Improving Robustness of LCA Results Through Stakeholder Engagement: A Case Study of Emerging Oil Sands Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life cycle assessments can help to inform decision-making about greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction opportunities but are often not embraced by stakeholders associated with industries where study results are highly scrutinized and often contentious. This project was motivated by stakeholder interest in understanding open source life cycle models (the Oil Production Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimator, OPGEE, and the Petroleum Refinery Life Cycle Inventory Model, PRELIM) and how accurately they can estimate emissions for existing oil sands projects and emerging technologies. We evaluate the robustness of these models and improve them using data from three existing oil sands projects (mining + upgrading, mining + dilution, and steam assisted gravity drainage, SAGD, + dilution). The models are then applied to estimate the GHG emissions reduction potential for two emerging in situ oil sands technologies. We find that, when boundaries are aligned, OPGEE can generate upstream GHG emissions estimates for the projects modeled within 1-4% of company reported GHG emissions data. Extending the boundary to include indirect (life cycle) emissions can lead to a doubling in upstream GHG emissions intensity. The two emerging technologies evaluated in the study can reduce upstream emissions by 14-19% compared to a SAGD project operating at the same reservoir, or 1.4-1.9% on a well-to-wheel basis. This work contributes a revised process of conducting LCAs that includes stakeholder input throughout and results in more robust and transparent estimations of emissions from deploying existing and emerging technologies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".