addressing uncertainty in oil and natural gas industry greenhouse

More documents

Recommendations

Info

are less likely to be fruitful targets for reduction. The goal is to find the largest contributors to emissions that have the largest uncertainties. The largest contributors to uncertainty can be determined by multiplying the emission estimate by the maximum error bound for each source. This would result in the upper bound emission estimate for the particular source. The emission estimates can then be sorted by the largest contributors. This is demonstrated in Table 5-8 for the example crude oil production facility. Source Type Combustion Sources Vented Sources Fugitive Sources Indirect Emissions Table 5-8. Emission Uncertainty Ranking for Onshore Oil Production Example Maximum Source Emissions (tonnes CO 2 e /yr) Maximum Uncertainty, % Emissions, (tonnes CO 2 e /yr) Ranking Boiler/heaters 5,210 8.77 5,661 6 Natural gas engines 14,100 15.6 16,244 4 Diesel engines 220 15.5 254 Flares 30,700 21.1 37,123 3 Fleet vehicles 129 19.2 154 Dehydration and Kimray pump vents 5,440 76.0 9,571 5 Tanks – flashing losses 40,300 88.7 76,039 1 Amine unit 66,700 9.77 73,216 2 Pneumatic devices 3,360 49.2 5,013 8 Chemical injection pumps 2,530 106 5,215 7 Vessel blowdowns 3.65 319 15.3 Compressor starts 38.7 187 111 Compressor blowdowns 17.3 175 47.6 Well workovers 0.939 294 3.70 Other non-routine (PRVs) 6.81 319 28.5 Fugitive components Fleet vehicle refrigeration, R-314a Electricity consumed 1,100 83.3 2,025 9 1.30 112 2.75 553 10.2 609 10 Figure 5-1 provides an illustration of the emissions (which are not expressed in CO 2 e, but simply in tonnes of each type of gas) for the onshore oil field which is a reprint from the API Compendium. Pilot Version, September 2009 5-19
GHG Emissions, tonnes/yr 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Combustion Vented Fugitive Indirect Emission Source Category Carbon Dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide Other GHGs Figure 5-1. Onshore Oil Field: Summary of Emissions Figure 5-2 illustrates emissions for the facility with each emission category and each gas converted to CO 2 e, using each gas’ GWP. It should be noted that although the GWP itself has uncertainty associated with it, this report treats the GWP as a selected constant. Therefore, no uncertainty is associated or propagated from the GWP values. Figure 5-2 also illustrates the bounds of uncertainty (at 95% confidence) for each emission source category. 5.4.1 Opportunities to Improve the Uncertainty Estimate for the Onshore Oil Field Each facility should examine the major categories of emissions and emission uncertainty, and then examine specific emission sources within the category. Prioritizing the largest sources of uncertainty can be done with this simple approach. Among the major types of emissions in Figure 5-2, there are three very significant emission categories: 1) combustion sources of CO 2; 2) vented sources of CO 2; and 3) vented sources of CH 4 . These are the most significant source of greenhouse gas emissions for this facility. Together they comprise almost 95% of all GHG emissions from the facility. Pilot Version, September 2009 5-20
Page 1 and 2:
Prepared by the LEVON Group, LLC an
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents SECTION Page FORE
Page 5 and 6:
List of Tables SECTION Page 2-1 Ove
Page 7 and 8:
FOREWORD The global oil and natural
Page 9 and 10:
DOCUMENT AT A GLANCE This document
Page 11 and 12:
1.0 INTRODUCTION Policymakers use e
Page 13 and 14:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Clim
Page 15 and 16:
2.0 SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY There ar
Page 17 and 18:
Table 2-1. Overview of Methods Used
Page 19 and 20:
the uncertainty associated with cur
Page 21 and 22:
d. Data processing uncertainty Typi
Page 23 and 24:
d. Material Balance For some emissi
Page 25 and 26:
3.0 OVERVIEW OF MEASUREMENT PRACTIC
Page 27 and 28:
3.1 Flow Measurement Practices Cont
Page 29 and 30:
All these factors should be assesse
Page 31 and 32:
Table 3-1. Example of FFMS Combined
Page 33 and 34:
3.2 Uncertainties of Flow Measureme
Page 35 and 36:
Table 3-3. Compilation of Specifica
Page 37 and 38:
EXHIBIT 3-3: FACTORS TO CONSIDER WH
Page 39 and 40:
3.3.2 Quantifying Sampling Precisio
Page 41 and 42:
Table 3-4. Summary of Selected Carb
Page 43 and 44:
3.5 Heat Content Determination The
Page 45 and 46:
3.5.2 Computational Methods Heating
Page 47 and 48:
using standard methods, non-standar
Page 49 and 50:
0.6 0.4 0.2 Error 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6
Page 51 and 52: s ± t × (Equation 4-1) n where s
Page 53 and 54: 4.2.1 Propagation Equations There a
Page 55 and 56: For two terms that might be correla
Page 57 and 58: EXHIBIT 4-1: Uncertainty Example fo
Page 61 and 62: Further guidance for assigning unce
Page 63 and 64: 4.4 Quantifying Measurement Uncerta
Page 69 and 70: Are the data based on a single poin
Page 71 and 72: Two methods are compared. The first
Page 73 and 74: . EXHIBIT 4-6: Uncertainty Example
Page 77 and 78: Table 4-13 shows the uncertainty in
Page 79 and 80: Table 4-13. Comparison of Annual Em
Page 81 and 82: • The evolution of activity and e
Page 83 and 84: These guidelines concentrate solely
Page 85 and 86: (Reprinted from the API Compendium)
Page 87 and 88: Table 5-2. Onshore Oil Field (High
Page 89 and 90: associated with them are assigned b
Page 91 and 92: Table 5-4. Onshore Oil Field (High
Page 93 and 94: 5.2.4 Propagating Assymetric Uncert
Page 95 and 96: U( rel) = U( rel) + U( rel) + U( re
Page 97 and 98: Coke burn rate approach (Equation 5
Page 99 and 100: Wt% C ∑ lbmole x lbmole C 12 lb C
Page 101: The CO 2 emissions are calculated u
Page 105 and 106: vast majority of the uncertainty fo
Page 107 and 108: 6.0 REFERENCES AGA, 2008, Greenhous
Page 109 and 110: The Alberta Energy and Utilities Bo
Page 111 and 112: Appendix A GLOSSARY OF STATISTICAL
Page 117 and 118: APPENDIX B LIST OF INDUSTRY MEASURE
Page 119 and 120: Chapter 2.8B Establishment of the L
Page 121 and 122: Chapter 11.5.3 Chapter 12.1.1 Chapt
Page 123 and 124: Chapter 19.4 Chapter 20.1 RP 85 RP
Page 125 and 126: ISO 8222:2002 ISO 8697:1999 ISO 902
Page 127 and 128: ISO 7194:2008 Measurement of fluid
Page 129 and 130: ASTM D4292 ASTM D4892 ASTM D5002 AS
Page 131 and 132: APPENDIX C OPERATING CONDITIONS, IN
Page 133 and 134: Appendix C OPERATING CONDITIONS, IN
Page 135 and 136: Appendix D SELECT MEASUREMENT METHO
Page 137 and 138: c. ASTM UOP539-97, Refinery Gas Ana
Page 139 and 140: interference between known componen
Page 141 and 142: maintained over the room temperatur
Page 143 and 144: APPENDIX E UNITS CONVERSION
Page 145 and 146: − Gasoline density (average) = 0.
Page 147 and 148: Appendix F UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATION D
Page 149 and 150: The uncertainty for the heaters/reb
Page 151 and 152: ∑ 2 U ( abs) = U( abs) ∑(Wt%C)
Page 153 and 154:
Combining the fuel usage for the tw
Page 155 and 156:
Uncertainty Estimate of CO 2 e Emis
Page 157 and 158:
U ( abs) = ( U ( abs) + U ( abs) +
Page 159 and 160:
E E CO2e 219 tonne CO ⎛ 2 0.0108
Page 161 and 162:
E CO 2 6 500× 10 scf gas lbmole ga
Page 163 and 164:
• Fuel Economy (miles per gallon)
Page 165 and 166:
Upper: U ( abs) = (U( abs) +U( abs)
Page 167 and 168:
default CH 4 content is 5.53% from
Page 169 and 170:
Uncertainty Estimate of CO 2 e Emis
Page 171 and 172:
( ) Urel ( ) = Urel ( ) = Urel ( )
Page 173 and 174:
Uncertainty Estimate for CH 4 and C
Page 175 and 176:
specific mole % for CH 4 and CO 2 i
Page 177 and 178:
E CO2 0.07239 tonne CH 4 tonne mole
Page 179 and 180:
U ( rel) = U( rel) +U( rel) +U( rel
Page 181 and 182:
Table F-14. Fugitive Emission and U
Page 183 and 184:
U ( abs) = (U( abs) +U( abs) +U( ab
Page 185 and 186:
Table F-15. Onshore Oil Field (High
show all

addressing uncertainty in oil and natural gas industry greenhouse

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?