The oil sands of Alberta were percieved by critics to be emitting up to three to five times more emissions than other sources. But a recent study done by the Primary source, IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (IHS CERA), suggests that it might be considerably less than previously thought. Oil exported to the United States from the oil sands might only emit about six percent more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than the average oil consumed in the U.S. The study, “wells-to-wheels” was conducted by the primary source to examine existing studies and disprove criticisms of three to five times more emissions from the oil sands (The Calgary Herald 2010).
‘“There's a big range of numbers out there, and what we really tried to do is look not only at the range among all the study results, but try to create a number that represents the average for the industry,’ said IHS CERA director Jackie Forrest, who is stationed in Calgary.” (The Calgary Herald 2010) (Healing, 2010).
This is the second of a four-part report published by the Primary source IHS CERA; the first report, published in May 2010, stated that the oil sands could become the U.S.’s largest supplier of crude oil by this year and could supply 20-36 percent of their oil by 2030 which was not mentioned in the Secondary source.
The primary source study doesn’t quite convince environmentalists who say that the research done by the Primary source only proves that the oil sands are more GHG concentrated, according to the Secondary source. (Healing, 2010)
The Secondary source shows different opinions expressed by numerous people such as Simon Mui from the Natural Resources Defence Council in San Francisco. He stated that he can’t understand where the Primary source came about its numbers. Mui then compared it to a NRDC study published earlier this year. NRDC’s results showed a range in emissions between eight and 37 percent higher life-cycle emissions than what the U.S. presently uses. The article has many criticisms and tells very little information about how IHS CERA got its data. It simply stated facts from the study done by the Primary source but gave opinions and arguments about the validity of the results.
The research analysis done by Primary source includes emissions produced by crude oil extraction, processing, distribution, and combustion in an engine which is not mentioned in the article. The Primary source is much more in-depth than the Secondary source which only focuses on part of the research done by the Primary source. It excludes how the life-cycle GHG analyses are being used to modify transportation fuel policy.
The Primary source states facts that were found in their analysis of “wells-to-wheels” and includes everything from a whole rather than a certain part of an operation. I agree with the Primary source in that this analysis should be done as a whole instead of by parts because the study is done on a broad basis about the oil sands, greenhouse gases, and US oil supply. All of these come into play when the question is asked “how much do the oil sands emit?”
This causes criticism because as Terra Simieritsch of the Pembina Institute suggests that there could be a large difference in results when tailpipe emissions are included. When tailpipe emissions are included, the overall emission statistics are increased which consequently reduces the percentage differences between the GHG emissions and the average oil consumed in the U.S. If these emissions are not included in the analysis then the result could be 60 percent higher than U.S. domestic crude (The Calgary Herald 2010). The title of the article by Dan Healing grabs interest in the hope that the oil sands could possibly not be as large polluters as previously criticized. The facts summarized by Healing are correct and bring across the main points of the analysis done by IHS CERA, but Healing also included many criticisms from other people.
Potential areas of limitation in the analysis done by IHS CERA could be caused by the fact that the oil exported to the U.S. are often blended products of oil sands and lower carbon products rather than being entirely derived from oil sands (IHS CERA Analysis 2010).
Some admitted problems in collecting data is that it is often done by general rules or estimation but the GHG emissions are constantly changing and can vary greatly over time. Even for a particular crude oil source, there are many different GHG emission values that have been calculated (IHS CERA Analysis 2010).
I believe that Healings summarization of the research and analysis done by IHS CERA is a good review of the main points of the Primary source. But the Secondary source does show some favouritism towards the criticisms of the Primary source. There are no quotes from the Primary source, but many in the secondary source speaking against validity of the breakdown of the information that led to the results.
Works Cited
IHS CERA, I. (2010). Oil Sands, Greenhouse Gases, and US Oil Supply: Getting the Numbers Right. IHS CERA: Special Report .
Healing, D. (2010). Oilsands products don't emit as some think: Study. The Calgary Herald .
Picture. Alberta Geological Society. Retrieved from http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/energy/oilsands/alberta_oil_sands.html
No comments:
Post a Comment