Climatic Change

, 84:241 | Cite as

Scraping the bottom of the barrel: greenhouse gas emission consequences of a transition to low-quality and synthetic petroleum resources

Article

Abstract

We investigate uncertainties about conventional petroleum resources and substitutes for conventional petroleum, focusing on the impact of these uncertainties on future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. We use examples from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios as a baseline for comparison. The studied uncertainties include, (1) uncertainty in emissions factors for petroleum substitutes, (2) uncertainties resulting from poor knowledge of the amount of remaining conventional petroleum, and (3) uncertainties about the amount of production of petroleum substitutes from natural gas and coal feedstocks. We find that the potential effects of a transition to petroleum substitutes on GHG emissions are significant. A transition to low-quality and synthetic petroleum resources such as tar sands or coal-to-liquids synfuels could raise upstream GHG emissions by several gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) per year by mid-century unless mitigation steps are taken.

References

  1. Adelman MA (1995) The genie out of the bottle: world oil since 1970. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson S, Newell R (2004) Prospects for carbon capture and storage technologies. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 29:109–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbiroli G, Mazzaracchio P (1995) Synthetic fuel technologies as strategic pathways. Energy Sources 17(5):595–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartis JT, LaTourrette T, Dixon L, Peterson DJ, Cecchine G (2005) Oil shale development in the United States: prospects and policy issues. RAND: infrastructure, safety and environment. RAND, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechtel (1998) Baseline design/economics for advanced Fischer–Tropsch Technology. U. D. F. E. T. Center, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenkert AL, Smith SJ, Kim SH, Pitcher HM (2003) Model documentation for the MiniCAM. Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Lab, College Park, MDGoogle Scholar
  7. British Petroleum (2005) BP statistical review of world energy. British Petroleum, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell CJ, Sivertsson A (2003) Updating the depletion model. In: Second International Workshop on Oil Depletion, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  9. CERI (2004) Oil sands supply outlook: potential supply and costs of crude bitumen and synthetic crude oil in Canada, 2003–2017. CERI Media Briefing. CERI, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  10. Corke M (1998) GTL technologies focus on lowering costs. Oil Gas J 1998(September 21):71–77Google Scholar
  11. de Vries B, van Vuuren DP, den Elzen MGJ, Janssen MA (2001) The Targets IMage Energy Regional (TIMER) model: technical documentation. RIVM REPORT. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. Deffeyes KS (2001) Hubbert’s Peak: the impending world oil shortage. Princeton University Press, Princeton, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Deffeyes KS (2005) Beyond oil: the view from Hubbert’s Peak. Hill and Wang, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Dry ME (2002) The Fischer–Tropsch process: 1950–2000. Catal Today 71(3–4):227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EIA (2005) Performance profiles of major energy producers – 2003. Energy Information Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Energy Information Administration (2004) International Energy Outlook. US Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleisch TH, Sills RA, Briscoe MD (2002) 2002 – emergence of the gas-to-liquids industry: a review of global GTL developments. J Nat Gas Chem 2002(11):1–14Google Scholar
  18. Gately D (2004) OPEC's incentives for faster output growth. Energy Journal 25(2):75–96Google Scholar
  19. Gharbi RBC (2001) Economic optimization of EOR processes using knowledge-based system: case studies. Pet Sci Technol 19(7–8):797–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green DW, Willhite GP (1998) Enhanced oil recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TXGoogle Scholar
  21. Greene DL (1999) An assessment of energy and environmental issues related to the use of gas-to-liquid fuels in transportation. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TNGoogle Scholar
  22. Hallock JL, Tharakan PJ, Hall CAS, Jefferson M, Wu W (2004) Forecasting the limits to the availability and diversity of global conventional oil supply. Energy 29(11):1673–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hirsch RL, Bezdek R, Wendling RM (2005) Peaking of world oil production: impacts, mitigation, and risk management: SAICGoogle Scholar
  24. Huber PW, Mills MP (2005) The bottomless well: the twilight of fuel, the virtue of waste, and why we will never run out of energy. Basic, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. IMAGE (2001) The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES scenarios: a comprehensive analysis of emissions, climate change, and impacts in the 21st century. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment 2004, Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  26. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2000) IPCC special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson TL, Keith DW (2001) Electricity from fossil fuels without CO2 emissions: assessing the costs of carbon dioxide capture and sequestration in US electricity markets. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 51(October 2001):1452–1459Google Scholar
  28. Klett TR (2004) Oil and natural gas resource assessment: classifications and terminology. In: Cleveland C (ed) Encyclopedia of energy. Academic, New York, pp 595–605Google Scholar
  29. Kovscek AR (2002) Screening criteria for CO2 storage in oil reservoirs. Pet Sci Technol 20(7&8):841–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kunstler JH (2005) The long emergency: surviving the converging catastrophes of the twenty-first century. Atlantic Monthly, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Marland G (1983) Carbon-dioxide emission rates for conventional and synthetic fuels. Energy 8(12):981–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Messner S, Strubeggar M (1995) User’s guide for MESSAGE III. IIASA working papers. IIASA, Laxenburg, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  33. Messner S, Strubeggar M (2001) Model MESSAGE command line user manual. IIASA, Laxenburg, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  34. Meyer RF, Attanasi ED (2003) Heavy oil and bitumen – strategic petroleum resources. USGS Fact Sheets. US Geological Survey, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  35. Moritis G (2004) EOR continues to unlock oil resources. Oil Gas J 102(14):45–65Google Scholar
  36. NEB (2004) Canada’s oil sands: opportunities and challenges to 2015. Energy Market Assessment, National Energy Board, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  37. Odell PR (1999) Dynamics of energy technologies and global change. Energy Policy 27(12):737–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Odell PR (2004) Why carbon fuels will dominate the 21st century’s global energy economy. Multi-Science, BrentwoodGoogle Scholar
  39. Olivier JGJ, Bouman AF, Berdoski JJM, Veldt C, Bloos JPJ, Visschedijk AJH, van der Maas CWM, Zandveld PYJ (1999) Sectoral emission inventories of greenhouse gases for 1990 on a per country basis as well as on 1 × 1. Environ Sci Policy 2(1999):241–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parson EA, Keith DW (1998) Fossil fuels without CO2 emissions. Science 282:1053–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rattien S, Eaton D (1976) Oil Shale: the prospects and problems of an emerging energy industry. Annu Rev Energy 1:183–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rogner HH (1997) An assessment of world hydrocarbon resources. Annu Rev Energy Environ 22:217–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sato S, Enomoto M (1997) Development of new estimation method for CO2 evolved from oil shale. Fuel Process Technol 53:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simmons MR (2005) Twilight in the desert: the coming Saudi oil shock and the world economy. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Stauffer TR (1994) Trends in oil production costs in the Middle East, elsewhere. Oil Gas J 92(12):105–107Google Scholar
  46. Stevens SH, Kuuskraa VA, Gale J, Beecy D (2001) CO2 injection and sequestration in depleted oil and gas fields and deep coal seams: worldwide potential and costs. Environ Geosci 8(3):200–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Suncor (2003) Suncor energy Inc. 9th Annual Progress Report. Suncor Energy Inc., Fort McMurray, Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  48. Sundquist ET, Miller GA (1980) Oil shales and carbon dioxide. Science 208(4445):740–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Syncrude (2004). An action plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: action plan and 2003 progress report. Syncrude Project, Fort McMurray, Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  50. US Geological Survey World Energy Assessment Team (2000) US Geological Survey World Petroleum Assessment 2000. T. S. Ahlbrandt. USGS, Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  51. van Vuuren DP (2005) Email communication with Detlef van Vuuren. A. Brandt, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang MQ (1999) GREET 1.5 – transportation fuel cycle model – Volume 2: appendices of data and results. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, ILGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang M, Weber T, Finizza A, Wallace JPI (2001) Well-to-wheel energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of advanced fuel/vehicle systems – North American analysis: volume I, executive summary. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, ILGoogle Scholar
  54. Wang M, Lee H, Molburg J (2004) Allocation of energy use in petroleum refineries to petroleum products – implications for life-cycle energy use and emission inventory of petroleum transportation fuels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(1):34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilhelm DJ, Simbeck DR, Karp AD, Dickenson RL (2001) Syngas production for gas-to-liquids applications: technologies, issues and outlook. Fuel Process Technol 71(1–3):139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Williams B (2003) Heavy hydrocarbons playing key role in peak-oil debate, future energy supply. Oil Gas J 101(29):20–27Google Scholar
  57. Williams RH, Larson ED (2003) A comparison of direct and indirect liquefaction technologies for making fluid fuels from coal. Energy Sustain Dev 7(4)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Energy and Resources GroupUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations