addressing uncertainty in oil and natural gas industry greenhouse

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Uncertainty Estimate for CH 4 Emissions from Storage Tanks: Methane emissions from flashing losses are estimated using the simple emission factor provided in the API Compendium. (Note that this simple emission factor approach is used in absence of the more detailed information necessary for the other calculation approaches provided in the API Compendium). -4 6,100 bbl 343 day 8.86 × 10 tonne CH ⎛ 4 0.80mole CH 4(facility) ⎞ E CH = × × 4 ×⎜ ⎟ day yr bbl ⎝0.788 mole CH 4 (default EF) ⎠ E = 1,880 tonnes CH /yr CH4 4 As noted in Table 5-1, there is no uncertainty associated with the count of equipment. The uncertainty associated with the volume of gas is 5% and the uncertainty associated with the days of operation is 2%. The uncertainty in the emissions factor is 90% based on expert judgment and the uncertainty in the site specific CH 4 mole % is 4 % based on Exhibit 5-1. The uncertainty in the CH 4 content is 5.53% from the GRI/EPA Methane Study (Shires and Harrison), which is provided in Table E-4 of the API Compendium. The uncertainty of the emissions is calculated by applying Equation 4-6 and using the relative uncertainty values. Urel ( ) = U( rel) +U( rel) +U( rel) +U( rel) +U( rel) emissions 2 +U( rel) Default mole% 2 2 2 2 2 Number of Units Gas processed Days EF Facility mole% ( ) Urel ( ) = 0 + 5 + 2 + 90 + 4 + 5.53 =± 90.4% tonnes CH /yr 2 2 2 2 2 2 emissions 4 Uncertainty Estimate for CO 2 Emissions from Storage Tanks: E = CO2 4 -4 8.86 × 10 tonne CH4 tonne mole CH4 0.80 mole CH 4 (facility) 6,100 bbl 343 day × × × × day yr bbl 16.04 tonne CH 0.788 mole CH (default EF) 4 4 tonne mole gas 0.12 tonne mole CO2 44.01 tonne CO2 × × × = 775 tonnes CO 2 /yr 0.80 tonne mole CH tonne mole gas tonne mole CO 2 The same approach applies to estimating the uncertainty for the CO 2 emissions. The uncertainty associated with the mole% of CO 2 is 4%, so the results are the same as for CH 4 . Urel ( ) = U( rel) +U( rel) +U( rel) +U( rel) +U( rel) emissions 2 +U( rel) Default mole% 2 2 2 2 2 Number of Units Gas processed Days EF Facility mole% ( ) Urel ( ) = 0 + 5 + 2 + 90 + 4 + 5.53 =± 90.4% tonnes CO /yr 2 2 2 2 2 2 emissions 2 Pilot Version, September 2009 F-22
Uncertainty Estimate of CO 2 e Emissions from Storage Tanks: E 775 tonneCO = ⎛1,880 tonne CH + 21 tonne CO e ⎞ × = 40,300 tonne CO e/yr ⎝ ⎠ 2 4 2 CO2e ⎜ ⎟ 2 yr yr tonne CH4 U ( abs) = (U( abs) +U( abs) 2 2 ECO2e ECO E 2 CH4 U ( abs) = (0.775× 775) + (0.775× 21× 1,880) = 35,700 tonnes CO e/yr 2 2 ECO2e 2 35,700 tonnes CO e/yr Urel ( ) = 100% × =± 88.7% tonnes CO e/yr ( ) 2 ECO2e 2 40,300 tonnes CO2e/yr F.8 Uncertainty in Vented Sources – Acid Gas Removal (Amine Unit Emissions) Table F-10 summarizes the operating parameters for acid gas removal at the example facility. Table F-10. Operating Parameters for Storage Tanks (±%) (±%) Source Fuel (per unit) year) combined) Annual Unit Capacity Uncertainty Average Operation (per unit per Uncertainty Activity Factor (all units Inlet Produced Gas 30×10 6 ±5% scf/day 343 days/yr ±2% days/yr 10,290×10 6 scf/day scf/yr Outlet Outlet Gas N/A N/A 8,997×10 6 (0.5 mole% CO 2 ) scf/yr Uncertainty (±%) a ±5.39% scf/yr ±5% scf/yr Uncertainty Estimate for CH 4 Emissions from Acid Gas Removal: Methane emissions from the amine unit are estimated based on the emission factor provided in the API Compendium and the quantity of gas processed. 6 30× 10 scf 343 day CH4 6 E 0.0185 tonne CH 4 0.80 tonne mole CH 4 (facility) = × × × day processed yr 10 scf 0.788 tonne mole CH (default) E = 193 tonnes CH /yr CH4 4 4 We assume there is no uncertainty in the number of units. The uncertainty in the daily volume of gas processed is 5% and the uncertainty in the days of operation is 2% based on expert judgment. The uncertainty in the emission factor is 119% based on Table 5-5 of the API Compendium. Because it is not possible to have negative emissions, the lower bound uncertainty will be truncated at zero. As a result, the lower and upper bound uncertainties are estimated separately. The uncertainty in the facility mole% is 4%, the uncertainty in the default mole% is 5.53% from the GRI/EPA Methane Study (Shires and Harrison, 1996), which is also provided in Table E-4 of the API Pilot Version, September 2009 F-23
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 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Further guidance for assigning unce
Page 63 and 64:
4.4 Quantifying Measurement Uncerta
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
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 75 and 76:
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 and 102:
The CO 2 emissions are calculated u
Page 103 and 104:
GHG Emissions, tonnes/yr 60,000 50,
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 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
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: default CH 4 content is 5.53% from
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?