logo

OR SEARCH CITATIONS

My Activity
Publications
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img
Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 2, 1253-1261
RETURN TO ISSUEPREVArticleNEXT

Variability and Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment Models for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Canadian Oil Sands Production

View Author Information
Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-6105, United States
*E-mail: [email protected]
Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 2, 1253–1261
Publication Date (Web):December 14, 2011
https://doi.org/10.1021/es202312p
Copyright © 2011 American Chemical Society
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Article Views
2622
Altmetric
-
Citations
51
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

Read OnlinePDF (930 KB)
Get e-Alerts
Supporting Info (1)»
SUBJECTS:

Abstract

Abstract Image

Because of interest in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation fuels production, a number of recent life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have calculated GHG emissions from oil sands extraction, upgrading, and refining pathways. The results from these studies vary considerably. This paper reviews factors affecting energy consumption and GHG emissions from oil sands extraction. It then uses publicly available data to analyze the assumptions made in the LCA models to better understand the causes of variability in emissions estimates. It is found that the variation in oil sands GHG estimates is due to a variety of causes. In approximate order of importance, these are scope of modeling and choice of projects analyzed (e.g., specific projects vs industry averages); differences in assumed energy intensities of extraction and upgrading; differences in the fuel mix assumptions; treatment of secondary noncombustion emissions sources, such as venting, flaring, and fugitive emissions; and treatment of ecological emissions sources, such as land-use change-associated emissions. The GHGenius model is recommended as the LCA model that is most congruent with reported industry average data. GHGenius also has the most comprehensive system boundaries. Last, remaining uncertainties and future research needs are discussed.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Additional results, including tabular results for important results figures. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

Terms & Conditions

Electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. The American Chemical Society holds a copyright ownership interest in any copyrightable Supporting Information. Files available from the ACS website may be downloaded for personal use only. Users are not otherwise permitted to reproduce, republish, redistribute, or sell any Supporting Information from the ACS website, either in whole or in part, in either machine-readable form or any other form without permission from the American Chemical Society. For permission to reproduce, republish and redistribute this material, requesters must process their own requests via the RightsLink permission system. Information about how to use the RightsLink permission system can be found at http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Cited By

This article is cited by 51 publications.

  1. 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
  2. Ben Young, Troy Hottle, Troy Hawkins, Matthew Jamieson, Gregory Cooney, Kavan Motazedi, Joule Bergerson. Expansion of the Petroleum Refinery Life Cycle Inventory Model to Support Characterization of a Full Suite of Commonly Tracked Impact Potentials. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (4) , 2238-2248. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05572
  3. 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
  4. Balwinder Nimana, Aman Verma, Giovanni Di Lullo, Md. Mustafizur Rahman, Christina E. Canter, Babatunde Olateju, Hao Zhang, and Amit Kumar . Life Cycle Analysis of Bitumen Transportation to Refineries by Rail and Pipeline. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (1) , 680-691. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02889
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Hassan M. El-Houjeiri, Adam R. Brandt, and James E. Duffy . Open-Source LCA Tool for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Crude Oil Production Using Field Characteristics. Environmental Science & Technology 2013, 47 (11) , 5998-6006. https://doi.org/10.1021/es304570m
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Greg Karras . Comment on “Analysis of Energy Use and CO2 Emissions in the U.S. Refining Sector, With Projections for 2025”. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46 (14) , 7921-7922. https://doi.org/10.1021/es301915z
  15. Robert Greco . Comment on “Variability and Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment Models for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Canadian Oil Sands Production”. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46 (7) , 4253-4253. https://doi.org/10.1021/es300130f
  16. Adam R. Brandt . Response to Comment on “Variability and Uncertainty in Life Cycle Assessment Models for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Canadian Oil Sands Production”. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46 (7) , 4254-4254. https://doi.org/10.1021/es300426p
  17. 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 2020, , 125277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125277
  18. 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
  19. Shoshanna Saxe, Gursans Guven, Lucas Pereira, Alessandro Arrigoni, Tamar Opher, Adrien Roy, Aldrick Arceo, Sofia Sampedro Von Raesfeld, Mel Duhamel, Brenda McCabe, Daman K Panesar, Heather L MacLean, I Daniel Posen. Taxonomy of uncertainty in environmental life cycle assessment of infrastructure projects. Environmental Research Letters 2020, 15 (8) , 083003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab85f8
  20. B. W. Kolosz, Y. Luo, B. Xu, M. M. Maroto-Valer, J. M. Andresen. Life cycle environmental analysis of ‘drop in’ alternative aviation fuels: a review. Sustainable Energy & Fuels 2020, 4 (7) , 3229-3263. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9SE00788A
  21. Babkir Ali. Integration of Impacts on Water, Air, Land, and Cost towards Sustainable Petroleum Oil Production in Alberta, Canada. Resources 2020, 9 (6) , 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9060062
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. John Liggio, Shao-Meng Li, Ralf M. Staebler, Katherine Hayden, Andrea Darlington, Richard L. Mittermeier, Jason O’Brien, Robert McLaren, Mengistu Wolde, Doug Worthy, Felix Vogel. Measured Canadian oil sands CO2 emissions are higher than estimates made using internationally recommended methods. Nature Communications 2019, 10 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09714-9
  25. Samuel L. Altshuler, Jason M.E. Ahad, Judith C. Chow, Calvin Duane, Monique Dubé, Allan H. Legge, Kevin E. Percy, Eric D. Stevenson, John G. Watson. Advances in science and applications in air pollution monitoring: A case study on oil sands monitoring targeting ecosystem protection. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2019, 69 (10) , 1133-1141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2019.1659192
  26. 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
  27. Sudiptya Banerjee, Berna Hascakir. Design of flow control devices in steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) completion. Journal of Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology 2018, 8 (3) , 785-797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-017-0393-4
  28. Michele Florencia Victoria, Srinath Perera, Alan Davies, Nirodha Fernando. Carbon and cost critical elements: a comparative analysis of two office buildings. Built Environment Project and Asset Management 2017, 7 (5) , 460-470. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-12-2016-0086
  29. Timothy J. Wallington, James E. Anderson, Robert D. De Kleine, Hyung Chul Kim, Heiko Maas, Adam R. Brandt, Gregory A. Keoleian. When Comparing Alternative Fuel-Vehicle Systems, Life Cycle Assessment Studies Should Consider Trends in Oil Production. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2017, 21 (2) , 244-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12418
  30. Lorenzo Rosa, Kyle F. Davis, Maria C. Rulli, Paolo D'Odorico. Environmental consequences of oil production from oil sands. Earth's Future 2017, 5 (2) , 158-170. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000484
  31. 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
  32. Matthew R. Johnson, Brian M. Crosland, James D. McEwen, Darcy B. Hager, Joshua R. Armitage, Mojgan Karimi-Golpayegani, David J. Picard. Estimating fugitive methane emissions from oil sands mining using extractive core samples. Atmospheric Environment 2016, 144 , 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.08.073
  33. Sonia Yeh, Julie Witcover, Gabriel E. Lade, Daniel Sperling. A review of low carbon fuel policies: Principles, program status and future directions. Energy Policy 2016, 97 , 220-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.029
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Michael Wang, Jeongwoo Han, Jennifer Dunn, Hao Cai, Amgad Elgowainy. Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Ethanol From Corn, Sugarcane, and Cellulosic Biomass for US Use: Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Ethanol From Corn, Sugarcane, and Cellulosic Biomass for US Use. 2015,,, 249-279. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18466-13
  37. Huabo Duan, Mingwei Hu, Yukui Zhang, Jiayuan Wang, Weiping Jiang, Qifei Huang, Jinhui Li. Quantification of carbon emissions of the transport service sector in China by using streamlined life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 2015, 95 , 109-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.029
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. Tyler Joseph Tarnoczi, Keith Driver. Navigating Canada's greenhouse gas policy landscape: a comparison of carbon market mechanisms in the oil and gas sector. Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management 2014, 4 (2-4) , 63-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430779.2014.971406
  42. Md Mustafizur Rahman, Christina Canter, Amit Kumar. Greenhouse gas emissions from recovery of various North American conventional crudes. Energy 2014, 74 , 607-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.07.026
  43. K.E. Kelly, J.E. Wilkey, J.P. Spinti, T.A. Ring, D.W. Pershing. Oxyfiring with CO2 capture to meet low-carbon fuel standards for unconventional fuels from Utah. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2014, 22 , 189-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.01.002
  44. Jacob G Englander, Sharad Bharadwaj, Adam R Brandt. Historical trends in greenhouse gas emissions of the Alberta oil sands (1970–2010). Environmental Research Letters 2013, 8 (4) , 044036. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044036
  45. 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
  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. D. Rajagopal, Richard J. Plevin. Implications of market-mediated emissions and uncertainty for biofuel policies. Energy Policy 2013, 56 , 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.076
  48. Joel Krupa, Cameron Jones. Black Swan Theory: Applications to energy market histories and technologies. Energy Strategy Reviews 2013, 1 (4) , 286-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2013.02.004
  49. Luis M. Gandía, Gurutze Arzamendi, Pedro M. Diéguez. Renewable Hydrogen Energy. 2013,,, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-56352-1.00001-5
  50. Michael Wang, Jeongwoo Han, Jennifer B Dunn, Hao Cai, Amgad Elgowainy. Well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol from corn, sugarcane and cellulosic biomass for US use. Environmental Research Letters 2012, 7 (4) , 045905. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045905
  51. A.R. Kovscek. Emerging challenges and potential futures for thermally enhanced oil recovery. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 2012, 98-99 , 130-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2012.08.004

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.

OOPS

You have to login with your ACS ID befor you can login with your Mendeley account.

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