The oil and gas industry in Canada is a prosperous industry that involves the rehabilitation and/or installation of new pipelines and facilities, which results in an increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This paper compares the amount of GHG emissions of pilot-tube micro tunneling (PTMT) and hand tunneling through a case study that involved replacing an old pipeline and installing a new pipeline. The project site was located in the northeast of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in which PTMT and hand tunneling were used. In the calculation, the GHG emissions were classified as two parts: construction and transportation emissions. The indices used to specify the GHG emissions are the estimated masses of carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxide (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The construction emissions calculations are functions of construction hours, type of equipment, loading factor, and emission factor. The transportation emissions calculations are mainly affected by equipment type, distance, and the number of trips required to transport material and equipment. The results indicate that for both methods, CO2 is the main source of GHG emissions. In an installation of the same size and length of pipeline, adopting PTMT would reduce the GHG emissions compared with using hand tunneling.
Want to Read the Full Article?
Click the button below to download a PDF of the full article.