Oilsands not much dirtier than other oil types

[M.D. Holloway]

Oilsands not much dirtier than other oil types: study.


By Dan Healing, Canwest News ServiceJune 16, 2009

CALGARY - A new report that compares greenhouse gas emissions of domestic and imported crude oils refined in the United States concludes that Canadian oilsands are not much dirtier than competing types of oil.

Eddy Isaacs, managing director of the Alberta-government-created Alberta Energy Research Institute, said one constant of all crudes is that 75 per cent of emissions come when the resulting gasoline is burned in a vehicle.

``What we're arguing about is the next 25 per cent,'' he said, speaking at an investor symposium in Calgary on Wednesday.

Based on a report by the Jacobs Consultancy to be released at the end of June, Isaacs said the best performance among oil imports to the U.S. came from Saudi Arabian light crudes. He said it rated 98 grams of carbon emissions equivalent per megajoule of gasoline.

U.S. Gulf Coast crudes were rated at about 104 and California thermal- sourced heavy crudes were at 113.4.

Synthetic crude from oilsands tapped using thermal SAGD (steam-assisted gravity drainage) wells rated at 116.1, the highest in the survey due to higher energy use. But the SAGD product that was diluted before being piped to the refinery rated just 102.1 per cent.

Mined synthetic oilsands crude was rated 108.2 and SAGD bitumen rated 111..

``What you see is that there is a range, but it's not as dramatic as what people have made it out to be,'' Isaacs said.

The ratings are based on production, transportation and geological factors, including the depth at which the resource is found.

Isaacs said the impact of oilsands crude will be reduced further if project builders are given credit for co-generation power facilities that replace coal- fired plants, as is done in California.

Simon Dyer, oilsands director for the Pembina Institute, said the report doesn't address the central issues connected with rising levels of emissions.

``It's true that the average barrel in the U.S. is getting heavier, but the oilsands are still contributing to a problem that is increasing greenhouse gas emissions, not decreasing gas emissions,'' he said.

American environmentalists and some U.S. politicians have savaged the oilsands, calling the product ``dirty oil.''

Alberta Energy spokesman Bob McManus said the study will be used by the government to reinforce its message when meeting with U.S. lawmakers.

``It's part of the message that we need to take to our trading partners,'' he said.

Calgary Herald

[The Gaijin]

The problem is the cost as it takes lots of energy to process it into oil. But apparently there is plenty of it.

[creaturecat]

No conflict of interest here. Absolutely not.
The Alberta "tar sands" are an ecological nightmare.

[island911]

global temps have been cooling, (brrr...) and here we are trying to limit so called 'green house gases."

[Zef]

Originally Posted by creaturecat

No conflict of interest here. Absolutely not.
The Alberta "tar sands" are an ecological nightmare.

I would call it an ecological disaster...
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/threats/water-pollution

[sammyg2]

Oil sands present their own problems. First and foremost, it tears up the quipment at an alarming rate. Large ($$$) pumps that normally last for many years get eaten up in weeks.

We (the industry) have developed specialized coatings that resist the abrasion but it's expensive and still not perfect.
Refining oil sands is also much more difficult (and expensive) that conventional crude oil.

It makes sense when crude prices are high, not so much when prices are down.

Here's a link to the very best anti-abrasion coating available now (IMO).
http://www.sulzerpumps.com/PortalData/9/Resources/brochures/general/Coatings_for_Abrasive_Service.pdf
Only two places can apply this particular coating IIRC, one in West Virginia and the other on Great Britain.
It can only be applied in line-of-sight, not like dipping. that is another issue.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Zef

I would call it an ecological disaster...
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/threats/water-pollution

LOL, you actually used greepeace as a relaible source for accurate information?
ROFLMOA yeah, they'll tell you the unbiased truth.

[jyl]

Seems any impact calculation for the "mined" process should include the need to strip vegetation and topsoil, everything above the oilsands layer, and then how long it takes for this strip-mined land to return to original state.

[RWebb]

exactly, GHG is not the only issue

water pollution is a HUGE problem with tar sands oil production


BTW - search on oil + diatoms for some interesting reading

[M.D. Holloway]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Oil sands present their own problems. First and foremost, it tears up the quipment at an alarming rate. Large ($$$) pumps that normally last for many years get eaten up in weeks.

We (the industry) have developed specialized coatings that resist the abrasion but it's expensive and still not perfect.
Refining oil sands is also much more difficult (and expensive) that conventional crude oil.

It makes sense when crude prices are high, not so much when prices are down.

Here's a link to the very best anti-abrasion coating available now (IMO).
http://www.sulzerpumps.com/PortalData/9/Resources/brochures/general/Coatings_for_Abrasive_Service.pdf
Only two places can apply this particular coating IIRC, one in West Virginia and the other on Great Britain.
It can only be applied in line-of-sight, not like dipping. that is another issue.

I did a study a few years back - before I could get those guys to use our grease in the equipment I took a special grease that ExxonMobil developed for that environment and tested against ours in several ASTM tests - ours wholloped them. I them mixed in some oilsand - 5% and ran the sames tests. Funny thing, our contaminated grease performaned better than the ExxonMobil grease did without any oilsand mixed in it.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by LubeMaster77

Funny thing, our contaminated grease performaned better than the ExxonMobil grease did without any oilsand mixed in it.

Which XOM grease were you testing and in what application?

[creaturecat]

The article quoted states that tar sand oil is the worst ever tested, regarding pollution, while being burned.
Does it not?

[M.D. Holloway]

[Zef]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

LOL, you actually used greepeace as a relaible source for accurate information?
ROFLMOA yeah, they'll tell you the unbiased truth.

Ever fly overthere Dude....?...Call me back when done.

[Dennis Kalma]

I think the twits that criticize the oil sands without any knowledge are pretty stupid. Any open mining process (read copper, coal, iron anything) leaves a big and very visible hole in process. Take a look at the recovery areas in Ft. McMurray and you will immediately realize that the oil industry is far better at long term land recovery than pretty well any industry you can name.

In terms of the alleged effect of humans on GHG's (which I think is complete bunk by the way), there is an extra hit on the fuel burned in the process for sure, likely way out is to place a nice nuke in Northern Alberta.

The water use is an issue, but they have been working pretty hard at reducing it and will likely make it pretty well a closed system before too long.

And, as an alleged Canadian, be thankful that you benefit from the revenue it makes...particularly in provinces that have been a net drag on transfer payments since the beginning of time...

Dennis

And yes...I have overflown, visited and worked there. Welcome to an industrialized society.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Zef

Ever fly overthere Dude....?...Call me back when done.

Is this it?



Damn. That'll leave a mark on our fragile mother earth.

[nota]

Originally Posted by island911

global temps have been cooling, (brrr...) and here we are trying to limit so called 'green house gases."

currently at a low sun spot cycle but it just restarted
once in a hundred year sun spot glitch is not a cooling trend
but grab at straws they do make good strawmen
but suck for long term trends

[island911]

Originally Posted by nota

currently at a low sun spot cycle but it just restarted
once in a hundred year sun spot glitch is not a cooling trend
but grab at straws they do make good strawmen
but suck for long term trends

Ya mean " long term trends" like that "Hockey-stick graph" we were sold as evidence of run-away global warming? ...that one which was based on y2k buggy model?

[Zef]

Originally Posted by Dennis Kalma

I think the twits that criticize the oil sands without any knowledge are pretty stupid. Any open mining process (read copper, coal, iron anything) leaves a big and very visible hole in process. Take a look at the recovery areas in Ft. McMurray and you will immediately realize that the oil industry is far better at long term land recovery than pretty well any industry you can name.

In terms of the alleged effect of humans on GHG's (which I think is complete bunk by the way), there is an extra hit on the fuel burned in the process for sure, likely way out is to place a nice nuke in Northern Alberta.

The water use is an issue, but they have been working pretty hard at reducing it and will likely make it pretty well a closed system before too long.

And, as an alleged Canadian, be thankful that you benefit from the revenue it makes...particularly in provinces that have been a net drag on transfer payments since the beginning of time...

Dennis

And yes...I have overflown, visited and worked there. Welcome to an industrialized society.

Haaaa...you kill me...biased.....?...Nooooooooooo.....!

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by Dennis Kalma

In terms of the alleged effect of humans on GHG's (which I think is complete bunk by the way), there is an extra hit on the fuel burned in the process for sure, likely way out is to place a nice nuke in Northern Alberta.

That is a good idea. I would pay an extra $0.50 a gallon for Canadian gas. At least they like us. Mostly.