mrbb wrote:
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"- Mark Twain
There is something not adding right here. In Figure 2, the energy intensity of canadian oilsand is shown as 174 kg CO2e/bbl oil.
Just inches below that, figure 3 (your suggestion), pembina institute sayng the OVERALL energy intensity of insitu + mining of oilsand is between 52 to 56 kg CO2e/bbl oil.
I'm not saying pembina institute is lying but they seem to cherry picking data to present to make their case. Pembina institute said insitu (SAGD, CSS) extracton proces are dominating over mining. Ask yourself why? why oil companies chooses a higher CO2 emission higher energy intensive process over oilsand mining? are they encouraging environmentalists to attack them? Why it's easier to get insitu extraction approval from gov'ts than for oilsand mining?
If one just focus on amount of steam needed to wash the oilsand, yes mining is more efficiency IF removal of 50-80m of overburden, trucking oilsand to wash facilities, and reclaiming the land back to original condition ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE ENERGY calculation, yah, mining uses less energy.
autofocus111 wrote: mrbb See Figure 3 at the link below.
>>> Although in situ operations’ emission intensity decreased by eight per cent between 2004 and 2015, this production type still produces 58 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than surface mining.
https://www.pembina.org/blog/real-ghg-trend-oilsands