addressing uncertainty in oil and natural gas industry greenhouse

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EXHIBIT 3-3: ALBERTA ENERGY RESOURCE CONSERVATION BOARD (ERCB) [Directive 017, May 2007] a.) Directive 017 (EUB/Board, May 2007), spells out the measurement requirements for custody transfer within the Upstream Oil and Gas operations in Alberta, Canada. The ERCB standards are stated as “maximum uncertainty of monthly volume” and/or “single point measurement uncertainty”, as listed in Tables 3-2 for Oil Systems and Gas Systems measurements, respectively. b.) The uncertainties are to be applied as “plus/minus” (e.g., ±5%), and only measurements at the delivery or sales points are required to meet the highest accuracy standards since they would have a direct impact on royalty determination. Table 3-2. Summary of Alberta ERCB Accuracy Requirements a Maximum Uncertainty of Monthly Volume Single Point Measurement OIL SYSTEMS MEASUREMENTS (i) Total battery oil (delivery point measurement) Delivery point measures >100 m 3 /d N/A 0.5% Delivery point measures < 100 m 3 /d N/A 1% (ii) Total battery gas (includes produced gas that is vented, flared, or used as fuel) > 16.9 10 3 m 3 /d 5% 3% > 0.50 10 3 m 3 /d but < 16.9 10 3 m 3 /d 10% 3% < 0.50 10 3 m 3 /d 20% 10% (iii) Well oil (proration battery) Class 1 (high), > 30 m 3 /d 5% 2% Class 2 (medium), > 6 m 3 /d but < 30 m 3 /d 10% 2% Class 3 (low), > 2 m 3 /d but < 6 m 3 /d 20% 2% Class 4 (stripper), < 2 m 3 /d 40% 2% (iv) Well gas (proration battery) > 16.9 10 3 m 3 /d 5% 3% > 0.50 10 3 m 3 /d but < 16.9 10 3 m 3 /d 10% 3% < 0.50 10 3 m 3 /d 20% 10% GAS SYSTEMS MEASUREMENTS a (i) Gas deliveries (sales gas) N/A 2% (ii) Hydrocarbon liquid deliveries Delivery point measures >100 m 3 /d N/A 0.5% Delivery point measures 0.50 10 3 m 3 /d 5% 3% < 0.50 10 3 m 3 /d 20% 10% (vi) Flare gas 20% 5% (vii) Acid gas N/A 10% (viii) Dilution gas 5% 3% (ix) Well gas (well site separation) > 16.9 10 3 m 3 /d 5% 3% < 16.9 10 3 m 3 /d 10% 3% (x) Well gas (proration battery) 15% 3% (xi) Well condensate (recombined) N/A 2% a Note: Extracted from Section 1.8.1 and 1.8.2, respectively, in Reference 20 The directive makes it clear that other measurement points that play a role in the overall control and accounting process would be subject to less stringent accuracy standards. These less stringent accuracy standards are designed to accommodate physical limitations and/or the overall economics of achieving very stringent accuracy standards for each volumetric measurement. Pilot Version, September 2009 3-8
3.2 Uncertainties of Flow Measurements for GHG Inventories With the emergence of new mandatory reporting regulations and emission reduction compliance obligations, new requirements are being promulgated for the accuracy of fuel flow measurements when such flows are used to quantify GHG emissions. For example, according to the mandatory GHG reporting regulations promulgated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), flow measurement uncertainties are expected to be + 5%. (CARB, 2008) The California requirements specifically apply to all GHGs emitted from petroleum refineries, hydrogen plants, and cogeneration plants with the O&G exploration and production sector required only to report CO 2 emissions from large combustors (> 25,000 tonnes CO 2E /yr). In Europe, the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) specifies a tiered approach for emission calculations together with required uncertainty ranges, according to the Monitoring and Reporting Guidelines (EU-ETS MRG, 2007). It sets up a matrix of uncertainty requirements for different facility sizes and measurement approaches used. − − For facilities emitting between 50,000 to 500,000 tonnes of fossil CO 2 – Uncertainty ranges specified are ±7.5%, +5%, and ±2.5% when the facilities employ tiers 1, 2, and 3 calculation approaches, respectively; For facilities emitting over 500,000 tonnes of fossil CO 2 – Uncertainty ranges are expected to be as low as ±1.5% for facilities required to employ Tier 4 approaches. It is important to note that the EU-ETS requirements are applicable to a limited set of O&G industry installations and that facility inventories are being tracked only for CO 2 emissions from fuel combustion and flaring. The requirement to quantify these sources within such tight uncertainty ranges is a reflection of the fact that these are the sources for which appropriate emission calculation methods are available, while they are also the largest emission sources and the key contributors to most installations’ GHG emissions. When measuring fuel flow rate, or its total volume, and using the information to calculate GHG emissions, it must be determined whether the flow meters used are properly installed and calibrated, and that they are capable of providing data that are within the uncertainty ranges required by the governing climate program. Differences must be considered between the manufacturers’ specifications of flow meters’ expected measurement errors and those that are attained when using the flow meters in the field. It is common practice to test flow meters in a laboratory setting under controlled conditions, prior to field installations. However, these laboratory bench tests typically do not simulate ”real world” variations in fluid flow and other possible fluctuations, and drift of the entire measurement system. For any given Pilot Version, September 2009 3-9
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: Table 3-1. Example of FFMS Combined
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 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 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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?