Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Simple analysis.
First they're comparing reserves not resources. That wont change much but if you developed the entire oil sands resource you're in trouble climatologically.
But yes, sure, compare the known coal reserves of the whole world to the oil reserves in one country.
What Weaver is saying is that coal is a much bigger problem for the climate than oil. He isn't saying that oil is fine though. Burning oil is still a huge problem.
The other thing he doesn't look at are the upstream emissions from the oil sands extraction which typically are one quarter of the combustion emissions. So for ever 4 molecules of emissions that come from burning oil sands, one emission is released from extracting it. That paper made no mention of that.
As an aside, if we continued the current rate of the development for the oil sands and if we also thought that constraining our emissions to achieve only 2 degrees of warming was a good idea, then by 2050 we would use up over 80% of our per capita emissions quota on oil sands extraction alone. That means for the rest of the economy, we would have only 20% of emissions remaining which is not possible to meet.
So to summarize, oil sands are still a problem, it's just how you relate it.
|
Could you clarify a couple points? The article states that burning all the oil in the oil sands would lead to a 0.36C change (assuming the AGW theory). I'm also assuming that the calculation is for having all the CO2 in the atmosphere at once rather than elapsed time with other climatological processes in play. Why do you extrapolate that to: "if you developed the entire oil sands resource you're in trouble climatologically"? Are you inferring that there is far more oil sands resources in Canada than there are identified reserves?
The comparison between coal and oil sands is quite irrelevant. If you take the coal comparison out of the picture, you're still looking at a 0.36C change. If reserves ~ resources, 0.36 is the max temp increase regardless of coal reserves. Decisions can be made on this assumption regardless of coal.
I'm assuming if he didn't use upstream emissions for the oil sands, he also didn't use them for any other energy fuel. A study done a couple years ago pegged emissions for unconventional oil sands at 6% more than conventional. I can't see that as a major tipping point (regardless of the EU bureaucrats.)
I would also suggest that the oil sands is in major development mode right now with significantly more opportunity to innovate on emissions-control technology in comparison to any other fossil fuel industry. I don't imagine that the upstream emissions can be pegged at x+6% for the lifespan of the oil sands.
In summary, the oil sands may still have problems regarding pollution (in general, least of which is CO2 outside AGW circles), but is not nearly the problem environmentalists make it out to be.
Having not read the paper (or with any intent to shell out the $18 for it), I'm relying on my own assumptions and extrapolations.