People are missing a couple of details in this: the Canadian "oil" in question is not a liquid from a well to start with, it's tar sands that have been dug up. The first step of processing is melting it to filter out the sand. This leaves you with viscous bitumen that cannot be pumped efficiently down a pipeline. So normally it's processed again to make "dilbit", diluted bitumen, in order to ship it to an oil refinery for cracking to produce actually useful petrol.
Dilbit is diluted with chemicals that need to be imported from the US or Middle East. These liquids also need to be transported and can result in their own spills. This looks like an important development.
As a rule, it is far easier* to transport/handle liquids in large quantity than solids. Even ignoring the effort to convert/deconvert the oil at each end, I'm not seeing this as a step forward that will improve the bulk of crude-oil transport -- baring a more detailed analysis than what reads to me as 'pipelines bad.'
*Cheaper, safer, more efficient, requiring less maintenance, etc...
> As a rule, it is far easier to transport/handle liquids in large quantity than solids.*
Is it?
For liquids, at all times you need a sealed container that doesn't leak. For solids, it's enough for the holes to be no larger than the individual solid object. This makes containers cheaper and requiring much less maintenance.
As for this specific case, the article makes at least two points:
- transporting solids can reuse existing infrastructure (rail + coal wagons), giving you flexibility - as opposed to requiring you to ship from only where the pipeline ends (or to build new pipelines);
- with "one weird trick" (injecting some extra gas into the bubble) they can make each pellet buoyant, and it seems they also don't dissolve easily - the result is something that's potentially much easier to collect if you happened to spill it into an ocean.
They wouldn't build pipelines in the first place if it didn't make business sense to do so. These pipes will be in place for a very long time (relatively speaking). I would also think that railroad or road for transporting a solid liquid is also less environmentally friendly than sending via pipelines. Of course, if you are assuming that the pipeline will burst, then it may not be, but one has to ensure that the pipeline is a safe option. Government oversight is needed in those cases.
I understand the argument from the article is about flexibility - a pipeline will be in place for a very long time, but it's not easy to move it around as the economical landscape changes. Meanwhile, rail will let you move the stuff to wherever it's currently better to have it.
Not given "all the parameters of the environment" it is common to assume STP: Standard Temperature and Pressure. I think that's 20 degrees Celsius, 105 kPa of air pressure.
Well, under those conditions I would call bitumen a 'semi solid'. It is not hard in the sense of an actual solid, you can deform it but it definitely does not flow like a liquid.
Actually bitumen does flow. It's an extremely viscous liquid. There are a couple of pitch drop experiments[1] running, where bitumen is placed in a funnel and allowed to slowly flow. The experiment at the University of Queensland opened the funnel in 1930, 9 drops have flowed out since then, the last in 2014. The period between drops after air conditioning was installed seems to be in the 12-14 year range (only 2 drops have happened in that period).
The raw material isn't a liquid that can be pumped. This approach is converting the raw material into pellets instead of diluting it into a liquid, which is the current approach.
This is weird. Pipelines are the cheapest, most efficient, and safest way to move large amounts of oil. How is something which renders oil impossible to transport via pipeline a step forward?
Well the obvious is you need a pipeline, to transport via pipeline - and that can take decades to put in place, and sometime is politically challenging as we've seen with Keystone XL. There are already railways that go everywhere.
Next - right now, you need special tanker cards to transport oil via rail - and latency on those can be on the order of years if you want to scale up.
What's neat about this invention, is that it can transport oil in a form that, if I read correctly, isn't as catastrophic when spilled as an oil tanker would be, and, also importantly, can use rail cars that were designed for something else (the author cites Coal) - so no need to wait a few years (and spend $$$) for special tanker cars - there are a zillion idle coal cars right now.
This article captures part of the significant economic incentive as well:
What they mine out of tar sands/shales is bitumen. You can't pump asphalt, so they actually have to add a solvent to make it pumpable, usually naptha, which they then have to ship to the head end - meaning you end up with 2 pipelines. This idea makes the petroleum product more like coal, which has an extensive and cost-effective rail infrastructure for transport.
The article mentions that it's more environmentally friendly. The balls float on water and apparently can't be poaked easily. That's a plus in my book.
I think we are in lipstick on a pig territory here. Tar sands are horrific in environmental terms, one of the most carbon intensive fossil fuels in their production and the cause of devastation of huge areas of wilderness. By the time the stuff is made into balls or whatever the vast majority of possible damage has already been done.
You should be aware that there are a number of oil sources that are far more carbon-intensive than the Canadian Oil Sands.
Many of which ship direct to the United States. One is even produced IN the United States (Bakersfield, CA).
On a wells-to-wheels basis, Canadian oil sands are only 6-8% more carbon-intensive than typical light crude (e.g. Saudi), and it comes from a politically-friendly country that supports female rights, human rights in general, and is not bombing their neighbours.
What you say regarding disruption of large areas of wilderness is true when it comes to tailings ponds, but you should also be aware that the vast majority of recent development (and probably most go-forward) is via in-situ extraction that does not require those tailings ponds.
Source: I am a chemical engineer and work directly in this industry.
Thankfully, neither petroleum extraction nor climate science need be faith-based, so Homer-Dixon's personal beliefs aren't all that relevant. There are multiple studies (not funded by petroleum companies) that document why he's wrong (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/0140... is a good metastudy). Grist.org is hardly a neutral source on the issue.
By all means, advocate for wide-scale reduction and elimination of the use of petroleum products. Demand that your representatives fight for carbon-neutral energy production. But pretending that boycotting Canadian products and instead consuming more coal, fracked shale oil and tanker-shipped crude from corrupt autocratic regimes is somehow an important part of solving the problem just makes you look like you're not paying attention. As does supporting corrupt officials and corporate misbehavior in places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela over supporting an allied liberal democracy with a strong (at least in comparison) record of environmental stewardship and oversight on corporate activity.
I don't have to. They're pretty vocal about it, and it is widely reported in the media (because liberal democracy with free press). Not all 'natives' necessarily agree (quite a few work in the industry). There are also a wide variety other Canadians who live and work in the area who have strong opinions, on multiple sides of the argument. This is hardly surprising, as it is a controversial issue, and it certainly won't stop being one.
I bet that if I asked people (native or otherwise) about local fracking operations, coal mines, tailing ponds, power plants, refineries, offload and storage facilities, etc, etc, in any country I will find a bunch who would really rather they were somewhere else. I'm not sure why that's important to the discussion.
As for the reported "straw man", you seem to be under the impression that I argued that tar sands were wonderful and that Canadians truly enjoy living near them. Which is, of course, a straw man. I made three points: (1) The assertion that Alberta bitumen mining has twice the C02 impact of other sources of petroleum is provably false and (2) If you do not change the demand for petroleum products and do not want to source them in Canada, you have to source them somewhere else. (3) Other sources aren't necessarily much more palatable, especially if you include factors like support of the economy of the country of origin and the source producer.
Here: 'But pretending that boycotting Canadian products and instead consuming more coal, fracked shale oil and tanker-shipped crude from corrupt autocratic regimes is somehow an important part of solving the problem just makes you look like you're not paying attention. As does supporting corrupt officials and corporate misbehavior in places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela'
I never said any of what you refute above. Also you set up a false dichotomy by implying that we either choose to use tar sands or are forced to support corrupt regimes - there are of course other alternatives scenarios - I note you avoid mention of LNG.
Bottom line though: tar sands are generally accepted by those that do not have a stake of some kind as being environmentally disastrous, far worse than the alternatives, but I'm guessing that's not in your corporate refutation manual.
(1) The top 10 oil exporters: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, UAE, Canada, Nigeria, Kuwait, Angola, Venezuela, Kazakhstan. I don't think my assertion that replacing Canada with another source might involve some political issues runs contrary to the facts. You didn't say that was required, but it was implied by what you did say.
(2) I did mention LNG. I just spelled it 'fracking'. Currently, two thirds of US-produced natural gas is retrieved by hydraulic formation fracturing, and that fraction has been steadily growing.
(3) Arguing that "tar sands are generally accepted by those that do not have a stake of some kind..." is inaccurate and sloppy goal-post moving. I'm also not claiming that petroleum production isn't a serious and global environmental problem, I'm arguing that a belief that Canadian bitumen is the heart of the problem is dangerously misinformed. I'd much rather we shut it down and invested heavily in molten salt reactors, but until that happens the problem isn't tar sands: it's global demand and dependence on burning petroleum.
(4) I don't even know why I'm writing this---when you implied I'm a corporate shill and claimed that the only people who disagree with you are those who have a stake of some kind in tar sands, you conceded the argument. Have a good day.
Ever heard of Prelude? That'll be the world's largest floating structure, soon to be parked off Australia producing LNG, and with no fracking involved.
Also I'm prepared to put up with some despotic regimes if it means we don't boil the oceans.
Well, I wasn't advocating tar sands here, I just repeated the info I got from the article.
However, it is a reality that this industry exists, so sure it might be better to not extract tar sands at all, but as long as it's happening anyway why not make it as clen as possible?
Because making it as clean as possible still leaves it as something we shouldn't be doing at all! I truly believe this will be viewed as one of humanity's worst ideas once global warning properly kicks in.
Because it uses existing infrastructure rather than requiring the construction of pipelines.
Plus I don't see why pipelines wouldn't work; assuming you could just carry the balls along with water and use a diverter of some sort to separate the balls from water at the pumping stages.
One problem with pipelines is that once you've sunk billions of dollars into building them, you have an enormous vested interest in continuing to use them.
Why would I run a pipeline on my land to provide you with customers while I don't get paid ? If something breaks (which occurs every year) I have no recourse and my land is in bad shape.
Nice, although I'm wondering which company will trade efficiency (using spheres to transport a liquid means you have lots of "wasted" space) for environmental safety... without a law imposing it, at least.
Maybe the economic incentive of balls just "rolling away" (thus remaining recoverable) in the event of a pipeline/tanker/carriage leak could balance this?
They are not only trading it for environmental saftey. As mentioned in another comment, using these balls you don't have to rely on specialized rail waggons anymore. So, while you may lose some space due to inefficient packing, you could easily make that up by using lots more of (assumedly) cheaper general-purpose/coal waggons.
Specialized rail wagons aren't expensive compared to other parts of the transportation costs - if you have the option of 5 specialized wagons or 6 "cheap" wagons, then using 5 wagons is cheaper.
Canadian tar sands should not be turned into oil at all -- there's no clean way to do so and the whole endeavor is based on continued government subsidies for it to be cost effective. Canada has a rep for being progressive and environmentally friendly but this is anything but.
- How solid are those pebbles? I assume they're not like soft blobs that can easily split and merge together? But then how much abuse they can take? E.g. if they crack easily, you can't really stack them together very high.
The article mentions using rail cars to transport the bitumen balls -- but given the nature of the material, would they not stick together into clumps / semi-solid layers at the bottoms of rail cars? Coal is solid / brittle, almost slippery. These things seem to be the opposite.
so, you make pellets. Then you have to mix them with some "light" oil produced during the production of pellets.
So you still have to transport them together.
I cannot really understand how this is better than carrying oil directly.
They mention using the byproduct oil to reconstitute the pellets, but that oil could come from another source. I would picture a system where the pellets are shipped from alberta to houston etc., and the light oil produced by the process is used as fuel within alberta or transported to local refineries by smaller pipeline or train/truck. The balls would be reconstituted using oil available at the houston refinery, or using oil produced at that refinery in the oil upgrading process.
not really, the bit where it mentions that you also need the oil byproduct to reconstitute the heavy oil is at the end of the article, while the mention of "easy to clean" is at the beginning, and (seems to?) only pertains to the pellets.
Could the oil not be put in containers and transported by rail in its original form anyway? I'm not sure if converting to pellets really makes the problem easier to solve...
This misreable trade is all that stands between many people and poverty. Green energy alternatives have years to decades before completely making hydrocaebons irrelevant. Electric cars certainly a big step, but only in beginning stages of market penetration.
> This misreable trade is all that stands between many people and poverty.
Nah, that's exaggeration. Tar sands are extremely polluting and the 'many people' are those that are employed in an industry that didn't even exist a decade ago, it's mostly boom towns specifically constructed around getting this oil out of the ground.
I find it quite interesting that we would impose environmental constraints on the third world - where people really need to fight to make ends meet - and yet allow something as bad as this because 'many people might land in poverty', when in fact they have alternatives, just not as lucrative.
It is the oil. The bitumen is cracked into lighter fractions like gasoline.
(The other current method of transporting bitumen is to dilute it with naptha, which has to be sent back to the extraction site in order to be used with the next lot of bitumen)
Oil comes in many 'fractions', the heavier fractions are the ones like what this article is about (bitumen), the lighter ones are crude, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and gas forms.
Crackers (in oil refineries) take as input a heavier fraction and then break apart and sort the molecules by length giving various different outputs which can then be used in different applications.
You're right, we also need to ban, cars, milk, beef, beer, clothes, plastics, .. oh crap we've now banned everything that underpins our modern technological age.
What makes you think that any of those things, including plastics, must by made from fossil oil? So tired of being told that the only way to do things, is the way we are currently doing them. Heck, we don't even have to make so much stuff out of plastic at all, and considering where that plastic is turning up in the food chain, it might be worth the expense to start finding replacements. Aluminum recycles nicely, hemp makes some excellent fabrics, cows will do just fine on a diet of grass.
I think the call for a ban was reflecting the fact that a lot of energy is required to produce usable crude oil from tar sands. It basically involves burning natural gas to produce steam to "melt" the tar sands to be able to flow. This makes the CO2 footprint of tar sands oil significantly higher than standard oil, it would be like powering your car with coal rather than oil. A reasonable CO2 tax would render tar sands uneconomic.
You understand the carbon cycle then. So what is the plan with that & coal & oil?
These are problems that humans understood 60 years ago. Since then it's been a few generations of scientists and engineers thinking they were each too small to make a difference on the world. It's starting to be too late for that kind of thinking.
Tar sands are massively CO2 intensive, as well as hugely destructive of land. Take a look at satellite imagery of extraction areas - they literally tear the surface of the earth off. Watercourses are polluted with all kinds of horrible poisons as a result. One has to be wilfully ignorant or cynical to ignore the fact that we really shouldn't be exploiting this energy resource at all if we want to avoid cooking the planet, in favour of praising a method that facilitates even greater destruction. Where does it end?! :|
Don't forget the tailings ponds that are constructed to park the waste and residue chemicals from extraction and processing. They are simply left there until time and eventual facilities decay allow them to leak into nearby waterways.
Does anyone see the irony in this? "We admit this is utterly dangerous for the environment so instead of sending it out in liquid form we're now going to send it out in small pellets so they can then be transformed and it can pollute the world exactly where we want it to pollute."
