@mastersthesis {49528,
	title = {Life cycle greenhouse emissions, consumptive water use and levelized costs of unconventional oil in North America},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {138},
	address = {Carnegie Mellon University},
	abstract = {Conventional petroleum production in many countries that supply U.S. crude oil as well as domestic production has declined in recent years. Along with instability in the world oil market, this has stimulated the discussion of developing unconventional oil production, e.g., oil sands and oil shale. Expanding the U.S. energy mix to include oil sands and oil shale may be an important component in diversifying and securing the U.S. energy supply. At the same time, life cycle GHG emissions of these energy sources and consumptive water use are a concern. In this study, consumptive water use includes not only fresh water use but entire consumptive use including brackish water and seawater. The goal of this study is to determine the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and consumptive water use of synthetic crude oil (SCO) derived from Canadian oil sands and U.S. oil shale to be compared with U.S. domestic crude oil, U.S. imported crude oil, and coal-to-liquid (CTL). Levelized costs of SCO derived from Canadian oil sands and U.S. oil shale were also estimated. The results of this study suggest that CTL with no carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and current electricity grid mix is the worst while crude oil imported from United Kingdom is the best in GHG emissions. The life cycle GHG emissions of oil shale surface mining, oil shale in-situ process, oil sands surface mining, and oil sands in-situ process are 43\% to 62\%, 13\% to 32\%, 5\% to 22\%, and 11\% to 13\% higher than those of U.S. domestic crude oil. Oil shale in-situ process has the largest consumptive water use among alternative fuels, evaluated due to consumptive water use in electricity generation. Life cycle consumptive water use of oil sands in-situ process is the lowest. Specifically, fresh water consumption in the production processes is the most concern given its scarcity. However, disaggregated data on fresh water consumption in the total water consumption of each fuel production process is not available. Given current information, it is inconclusive whether unconventional oil would require more or less consumptive fresh water use than U.S. domestic crude oil production. It depends on the water conservative strategy applied in each process. Increasing import of SCO derived from Canadian oil sands and U.S. oil shale would slightly increase life cycle GHG emissions of the U.S. petroleum status quo. The expected additional 2 million bpd of Canadian SCO from oil sands and U.S. oil shale would increase life cycle GHG emissions of the U.S. petroleum status quo on average only 10 and 40 kg CO 2 equiv/bbl, or about 7.5 and 29 million tons CO2 equiv/year. However this increase represents less than 1 and 5\% of U.S. transportation emissions in 2007. Because U.S. oil shale resources are located in areas experiencing water scarcity, methods to manage the issue were explored. The result also shows that trading water rights between Upper and Lower Colorado River basin and transporting synthetic crude shale oil to refinery elsewhere is the best scenario for life cycle GHG emissions and consumptive water use of U.S. oil shale production. GHG emissions and costs of water supply system contribute only 1-2\% of life cycle GHG emissions and 1-6\% of total levelized costs. The levelized costs of using SCO from oil shale as feedstock are greater than SCO from oil sands, and CTL. The levelized costs of producing liquid fuel (gasoline and diesel) using SCO derived from Canadian oil sands as feedstock are approximately $0.80-$1.00/gal of liquid fuel. The levelized costs of SCO derived from oil shale are $1.6 -$4.5/gal of liquid fuel (oil shale surface mining process) and $1.6-$5.2/gal of liquid fuel (oil shale in-situ process). From an energy security perspective, increasing the use of Canadian oil sands, U.S. oil shale, and CTL may be preferable to increasing Middle East imports. However, oil shale and CTL has the advantage security wise over Canadian oil sands because oil shale and coal are abundant U.S. resources. From a GHG emissions and consumptive water use perspective, CTL requires less consumptive water use than oil shale in-situ process but produces more GHG emissions than oil shale in-situ and surface mining process, unless CTL plant performs CCS and renewable electricity.
},
	url = {http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/gd../theses/Mangmeechai_Thesis.pdf},
	author = {Mangmeechai, Aweewan}
}
