MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387033165 · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-41701-z

Carbon intensity of global crude oil trading and market policy implications

2023· article· en· W4387033165 on OpenAlexaff
Yash Dixit, Hassan M. El-Houjeiri, Jean‐Christophe Monfort, Liang Jing, Yiqi Zhang, James Littlefield, Wennan Long, Christoph Falter, Alhassan Badahdah, Joule Bergerson, Raymond L. Speth, Steven R. H. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSaudi AramcoAramco Americas
KeywordsCrude oilCarbon marketIntensity (physics)Natural resource economicsBusinessCarbon fibersEnvironmental scienceEconomicsGreenhouse gasPetroleum engineeringComputer scienceBiologyGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The energy mix transition has accelerated the need for more accurate emissions reporting throughout the petroleum supply chain. Despite increasing environmental regulations and pressure for emissions disclosure, the low resolution of existing carbon footprint assessment does not account for the complexity of crude oil trading. The lack of source crude traceability has led to poor visibility into the “well-to-refinery-entrance” carbon intensities at the level of granular pathways between producers and destination markets. Using high-fidelity datasets, optimization algorithms to facilitate supply chain traceability and bottom-up, physics-based emission estimators, we show that the variability in global “well-to-refinery-entrance” carbon intensities at the level of crude trade pathways is significant: 4.2–214.1 kg-CO 2 -equivalent/barrel with a volume-weighted average of 50.5 kg-CO 2 -equivalent/barrel. Coupled with oil supply forecasts under 1.5 °C scenarios up to 2050, this variability translates to additional CO 2 -equivalent savings of 1.5–6.1 Gigatons that could be realized solely by prioritizing low-carbon supply chain pathways without other capital-intensive mitigation measures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207