- processing the raw emissions
Processing the emissions from coal burning will require more energy than processing natural gas emissions (thanks to the high quantities of other gasses, specifically sulphur dioxide, which need to be dealt with when coal is burnt). Oil will probably fall somewhere in between. Though obviously, that’s just a best guess.

- pumping the refined carbon through an overground pipeline (ie. energy used/kilometre of pipeline)
That’ll vary wildly depending upon the diameter of the pipeline and the gas pressure employed.

- shipping the carbon out to an offshore depleted oil well
Depends upon how far out the well is. Also, chances are it’ll be transported by pipeline rather than ship. And in the case of onshore oil wells, no shipping or offshore pipework will be required.

- pumping the CO2 into the oil well
Will depend upon a variety of factors such as local geology, well depth, injection pressure, and more.

All in all, it’s a very complicated can of worms you’re opening here. But one that certainly needs to be opened. Individual CCS schemes are ripe for this kind of analysis, but I doubt there’s going to be a “typical” figure for CCS schemes in general, and any average or mean value derived from comparing several schemes may well be meaningless if applied to any specific scheme.

Having said that, the place I’d advise you to check out for further research would be the [energyresources] mailing list.
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/

You can search the archives without joining the group. I can’t guarantee what you’re looking for is in there, but it might point you in the right direction.

I am currently trying to find out if there is any information available with respect to the carbon emissions generated from the capture, transport and storage of carbon.
Im looking for info such as the CO2 produced (or energy used) from:
- processing the raw emissions,
- pumping the refined carbon through an overground pipeline (ie. energy used/kilometre of pipeline)
- shipping the carbon out to an offshore depleted oil well
- pumping the CO2 into the oil well

I suspect theres no easy answer or reference point but its worth asking.

Thanks

Brendan

It sucks hole, but it happens. I know the profs felt shitty screwing over a student like that. But he got an extension, and got on with redoing his research – which turned out well (if a year or two late) – and bore no grudges. He’s now a very successful researcher in his own right.

One barrel = 159 litres, weighs 127 kg, 20% lost in processing (or not burnt) = 100kg (which agrees to your figure).

So, yes, 40 million barrels = 13 million tonnes CO2.

Anyway, what’s 40 million barrels between friends? Global oil usage is 80 million barrels per day, so whether it runs out on 17 May 2083 at 3 in the morning or 3 in the afternoon is neither here nor there.

You’re absolutely right though; to err is indeed human.

You’ve confused me there Mark (it’s been a long day). That “40 million x 127 kg x 3.17 = 16.1 million tonnes” thing; I don’t see what you’re getting at.

Assuming the 3.15 multiplier is correct (and I’ve double-checked it and believe that it is), then, having established that a barrel of crude oil contains 100.73kg of liquid fuel (see http://numero57.net/?p=255), it stands to reason that one barrel will emit 317kg of CO2 when consumed.

To get the total emissions from X barrels, then, seems to be a simple multiplication.

I was wrong about the amount of CO2 being captured, but I’m pretty sure I’m right on this.

However, another daft mistake you made was 40 million barrels x 317 kg = 12.7 million tonnes.

Don’t forget that 1 barrel = 127 kg.

So that should be 40 million x 127 kg x 3.17 = 16.1 million tonnes. Which is close to the prof’s figure of 20 million (which is presumably a mid figure between CO2 caused by 40 million and by 60 million barrels)

That said, I don’t believe for one second that you can compress CO2 to such a degree that it displaces more than 3.17 times its own weight in oil. But happily, I don’t believe in MMGW any more either.

My point exactly. You shouldn’t feel “sick” about this. A mistake was made, a mistake was pointed out, a mistake was acknowledged.

Excellent, knowledge moves forward, we all know more than we did before. What’s not to like here?

Sure, all of us (and I’ve made similar mistakes) would prefer that the mistake was never made, but being infallible is given to no man except that bloke in Rome.

Seriously, buck up! That you were in error shows that you are human. That you agreed that you were in error, that you corrected it, shows that you are, well, given your political views, perhaps you don’t think that “gentleman” is quite the compliment that I think it is. Would “mensch” be an acceptable substitute?

I do, of course, as you know, disagree with you on many matters. This one though? It’s not a matter of disagreement, it’s an error, and neither you nor I, nor anyone else, is going to progress from here to the grave without making some of those.

What matters is how one deals with them and, for what little my opinion is worth, you’ve done exactly the right thing.

Good man, well done.

However, I genuinely felt it important not only to explain that my work contained an error, but also to explain what that error was and why it occurred.

I was absolutely mortified by the thought that someone might think I deliberately “cooked the numbers” given my history of criticising the oil industry. There are certain less-than-fair-minded individuals who would be more than willing to imbue my “error” with an agenda. That’s the kind of thing that sinks careers (and rightly so if such an agenda did exist and resulted in deliberate falsification).

That’s the only reason I’m bending over backwards to make it clear where and why the mistake happened. Seriously, you’ve no idea how sick I feel about this mess.

I agree it’s widely accepted. I don’t agree that it’s true. There’s nothing in the IPCC reports (which, I assume, we’re all using as our baseline) to say that it is.

More importantly, above about Jim’s defensiveness about his calculation. Please, don’t be so: I like and admire lots of your writing, I disagree with other parts of it. But I’m not counting coup in having shown you to be “wrong”. “You”, “We”, “I” “Us” will get to the truth about such matters: as I was rightly corrected on my response to that Lancet report. Jim was righteously corrected here.

And thus do we find truth.

I assume that is what we’re all after?