Oil is China’s second-largest energy source, so it is essential to understand the country’s greenhouse gas emissions from crude-oil production. Chinese crude supply is sourced from numerous major global petroleum producers. Here, we use a per-barrel well-to-refinery life-cycle analysis model with data derived from hundreds of public and commercial sources to model the Chinese crude mix and the upstream carbon intensities and energetic productivity of China’s crude supply. We generate a carbon-denominated supply curve representing Chinese crude-oil supply from 146 oilfields in 20 countries. The selected fields are estimated to emit between ~1.5 and 46.9 g CO2eq MJ−1 of oil, with volume-weighted average emissions of 8.4 g CO2eq MJ−1. These estimates are higher than some existing databases, illustrating the importance of bottom-up models to support life-cycle analysis databases. This study provides quantitative insight into China’s energy policy and the economic and environmental implications of China’s oil consumption.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


  1. 1.

    World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and Population Division, 2015).

  2. 2.

    Myers, J. Which are the world’s fastest-growing economies? World Economic Forum (18 April 2016); https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/worlds-fastest-growing-economies/

  3. 3.

    Key World Energy Statistics (International Energy Agency, 2016); http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/key_energ_stat-2016-en

  4. 4.

    Liu, Z. China’s Carbon Emissions Report 2015 (Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, 2015); http://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/carbon-emissions-report-2015-final.pdf

  5. 5.

    China’s Key Energy Statistics (US Energy Information Administration, 2015); https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=CHN

  6. 6.

    S&P Global Platts China oil analytics: China oil demand little changed year over year in June. S&P Global (11 August 2016); https://www.platts.com/pressreleases/2016/081116

  7. 7.

    Statistical Database (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2017); http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/Statisticaldata/AnnualData/

  8. 8.

    Masnadi, M. S. & Brandt, A. R. Climate impacts of oil extraction increase significantly with oilfield age. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 551–556 (2017).

  9. 9.

    Environmental Performance Indicators – 2013 Data Report No. 2013E (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, 2014).

  10. 10.

    Saving Energy in the Oil and Gas Industry (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, 2013); https://www.world-petroleum.org/docs/docs/socialres/saving_energy_6_feb_2013.pdf

  11. 11.

    Energy Efficiency: Improving Energy Use from Production to Consumer (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, 2012); http://www.ipieca.org/resources/fact-sheet/energy-efficiency-improving-energy-use-from-production-to-consumer/

  12. 12.

    Masnadi, M. S. & Brandt, A. R. Energetic productivity dynamics of global super-giant oilfields. Energy Environ. Sci. 10, 1493–1504 (2017).

  13. 13.

    Gordon, D., Brandt, A. R. & Bergerson, J. Know Your Oil: Creating a Global Oil-Climate Index. (Carnegie, 2015).

  14. 14.

    Höök, M., Xu, T., Xiongqi, P. & Aleklett, K. Development journey and outlook of Chinese giant oilfields. Pet. Explor. Dev. 37, 237–249 (2010).

  15. 15.

    Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea (Council on Foreign Relations, accessed 10 October 2015); https://www.cfr.org/interactives/global-conflict-tracker#!/conflict/territorial-disputes-in-the-south-china-sea

  16. 16.

    Owen, N. A. & Schofield, C. H. Disputed South China sea hydrocarbons in perspective. Mar. Policy 36, 809–822 (2012).

  17. 17.

    Wang, J. et al. China’s unconventional oil: A review of its resources and outlook for long-term production. Energy 82, 31–42 (2015).

  18. 18.

    Gagnon, N., Hall, C. & Brinker, L. A preliminary investigation of energy return on energy investment for global oil and gas production. Energies 2, 490–503 (2009).

  19. 19.

    Guilford, M., Hall, C., O’Connor, P. & Cleveland, C. A new long term assessment of energy return on investment (EROI) for US oil and gas discovery and production. Sustainability 3, 1866–1887 (2011).

  20. 20.

    Cleveland, C. Net energy from the extraction of oil and gas in the United States. Energy 30, 769–782 (2005).

  21. 21.

    Brandt, A. R., Sun, Y., Bharadwaj, S., Livingston, D. & Tan, E. Energy return on investment (EROI) for forty global oilfields using a detailed engineering-based model of oil production. PLoS One 10, e0144141 (2015).

  22. 22.

    Court, V. & Fizaine, F. Long-term estimates of the global energy-return-on-investment (EROI) of coal, oil, and gas global productions. Ecol. Econ. 138, 145–159 (2017).

  23. 23.

    Dale, M., Krumdieck, S. & Bodger, P. Net energy yield from production of conventional oil. Energy Policy 39, 7095–7102 (2011).

  24. 24.

    Kopits, S. Oil and Economic Growth: A supply-Constrained View (Columbia University, 2014).

  25. 25.

    Cleveland, C. Energy quality and energy surplus in the extraction of fossil fuels in the US. Ecol. Econ. 6, 139–162 (1992).

  26. 26.

    Norgaard, R. Output, Input, and Productivity Change in US Petroleum Development: 1939-1968. PhD thesis, Univ. Chicago (1971).

  27. 27.

    Tripathi, V. & Brandt, A. Estimating decades-long trends in petroleum field energy return on investment (EROI) with an engineering-based model. PLoS One 12, e0171083 (2017).

  28. 28.

    Summary of Expansions, Updates, and Results in GREET®2016 Suite of Models (Systems Assessment Group, Energy Systems Division, ANL, 2016).

  29. 29.

    El-Houjeiri, H. M., Masnadi, M. S., Vafi, K., Duffy, J. & Brandt, A. R. Oil Production Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimator OPGEEv2.0a: User Guide & Technical Documentation (2017); https://pangea.stanford.edu/departments/ere/dropbox/EAO/OPGEE/OPGEE_documentation_v2.0a.pdf

  30. 30.

    El-Houjeiri, H. M., Brandt, A. R. & Duffy, J. E. Open-source LCA tool for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from crude-oil production using field characteristics. Environ. Sci. 47, 5998–6006 (2013).

  31. 31.

    Oil Climate Index (Carnegie, accessed 30 June 2017); http://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#analysis?opgee=run000&prelim=run01&showCoke=1&ratioSelect=perBarrel&xSelect=apiGravity&ySelect=downstream

  32. 32.

    Pathways to an Energy and Carbon Efficient Russia (McKinsey & Company, 2009); http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/pathways-to-an-energy-and-carbon-efficient-russia

  33. 33.

    Global Gas Flaring Observed from Space (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017); https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/eog/viirs/download_global_flare.html

  34. 34.

    The GPC Platform of Abuzar Oil Field is Inaugurated (National Iranian Oil Company, 2017).

  35. 35.

    Prevention from Flaring of over 95% of the Associated Gas Produced with Oil (Iran Petroleum Ministry, 2017).

  36. 36.

    Brandt, A. Embodied energy and GHG emissions from material use in conventional and unconventional oil and gas operations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 13059–13066 (2015).

  37. 37.

    Portworld (S&P Global, accessed 1 February 2018); http://www.portworld.com/map.

  38. 38.

    Refinery Benchmarking Tool (Wood Mackenzie, 2015).

  39. 39.

    Total Petroleum and Other Liquids Production - 2016 (US Energy Information Administration, 2017); https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/

  40. 40.

    Brandt, A. R., Sun, Y. & Vafi, K. Uncertainty in regional-average petroleum GHG intensities: countering information gaps with targeted data gathering. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 679–686 (2014).

  41. 41.

    Wang, M., Huo, H. & Arora, S. Methods of dealing with co-products of biofuels in life-cycle analysis and consequent results within the US context. Energy Policy 39, 5726–5736 (2011).

  42. 42.

    Hall, C. A. S. Energy Return on Investment: A Unifying Principle for Biology, Economics, and Sustainability, Vol. 36 (Springer, Switzerland, Cham, 2017).

  43. 43.

    Worldwide Oil Field Production Survey 2015 (Oil & Gas Journal, PennWell Publishing, 2015); http://www.ogj.com/ogj-survey-downloads.html

  44. 44.

    Upstream Oil & Gas (Wood Mackenzie, 2017); https://www.woodmac.com/our-expertise/capabilities/upstream-oil-and-gas/

Download references


The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) provided financial support to M.S.M.

Author information


  1. Department of Energy Resources Engineering, School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    • Mohammad S. Masnadi
    •  & Adam R. Brandt
  2. Strategic Transport Analysis Team, Aramco Research Center - Detroit, Aramco Services Company, Novi, MI, USA

    • Hassan M. El-Houjeiri
    •  & Steven Przesmitzki
  3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    • Dominik Schunack
    •  & Yunpo Li
  4. Department of Physics, Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA, USA

    • Samori O. Roberts
  5. Systems Assessment Group, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA

    • Michael Wang


  1. Search for Mohammad S. Masnadi in:

  2. Search for Hassan M. El-Houjeiri in:

  3. Search for Dominik Schunack in:

  4. Search for Yunpo Li in:

  5. Search for Samori O. Roberts in:

  6. Search for Steven Przesmitzki in:

  7. Search for Adam R. Brandt in:

  8. Search for Michael Wang in:


M.S.M., D.S., Y.L., A.R.B and H.M.E.-H. were involved in data gathering, processing and analysis of different fields. The final results were integrated by M.S.M. M.S.M. wrote the manuscript, and all authors contributed to revising the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad S. Masnadi.

Supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Figures 1–2, Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary references.

  2. Supplementary Data 1

    The input data of each oilfield that have been collected from public domain

  3. Supplementary Data 2

    Field-level: the carbon intensities (CI), NER and EER results of all studied oilfields; country-level: the volume-weighted average results aggregated based on countries; production coverage: captured total oil production of each country; OPGEE versus Ecoinvent: here the OPGEE CI results are compared with the corresponding Ecoinvent database numbers; break-down of emissions: seven major sources of emissions from upstream processes

About this article

Publication history