that statement.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
WhoWee said:
Running the pipeline across Canada to a new refinery would solve three problems.
1.) no need to run a new pipeline in the US
2.) increased refining capacity
3.) greater energy independence from ME sources
Bonus - we get the oil instead of China.

Well you're right once.

2.) Not sure how you figure increased refining capacity will result from a pipe.
3.) U.S.A. is already largely energy independent from ME sources, and the pipeline will decrease supply from Canada unless they increase production to compensate.
Bonus - if a pipeline is built, China will get the oil that we're getting now.
 
  • #67
Issues from the anti-XL side:

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf
Cornell study shows XL could reduce jobs in America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/keystone-pipeline-restraining-order_n_1277615.html
TransCanada, a Canadian company, attempts to declare imminent domain on American's property for pipeline.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/keystone-xl-state-dept-ig_n_1266041.html
Environmental review process mired in controversy (State Dept eventually gets cleared of malfeasence and bias)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/keystone-pipeline-infographic_n_941069.html
Shows TransCanadas other pipeline spills (12 in a year).
 
  • #68
feathermoon said:
Well you're right once.

2.) Not sure how you figure increased refining capacity will result from a pipe.
3.) U.S.A. is already largely energy independent from ME sources, and the pipeline will decrease supply from Canada unless they increase production to compensate.
Bonus - if a pipeline is built, China will get the oil that we're getting now.

Increased production would result from adding a refinery on the Great Lakes.
 
  • #69
Topher925 said:
I don't know what a "CO2e" is but the data on that diagram conflicts with most other sources. Most sources on the subject state a 5-45% increase in CO2 emissions in well to wheels scenario when comparing oil sands to conventional means. And the tank to wheels should be about the same as the modern internal combustion engine is going to have roughly the same combustion efficiency no matter which form the oil comes from. Once should really only care about the well to tank or well to wheals.

CO2e is Carbon Dioxide equivalent. Your 45% upper limit is pulled from the Moose Jaw Times article and is far beyond the general consensus of 5-20% (or so). As you can see from the chart, both well to tank and tank to wheels are displayed and I mention the tank to wheels is consistent across the board.

http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada---World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-disaster%3F/1

The International Energy Agency estimates an average of 20% increase of CO2 emissions when compared to conventional petroleum.


http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=527

Even the IHS CERA (which I consider bias) estimates a 5-15% increase in CO2, much more than the percent the diagram states.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/18/us-oilsands-carbon-idUSTRE54H6C220090518

The diagram I provided shows about 2-10%. This is, of course, a factor of the type of oil (eg. Saudi oil is light, US crudes are heavier). So, yes if you take the lightest of light crudes you could likely come up with a number near 20%. If you take the heavier crudes, the differential decreases significantly.

Some consider it even worse when considering the well to tank model.

So far, all of these numbers should consider the well to tank model,.. If not, then they are not using the conventional method of comparison. As stated earlier, the final burning of the fuel produces the same emissions regardless of fuel type.

http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/Canada---World/Business/2009-12-10/article-243834/Albertas-oilsands:-well-managed-necessity-or-ecological-disaster%3F/1

If CERA is considered biased, why isn't a random range of 10 to 45% presented in the Moose Jaw Times approached with some caution?

So I wouldn't call an increase of ~25%* increase in CO2 emission inflammatory when comparing petroleum to coal.
*http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html

It may look much closer, but you need to look at the relative differences. Light crude is 30% less than Coal. If we were comparing the proper factors, crude bitumen would still be 15% less than coal. Using the original analogy, light crude is just as bad as coal, if not equivalent!

However, this is the tank to wheel comparison and, as we've discussed, it is exactly the same for crude no matter what the source. It is the well to tank comparison that shows where crude bitumen processing increases emissions from 5-20%.

This is why his remarks (there are others) are inflammatory. They fall closer to fiction than fact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
CaptFirePanda said:
CO2e is Carbon Dioxide equivalent. Your 45% upper limit is pulled from the Moose Jaw Times article and is far beyond the general consensus of 5-20% (or so). As you can see from the chart, both well to tank and tank to wheels are displayed and I mention the tank to wheels is consistent across the board.



The diagram I provided shows about 2-10%. This is, of course, a factor of the type of oil (eg. Saudi oil is light, US crudes are heavier). So, yes if you take the lightest of light crudes you could likely come up with a number near 20%. If you take the heavier crudes, the differential decreases significantly.



So far, all of these numbers should consider the well to tank model,.. If not, then they are not using the conventional method of comparison. As stated earlier, the final burning of the fuel produces the same emissions regardless of fuel type.



If CERA is considered biased, why isn't a random range of 10 to 45% presented in the Moose Jaw Times approached with some caution?



It may look much closer, but you need to look at the relative differences. Light crude is 30% less than Coal. If we were comparing the proper factors, crude bitumen would still be 15% less than coal. Using the original analogy, light crude is just as bad as coal, if not equivalent!

However, this is the tank to wheel comparison and, as we've discussed, it is exactly the same for crude no matter what the source. It is the well to tank comparison that shows where crude bitumen processing increases emissions from 5-20%.

This is why his remarks (there are others) are inflammatory. They fall closer to fiction than fact.

Again, has President Obama specifically cited CO2 as a reason to block the pipeline?
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
133
Views
25K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Back
Top