The greenhouse dilemma of the Alberta oil sands
by Ray Block
Alberta oil sands in the far northern area of the Canadian province is spread over three deposits beneath 140,200 sq km, an area larger than the US state of Florida. Oil sands is a biitumen molasses like viscous oil, which won’t flow unless heated or diltuted with lighter hydrocarbons.
Once produced, it is either upgraded into synthetic crude oil, or shipped out without upgrading. Upgraders chemically alter the bitumen by adding hydrogen, subtracting carbon, or both. The collective size of the deposits in Northern Alberta is huge. Recoverable reserves of 175 billion barrels, with a proven reserve life of 480 years, and another 130 billion barrels of potential reserves. Alberta’s reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia’s 262 billion barrels.
The oil sands industry is not only of pivotal importance to oil security for Canada and United States, but with increasing production from an immense resource, it is a major growth sector of the Canadian economy.
In 2007, 44 per cent of Canadian oil production was from oil sands. Expansion of oil sands production over recent years has exceeded declines in Alberta conventional crude. Canada is now the largest supplier of oil and refined products to the US, ahead of Saudi Arabia and Mexico.
The downside is that with a near three fold increase in greenhouse gas from tar sands production, compared to conventional oil, it demonstrates only too starkly the greenhouse dilemma. If progress in Canadian renewable energy development was only much further advanced, you could possibly match the growth in GHG from oil sands against the renewable savings. Oil sands production is also a very considerable user of water and energy.
Oil sands production is expected to increase 2.4 times by 2017. After spending over $C14 billion investment by 2006, over $100 billion more is to be spent on developing the oil fields over the next decade. This includes US$31 billion on a pipeline and refinery projects. The oil majors are all there- Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil with its local affiliate Imperial, Total, Occidental, and other oil companies have also invested, along with CNOOC of China.
Current mining production is 1.32 million barrels/day of heavy crude saturated with bitumen, and Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) expects it to increase to 3.2 million billion barrels/day by 2017. With only 2 per cent of the initial established resource produced to date, you can understand the enthusiasm of the miners. You can also begin to understand the frustration of the environmentalists, who witness daily the slow death of the once pristine wilderness.
In a report “How the Oil Sands Got to the Great Lakes Basin” (October 8 2008) by the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre’s program on water issues, it says that with the pipeline to deliver Alberta oil sands crude to the large scale expansion in the refineries around the Great Lakes, bordering Canada and the US amounts to a “pollution delivery system.” As many as 17 major refinery expansions around the lakes are being considered for turning the synthetic crude into gasoline and other petroleum products. All but one are on the US side of the border.
Among the report’s recommendations is a call for refineries to offset all of the additional CO2 emissions, because of the difficulty of processing the crude. These emissions are estimated to be 2.3 million metric tons. Another recommendation is to require all refinery expansions to meet California’s strict air pollution standards, the toughest in North America.
A more extreme environmental view by Environmental Defence in a report Canada’s Toxic Tar Sands February 2008 says that it is the “most destructive project on earth.” Canada, says the group “has become the world’s dirty superpower.”
John Vidal, environment editor of the Guardian UK (July 12 2008) reports that the Canadian and Alberta provincial governments in late June 2008 joined the Canadian oil industry to play down the impact of the oil sands on the environment. “Canada only produces 2 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and the oil sands are only 8 per cent of the 2 per cent,” says the Canadian association of petroleum producers.
A number of the oil sands producers are installing carbon capture technology. Another reports: “we recognise that mining, extracting and upgrading bitumen has a significant footprint. Large areas must be cleared and excavated, while large volumes of water and natural gas are used to mine, process and upgrade it. Each project undergoes strict environmental assessments.”
The Alberta government says that stringent legislation and on the ground measures are in place to protect the air, land and water during oil sands development. Alberta in 2007 became the first in North America to legislate mandatory greenhouse reductions for large industrial facilities, which were required to reduce their emission intensity by 12 per cent, as of the end of 2007.
“Results for the first year show that companies made 2.6 million tonnes of actual reductions through operational changes and practices- including better use and re-use of energy – and investing in offsets created by other Alberta projects. Companies also chose to pay approximately $40 million into the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, which will invest in projects and technology to reduce GHG emissions.”
Alberta’s reclamation standards require the land be able to support a range of activities similar to its previous use before oil sands development.“To date, 530 square km of land has been disturbed by oil sands mining activity, which is less than one third the area of metro Los Angeles. As at March 2008, approximately 65 square km are in the process of being reclaimed. Industry must submit reclamation plans for approval to the Alberta government, which then issues a final certificate once work is significantly completed.”
You see the environmental dilemma. The answer is similar to the problem confronting all primary and processing industries to ensure world’s best practice in GHG emission control. Easy to say, a lot more difficult to deliver.
Posted under Carbon Abatement Scheme, Climate Change, Fuel & Gas, Global Warming, Low Carbon Economy, Renewable Energies

