Aircraft and satellite observations reveal historical gap between top–down and bottom–up CO2 emissions from Canadian oil sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Measurement-based estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from complex industrial operations are challenging to obtain, but serve as an important, independent check on inventory-reported emissions. Such top–down estimates, while important for oil and gas (O&G) emissions globally, are particularly relevant for Canadian oil sands (OS) operations, which represent the largest O&G contributor to national GHG emissions. We present a multifaceted top–down approach for estimating CO2 emissions that combines aircraft-measured CO2/NOx emission ratios (ERs) with inventory and satellite-derived NOx emissions from Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) and TROPOspheric Ozone Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) and apply it to the Athabasca Oil Sands Region (AOSR) in Alberta, Canada. Historical CO2 emissions were reconstructed for the surface mining region, and average top–down estimates were found to be >65% higher than facility-reported, bottom–up estimates from 2005 to 2020. Higher top–down vs. bottom–up emissions estimates were also consistently obtained for individual surface mining and in situ extraction facilities, which represent a growing category of energy-intensive OS operations. Although the magnitudes of the measured discrepancies vary between facilities, they combine such that the observed reporting gap for total AOSR emissions is ≥(31 ± 8) Mt for each of the last 3 years (2018–2020). This potential underestimation is large and broadly highlights the importance of continued review and refinement of bottom–up estimation methodologies and inventories. The ER method herein offers a powerful approach for upscaling measured facility-level or regional fossil fuel CO2 emissions by taking advantage of satellite remote sensing observations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".