ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read

OR SEARCH CITATIONS

My Activity
Recently Viewed
You have not visited any articles yet, Please visit some articles to see contents here.
Publications
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img
Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 21, 9393-9404
RETURN TO ISSUEPREVArticleNEXT

Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Current Oil Sands Technologies: GHOST Model Development and Illustrative Application

View Author Information
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A4
ISEEE Energy and Environmental Systems Group, Center for Environmental Engineering Research and Education, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4
Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A4
Phone: (416) 946 5056; e-mail: [email protected]
Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 21, 9393–9404
Publication Date (Web):September 15, 2011
https://doi.org/10.1021/es103912m
Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Article Views
1336
Altmetric
-
Citations
49
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
Read OnlinePDF (3 MB)
Get e-Alerts
Supporting Info (1)»
SUBJECTS:

Abstract

Abstract Image

A life cycle-based model, GHOST (GreenHouse gas emissions of current Oil Sands Technologies), which quantifies emissions associated with production of diluted bitumen and synthetic crude oil (SCO) is developed. GHOST has the potential to analyze a large set of process configurations, is based on confidential oil sands project operating data, and reports ranges of resulting emissions, improvements over prior studies, which primarily included a limited set of indirect activities, utilized theoretical design data, and reported point estimates. GHOST is demonstrated through application to a major oil sands process, steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD). The variability in potential performance of SAGD technologies results in wide ranges of “well-to-refinery entrance gate” emissions (comprising direct and indirect emissions): 18–41 g CO2eq/MJ SCO, 9–18 g CO2eq/MJ dilbit, and 13–24 g CO2eq/MJ synbit. The primary contributor to SAGD’s emissions is the combustion of natural gas to produce process steam, making a project’s steam-to-oil ratio the most critical parameter in determining GHG performance. The demonstration (a) illustrates that a broad range of technology options, operating conditions, and resulting emissions exist among current oil sands operations, even when considering a single extraction technology, and (b) provides guidance about the feasibility of lowering SAGD project emissions.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Flowcharts and assumptions, data inventory and emissions calculation methods, boiler/cogeneration details, product characteristics, calculation details, model evaluation, and sensitivity analysis. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Cited By

This article is cited by 49 publications.

  1. Hao Liu, Yuan Wang, Hao Xiong, Keliu Wu. Semianalytical Analysis of Chamber Growth and Energy Efficiency of Solvent-Assisted Steam-Gravity Drainage Considering the Effect of Reservoir Heterogeneity along the Horizontal Well. Energy & Fuels 2020, 34 (5) , 5777-5787. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c00536
  2. Diana M. Pacheco, Joule A. Bergerson, Anton Alvarez-Majmutov, Jinwen Chen, Heather L. MacLean. Characterizing Variability in Oil Sands Upgrading Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity. Energy & Fuels 2019, 33 (9) , 8907-8919. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b01518
  3. Sylvia Sleep, Ian J. Laurenzi, Joule A. Bergerson, Heather L. MacLean. Evaluation of Variability in Greenhouse Gas Intensity of Canadian Oil Sands Surface Mining and Upgrading Operations. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (20) , 11941-11951. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03974
  4. Andrea Orellana, Ian J. Laurenzi, Heather L. MacLean, and Joule A. Bergerson . Statistically Enhanced Model of In Situ Oil Sands Extraction Operations: An Evaluation of Variability in Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (3) , 947-954. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b04498
  5. Nicolas Choquette-Levy, Margaret Zhong, Heather MacLean, and Joule Bergerson . COPTEM: A Model to Investigate the Factors Driving Crude Oil Pipeline Transportation Emissions. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (1) , 337-345. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03398
  6. Sonia Yeh, Abbas Ghandi, Bridget R. Scanlon, Adam R. Brandt, Hao Cai, Michael Q. Wang, Kourosh Vafi, and Robert C. Reedy . Energy Intensity and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Oil Production in the Eagle Ford Shale. Energy & Fuels 2017, 31 (2) , 1440-1449. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b02916
  7. Gregory Cooney, Matthew Jamieson, Joe Marriott, Joule Bergerson, Adam Brandt, and Timothy J. Skone . Updating the U.S. Life Cycle GHG Petroleum Baseline to 2014 with Projections to 2040 Using Open-Source Engineering-Based Models. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (2) , 977-987. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02819
  8. Diana M. Pacheco, Joule A. Bergerson, Anton Alvarez-Majmutov, Jinwen Chen, and Heather L. MacLean . Development and Application of a Life Cycle-Based Model to Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Oil Sands Upgrading Technologies. Environmental Science & Technology 2016, 50 (24) , 13574-13584. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04882
  9. Jennifer Charry-Sanchez, Alberto Betancourt-Torcat, and Ali Almansoori . Environmental and Economics Trade-Offs for the Optimal Design of a Bitumen Upgrading Plant. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2016, 55 (46) , 11996-12013. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b01145
  10. Adam R. Brandt, Tim Yeskoo, Michael S. McNally, Kourosh Vafi, Sonia Yeh, Hao Cai, and Michael Q. Wang . Energy Intensity and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Tight Oil Production in the Bakken Formation. Energy & Fuels 2016, 30 (11) , 9613-9621. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01907
  11. Jacob G. Englander, Adam R. Brandt, Amgad Elgowainy, Hao Cai, Jeongwoo Han, Sonia Yeh, and Michael Q. Wang . Oil Sands Energy Intensity Assessment Using Facility-Level Data. Energy & Fuels 2015, 29 (8) , 5204-5212. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.5b00175
  12. Hao Cai, Adam R. Brandt, Sonia Yeh, Jacob G. Englander, Jeongwoo Han, Amgad Elgowainy, and Michael Q. Wang . Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Canadian Oil Sands Products: Implications for U.S. Petroleum Fuels. Environmental Science & Technology 2015, 49 (13) , 8219-8227. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01255
  13. Adam R. Brandt, Yuchi Sun, and Kourosh Vafi . Uncertainty in Regional-Average Petroleum GHG Intensities: Countering Information Gaps with Targeted Data Gathering. Environmental Science & Technology 2015, 49 (1) , 679-686. https://doi.org/10.1021/es505376t
  14. Kourosh Vafi and Adam R. Brandt . Reproducibility of LCA Models of Crude Oil Production. Environmental Science & Technology 2014, 48 (21) , 12978-12985. https://doi.org/10.1021/es501847p
  15. Richard S. Middleton and Adam R. Brandt . Using Infrastructure Optimization to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Oil Sands Extraction and Processing. Environmental Science & Technology 2013, 47 (3) , 1735-1744. https://doi.org/10.1021/es3035895
  16. Jessica P. Abella and Joule A. Bergerson . Model to Investigate Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implications of Refining Petroleum: Impacts of Crude Quality and Refinery Configuration. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46 (24) , 13037-13047. https://doi.org/10.1021/es3018682
  17. Joule A. Bergerson, Oyeshola Kofoworola, Alex D. Charpentier, Sylvia Sleep, and Heather L. MacLean . Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Current Oil Sands Technologies: Surface Mining and In Situ Applications. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46 (14) , 7865-7874. https://doi.org/10.1021/es300718h
  18. Marwa Hannouf, Getachew Assefa, Ian Gates. Policy Insights to Accelerate Cleaner Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Operations. Energies 2022, 15 (1) , 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010086
  19. Marwa Hannouf, Getachew Assefa, Ian Gates. Carbon intensity threshold for Canadian oil sands industry using planetary boundaries: Is a sustainable carbon-negative industry possible?. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2021, 151 , 111529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111529
  20. Rui Xing, Diego V. Chiappori, Evan J. Arbuckle, Matthew T. Binsted, Evan G. R. Davies. Canadian Oil Sands Extraction and Upgrading: A Synthesis of the Data on Energy Consumption, CO2 Emissions, and Supply Costs. Energies 2021, 14 (19) , 6374. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14196374
  21. Minxing Si, Ling Bai, Ke Du. Fuel consumption analysis and cap and trade system evaluation for Canadian in situ oil sands extraction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2021, 146 , 111145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111145
  22. Sylvia Sleep, Zainab Dadashi, Yuanlei Chen, Adam R. Brandt, Heather L. MacLean, Joule A. Bergerson. Improving robustness of LCA results through stakeholder engagement: A case study of emerging oil sands technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 281 , 125277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125277
  23. John Guo, Andrea Orellana, Sylvia Sleep, Ian J. Laurenzi, Heather L. MacLean, Joule A. Bergerson. Statistically enhanced model of oil sands operations: Well-to-wheel comparison of in situ oil sands pathways. Energy 2020, 208 , 118250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118250
  24. Sylvia Sleep, John Guo, Ian J. Laurenzi, Joule A. Bergerson, Heather L. MacLean. Quantifying variability in well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emission intensities of transportation fuels derived from Canadian oil sands mining operations. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020, 258 , 120639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120639
  25. Branko Bošković, Andrew Leach. Leave it in the ground? Oil sands development under carbon pricing. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique 2020, 53 (2) , 526-562. https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12436
  26. M. Safaei, A.O. Oni, E.D. Gemechu, A. Kumar. Evaluation of energy and greenhouse gas emissions of bitumen-derived transportation fuels from toe-to-heel air injection extraction technology. Fuel 2019, 256 , 115930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.115930
  27. M. Safaei, A.O. Oni, E.D. Gemechu, A. Kumar. Evaluation of energy and GHG emissions’ footprints of bitumen extraction using Enhanced Solvent Extraction Incorporating Electromagnetic Heating technology. Energy 2019, 186 , 115854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.115854
  28. Yang Liu, Fengyu Ren, Hangxing Ding. Impact analysis of carbon prices on metal mining projects by block-based estimation model: Implications for cleaner production. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019, 229 , 695-705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.052
  29. Md.I.H. Soiket, A.O. Oni, E.D. Gemechu, A. Kumar. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions of upgrading and refining bitumen from the solvent extraction process. Applied Energy 2019, 240 , 236-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.02.039
  30. Md.I.H. Soiket, A.O. Oni, A. Kumar. The development of a process simulation model for energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of a vapor solvent-based oil sands extraction and recovery process. Energy 2019, 173 , 799-808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.109
  31. Zainab Dadashi Forshomi, Carlos E. Carreon, Alberto Alva-Argaez, Joule A. Bergerson. Energy, Water, Cost, and Greenhouse Gas Implications of Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage Surface Facility Technologies. Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability 2017, 1 (2) , 87-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41660-017-0007-0
  32. Sylvia Sleep, Jennifer M. McKellar, Joule A. Bergerson, Heather L. MacLean. Expert assessments of emerging oil sands technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production 2017, 144 , 90-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.107
  33. Jennifer M. McKellar, Sylvia Sleep, Joule A. Bergerson, Heather L. MacLean. Expectations and drivers of future greenhouse gas emissions from Canada's oil sands: An expert elicitation. Energy Policy 2017, 100 , 162-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.014
  34. Branko Bookovii, Andrew Leach. Leave It in the Ground? Incorporating the Social Cost of Carbon into Oil Sands Development. SSRN Electronic Journal 2017, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2920341
  35. Edoardo Filippo Lazzaroni, Mohamed Elsholkami, Itai Arbiv, Emanuele Martelli, Ali Elkamel, Michael Fowler. Energy infrastructure modeling for the oil sands industry: Current situation. Applied Energy 2016, 181 , 435-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.072
  36. Oguz Akbilgic, Da Zhu, Ian D. Gates, Joule A. Bergerson. Prediction of steam-assisted gravity drainage steam to oil ratio from reservoir characteristics. Energy 2015, 93 , 1663-1670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.029
  37. Md. Mustafizur Rahman, Christina Canter, Amit Kumar. Well-to-wheel life cycle assessment of transportation fuels derived from different North American conventional crudes. Applied Energy 2015, 156 , 159-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.004
  38. Carlos E. Carreon, Maryam Mahmoudkhani, Alberto Alva-Argaez, Joule Bergerson. Evaluation of energy efficiency options in steam assisted gravity drainage oil sands surface facilities via process integration. Applied Thermal Engineering 2015, 87 , 788-802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.04.055
  39. Balwinder Nimana, Christina Canter, Amit Kumar. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from Canada's oil sands-derived transportation fuels. Energy 2015, 88 , 544-554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.078
  40. E.I. Nduagu, I.D. Gates. Process analysis of a low emissions hydrogen and steam generation technology for oil sands operations. Applied Energy 2015, 146 , 184-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.118
  41. Balwinder Nimana, Christina Canter, Amit Kumar. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the recovery and extraction of crude bitumen from Canada’s oil sands. Applied Energy 2015, 143 , 189-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.024
  42. Balwinder Nimana, Christina Canter, Amit Kumar. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in upgrading and refining of Canada's oil sands products. Energy 2015, 83 , 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.085
  43. Giancarlo Giacchetta, Mariella Leporini, Barbara Marchetti. Economic and environmental analysis of a Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) facility for oil recovery from Canadian oil sands. Applied Energy 2015, 142 , 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.12.057
  44. Tyler Tarnoczi. Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation of Canadian oil sands to future markets. Energy Policy 2013, 62 , 107-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.001
  45. Nicolas Choquette-Levy, Heather L. MacLean, Joule A. Bergerson. Should Alberta upgrade oil sands bitumen? An integrated life cycle framework to evaluate energy systems investment tradeoffs. Energy Policy 2013, 61 , 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.051
  46. Adam R. Brandt, Jacob Englander, Sharad Bharadwaj. The energy efficiency of oil sands extraction: Energy return ratios from 1970 to 2010. Energy 2013, 55 , 693-702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.03.080
  47. George M. Hidy, Judith C. Chow, Glen C. England, Alan H. Legge, Alan C. Lloyd, John G. Watson. Energy supplies and future engines for land, sea, and air. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2012, 62 (11) , 1233-1248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2012.737277
  48. David Gordon Wilson. Energy supplies and future engines for land, sea, and air. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2012, 62 (6) , 607-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2012.675403
  49. Sonia Yeh, Daniel Sperling, Michael Griffin, Madhu Khanna, Paul Leiby, Siwa Msangi, James Rhodes, Jonathan Rubin. National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Policy Design Recommendations. SSRN Electronic Journal 2012, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2105897

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect

This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By continuing to use the site, you are accepting our use of cookies. Read the ACS privacy policy.

CONTINUE