Study: Oil sands emit up to 15 per cent more carbon than crude

Researchers have warned that while exploiting Canada's oil sand reserves could offer advantages in terms of energy security compared to the Middle East, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from extracting the oil are 15 per cent higher than traditional crude oil production.

In a study released this week, business information specialist IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (IHS CERA) said that Canadian oil sands represent the world's largest reserve of recoverable oil after Saudi Arabia.

The report, Growth in the Canadian Oil Sands: Finding a New Balance, estimates that production from oil sands worldwide had doubled from about 600,000 barrels a day in 2000 to 1.3 million barrels a day in 2009.

"Development of the oil sands has made Canada the number one foreign supplier of oil to the US and has become an integral part of the deep economic partnership between the two countries, which includes Canada as the largest export market for American goods and services," the report states.

The researchers also claim that Canada's oil reserves represent a more stable source of supply than traditional overseas sources such as the Middle East and Africa.

"The Canadian oil sands are an immense resource – 173 billion barrels – and carry the advantage of being located in a politically stable and secure country adjacent to the US," the report states.

But despite the advantages of Canada's oil sand reserves, the researchers echoed the concern of many green groups, warning that oil sands developments will come at a high environmental cost.

The report states that from extraction and processing through to combustion of its refined products – the so-called "well-to-wheel" footprint – GHG emissions from oil sands are between five and 15 per cent higher than the average crude oil processed in the US.

The estimate is lower than that put forward by green groups, many of which have argued that the carbon impact of oil extracted from tar and oil sands can be eight times higher than for conventional oil, but it will still lend weight to calls for tighter regulation of tar sands developments.

To help tackle the extra environmental costs of extracting oil from oil sands, the researchers recommend that a common legislative framework is developed between the US and Canada to regulate GHG emissions and ensure the environmental costs of oil sands developments are accounted for.

"Past co-operation between Canada and the US on energy issues has been mutually beneficial," said David Hobbs, IHS CERA's head of research. "Continued co-operation is in the interests of both countries. Developing a truly integrated approach between the US and Canada for regulating GHG emissions would be a major milestone in international co-operation to combat climate change."

The report comes as companies investing in oil sands projects are facing fierce criticism for their involvement in the controversial practice.

Last month, an environmental pressure group accused Royal Dutch Shell of reneging on written agreements to reduce its GHG emissions at a Canadian oil sands project.

Green campaigners from the Pembina Institute released a statement arguing that although Shell has tried to position itself as environmentally responsible, the energy company has failed to deliver on promises made in 2007 to reduce emissions at oil sand projects in Jackpine Mine and Muskeg River Mine.

"Shell's decision to break these binding agreements calls into question its claims of environmental leadership. Shell seems to believe it can break promises to Canadians with impunity," said Marlo Raynolds, executive director of the Pembina Institute.