4.7 Article

Expectations and drivers of future greenhouse gas emissions from Canada's oil sands: An expert elicitation

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 100, Issue -, Pages 162-169

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.014

Keywords

Oil sands; Greenhouse gases; Emissions intensity; Expert elicitation; Forecasting

Funding

  1. Carbon Management Canada [D1]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [238312]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity of oil sands operations has declined over time but has not offset absolute emissions growth due to rapidly increasing production. Policy making, decisions about research and development, and stakeholder discourse should be informed by an assessment of future emissions intensity trends, however informed projections are not easily generated. This study investigates expected trends in oil sands GHG emissions using expert elicitation. Thirteen experts participated in a survey, providing quantitative estimates of expected GHG emissions intensity changes and qualitative identifications of drivers. Experts generally agree that emissions intensity reductions are expected at commercially operating projects by 2033, with the greatest reductions expected through the use of technology in the in situ area of oil sands activity (40% mean reduction at multiple projects, averaged across experts). Incremental process changes are expected to contribute less to reducing GHG emissions intensity, however their potentially lower risk and cost may result in larger cumulative reductions. Both technology availability and more stringent GHG mitigation policies are required to realize these emissions intensity reductions. This paper demonstrates a method to increase rigour in emissions forecasting activities and the results can inform policy making, research and development and modelling and forecasting studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available