MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800394279 · doi:10.7939/r3t14tx7k

Life Cycle Assessment of Transportation Fuels from Canada’s Oil Sands through Development of Theoretical Engineering Models

2014· article· en· W2800394279 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetroleum engineeringOil sandsPetroleumLife-cycle assessmentFossil fuelEnvironmental scienceEngineeringForensic engineeringWaste managementAsphaltGeologyEconomicsGeographyArchaeologyProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oil sands in Canada are significant in fulfilling the current and the future energy demands of North America. The development of these resources, besides the increased awareness in global carbon management, has given way to various policy regulations such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and Europe’s Fuel Quality Directive that demand proper quantification and estimation of life cycle (LC) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation fuels. Previous studies show the variability in oil sands projects and the demand for proper quantification of project-specific energy consumption and GHG emissions. The novelty of this study is its aim at developing theoretical models based on engineering first principles to quantify the energy demand and GHGs emitted in oil sands operations using project-specific parameters. These models are used to quantify the GHG emissions in surface mining, steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), upgrading, transportation, and refining operations, through identifying the key sensitive parameters. Further, a comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) for transportation fuels (gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel) derived from Canada’s oil sands is conducted in which all the possible pathways from bitumen extraction to use in vehicles are explored. The life cycle inventory data for the LCA are obtained from the developed theoretical models. The impact of cogeneration of electricity in oil sands recovery, extraction, and upgrading on the LC GHG emissions of gasoline is explored. Sub process level mass allocation is followed to allocate the refinery emissions among the products. Emissions in surface mining and SAGD range from 180 to 302 kg of CO2 eq/m3 of bitumen and 238 to 1,204 kg of CO2 eq/m3 of bitumen, respectively, representing a wide range of variability in oil sands projects. Temperature and warm water consumption in surface mining and the steam-to-oil ratio (SOR) in SAGD are major parameters affecting GHG emissions. Hydroconversion upgrading is more energy- and GHG-intensive than delayed coker upgrading but gives a higher SCO yield. Refining SCO to transportation fuels produces 41% and 49% fewer emissions than do dilbit and bitumen, respectively. LC well-to-wheel (WTW) GHG emissions range from 106.8 to 116 g-CO2eq/MJ of gasoline; 100.5 to 115.2 g-CO2eq/MJ of diesel, and 96.4 to 109.2 g-CO2 eq/MJ of jet fuel, depending on the pathway. Combustion emissions (64.7% to 70.3%) are the largest constituent of WTW emissions for gasoline production; recovery forms 7.2% to 16%. The WTW GHG intensity of pathways depends on the allocation method and transportation fuel chosen for comparison.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it