In a recent New York Times opinion piece, NASA climate scientist James Hansen again puts forward his very compelling argument for strong action on limiting global CO2 emissions. Some observers have challenged his thinking, but the warnings he has given over the last thirty years have proven to be pretty much on the mark as observations show that the world is warming.
In the most recent piece, Hansen links the production of synthetic crude from oil sands bitumen in Alberta as a game changer for the climate. He states;
That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.” If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate. . . . . . . The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m.
There is no doubt that the oil sands bitumen reserves in Canada are very significant. In a recent report the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) estimates that provable reserves stand at some 170 billion bbls, with a potential total reserve of some 1.7 trillion bbls. The first figure represents the current estimate of recoverable oil on the basis of existing technology, whereas the latter is indicative of the total amount of oil in the region, recoverable or not. The second figure is the one that equates to 240 gigatons of carbon quoted by James Hansen.
But actual production of oil from the region gives rise to a completely different set of figures. Production of oil sands bitumen started in the late 1960s and by 2010 had reached some 1.6 million bbls per day (ERCB figures). ERCB estimates production at about 3.6 mbbl/day by 2020. Assuming an increasing trajectory which sees production doubling again by 2050 (to 7 million bbbls/day), total cumulative production over 80 years would be 74 billion bbls, which equates to some 35 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted through the production and use of the oil. This equates to an increase in atmospheric CO2 of about 2 ppm (by contrast, Saudi production over the same period could contribute about 6 ppm). If production continued through to 2100 and reached 10 million bbls/day, cumulative production would exceed current proven reserves (so assuming technology improvements) and would equate to an increase in atmospheric CO2 of about 7 ppm over 130 years of production. The resource may be vast, but production is limited by the rate at which new projects come on stream. Given a scenario of complete inaction on climate change over the very long term, it may well be that oil sands might eventually contribute some 100 ppm to atmospheric CO2 levels, but that could take 1000 years. Current trends would likely have us hitting a climate induced “brick wall” long before that.
The point here is not to argue that this is all OK or that James Hansen is wrong, but to illustrate that the issue of CO2 emissions and the resulting climate impact cannot be linked to any individual fossil fuel extraction. Each and every major reserve on the planet can clearly only contribute a few ppm at most over the coming 50 to 100 years, but so goes the tragedy of the commons. This of course highlights the critical need for collective action.
The point that Hansen is really making is that oil sands is illustrative of an ongoing global trend to extract or mine increasingly challenging reserves of oil, gas and coal and bring them to market. Global energy markets are driving this behaviour and will probably continue to do so as population increases and economies develop. Put simply, energy is in demand and the market will respond.
Given the recent change in estimates for global natural gas supply, there is now evidence that the availability of fossil fuels may not be self limiting, at least for a century or so (and possibly much longer as extraction technology improves). This argues strongly for the introduction of carbon pricing, which Hansen also calls for in his opinion piece.
Carbon pricing is the essential precursor to technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), which may be the only available route forward to allow both energy demand to be met and CO2 emissions reduced. Alberta has at least started down this route, with a C$15 price driving behaviour in oil sands operations. That price, in combination with a technology incentive package, should see CCS activity emerge as part of future oil sands development.
This is perhaps the first time I actually see any real benefit of the carbon price. The shale oil / oil sand is often sour and to mass produce it the H2S shall be safely disposed. One of the available technology is reinjection. As the associated gas has to be treated anyway to remove H2S the CO2 from burning this gas can be removed as well. CO2 and H2S (SOx) can be possibly disposed at the same time. No doubt this will be very expensive but there is so much tight oil in the shale and sands that this is worth to be investigated. Gas or coal production is unlikely to pay for CO2 removal but the high price and immense reserves of shale oil and oil sands could change it. The oil price is far more interesting than the gas price, especially in US.
Dear David, great to read your blog. We must find a real way to sink the carbon. We have to make it cheaper to catch it than the energy we get from liberating it. I believe that all of life is cyclical: how to survive perceptible declines is at least as important as knowing how to remember how we achieved our long generational rise on a widening advantages platform since WW2.
“Put simply, energy is in demand and the market will respond.”
So that makes everthing ok. Got it.
BTW, clicking anywhere on this page causes it to scroll up to the top, which is annoying.
Clive, to your idea: “We have to make it cheaper to catch it than the energy we get from liberating it.” Dave is working very hard on that. By making fossil fuel more expensive catching CO2 and burying it might appear as a good idea. In other words: Nature gas is too cheap and we have to find creative ways how to make it more expensive and make more money. Why gas? Because Dave probably believes in oil peak and coal is ugly and cheap and not cool at all. Nuclear power is even worse and there is not enough subsidy for PV and wind.
Before Hansen changed from climate scientist (who is just wrong) to climate alarmist (who doesn’t care about science at all) he produced this paper.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long
Here he recommends focusing not on CO2 but other greenhouse gasses and aerosols instead. As he claims these are the main cause for the global warming. It is hard to tell why he become such an extremist after a decade of global non-warming and major scientific breakthroughs confirming that the runaway global warming is just political agenda.
His predictions were always wrong even in his better times when he turned up central heating in congress before his speech commemorating beginning of global warming era.
As people realized that there is nothing to fear from global warming alarmist invented climate disruption or extreme climate. Because we are unlucky enough that natural variability can deliver extreme events (such as rainy April in UK or sun cycles) the alarmists can continue to dodge inconvenient truth about the climate sensitivity to the CO2 concentration. Hansen spent his scientific career with tweaking his climate models. When he’s find that it is impossible to model runaway warming with CO2 he just switched to the activist mode. Most people appear to skip the scientific part altogether. While it is expectable from politics or top managers there is no apology for scientific advisors.
Unfortunately, it appears like the “sin” of alarmism pulls climate science closer to economics or politics rather than to the “classic” scientific field.
Besides Alberta, Australia seems to have implemented carbon tax too.
http://www.350resources.org.uk/2011/07/10/australia-imposes-carbon-tax-15-per-tonne-from-2012/