Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Bill Bumface]

Not really related, but a fun story on the topic:

I worked somewhere that had a multi-year oopsies for under reporting methane venting. The problem was across a very large field and was bad enough they looked at ways to install flares that wouldn't look like or be classified as flares. While looking at their options they continued to pretend there was no problem they were aware of.

Pragmatically, throwing up flares right away would have been the best thing to do for the environment. The regulatory framework combined with some pretty shady corporate decision making left things in a state they should have never been in.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Not really related, but a fun story on the topic:

I worked somewhere that had a multi-year oopsies for under reporting methane venting. The problem was across a very large field and was bad enough they looked at ways to install flares that wouldn't look like or be classified as flares. While looking at their options they continued to pretend there was no problem they were aware of.

Pragmatically, throwing up flares right away would have been the best thing to do for the environment. The regulatory framework combined with some pretty shady corporate decision making left things in a state they should have never been in.

Your story reminded me of another story that is related. Oil production in the Permian has ramped up so quickly that gas processing facility construction has not been able to keep pace leading to a huge amount of gas flaring.

If we're going to vilify our oil producers then we should also shed light on what's happening elsewhere.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...g-Problem.html

[delayedreflex]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

There are several satellites up or going up in the next few years that should be able to sort this out. I think the data is available now to use, so maybe the scientists should try comparing against that before releasing this? All this report says is "two methods are giving different results. We have no idea which one is correct, if any."

Yeah it would have been good for the article to at least dig more into the validity of the aerial-based measurement approach - eg. if the "top down" method was validated by measuring emissions from easier-to-confirm sources such as a natural gas power plant, or controlled release of GHGs.

I actually think that the gist of the article is likely correct - that oil sands emissions are likely being under-measured, and hence under-reported using currently approved methods - but the article is misleading in other ways (including the somewhat sensationalized headline). This quote is particularly misleading to me:

Originally Posted by CBC article

Left out of the study, notably, are emissions from all oilsands operations that use in-situ extraction, pumping steam into the ground to get the petroleum out. About 80 per cent of oilsands reserves, and the majority of current production, require in-situ extraction.

That means the overall amount of underreported greenhouse gas emissions could be significantly higher.

While technically true (that they "could" be significantly higher), it seems unlikely that insitu emissions are that different from reported emissions, because the majority of emissions from insitu plants are mainly from burning fuel. The mining operations have way more difficult-to-quantify emissions, potentially somewhat from the mine face itself but definitely from the tailings ponds.

The following quote sheds more light on this:

Originally Posted by CBC article

The gap between the facilities' reported carbon dioxide emissions and the levels calculated by researchers was 13 per cent for the Suncor site, 36 per cent for the Horizon mine, 38 per cent for Jackpine and 123 per cent for Syncrude.

These discrepancies are almost certainly due to the differences in tailings operations between the different sites as well as the limitations of current methods for measuring emissions off of those ponds. Not only can there be VOCs emitted from the ponds due to diluent losses to the ponds, biological action results in the breakdown of the residual hydrocarbons in the tailings and generation of methane. These emissions probably have huge variability to them due to changes in process conditions, pond conditions, climate, etc. From what I know about current measurement techniques for reporting emissions, they take a collection of point samples from around a pond maybe a few times a year, which seems like it would be massively inadequate for capturing the variability in the emissions. Aerial or satellite-based monitoring could greatly improve the measurement of emissions in the industry and I think these approaches are being generally supported by industry.

Originally Posted by GGG

A few things this reportemtions but doesn’t make the headline is that GHG emmissioms are reported based on the UN agreed upon measure so finding between 10% and 60% increased emissions shows there could be a significant methodology problem with all of the UN data when calculating industrial emissions.

Do the headline should be UN methodology under reports industrial emissions not Oilsamds pollutes more than stated because the headline of the article implies that this is a localized problem.

If the discrepancy is due to what I think it likely is, then there probably isn't a big under-reporting of industrial emissions from point-source facilities, but potentially big differences for other industries where the emissions are not easily correlated with the burning of fuel. I'd be curious if, for example, agricultural emissions and emissions impacts due to land-use changes could be better quantified using these newer measurement techniques.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Your story reminded me of another story that is related. Oil production in the Permian has ramped up so quickly that gas processing facility construction has not been able to keep pace leading to a huge amount of gas flaring.

If we're going to vilify our oil producers then we should also shed light on what's happening elsewhere.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...g-Problem.html

The company I worked for was very active in the Permian as well.

For the record, they were not a Canadian company.

The amount of flaring going on down there is unreal.

They also had someone smoking above an open tank and blow themselves up in one of our Texas fields. The level of both environmental and safety standards are abysmal.

While I think innovating on the carbon intensity of Canadian oil is a very pressing issue, I have no doubt that most barrels of Canadian oil displaced by our inability to move it mean that we buy a barrel with all sorts of nasty human and environmental baggage.

EDIT: The other fun part of US oil is the insane water consumption. Sure, it's often non-potable water that is used, but that often isn't the case. Some places are using municipal water. It just seems insane.

[snootchiebootchies]

Originally Posted by delayedreflex

If the discrepancy is due to what I think it likely is, then there probably isn't a big under-reporting of industrial emissions from point-source facilities, but potentially big differences for other industries where the emissions are not easily correlated with the burning of fuel. I'd be curious if, for example, agricultural emissions and emissions impacts due to land-use changes could be better quantified using these newer measurement techniques.

This is absolutely correct. Emission estimates from combustion point sources are very accurate as they would involve simple stoichiometric calculations. The sources with great uncertainty and almost certainly under-reported are from large area or diffuse sources. The article is correct in saying oilsands facilities are following the required reporting methodology but it is also true that many oilsands facilities don't really want to know what they are not capturing in their reporting/measurements. Anybody in the business of reporting/measuring GHGs from oilsands facilities may dispute the actual numbers but they would not be surprised by the conclusions of this report.

These discrepancies are almost certainly due to the differences in tailings operations between the different sites as well as the limitations of current methods for measuring emissions off of those ponds. Not only can there be VOCs emitted from the ponds due to diluent losses to the ponds, biological action results in the breakdown of the residual hydrocarbons in the tailings and generation of methane. These emissions probably have huge variability to them due to changes in process conditions, pond conditions, climate, etc. From what I know about current measurement techniques for reporting emissions, they take a collection of point samples from around a pond maybe a few times a year, which seems like it would be massively inadequate for capturing the variability in the emissions.

Another large uncertainty is when tailings pond thaw during the spring and methane that have been accumulating for months under the ice is released to the atmosphere. There is nobody taking flux chamber samples during this particular phenomenon so nobody really knows how much gets missed.

[troutman]

In BC today - gas is 189.9

[Fuzz]

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by troutman

In BC today - gas is 189.9

Good.

We want 2! We want 2!

[CaptainCrunch]

Aren't we already at a refining under capacity right now?


Why aren't energy companies rushing to build refineries in Canada?

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Aren't we already at a refining under capacity right now?


Why aren't energy companies rushing to build refineries in Canada?

I think it is because they cost around 15 billion now days, so the return on that investment isn't so great.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

In BC today - gas is 189.9

[CaptainCrunch]

The irony in that picture of the big gas guzzling truck going by shouldn't escape anyone's attention.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Aren't we already at a refining under capacity right now?


Why aren't energy companies rushing to build refineries in Canada?

Can you deliver permits to build a refinery in BC without an unreasonably lengthy set of conditions?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Can you deliver permits to build a refinery in BC without an unreasonably lengthy set of conditions?

Well if I gather enough people for a popular uprising and seize power in a bloody coupe, then install myself as Colonel General Captain Crunch, defender of the people, Lion of the Prairies, may his enemies tremble at his feet. Then yes I could do it.


But it seems like a lot of work.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Well if I gather enough people for a popular uprising and seize power in a bloody coupe, then install myself as Colonel General Captain Crunch, defender of the people, Lion of the Prairies, may his enemies tremble at his feet. Then yes I could do it.


But it seems like a lot of work.

Import or Domestic coupe?

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by nik-

Import or Domestic coupe?

Deuce, but just a little one.

[Northendzone]

Remember BC now has a law banning carbon spewing vehicles by 2040.

Seems safe to say that designing, getting approval and building would take 5 or so years easy

Lastly, do you really feel the federal government has an appetite for this kind of project and the Green Party is pulling Horgan strings and lastly because tides, the rockerfellas etc do not want us to

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Aren't we already at a refining under capacity right now?


Why aren't energy companies rushing to build refineries in Canada?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

Remember BC now has a law banning carbon spewing vehicles by 2040.

Seems safe to say that designing, getting approval and building would take 5 or so years easy

Lastly, do you really feel the federal government has an appetite for this kind of project and the Green Party is pulling Horgan strings and lastly because tides, the rockerfellas etc do not want us to

Just new vehicles. So no selling of new gas powered vehciles or face major fines and possibly jail time.

Now why would anybody want to invest in a 15 billion dollar refinery in BC that will pay itself off by hopefully 2040? Horgan did say someone should invest in building a refinery in bc after all to help with gas prices.

Haha. Just say it Horgan, if you don’t like gas prices, get a bike or take transit.

[spuzzum]

It'll get repealed once the Orange and Green Party get booted out by the Libs in the next election. Gas prices are becoming the lead topic both on news talk radio and the opposition parties.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

Remember BC now has a law banning carbon spewing vehicles by 2040.

Seems safe to say that designing, getting approval and building would take 5 or so years easy

Lastly, do you really feel the federal government has an appetite for this kind of project and the Green Party is pulling Horgan strings and lastly because tides, the rockerfellas etc do not want us to

It honestly would probably take 5 years just to get approval. Construction another 2-3.