Emission Formula for 1.1 Trillion Metric Tons of Crude Oil

Correction: Metric Tons of Crude should read 1.1 trillion barrels of Crude

Hello Tinker65,

"I put a search in for Emission formula for one Ton of crude oil".

It brought back these few findings and I list the search address first:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLJ_enGB294GB294&q=Emission+formula+for+i+ton+of+crude+oil

1. Energy Economics : Allocating the CO2 emissions of an oil refinery ...

Allocation of CO2 emissions with the Aumann–Shapley formula. 6. Conclusion; References ..... CO2 emissions (ton per ton of processed crude oil), 0.05, 0.04 ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140988306000156
by A Pierru - 2007

2. Applied Energy : Modelling and allocation of CO2 emissions in a ...

In other words, the formula (1) is a sum of areas of rectangles, with as many rectangles .... CO2 emissions (ton per ton of processed crude-oil), 0.05, 0.04 ...
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306261907000165
by D Babusiaux - 2007 -

I do not know whether you will find all you need on one site but the first page seems promising, of which these are just four, obviously.

This sound ambitious and interesting!

So, good luck and please stay in touch.

Have a great new year...................

Without knowing the type of oil you are talking about, wouldn't this number be a WAG? You can expect the gasoline and other regulated products to be a little bit below the specification for sulfur, at least in the US. Where would you be refining this, that would probably make a difference as well...

One would assume that the number on the link above defines itself as all forms of crude. The goal appears to be to find out the resultant of greenhouse gases for 1.1 trillion barrels of oil if pumped, shipped and refined. No variable for the amount of energy it would take to pump crude oil from 1.5 or deeper wells however.

Even if you define it that way, I would still have a tough time believing that you could come up with any sort of reasonable number. What are you refining it into? I agree with the apparent goal, I just don't think it is a logical goal.

The deep well conundrum is not really a factor. From a practical perspective, once oil becomes too deep (too expensive) to pay for itself with a healthy profit thrown in, we will long ago have moved to a new energy paradigm. Its tremendous value is in the fact of its cheapness as an energy source. Take cheap out of the equation and so long oil. Put something in oils' place that is cheaper or at least at parity and so long oil.

My interest is scholarly; to determine a gross number for emissions. I'm often asked about energy alternatives and knowing a ball park figure for why a combination of solar, wind, water powered energy combination is advantageous over oil power is a good statistic to have in ones quiver. Knowing the pollution impact is useful, especially if we humans are stupid enough to actually try to BURN all that oil before moving over into another source of energy. The only statistic I have ready to hand at this time is that the U.S. puts 10 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere annually; China will surpass us this decade but only after a hard fight (duh).

Is this sweet crude? Which oil field does it come from?

There is a great deal of variance in crudes from one field to the other.

There is no one simplistic answer for this question.

Thank you jmart23,

I agree - t'isn't an easy formula due to the variables. I've perused the list of links earlier in this thread and I'm somewhat overwhumped with the complexity of the problems. But, still working on it on a part time basis at this juncture. Thanks for the interest and input from all. I'm fairly confident that if we were to burn all 1.1 trillion barrels of crude oil currently known to be less than 2.5 miles deep - this planet will have long since slippery sloped over the precipice into an atmosphere similar to Mercury's. Tinker65