Canadian Emission Control

GUIDE
Calculating Greenhouse Gas

Emissions
April 2003
2003-0003
2100, 350 7
th
Ave. S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
Canada T2P 3N9
Tel (403) 267-1100
Fax (403) 261-4622
230, 1801 Hollis Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 3N4
Tel (902) 420-9084
Fax (902) 491-2980
905, 235 Water Street
St. Johns, Newfoundland
Canada A1C 1B6
Tel (709) 724-4200
Fax (709) 724-4225
Email: communication@capp.ca Website: www.capp.ca
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) represents 140
companies that explore for, develop and produce natural gas, natural gas liquids,
crude oil, oil sands, and elemental sulphur throughout Canada. CAPP member
companies produce more than 97 per cent of Canadas natural gas and crude oil.
CAPP also has 125 associate members that provide a wide range of services that
support the upstream crude oil and natural gas industry. Together, these members
and associate members are an important part of a $65-billion-a-year national
industry that affects the livelihoods of more than half a million Canadians.
Review by March 2004
Replaces CAPP Pub #2000-0004
Global Climate Change, Voluntary Challenge Guide
Docs # 55904
Disclaimer
This guide was prepared by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
(CAPP) and Tom Michelussi, Altus Environmental Engineering Ltd. While it is
believed that the information contained herein is reliable under the conditions
and subject to the limitations set out, CAPP does not guarantee its accuracy. The
use of this guide and any information contained will be at the users sole risk,
regardless of any fault or negligence of CAPP and Altus Environmental
Engineering Ltd.
April 2003 Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Page i
Overview
This guide follows the fifth version of the CAPP Global Climate Change
Voluntary Challenge Guide and signifies a shift towards a more streamlined
document. This guide, Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions, provides CAPP
members with a standardising approach to benchmarking and estimating
greenhouse gas emissions. Establishing a comprehensive corporate greenhouse
gas inventory is the first step in developing a Greenhouse Gas Strategy and an
Action Plan for submission to the VCR.
In the six years that CAPP has been providing guidance, the Voluntary Challenge
and Registry has continued to mature. The Voluntary Challenge and Registry was
privatized in 1998, a president and Council of Champions were appointed and
staff hired. The role of the new organization (called VCR, Inc.) is to provide a
more rigorous framework for companies to follow in preparing their Action Plans.
The components identified in this Guide will allow CAPP member companies to
better understand the information that needs to be provided that will result in the
Action Plan being seen as a high-quality, comprehensive document, yet provide
the flexibility to establish a company-specific report.
With each version, the focus of the CAPP Guide has changed. The first two
versions were primarily developed to simplify preparation of a Climate Change
Action Plan, thereby encouraging more CAPP member companies to participate
in the Voluntary Challenge and Registry (VCR). The third and fourth versions,
issued in April 1997 and June 1999, were the first attempts to provide a detailed
format that would allow companies to use either a detailed or a short form method
to calculate emissions. The fifth version provided specific information on
emissions from various process equipment.
CAPP's Environment, Health and Safety Stewardship initiative is defined as a
responsible approach to business that lets companies succeed while preserving the
environment and enhancing quality of life. This is more important all the time, as
industrial activity now crosses borders, affects economies, and influences culture
as never before. By working closer with society and governments to address
issues that concern us all, private enterprise can make our common world a better
place. Established as a voluntary program in 1999, Stewardship became
mandatory this year. The reporting criteria for the Stewardship benchmarking data
on greenhouse gas emissions are based on the VCR reporting criteria.
CAPP acknowledges the considerable assistance of Altus Environmental
Engineering Ltd. in the development of this document.
Page ii
Table of Contents
Overview....................................................................................................................................i
1 CAPP Guide to Baselines and Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............. 1-1
1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Establishing a Base Year............................................................................. 1-3
1.3 Emissions from Non-operated Facilities .................................................... 1-3
1.4 Baseline Adjustment.................................................................................... 1-4
1.5 Global Warming Potential Factors ............................................................. 1-5
1.6 Short-Form Emissions Calculation Method............................................... 1-6
1.7 Detailed Emissions Calculation Method.................................................... 1-8
1.7.1 Boilers and Heaters ......................................................................... 1-9
1.7.2 Natural Gas Fired Drivers............................................................. 1-13
1.7.3 Flaring of Natural Gas .................................................................. 1-16
1.7.4 Electric Power Generation Emission Factors.............................. 1-17
1.7.5 Methane Emissions from Fugitive Losses................................... 1-18
1.7.6 Methane Emissions from Instrumentation Venting.................... 1-20
1.7.7 Methane Losses from Glycol Dehydrators.................................. 1-22
1.7.8 Methane Emissions from Oil Batteries ........................................ 1-23
1.7.9 Methane Emissions from Plant Tank Venting ............................ 1-25
1.7.10 Methane Losses from Non-Routine Venting............................... 1-26
1.7.11 CO
2
Venting from Sour Gas Processing Facilities ..................... 1-26
1.8 Fugitive Emission Estimates Derived from the GFC Method................ 1-27
1.9 Emissions from Cogeneration Systems.................................................... 1-33
1.10 Emissions from Off-shore Operations...................................................... 1-35
1.11 Conversion Factors.................................................................................... 1-37
2 Benchmarking........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Reporting Basis............................................................................................ 2-3
2.3 Calculating the Product Energy Intensity (PEI) ........................................ 2-5
2.4 Calculating the Product Carbon Intensity (PCI) ........................................ 2-6
3 How to Build a Success Story................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Reporting Success Stories ........................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Sample Calculations .................................................................................... 3-1
Page iii
Tables
Table 1-1: Potential Sources of GHG Emissions from Upstream Operations...............................1-2
Table 1-2: Global Warming Potential (GWP) Factors ....................................................................1-5
Table 1-3: Emission Factors for Boilers, Heaters and Furnaces Based on Fuel Usage ................1-9
Table 1-4: Emission Levels Provided by Boiler Manufacturers.................................................. 1-10
Table 1-5: Energy Content of Fuels .............................................................................................. 1-11
Table 1-6: Emission Factors for Natural Gas and Diesel Drivers based on Fuel Usage............ 1-13
Table 1-7: Emission Data for Waukesha Reciprocating Engines................................................ 1-14
Table 1-8: Emission Data for CAT Reciprocating Engines......................................................... 1-15
Table 1-9: Emission Factors for Flaring Natural Gas .................................................................. 1-16
Table 1-10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Power Generation............................. 1-18
Table 1-11: Fugitive Emissions Factors in Vapour Service ........................................................ 1-19
Table 1-12: Gas Consumption Rates (in m
3
/hr) for Standard (high bleed) Pneumatic Instruments
................................................................................................................................................. 1-20
Table 1-13: Average Methane Emission Factors for Dehydration.............................................. 1-22
Table 1-14: Factors Used to Estimate Gas Venting and Flaring Rates ....................................... 1-23
Table 1-15: Generic or Average Connector Counts by Equipment/Process Type..................... 1-29
Table 1-16: Generic or Average Valve Counts by Equipment/Process Type ............................ 1-30
Table 1-17: Generic or Average Open-ended Line Counts by Equipment/Process Type ......... 1-31
Table 1-18: Generic or Average Compressor Seal Counts by Equipment/Process Type.......... 1-31
Table 1-19: Generic or Average PRV Counts by Equipment/Process Type .............................. 1-32
Table 1-20: Fuel Emission Factors (for mobile sources) ............................................................. 1-36
Table 2-1: Upstream Oil and Gas Production and Energy Use in 1998 and 1999........................2-2
Table 2-2: Oil Equivalent (OE) Conversion Factors (on an energy equivalent basis)..................2-4
Table 2-3: Upstream Oil and Gas Industry Average PEI Values (1995 values) ...........................2-5
Table 3-1: Checklist...........................................................................................................................3-3
April 2003 Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1-1
1 CAPP Guide to Baselines and Calculating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1.1 Introduction
This guide has been developed to assist CAPP member companies in
standardising their approach for estimating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
from combustion, fugitive, process venting and indirect sources.
To validate our industrys commitment to the Voluntary Challenge program, it is
important that CAPP member companies establish the amount of GHG produced
at their operated facilities.
To assist in this task, three standardised calculation methods to determine GHG
emissions are explained in this guide:
1) Short-form Emissions Calculation Method - This simplified method will
enable companies to determine combustion and fugitive emissions on a
company or facility basis with a minimum amount of effort.
2) Detailed Emissions Calculation Method - This utilises specific equipment
emissions factors to determine combustion and fugitive emissions on a facility
and equipment/process basis.
3) Generic Fitting Count (GFC) Fugitive Emissions Calculation Method This
method uses an average or generic fitting count per equipment process to
determine the total number of fittings that will be used for fugitive emission
calculations.
The possible sources for greenhouse gas emissions from upstream petroleum
operations include: combustion of natural gas, propane, and diesel; process
venting of methane; fugitive emissions of methane; process venting of CO
2
and
indirect emissions from the purchase of electricity generated from fossil fuel
combustion. Table 1-1 on the following page lists potential sources of greenhouse
gas emissions from the different stages of upstream oil and gas production and
processing.
Table 1-1: Potential Sources of GHG Emissions from Upstream Operations
Source GHG
Oil
Battery
Gas
Well
GGS
Sweet
GP
Sour
GP
Gas venting from petroleum storage (tanks) CH
4
X
Casing gas venting CH
4
X
Fugitive emissions (equipment & piping) CH
4
X X X X X
Fugitive emissions (equipment & piping) CO
2
X
Gas instrument and injection pump venting CH
4
X X X
Engine gas starter venting CH
4
X X X X
Glycol dehydrator reboiler venting CH
4
X X X X
Glycol dehydrator stripping gas venting CH
4
X X X
Venting of CO
2
from gas sweetening CO
2
X
Combustion: boilers and heaters CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O X X X X X
Combustion: engines and turbines CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O X X X X X
Combustion: flaring and incineration CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O X X X X X
Maintenance: piping/equipment blowdown CH
4
X X X X X
Operations: well blowdown, equipment
failure
CH
4
X X X X X
Indirect emissions: electricity purchase CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O X X X X X
GGS is a gas gathering system; Sweet GP is a sweet gas plant; Sour GP is sour gas plant.
The estimation method used to determine facility or corporate greenhouse gas
emissions will depend on the detail of data available and the availability of human
resources to complete the work.
The level of accuracy of emissions calculated will be dependent on:
The calculation methodology used (short form or detailed method).
The accuracy of input energy data (fuel gas volume, flare volume, power
consumption).
The composition of the fuel gas.
The detail of equipment data available (manufacturer, model, utilization).
The operating condition of equipment and how representative the
manufacturer data is to current conditions.
Of the three greenhouse gases associated with combustion emissions, the CO
2
emission factor is considered to be the most stable or accurate. The amount of
CH
4
and N
2
O formed will fluctuate based on combustion chamber properties and
condition of equipment.
Emission factors associated with determining fugitive or vented losses of methane
are considered to be the least accurate. These types of losses are dependent on the
condition of plant equipment (due to age/maintenance) and the operating
procedures in place (e.g., is venting avoided in daily operations). The use of the
attached emission factors for fugitive and venting losses can be in error by as
much as 50percent compared to undertaking on-site methane loss surveys using
gas detection equipment.
Once greenhouse gas emissions are established, the Production Carbon Intensity
(PCI) may be determined on a company or facility basis. CAPP member
companies have agreed to use the PEI (Production Energy Intensity) and PCI as
standardized GHG performance indicators. If companies prefer to use modified
versions of PEI or PCI, these altered performance measures should not be referred
to as PEI or PCI (for consistency within the industry). Refer to Section 2,
Benchmarking for more information on the PEI and PCI.
All facility, production and energy data used in calculations are on a gross
operated basis and not on a net Company basis.
1.2 Establishing a Base Year
The development of a companys baseline greenhouse gas emissions is essential
to the determination of subsequent reductions in overall emissions and future
progress.
According to the Voluntary Challenge and Registry (VCR) Registration Guide
(May 1999), baselines should, where possible, be based on 1990 data, as this is
the internationally recognized benchmark. To obtain a copy of this guide, contact
the VCR office at: phone (613)565-5151; fax (613)565-5743; or e-mail:
info@vcr-mvr.ca. However, when data is unavailable, it is acceptable to use the
earliest year after 1990 for which data is available. Companies using a base year
other than 1990 should explain the rationale for doing so.
1.3 Emissions from Non-operated Facilities
This Guide was written to address calculation methodologies for company-
operated facilities on a gross production basis. The reasoning for this is:
The operator has the best access to all the necessary input data.
Data is more easily verified.
The operator is responsible for the management, operation and the efficiency
of the facility.
Double counting of emissions and success stories is eliminated.
The true efficiency of the facility (on an energy and emission basis) can be
determined by calculating PEI and PCI.
Regulatory and emissions trading schemes focus on control rather than
ownership.
Some companies have voiced interest in determining their GHG emissions based
on production ownership/allocation at a given production or processing site. This
is a complicated process. In order to accomplish this, the operating company
would have to determine the GHG emissions at each production (well) and
processing (plant) site and then allocate these emissions based on ownership at
each site. Equity ownership may change from the well to the processing facility.
If companies wish to report their equity ownership based GHG emissions, they
may do so separately from their operated (or company controlled) GHG
emissions.
1.4 Baseline Adjustment
It is recognized that the ownership of wells, gathering systems and facilities may
change frequently between companies from year to year. In order to reflect a
more accurate comparison of year-to-year emission performance, it may be
advantageous for some companies to adjust their baseline and other historic
emissions. The intent of adjusting baseline emission inventories is to compare
current year emissions on a common asset base (provided those assets were in
operation during the baseline year).
To standardize the adjustment of emissions, the current operator of a facility/asset
would be responsible for reporting emissions from that facility/asset from all past
years, regardless of which company operated that facility/asset in those years.
If a facility is purchased, then past emissions must be added to the total company
GHG inventory and if a facility is sold, then past emissions are subtracted from
the inventory. If historic GHG data is unavailable for a purchased facility, an
estimate of past GHG emissions can still be determined. Historic fuel, flare and
production data is available for all major Alberta facilities from Alberta Energy
and Utilities Board (AEUB) publications such as the ST-13A, while historic
electrical usage can be estimated by comparing past and present production levels.
Since fugitive emissions are largely independent of production volumes (provided
plant processes remain unchanged), current fugitive emission estimates for a
given facility may be used for previous years. Depending on whether vapour
recovery schemes have been implemented currently, historic venting volumes
may be significantly higher. All assumptions and calculation methodologies
should be recorded for reference and/or verification purposes.
If a company shuts down a facility (and does not sell that facility), then that
company reports emissions from that facility for all the years that facility was in
operation. Baseline adjustment is usually done when major assets such as gas
plants or large oil processing facilities change ownership/operatorship. The
benefits of undertaking adjustments at a well level are normally negligible unless
a large change is made.
The above explanation of baseline adjustment is consistent with the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Greenhouse Gas
Protocol. This procedure is optional and not required by the VCR for
submission of an Action Plan. It is left up to the company, whether baseline
adjustment will be used. If baseline emissions are adjusted, they must be
identified as such. A description of the baseline adjustment procedure should also
be provided in the companys VCR Action Plan.
1.5 Global Warming Potential Factors
Global Warming Potential (GWP) factors are used to convert non-CO
2
GHG to an
equivalent CO
2
mass (termed CO
2
E). These factors take into account the relative
impact of different GHGs on the atmosphere and the differing lengths of time
they reside in the atmosphere. The following table (1-2) lists GWP factors as
shown in Canadas National Action Program on Climate Change, 1995, page 6.
Table 1-2: Global Warming Potential (GWP) Factors
Gas 100 year GWP
CO
2
1
CH
4
(methane) 21.0
N
2
O (nitrous oxide) 310
Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC-23 11700
Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC-125 2800
Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC-134a 1300
Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC-152a 140
PFCs: Tetrafluoromethane (CF
4
) 6500
PFCs: Hexafluoromethane (C
2
F
6
) 9200
Sulphur Hexafluoride: SF
6
23900
Since HFCs are used as refrigerants, while PFCs and SF
6
are used as
manufacturing aids in the metal and semi-conductor industry, the greenhouse
gases of concern to upstream petroleum industry are CO
2
, CH
4
and N
2
O. The
major sources of these greenhouse gas emissions are the combustion of fossil
fuels and fugitive losses.
In equation form, the conversion to carbon dioxide equivalent mass is:
Equation 1
CO
2
E (tonnes) = CO
2
tonnes x 1.0 + CH
4
tonnes x 21 + N
2
O tonnes x 310
In order to improve reporting consistency, total emission reductions should be
reported in terms of CO
2
E tonnes. As the GWPs may be revised from time to
time, it is recommended that methane and N
2
O emissions be reported separately
to permit simple recalculation of CO
2
E in the event of a change in GWP values.
VOCs and NO
X
are not direct greenhouse gases. These gases react/breakdown in
the atmosphere to form ozone which is a direct GHG. As VOCs and NOx are not
included in the national GHG emissions inventory, their respective GWP factors
have not been included in Table 1-2.
Example 1: Determining CO
2
E emissions
Determine the CO
2
E emissions from venting 3 tonnes of CO
2
from gas
sweetening plus 2 tonnes of methane.
Using Equation 1, we get
3 + (2 x 21.0) = 45 tonnes of CO
2
E to the atmosphere in terms of GHG effect.
To simplify calculations, CO
2
E combustion emissions factors (which include
CO
2
, N
2
O and methane emissions) are also included throughout this guide.
1.6 Short-Form Emissions Calculation Method
This simplified method may be used to determine greenhouse gas emissions on a
company or facility basis with minimum effort.
The data that must be collected includes:
A complete list of company operated facilities;
Type and annual volume of fuel combusted;
Type and annual volume of products marketed (gross sales volumes);
Amount of electricity purchased from utilities in each province of operation;
Annual volume of flare gas burned; and
Annual amount of CO
2
vented from gas sweetening operations.
These are required for company-operated facilities only and are based on gross
facility throughput not on a net basis. Product sales and fuel data can be obtained
from the AEUB (Alberta Energy and Utilities Board) reported data as found on
the S-20 (plant data), S-2 (well production data) and S-8 (gas gathering data)
forms. The Alberta-based forms are available on the EUB website. Similar forms
are used in other provinces. Electrical usage in MWhr/year may be obtained from
utility invoices or from the utility directly.
Care should be taken not to double count product sales volumes in determining
total corporate product sales. That is, if a company operates a processing facility
such as a gas plant along with the associated well and field gathering system, then
the fuel and flare consumption at all three sites must be included, but the product
sales should only be counted at the end point or gas plant (provided all
dispositions from the well and gathering system end up at the gas plant).
If a company only operates the well and gathering system, then again all fuel and
flare data must be included, but only the product sales at the end point (or gas
gathering system) should be included.
In general terms, the operating company must include fuel and flare volumes from
all operated facilities, but should only include product sales from the end point
facility.
By ensuring that double counting of product sales is avoided, the overall
corporate PEI and PCI are determined in a consistent method throughout the
industry.
Facility product gas sales volumes should not include flare volumes or fuel gas
volumes used on-site. Gas shrinkage and metering differences should also be
omitted from the product sales volumes.
Since the Short-Form fugitive emission factors are production based, using this
method will not capture any site specific reductions made to reduce methane
releases. Users should also be aware that the simplified Short-Form method could
result in higher emissions since factors used are typical industry values. If a given
facility produces more than one product, then the fugitive emission factor for the
highest volume product should be used to determine the fugitive emissions for
that facility. For example, only the Short-Form fugitive emission factor for oil
would be used at an oil processing facility even though natural gas was also
conserved and sold at the same facility. Short-Form production-based fugitive
emission factors take into account losses from pipe fittings, gas operated field
instrumentation, and solution gas venting.
The Short-Form combustion emission factor of 2.03 tonnes CO
2
E/10
3
m
3
fuel
combusted is a combined factor that assumes 50 percent of the fuel is burned in
boilers/heaters, 30 percent is burned in reciprocating engines, 19 percent is burned
in gas turbines, and 1 percent is burned in flares.
To determine a specific combustion factor that better reflects your companys
operations, refer to note n) in Form GHG-SF which follows this Section.
Form GHG - SF should be completed when using the simplified Short-Form
method to calculate greenhouse gas emissions inventory.
Form GHG - SS should be completed when calculating emission reductions from
specific projects.
1.7 Detailed Emissions Calculation Method
This method may be used to determine GHG emissions from individual plant
equipment and processes and is considered more accurate than the Short-Form
method as the emissions factors used are specific to equipment type and
combustion process.
This methodology is also very useful in calculating emission reductions or
increases associated with facility additions or process modifications.
The following sections outline GHG emissions calculation procedures for various
plant equipment and processes. Computer programs that utilize similar emissions
factors/methods/references are available from petroleum industry associations
such as API (American Petroleum Institute), GRI (Gas Research Institute),
government departments (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or EPA), and
various engineering firms specializing in air emissions. It is the users
responsibility to determine the validity or appropriateness of any software being
considered for use in determining emission quantities.
Generic combustion emission factors used in this Guide were taken from EPA
AP-42, 1995, 1998 and 2000 edition while typical fugitive emission factors were
taken from a recent study completed for CAPP by Clearstone Engineering entitled
CH
4
and VOC Emissions from the Canadian Upstream Oil and Gas Industry,
December 1998. All emissions factors listed in this guide were published by
recognized regulatory bodies and technical experts and are considered appropriate
for emissions inventory work. Emissions factors derived from specific
equipment performance testing or equipment manufacturers are considered to
be the most accurate and should be used where available/appropriate.
Unless otherwise noted, all combustion emission factors listed in this guide are
associated with natural gas combustion.
The data necessary to complete the detailed emissions calculation method
(DECM) at a facility includes:
Power rating of all major combustion equipment (boilers, heaters, engines,
turbines);
Total annual fuel gas, propane and diesel (metered volumes) combusted, along
with the fuel gas composition/analysis;
Total annual volume of flare gas burned, along with a composition/analysis of
the flare gas;
Total annual gross product sales volumes by product type (i.e., light oil, heavy
oil, natural gas, ethane, propane, butane, C5+, sulphur, etc.);
Total annual electrical power purchased from utility companies;
Total number of pipe fittings in gas service (for fugitive emission
calculations) obtained from site inspection or Piping and Instrumentation
Drawings (PIDs);
Total number of gas operated controllers and instruments (high and low bleed
types);
Total number of gas compressors, types and number of cylinders (for
reciprocating units);
Gas processing data to determine methane losses from gas dehydration (using
GRI GlyCalc or Hysim); and
Inlet raw gas composition showing CO
2
concentration, inlet gas total volumes,
sales gas CO
2
concentration, and sales gas total volume.
Once all the above data is collected, the emission factors listed in the following
sections may be used to calculate total greenhouse gas emissions for each facility.
Actual (i.e., metered) fuel and electrical consumption data must be used to
determine final greenhouse gas emissions from energy use.
1.7.1 Boilers and Heaters
When natural gas is burned, the following combustion products are emitted in the
flue gas: CO
2
; CO; NOx; N
2
O and unburned methane. Of these gases, CO
2
, N
2
O
and methane are considered to be greenhouse gases. Table 1-3 lists emission
factors for boilers, heaters, and furnaces, based on fuel usage.
In Table 1-3, the N
2
O factor of 0.03 g/m
3
fuel was taken from EPA AP-42,
"Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors", January 1995 (updated March
1998), Table 1.4-2. The EPA-42 emission factors were corrected for a gas net
heating value of 37.4 MJ/m
3
.
Table 1-3: Emission Factors for Boilers, Heaters and Furnaces Based on Fuel Usage
Heater/Boiler Input CO
2
g/m
3
fuel
N
2
O
g/m
3
fuel
CH
4
g/m
3
fuel
NOx
g/m
3
fuel
CO
2
E
g/m
3
fuel
Uncontrolled
With low NOx burners
1891 0.0347
0.0101
0.0363 4.413
2.207
1903
1895
Since the formation of NOx is dependant on combustion conditions such as
burner design, combustion temperature and combustion chamber design, the use
of specific emission factors for NOx is recommended (where available). Table
1-4 lists model specific emission factors obtained from several manufacturers.
The emission factors listed in Table 1-4 refer to new or well-maintained
equipment burning clean natural gas. Poorly maintained equipment can be 20
percent less thermally efficient and have much higher emission factors (i.e. up to
30 percent higher in terms of g/kWh).
As many heaters and boilers are rated in terms of heat output (i.e., GJ/hr.), a fuel
heating value is required to determine the amount of fuel used. If site-specific
fuel heating values are unavailable, the average values listed in Table 1-5 may be
used. Table 1-5 was taken from ERCB 91-A and Environment Canadas
Inventory Methods Manual for Estimating Canadian Emissions of Greenhouse
Gases, Table 5.4 page 38. All values in Table 1-5 are gross or higher heating
values (HHV).
A simplified equation for determining boiler emissions is:
Equation 2
Emissions = Fuel usage x Emission factor x Utilisation
= [Output rating / (Efficiency x HHV of fuel)] x Emission factor x
Utilisation
Please refer to Example 2 which follows the next table.
Table 1-4: Emission Levels Provided by Boiler Manufacturers
Manufacturer Model
Thermal
Efficiency
(HHV)
CO2 %
CO
ppm
(g/kWh)
NOx ppm
(g/kWh)
VOCs
ppm
(g/kWh)
PM
(g/kWh)
Cleaver Brooks CB 75 78 % 200
(0.232)
100
(0.186)
40
(0.025)
(0.015)
CB-LE 200
(0.232)
20 60
(.037-.108)
40
(0.025)
(0.015)
CBW 200
(0.232)
100
(0.186)
40
(0.025)
(0.015)
FLX 0 50 40 60
5 200
(0.232)
100
(0.186)
40
(0.025)
(0.015)
IWT 200
(0.226)
110
(0.201)
IWT w/ FLR
Saskatoon prior to
1995
74 77 % 9 > 50
ppm
80 ppm
after 1995 75 78 % 9 0 59 ppm
All values in Table 1-4 are based on natural gas combustion.
For N2O use 0.015 x NOx value.
For equipment that does not list a CO2 emission factor, use the CO2 factors found in Table 1-3.
Table 1-5: Energy Content of Fuels
Fuel Energy Content
HHV (Gigajoules)
Natural gas (per 10
3
m
3
) 37.4
Natural gas, raw/unprocessed (per 10
3
m
3
) 46.0
Liquid ethane (per m
3
) 18.5
Liquid propane (per m
3
) 25.4
Liquid butane (per m
3
) 28.7
NGL (natural gas liquids, per m
3
) 27.5
Crude oil, light & medium (per m
3
) 38.5
Crude oil, heavy (per m
3
) 41.4
Crude oil, bitumen (per m
3
) 42.8
Aviation gas (per m
3
) 33.5
Motor gasoline (per m
3
) 34.7
Kerosene (per m
3
) 37.7
Diesel fuel (per m
3
) 38.7
Taken from ERCB 91-A and Environment Canadas Inventory Methods Manual for Estimating
Canadian Emissions of Greenhouse Gases.
HHV is higher heating value.
The heating value of unprocessed gas is considered to be greater than that of
sweet gas as it may contain quantities of ethane, propane, butane and C5+.
Assuming an average composition of 80 percent CH
4
, 15 percent C
2
H
6
and 5
percent C
3
H
8
+, a gross heating value of 46 MJ/m
3
is calculated. Given this
composition, the amount of CO
2
produced for stoichiometric combustion is 1.25
times greater than if methane only was being burned (i.e., 2.33 kg/sm3). This
data may be used when calculating emissions for raw gas combustion/flaring;
however, companies should use their specific gas compositions to determine
flared gas emission factors.
To calculate a CO
2
emission factor for a specific mixed gas composition such as:
aCH
4
+ bC
2
H
6
+ cC
3
H
8
+ dC
4
H
10
+ eC
5
H
12
+ fCO
2
, where a to f are mole
fractions of the natural gas components, the following formula may be used:
Equation 3
[(a + 2b + 3c + 4d + 5e + f) x 44.01] / 23.64 = kg CO
2
/sm
3
fuel burned
where:
44.01 = molecular weight of CO
2
; and,
23.64 = the volume (in m
3
) occupied by 1 kmole of gas at 15
o
C and 101.325 kPaa
The above equation assumes complete combustion of hydrocarbon components
and therefore should be used for equipment such as boilers, heaters and
incinerators.
Another important factor in calculating fuel usage is thermal efficiency. The
typical efficiency (based on HHV) of boilers/heaters with a rated output of > 375
kW is 80 percent; if < 375 kW use 70 percent (taken from manufacturer data
available from Saskatoon Boilers, Cleaver Brooks and Volcano Boilers).
Example 2
Determine the CO
2
E emissions of a natural gas fired boiler rated at 100
MMBtu/hr (output) and which is operated 360 days per year.
Solution:
Use Equation 2 to solve this problem.
Utilisation = 360 / 365 [days/yr] = 0.986
Output rating = 100 x 10
6
[Btu/hr] x 0.2931 [MW/10
6
Btu/h]
= 29.31 MW
Fuel usage = (Output rating x Utilization) / (Efficiency x HHV of fuel)
= (29.31 x 0.986) / (0.80 x 37.4)
= 0.966 m
3
/second
= 0.966 m
3
/second x 31.536 x 10
6
[seconds/yr]
= 30.46 x 10
6
m
3
/year
GHG Emissions = 30.46 x 10
6
[m
3
/yr] x 1.903 [kg/m
3
]
= 57.96 x 10
6
kg/yr
= 58 ktonnes CO
2
E/yr
1.7.2 Natural Gas Fired Drivers
The amount of GHG emitted from natural gas fired drivers varies depending on
the combustion process involved. Exhaust from a reciprocating engine tends to
contain more Nox (N
2
O), and unburned hydrocarbon (as compared to a turbine
driver). Table 1-6 shows emissions factors for both types of drivers for various
combustion designs. These factors have been revised and will result in lower
emissions than the previous CAPP factors.
The CO
2
, NOx and CH
4
emission factors in Table 1-6 were taken from the
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, EPA AP-42, 5
th
Edition,
January 1995 (updated April and July 2000), Table 3.2-1 and 3.1-2a.
A simplified equation for determining turbine or engine emissions is:
Equation 4
Emissions = Input fuel volume x Emission factor
If fuel volume is not available for each driver, then the engine power rating,
utilization and gas heating value may be used to estimate individual fuel volumes.
Equation 5 may be used to determine fuel usage in 10
3
m
3
.
Equation 5
Inlet Fuel = (Driver ouput in kW / Efficiency ) x Hours operated x 0.0036 / Fuel HHV in
GJ/10
3
m
3
where 0.0036 is the conversion factor for kW to GJ (i.e., 3.6 GJ = 1000 kW)
Table 1-6: Emission Factors for Natural Gas and Diesel Drivers based on Fuel Usage
Driver Type CO
2
/m
3
gas
N
2
O
g/m
3
gas
CH
4
g/m
3
gas
CO
2
E
g/m
3
gas
Reciprocating engine:
2-cycle lean burn
4-cycle lean burn
4-cycle rich burn turbo-charged
1769
1769
1769
0.765*
0.984*
0.533*
23.31
20.09
3.69
2496
2496
2012
Gas Turbine 1769 0.077* 0.138 1796
Large bore diesel engines (> 600
hp)
2.744 kg/l 0.0004 kg/l 0.00014 kg/l 2.871 kg/l
Taken from EPA AP-42, 1995 and 2000; diesel emission factors were taken from EPA AP-42 Supplement C, 1996.
* Estimated to be 1.5 percent of total NOX.
Manufacture specific emission factors for reciprocating engines are given in Table
1-7 and Table 1-8. For missing CO
2
factors, use factors from Table 1-4.
Table 1-7: Emission Data for Waukesha Reciprocating Engines
Model Carburetor
Setting
CO
2
g/kWh
NOx
g/kWh
CO
g/kWh
CH
4
g/kWh
Excess
Air Ratio
AT25GL Standard 580.8 1.34 3.02 9.39 1.74
AT27GL Standard
Ultra lean 526.9
2.01
1.68
2.28
2.01
6.03
4.16
1.74
2.00
VHP G, GSI Lowest manifold*
Equal NOx & CO
Catalytic conv.
Standard**
581.29
581.29
581.29
581.29
11.39
16.09
17.43
29.5
42.91
16.09
12.07
2.01
2.61
2.61
2.28
1.68
0.97
0.99
0.99
1.06
VHP 3524 GSI Equal NOx & CO 576.13 18.77 18.77 1.14 0.99
VHP 7044 GSI Catalytic conv.
Standard**
573.7 20.12
30.84
17.43
2.68
1.07
0.80
0.99
1.06
VHP 5794 GSI Equal NOx & CO
Catalytic conv.
Standard**
568.7 18.1
19.44
29.5
17.43
14.75
4.02
3.42
3.29
2.75
0.99
0.99
1.06
VHP GL Standard 592.3 2.01 3.55 6.03 1.74
VGF Model G Lowest manifold*
Equal NOx & CO
Catalytic conv.
Standard**
575.0 16.09
20.12
21.46
37.55
37.55
20.12
13.41
1.07
2.28
2.28
2.28
1.41
0.97
0.98
0.99
1.12
VGF Model GSID
Catalytic conv. 575.0 21.46 10.73 1.68 0.99
VGF GL, GLD
11:1 CR
Std.: high speed
turbo
T.A. Luft emissions
575.0 3.49
1.68
2.35
2.13
5.7
4.09
1.53
1.59
VGF GL 8.7:1 CR Std.: high speed
turbo
575.0 2.68 2.28 4.09 1.53
VSG G, GSI,
GSID
Lowest manifold *
Equal NOx & CO
Catalytic conv.
Standard**
566.8 13.41
18.71
20.12
33.53
50.95
18.77
16.09
1.21
3.42
3.42
3.08
2.28
0.97
0.98
0.99
1.10
F1197G G Lowest manifld*
Equal NOx & CO
Catalytic conv.
Standard**
13.41
18.77
18.1
29.5
52.3
18.77
22.79
1.74
3.35
2.61
2.61
1.27
0.97
1.0
0.99
1.06
F8176 G Lowest manifold*
Equal NOx & CO
Catalytic conv.
Standard**
11.39
17.43
16.09
24.14
50.96
17.43
20.12
1.74
2.61
2.28
2.28
2.28
0.97
1.0
0.99
1.06
*Lowest manifold setting refers to best power setting.
** Standard settings refer to best economy setting.
All data in this Table is based on max. horsepower and engine speed.
For N2O factor, use 0.015 x NOx value.
Table 1-8: Emission Data for CAT Reciprocating Engines
Model Power
kW
Speed
rpm
% O
2
NO
X
g/kWh
CO
2
g/kWh
HC
g/kWh
3412 SITA 447 1800 1.5 22.4 436
3508 SITA 384 1200 7.7 2.68 574
3508 SITA 470 1400 8.0 2.68 590
3512 SITA 604 1200 8.2 2.68 579
3512 SITA 705 1400 7.7 2.68 595
3516 SITA 809 1200 8.3 2.68 567
3516 SITA 943 1200 7.9 2.68 581
3606 SITA 1242 1000 12.3 0.94 347
3608 SITA 1659 1000 12.3 0.94 347
3612 SITA 2487 1000 12.3 0.94 347
3616 SITA 3315 1000 12.3 0.94 347
G398 TALCR 522 1200 2.0 24.54 1.48
G398 TAHCR
Catalyst
522
522
1200
1200
2.0
0.5
20.38
12.61
1.21
2.15
G398 TAHCR
32C
(low emissions)
522 1200 6.2 6.71 1.88
HC is hydrocarbons.
Thermal efficiencies (based on fuel HHV) for reciprocating engines are typically
in the range of 28 31 percent for naturally aspirated engines and 31 36 percent
for lean burn engines (per Waukesha engine specifications).
Gas-fired turbine thermal efficiencies (based on fuel HHV) are typically in the
range of 24 30 percent, based on Solar and GE manufacturer data.
1.7.3 Flaring of Natural Gas
According to EPA AP-42 (Page 9.2-1), smokeless flares that utilize steam
injection produce negligible amounts of N
2
O since combustion gas temperatures
usually do not exceed 650
o
C (1200
o
F). However, most upstream facilities do not
have flares with steam injection and so flame temperatures are approximately
1000
o
C. At this temperature, NO
X
does form, although there is limited sample
data to say what this amount is. Lab scale tests (M. Strocher, Alberta Research
Council, 1996 Investigations of Flare Gas Emissions in Alberta) show that NO
X
is present in the flare gas emissions in the amount of approximately 10 mg/m
3
.
This equates to an emission factor of 0.276 g NO
X
/m
3
fuel gas.
A 98 percent combustion efficiency was used to determine the amount of
unburned methane in the flue gas stream for Table 1-9. The use of 98 percent
combustion/destruction efficiency is in accordance with current recommendations
as set in the Alberta EUB, G60 Flaring Guideline. These factors may change
pending technical studies currently sponsored by CAPP to investigate the
efficiency of flares. These studies are expected to be complete by December
2003.
Table 1-9: Emission Factors for Flaring Natural Gas
Natural Gas Type CO
2
g/m
3
fuel
N
2
O
g/m
3
fuel
CH
4
g/m
3
fuel
CO
2
E
g/m
3
fuel
Sales or processed 1853 0.004* 13.6 2,140
Raw or unprocessed 2281 0.004* 10.85 2,510
* Estimated to be 1.5 percent of NOX.
Example 3
Determine the CO
2
E emissions from the annual flaring of 2,500 x 10
3
m
3
of raw
gas.
Solution
CO
2
E Emissions = 2,500 x 10
3
x 2.510 [tonnes CO
2
E/ 10
3
m
3
gas]
= 6,275 tonnes CO
2
E = 6.28 ktonnes CO
2
E/yr
If the raw gas being flared is substantially different in composition from the
average used in the above table (ie 80% CH
4
. 15% C
2
H
6
, 5% C
3
H
8
), then
Equation 3 should be used to calculate a more representative gas combustion
factor. This is especially true when flaring sour gas. When using Equation 3 for
determining CO
2
from flaring, the hydrocarbon mole fractions must be multiplied
by 0.98 since this is the combustion efficiency. Similarly, the methane emission
factor for flaring would be the methane mole fraction multiplied by 0.02 and then
by 678.4 (i.e., methane density in g/m
3
).
It is recommended that specific gas analysis and Equation 3 be used when
calculating emissions from well test flaring. Gas compositions can vary
significantly between wells.
1.7.4 Electric Power Generation Emission Factors
The generation of electricity will produce GHG emissions (except for hydro-
electricity), as fuel must be burned in order to generate steam required to drive the
turbine generators. The amount of emissions produced per kilowatt-hour is
dependent on the type of fuel used and the efficiency of the equipment utilized for
power generation. For this reason, electric power generation emissions factors
vary from province to province and year to year. The data listed in Table 1-11
was obtained from utility companies operating in various provinces.
Upstream facilities in North Eastern BC (i.e., Fort St. John area) purchase
electricity from Alberta and so should use the ATCO Electric emission factor.
Remote northern facilities that generate electricity from diesel generators should
use the emission factor for diesel combustion (2,871 kg CO
2
E/m
3
fuel). The
emission factor listed in Table 1-10 for Alberta is a weighted average using
ATCO Electric, TransAlta, and EPCOR.
It should be understood that the emission factors listed in Table 1-10 will change
annually as utility companies vary the method of power generation. Table 1-10
does not include line losses.
Table 1-10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Power Generation
Province
1990
CO
2
E
kg/MWh
1995
CO
2
E
kg/MWh
1996
CO
2
E
kg/MWh
1999
CO
2
E
kg/MWh
2000
CO
2
E
kg/MWh
2001
CO
2
E
kg/MWh
British Columbia * * * * 42 56
N.E. B.C. (supplied by
ATCO)
1130 1089 1058 1089 1074 1040
Alberta (average) 1000 1035 1025 1007 1020 1005
ATCO (Alberta) 1074 1040
EPCOR (Alberta) 820 790
TransAlta (Alberta) 1070 1070
Saskatchewan 750 860 860 880 917 910
Manitoba * 12 12 11 25.3 29.0
Ontario 280 130 150 240 283.7 303.8
Quebec * * * 1.4 2.09 14.5
Nova Scotia * * * 780 864 852.5
New Brunswick * * * 546 * *
Newfoundland * * * 190 136 277.8
* No data available
It is recommended that the electrical emission factors specific for each reporting year be used to determine the
indirect ghg emissions for each year.
A simplified equation for determining emissions from electrical purchases is:
Equation 6
Emissions = (Power usage in MWh for the year) x (CO
2
E Emission factor)
Note: 1 MWh = 3.6 GJ
1.7.5 Methane Emissions from Fugitive Losses
Fugitive losses refer to non-intentional vapour losses from pipe fittings and
rotating equipment seals. Table 1-11 lists factors that may be used to estimate
methane releases from equipment leaks in natural gas piping systems.
Table 1-11: Fugitive Emissions Factors in Vapour Service
Fitting Gas Facilities:
kg/hr/fitting
Oil Facilities:
kg/hr/fitting
Valves (sweet gas) 0.04351 0.01417
Valves (sour gas) 0.00518
Flanges/Connectors (sweet) 0.00253 0.00079
Flanges/Connectors (sour) 0.00031
Compressor seals 0.80488 0.80488
PRVs (vented to atmosphere) 0.12096 0.12096
Open-ended lines 0.00373 0.00373
Factors for Table 1-11 were taken from "A Detailed Inventory of CH
4
and VOC
Emissions from Upstream Oil and Gas Operations in Alberta", CAPP, Vol. II,
D.J. Picard, March 1992, Table 6, page 75. They can also be found in A
Detailed Inventory of CH
4
and VOC Emissions From Upstream Oil and Gas
Operations in Canada, Volume II, Table 14, page 79 (by Clearstone Engineering,
December 3, 1998).
Example 4
Determine the CO
2
E emissions from a sweet solution gas piping system that
contains 2 centrifugal compressors, five 8 flanges, ten 4 flanges, three 8 valves
and eight 4 valves. The piping pressure is 400 psi and the gas contains 60 percent
methane (i.e., by weight).
Solution
The fugitive emissions factors are independent of pipe fitting size and line
pressure.
There are a total of 2 compressor seals, 15 flanges and 11 valves.
Using Equation 7 and Table 1-11 we get:
Methane loss = [(2 x 0.805) + (15 x 0.0025) + (11 x 0.0435)] x 0.6 x 8760 hr/yr
= 11,174 kg CH
4
/yr = 11.17 tonnes CH
4
/yr
CO
2
E = 11.17 x 21.0 = 234.6 tonnes CO
2
E/yr
A simplified equation for determining fugitive emissions is:
Equation 7
Total Methane Emissions (in kg/yr) = (N
a
x F
a
) x W x 8,760 hr/yr
Where:
N
a
= total number of fittings of type a
F
a
= fugitive emissions factor (in kg/hr/fitting) for fitting a
W = weight fraction of methane in gas
= [(mole fraction CH
4
) x 16.04] / [Molecular Weight of mixed gas]
where 16.04 is the molecular weight of methane
1.7.6 Methane Emissions from Instrumentation Venting
When natural gas is used to operate instrumentation and valves for process
control, methane gas is vented (unless a recovery system is in place) during the
normal operation of this equipment. The following table lists the gas losses for
standard instruments (common prior to 1985) in regulating or throttling service.
Losses for on/off service will be much lower.
Table 1-12: Gas Consumption Rates (in m
3
/hr) for Standard (high bleed)
Pneumatic Instruments
Instrument Type Operating Pressure
= 140 kpag
Operating Pressure
= 240 kpag
Transmitter 0.12 0.2
Controller 0.6 0.8
I/P Transducer 0.6 0.8
P/P Positioner 0.32 0.5
I/P Positioner 0.4 0.6
Chem. inj. pumps (diaphragm) 0.4 0.6
Chem. injection pumps (piston) 0.04 0.06
In regulating service, the controller continuously receives a process feedback
signal which is used to maintain a process variable such as level, pressure or
temperature.
The above data was taken from "Options for Reducing Methane and VOC
Emissions from Upstream Oil and Gas Operations", D.J. Picard/Clearstone
Engineering and S. Sarkar/Fluor Daniel Canada, CAPP, December 1993, Table 2-
2, page 2-4.
An example of a high bleed controller is the Fisher 4150K and 4160K (pressure
controllers and transmitters), which can vent up to 0.8 m
3
/hr. The Fisher 2500
Series pneumatic controllers and transmitters used for level control (e.g., Level-
Trol applications) can vent from 0.2 to 1.0 m
3
/hr.
An average emission value of 0.1996 m
3
/hr/instrument controller is sited in A
Detailed Inventory of CH
4
and VOC Emissions from Upstream Oil and Gas
Operations in Canada, Volume 2, page 83, Table 16 (by Clearstone
Engineering).
New low bleed instruments are now available from various manufacturers. The
Fisher 4195 (i.e., gauge pressure indicating controller) is a low bleed, steady-state
bleed controller that vents approximately 0.1 and 0.14 m
3
/hr at 103 and 210 kPag
respectively. The Fisher 2680 series liquid level controller is a low bleed
controller, which vents 0.03 m
3
/hr. The Fisher series 2660 (i.e., liquid level
controller), 2100 (i.e., electric liquid level switch) and 4660 (i.e., high-low
pressure pilot) are no bleed or no vent controllers that have no bleed while in the
steady state. Gas losses in actuating service are about 0.03 m
3
/hr for these units.
Becker Precision Equipment also supplies the following no bleed (at steady-state)
instruments:
VRP-B-A (with DPS-2 sensor) & VRP-B-C: double acting pilot pressure
control;
VRP-SB-A & VRP-SB-C: single acting pilot pressure control;
HPP-3-A (with DPS-2) & HPP-3-C: double acting pneumatic positioner;
HPP-3E-A (with DPS-2) & HPP-3E-C: double acting electro-pneumatic
positioner;
HPP-SB-A: single acting pneumatic positioner; and,
HPP-SB-C, HPP-SB-E-A, HPP-SB-E-C: single acting electro-pneumatic
positioner.
Other process equipment such as ESD (emergency shut down) valves and
solenoids only vent during shutdown. The vent rate used for emission estimates
should be 0.03 m
3
/hr for each shutdown event.
1.7.7 Methane Losses from Glycol Dehydrators
Glycol dehydrators are used to remove water from natural gas streams. When the
liquid glycol contacts the natural gas, it absorbs the water from the gas stream
along with a small amount of hydrocarbons such as methane. When the glycol is
regenerated to remove the absorbed water, the hydrocarbons are also removed.
This regeneration process includes flashing off excess methane by reducing
process pressure in a flash separator and then boiling off the water by heating the
glycol to about 190
o
C in the glycol reboiler.
Methane liberated from the glycol in the flash separator is usually recovered and
injected back into the process. However, if a flash separator is not present, then a
significant amount of methane will be liberated with the water vapour in the
glycol reboiler. If the reboiler vent is allowed to discharge to atmosphere, then all
the liberated methane will be lost to the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas emission.
If detailed process data such as: wet gas composition; wet gas flow rate,
temperature and pressure; and glycol flow rate are available, then computer
software such as GRI GLYCalc may be used to determine methane emissions
from the glycol dehydrators. If such detailed process data is unavailable, then
general emission factors as shown in Table 1-13 can be used to estimate methane
losses.
Table 1-13: Average Methane Emission Factors for Dehydration
Dehydration Mode of Operation CH4 Emission factor
Tonnes CH4 / 10
6
m
3
gas processed
Gas pump without a flash separator 0.2264
Gas pump with a flash separator 0.0054
Electric pump without a flash separator 0.0588
Electric pump with a flash separator 0.0045
The above Table excludes methane losses from stripping gas addition.
When a flash separator is present, it is assumed that flash gas is recovered and not vented.
Data for Table 1-13 was based on GLYCalc model results taken from GRI report
No. GRI 98/0073, Investigation of Condenser Efficiency for HAP Control
from Glycol Dehydrator Reboiler Vent Streams: Analysis of Data from the EPA
Questionnaire and GRIs Condenser Monitoring Program.
In order to decrease the water content of the regenerated glycol (i.e., to achieve
dryer gas specs), some gas production operators add stripping gas (i.e., dry natural
gas) to the reboiler. Without the presence of any hydrocarbon recovery system on
the reboiler vent, this additional gas is lost to the atmosphere. Although the
amount of stripping gas lost is dependent on the dew point depression required
and the glycol circulation rate used, typical losses can be from 0.0047 to 0.0281
m
3
/ m
3
gas processed. In terms of mass, this is 3.178 to 19.061 tonnes CH
4
/ 10
6
m
3
gas processed. These rates are based on glycol dehydrator design rates quoted
by glycol manufacturers.
If a condensing coil is present in the reboiler vent stack, heavier hydrocarbons
such as benzene will be condensed from the vapour; however, methane losses will
remain unchanged.
1.7.8 Methane Emissions from Oil Batteries
To estimate hydrocarbon vapour volumes generated at well batteries, the factors
listed in Table 1-14 may be used.
Table 1-14: Factors Used to Estimate Gas Venting and Flaring Rates
Emission Source Description
(Solution gas is off stock tanks)
THC Emission Factor
m
3
/m
3
of oil production
Conventional Oil Solution gas (no treater in process) 5.0
Solution gas (with treater in process) 3.2
Solution gas (with gas boot in
process)
0.45
Primary Heavy Oil Casing gas produced:
Casing gas vented (63.2%)
59.2
37.4
Solution gas produced:
Solution gas vented (38.7%):
1.0
0.38
Thermal Heavy Oil Casing gas produced:
Casing gas vented (4.7%):
53.9
2.53
Solution gas produced:
Solution gas vented (0%)
8.3
0.0
Crude Bitumen Casing gas produced:
Casing gas vented (18%):
12.9
2.3
The above data was taken from "A Detailed Inventory of CH
4
and VOC
Emissions From Upstream Oil and Gas Operations in Alberta", Picard, CAPP,
Volume II, March 1992, Table 8, page 80. The solution gas emissions factors in
Table 1-10 are used to estimate the amount of gas that flashes from the oil when it
first enters the stock tank. Vented gas percentages shown in Table 1-10 were
taken from A Detailed Inventory of CH
4
and VOC Emissions from Upstream Oil
and Gas Operations in Canada, Volume 2, Table 10, page 52 and Table 11, page
58 (by Clearstone Engineering, December 3, 1998).
The solution gas and casing gas volumes listed in Table 1-14 were obtained from
testing of numerous field production batteries, and represent average values. If
available, it is best to use your own site-specific hydrocarbon
composition/analysis and gas/oil ratio to determine solution gas and casing gas
volumes. Refer to note g on the short form, GHG-SF, at the end of this section.
Since these factors give total hydrocarbon vapour quantities, the fraction of
methane in the solution gas must be known to calculate the methane losses. In the
absence of site-specific data, an average tank vent CH
4
content of 27.4 percent by
volume may be used. This value is the average obtained from two published
studies (API 1997 and Picard 1992). The total methane emissions that contribute
to GHG emissions will depend on whether the gas is vented to atmosphere, flared,
or recovered for sales.
Example 5
Determine the methane losses in terms of CO
2
E for 2 oil batteries, both of which
produce 100 m
3
/day of light oil. Battery A has a treater in its process and collects
and flares all vapours off its stock tanks. Battery B has no treater and vents its
stock tanks to atmosphere. The mole percent methane in both solution gases is 80
percent.
Solution
Battery A = [Fuel Volume] x [Flaring Combustion CO
2
E Emission Factor]
= [100 (m
3
/day) x 365 (days) x 3.2 (m
3
/m
3
] x [2.57 (tonnes/10
3
m
3
)] /
1000
= 300.2 tonnes CO
2
E/yr.
Battery B = [Methane Emissions in kg] x [GWP factor]
= [100 (m
3
/d) x 365 (days) x 5.0 (m
3
/m
3
) x 0.80 x 0.678 (kg/m
3
)] x
[21.0]/10
3
= 2,078 tonnes CO
2
E/yr.
The above example illustrates that burning the solution gas produces much less
greenhouse gas than venting.
1.7.9 Methane Emissions from Plant Tank Venting
Hydrocarbon vapour breathing and working losses from tankage can be calculated
using EPA's computer program "TANKS", or the equations in EPA AP-42
Section 4.3-1. Calculators should ensure that they are using the most recent EPA
updates, thus checking the EPA website (www.epa.gov) is recommended.
It should be noted that generally, very little methane would be liberated from
liquid hydrocarbon sales storage (i.e., after processing). If the liquid composition
shows no methane content, no methane emissions will be released from tankage
vented to atmosphere. The only significant losses of methane from tankage occur
when the initial crude production decreases in pressure from the inlet separator
conditions to atmospheric pressure in the well-site or oil battery storage tanks.
See the previous section (1.7.8) for more information on this topic.
Breathing loss is the expulsion of vapour from a tank through vapour expansion
and contraction, caused by changes in temperature and barometric pressure.
Breathing losses for vertical cylindrical shells venting to atmosphere with fixed
roofs can be calculated using the following equation:
Equation 8
L
B
= 2.26 x 10
-2
M
v
(P/(P
A
- P))
0.68
x D
1.73
H
0.51
DT
0.5
F
P
CK
C
where:
L
B
= fixed roof breathing loss (lb./yr.)
M
v
= molecular weight of vapour in storage tank
P
A
= average atmospheric pressure at tank location (psia)
P = true vapour pressure at bulk liquid conditions (psia)
D = tank diameter (ft.)
H = average tank vapour space height, including roof volume correction (ft.)
DT= average ambient diurnal temperature change (
o
F)
F
P
= paint factor (= 1.0 for white in good condition)
C = adjustment factor for small diameter tanks (see EPA AP-42, Figure 4.3-
4)
For tank diameter of 20 feet, C = 0.9
For tank diameter of 30 feet or greater, C = 1.0
K
C
= product factor
For crude oil, K
C
= 0.65
For all other organic liquids, K
C
= 1.0
The combined vapour loss from filling and emptying a tank is called working
loss. For fixed roof tanks venting to atmosphere, the working losses may be
estimated using the following equation:
Equation 9
L
W
= 2.40 x 10
-5
x M
v
PVNK
N
K
C
where:
L
W
= fixed roof tank working loss (lb./yr)
M
v
= molecular weight of vapour in storage tank
P = true vapour pressure at bulk liquid temperature (psia)
V = tank capacity (U.S. gallons)
N = number of tank turnovers per year (dimensionless) where:
N = (total through-put per year) / (tank capacity)
K
N
= turnover factor (see EPA AP-42, Figure 4.3-7). K
N
= 1.0 for N = 36 or less
K
C
= product factor
For crude oil, K
C
= 0.65
For all other organic liquids, K
C
= 1.0
1.7.10 Methane Losses from Non-Routine Venting
Natural gas or methane venting losses due to equipment failure or releases
through pressure safety valves (PSVs) open to atmosphere may be calculated
using the following equation.
Equation 10
tCO
2
E from Gas Venting = (Natural gas vented volume in 10
3
m
3
) (mole
fraction methane) 0.6784 [tonnes/10
3
m
3
] 21 [GWP]
1.7.11 CO
2
Venting from Sour Gas Processing Facilities
Sour gas contains both H
2
S and CO
2
. These gases are removed from the natural
gas inlet stream in order to meet pipeline sales gas specifications (i.e., 2 mole
percent CO
2
).
After H
2
S is removed from the inlet gas stream it may be recovered as elemental
sulphur or burned to produce SO
4
. The removed CO
2
is sent to the incinerator or
flare, but since it is non-combustible, it becomes an atmospheric release of CO
2
.
This CO
2
released to the atmosphere may be estimated using the following
formula:
Equation 11
tonnes CO
2
released = [ (MF x VI) - (SMF x VS) ] x 1.8612 / 1000
where:
MF= mole or volume fraction CO
2
in inlet gas
VI= volume inlet gas in m
3
/yr @ STP conditions
SMF = sales gas spec. for mole fraction, CO
2
= 0.02 typically
VS = volume sales gas in m
3
1.8612 = density of CO
2
in tonnes/10
3
m
3
at STP conditions
An alternate method to calculate CO
2
vented is based on the amount of CO
2
being
sent to the acid gas incinerator. The following formula may be used for this
method.
Equation 12
CO
2
released (in tonnes/yr) = (MFS x AGV) x 1.8612 / 1000
where:
MFS = mole fraction CO
2
in acid gas to incinerator inlet
AGV = acid gas volume to incinerator inlet in m
3
1.8 Fugitive Emission Estimates Derived from the GFC Method
Although the Detailed Method gives the best results, it requires substantial effort
to collect the actual number of valves and fittings from a given site/facility (either
by site inspection or the review of facility PIDs). The Short Form method is quite
simple to use; however, since it uses production-based fugitive emission factors, it
usually results in high emissions volumes.
In order to improve the accuracy of the Short Form method for fugitive emissions
without a substantial increase in effort, the new Generic Fitting Count (GFC) may
be used.
By using a generic or average fitting count for specific equipment/processes, the
fugitive emissions calculated will be based on the number of fittings without the
need to count fittings at a specific site. The generic fitting counts presented here
were taken from an API fugitive emission study of 20 different facilities in 1993.
Reference should be made to API Publication 4589, Dec. 1993, Fugitive
Hydrocarbon Emissions from Oil and Gas Production Operations.
Table 1-15 to Table 1-19 list the generic or average fitting counts determined
from this API study. The fitting counts in these Tables do not distinguish how
many fittings are in liquid or vapour service. Equipment with both liquid and gas
fittings such as separators and dehydrators can be considered to have 50 percent
of their fittings in gas service (i.e., as an approximation).
Example 6
Use the Generic Fitting Count to calculate the annual fugitive emissions from a
sweet gas plant that has:
1 inlet separator
2 reciprocating compressors
1 dehydrator
1 fractionation tower
2 scrubbers
1 sales gas meter
The plant operates 360 days per year, has 1 PRV relieving to atmosphere and has
85 percent methane content (by weight) in its gas.
Solution
Using Table 1-15, the total number of gas connectors is:
(48 x 0.5) + 2(129) + (105 x 0.5) + (81 x 0.5) + 2(81 x 0.5) + 160 = 617
where 0.5 is used for the inlet separator, dehy, fractionator and scrubbers since
half of the connectors are in gas service.
Using Table 1-16, the total number of gas valves is:
(17 x 0.5) + 2(26) + (25 x 0.5) + (23 x 0.5) + 2(23 x 0.5) + 41 = 149
Using Table 1-17, the total number of open-ended gas lines is:
(3 x 0.5) + 2(2) + (3 x 0.5) + (2 x 0.5) + 2(2 x 0.5) + 13 = 23
Using
Table 1-18, the number of compressor seals is:
2(3) = 6
The number of PRVs vented to the atmosphere is 1.
Therefore, using the fugitive emission factors from Table 1-11 and Equation 7,
the total fugitive emissions are:
= [(617 connectors x 0.00253 kg/hr/connector) + (149 valves x 0.04351
kg/hr/valve) + (23 open-ended lines x 0.00373 kg/hr/OEL) + (6 seals x 0.80488
kg/hr/seal) + (1 PRV x 0.12096 kg/hr/PRV) ] x 24 hr/day x 365 days/yr x 360/365
x 0.85
= [1.56 + 6.48 + 0.09 + 4.83 + 0.12] x 8760 x 0.986 x 0.85
= 13.08 x 8760 x 0.986 x 0.85
= 96,030 kg CH
4
/yr
= 96 tonnes CH
4
/yr
= 96 x 21 (GWP factor)
= 2,017 tonnes CO
2
E/yr
Table 1-15: Generic or Average Connector Counts by Equipment/Process Type
Equipment/Process Light Oil
Facilities
Heavy Oil
Facilities
Gas
Production
Gas
Plants
Offshore
Platforms
Overall
Onshore
Average
Well 53 44 60 195 52
Header 389 108 105 145 310 187
Heater 146 147 197 147
Separator 111 41 160 48 299 90
Filter 122 269 122
Chiller 94 94
Meter 91 55 160 383 102
Dehydrator 119 155 105 210 126
Fractionation 81 81
Sulphur 109 144 127
Compressor 163 195 129 417 162
Vapour Recovery 78 162 78
Scrubber 105 120 81 177 102
Flare 114 221 376 168
Table 1-16: Generic or Average Valve Counts by Equipment/Process Type
Facilities
Heavy Oil
Facilities
Gas
Production
Gas
Plants
Offshore
Platforms
Overall
Onshore
Average
Well 13 8 16 61 12
Header 109 17 26 38 82 48
Heater 28 22 45 25
Separator 24 10 30 17 81 20
Filter 19 42 19
Chiller 25 25
Meter 21 13 41 84 25
Dehydrator 26 31 25 46 27
Fractionation 23 23
Sulphur 34 42 38
Compressor 34 31 26 88 30
Scrubber 22 24 23 39 23
Flare 35 71 74 53
Table 1-17: Generic or Average Open-ended Line Counts by Equipment/Process
Type
Facilities
Heavy Oil
Facilities
Gas
Production
Gas
Plants
Offshore
Platforms
Overall
Onshore
Average
Well 2 3 3 20 3
Header 4 4 4 4 14 4
Heater 3 4 4 4
Separator 3 2 5 3 11 3
Filter 3 8 3
Chiller 1 1
Meter 4 2 13 10 6
Dehydrator 5 3 5 4
Fractionation 2 2
Sulphur 7 3 5
Scrubber 3 2 2 5 2
Flare 5 1 11 3
Table 1-18: Generic or Average Compressor Seal Counts by Equipment/Process Type
Facilities
Heavy Oil
Facilities
Gas
Production
Gas
Plants
Offshore
Platforms
Overall
Onshore
Average
Vapour Recovery 2
Since the fugitive emission factor for compressor seals is quite high, it is
advisable to use the actual number of seals at your specific facility. Generally,
centrifugal compressors have one seal per unit, while reciprocating compressors
have one seal per cylinder.
Table 1-19: Generic or Average PRV Counts by Equipment/Process Type
Facilities
Heavy Oil
Facilities
Gas
Production
Gas
Plants
Offshore
Platforms
Overall
Onshore
Average
Well 1 1
Header 3 2 3
Heater 2 2 2
Separator 1 3 1 2
Filter 2 0
Chiller 0
Meter 2 2 4 2
Dehydrator 2 1 2
Fractionation 1 1
Sulphur 0
Compressor 3 4 3 4
Vapour Recovery 1 0
Scrubber 2 1 2
Flare 1 0
Table 1-19 should be used with caution. Although the number of PRVs shown
per equipment is reasonable, it is unlikely that this number of PRVs will be
vented to atmosphere at Canadian facilities. Operations staff should be consulted
about how many PRVs actually vent to atmosphere at their facility. Operations
staff should also review all allocated generic fitting counts prior to finalizing
fugitive emission calculations.
After determining the number of equipment/processes that exist at a specific
facility (i.e., through examination of Process Flow Diagrams or interviews with
Operations), the number of fittings per process (in Table 1-15 to Table 1-19) may
be used to determine the total number of fittings. Using this total fitting count
along with the fugitive emission factors listed in Table 1-11, the total fugitive
emission losses can be calculated. This GFC procedure does not take into account
venting from gas operated field instrumentation and controllers. These losses
must be determined separately.
1.9 Emissions from Cogeneration Systems
With the increasing demand for electrical power and the need to improve facility
thermal efficiencies, many large processing facilities are considering the
installation of cogeneration equipment.
Cogeneration is the simultaneous production of two useful forms of energy,
electrical and thermal, in a common process. Processing facilities with both a
high demand for thermal and electrical energy demand will benefit the most with
the installation of a cogeneration system.
The typical cogeneration system uses natural gas for combustion in a gas turbine,
which turns a generator to produce electricity. The hot exhaust gases from the gas
turbine are then diverted to a waste heat recovery boiler, which produces steam
for other plant processes. Since both electricity and useful heat is produced from
the combustion of the natural gas, a combined system thermal efficiency of 45 to
55 percent can be achieved versus a typical gas turbine HHV efficiency of 30
percent. Thermal efficiency can be defined as the amount of useful work or
energy recovered compared to the total amount of fuel energy consumed.
Sources of GHG emissions from a cogeneration system are:
Combustion of natural gas for the gas turbine.
Combustion of natural gas for supplemental heating in the waste heat boiler (if
needed).
Fugitive methane emissions from equipment and pipe fittings.
Example 7
Calculate theoretical cogeneration GHG Emissions:
Solution
Using a turbine thermal efficiency of 30 percent and a cogen system thermal
efficiency of 45 percent, the amount of waste heat recovered (for steam
generation) is:
[ ( 1.0 kWh / 0.30 ) x 0.45 ] 1 kWh = 0.50 kWh
Therefore, for every kWh of electrical power produced, there is 0.50 kWh of
waste heat available for use. This assumes there is no supplemental fuel required
in the waste heat recovery unit (or boiler).
Since combustion from gas turbines yields an emission factor of 0.590 kg
CO
2
E/kWh output, the per unit emissions would be:
= 0.590 kg CO
2
E / (1.0 + 0.5) kWh
= 0.393 kg CO
2
E /kWh of total energy output (electric power + heat combined)
This factor excludes emissions from auxiliary equipment such as boiler feedwater
pumps.
Therefore, the theoretical cogen emission factor is 0.393 kg CO
2
E /kWh of total
energy output (excluding auxiliary equipment emissions).
Example 8
Calculate the theoretical GHG emissions saved producing cogen power.
Solution
The amount of GHG saved when electricity is produced using cogen versus
conventional thermal coal combustion (as in Alberta) is:
Incremental emissions for using natural gas as a fuel versus coal:
1.005 0.590 = 0.415 kg CO
2
E/kWh.
Incremental emissions from producing process heat from waste heat versus
gas combustion (at 80 percent boiler thermal efficiency): 0.229 kg
CO
2
E/kWh.
Incremental fugitive methane losses from a gas turbine unit versus a gas fired
boiler. Since the number of fittings in these two pieces of equipment is almost
identical, the difference in fugitive emissions will also be negligible.
Therefore the net greenhouse gas emission savings are:
(0.415 ) + ( 0.50 kWh x 0.229 ) = 0.530 kg CO
2
E/kWh electricity produced from
cogen.
The above greenhouse gas emissions savings (0.530 kg CO
2
E/kWh) assume that
coal fired electrical power generation will be backed out. This isnt necessarily
the case however. Arguments can be made that only newer gas fired power
generation will be backed out or turned down. Since emissions from gas fired
power generation are in the order of 0.590 kg CO
2
E/kWh, the net greenhouse gas
emissions savings from cogen would then only be:
0.50 x 0.229 = 0.115 kg CO
2
E/kWh electricity produced from cogen.
The allocation of GHG emissions from the purchase of cogeneration electrical
power and/or steam/heat will depend on the agreement for CO
2
credits made
between the cogen facility investor, operator and consumer. As explained earlier,
if no supplemental fuel is added to the waste heat recovery unit or boiler, 0.590 kg
CO
2
E are released for every kWh of electrical power generated and 0.0 kg CO
2
E
are released for every kWh of waste heat recovered for use.
Published data from the U.S. Dept. of Energy list the GHG emissions from natural
gas combined cycle electrical generation (i.e., cogeneration) to be:
0.0000068 kg CH
4
/kWh and 0.432 kg CO
2
/kWh.
This compares to our above calculated combined emission factor of 0.393 kg
CO
2
E /kWh.
Therefore, if no manufacturer specific emission factors are available, 0.432
kg CO
2
E per combined kWh (heat and power) can be used for estimating
emissions from cogeneration facilities.
Operators of cogen Facilities should use Equation 13 to report direct GHG
emissions.
Equation 13
Direct cogen emissions in tonnes = (gas-fired turbine output power in MW) (#
hrs operated in year) (0.59 [tonnes CO
2
E/MWh]) + (heat recovery boiler
makeup fuel in 10
3
m
3
/yr) (1.903 [tonnes CO
2
E/10
3
m
3
])
Purchasers of cogen power or steam should use Equation 14 to report indirect
GHG emissions.
Equation 14
Indirect cogen emissions (gas-fired combined cycle) in tonnes =
(purchased cogen power in MWh) (0.432 [tonnes CO
2
E/MWh]) + (purchased
cogen steam heat in GJ/yr / 3.6 [GJ/MWh]) (0.432 [tonnes CO
2
E/MWh])
The 0.432 kg CO
2
/kWh factor was extracted from the U.S. Dept. of Energy
Instructions for Form EIA-1605 Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases
Appendix C Adjusted Electricity Emission Factors by State. DOE EIA Form
1605 9b), Sector Specific Issues (volumes 1 and 2), 1997.
1.10 Emissions from Off-shore Operations
Greenhouse gas emission sources from offshore production facilities include:
Combustion of fuel for gas turbines or engines;
Combustion of fuel for process heaters and boilers;
Combustion from flaring;
Methane losses from venting (production and process);
Methane losses from fugitives;
Storage tank venting;
Offloading of crude product; and,
Combustion from mobile sources (marine and aircraft).
Except for the last two items, all of these emission sources have already been
discussed earlier. The amount of methane lost during offloading operations will
depend on the process configuration at the facility and the final methane content
of the offloaded crude. It is expected that off-loading losses of methane will be
negligible. The methodology of estimating off-loading hydrocarbon losses is
explained in detail in EPA AP-42 (1995 Edition), Section 5.2-7 (Transportation
and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids). The following Equation 15 was taken from
EPA AP-42 and can be used to estimate loading losses:
Equation 15
L
L
= 1.493 S P M ( 1 ( eff / 100) )
T
Where:
L
L
= loading losses in kg/m
3
liquid loaded
S = 0.2 for submerged loading onto ships
0.5 for submerged loading onto barges
P = true vapour pressure of liquid loaded in psia (pounds per square inch
absolute)
M = vapour molecular weight
T = bulk temp of liquid loaded in R (F+460)
eff = overall reduction efficiency of loading losses
EPA AP-42 does not list specific emission factors for mobile off-land mobile
sources. Specific emission factors may be obtained from the equipment
manufacturer. In the absence of these specific factors, emission factors associated
with fuel type may be used. These are listed in Table 1-20.
Table 1-20: Fuel Emission Factors (for mobile sources)
Fuel Type Mobile Source Emission Factor
kg CO
2
E/litre
Diesel oil Tankers 2.856
Fuel Oil Tankers 3.223
Turbo fuel Helicopter 2.629
Aviation gas Sea plane 2.443
Above factors taken from Environment Canada Inventory Methods Manual for Estimating
Canadian Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, May 6, 1994, pages D45.5-5 and D49.1-5
1.11 Conversion Factors
1 Million Btu/hr = 293.07 kW
2544.4 Btu/hr = 1 hp
1 hp = 0.7457 kW
1 kilowatt hour = 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ
1 megawatt hour = 1 MWh = 3.6 GJ
1 kpa = 0.145 psi
1 m
3
= 6.2898 barrels
1 ktonne = 1000 tonnes = 1 x 10
6
kg
Density of fuel gas assumed to be 0.6784 kg/m
3
@ 15
o
C and 101.33 kpa.
Density of carbon dioxide = 1.861 kg/m
3
@ 15
o
C and 101.33 kpa.
1 kilojoule = 1 kJ = 1 x 10
3
J
1 megajoule = 1 MJ = 1 x 10
6
J
1 Gigajoule = 1 GJ = 1 x 10
9
J
1 Terajoule = 1 TJ = 1 x 10
12
J
Form GHG SF Rev. 3
Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Company/Facility: ___________________________ Reporting Year: _______
Prepared by: _______________________________ Date: _____________
1 Combustion Emissions:
Line # Description
(on a gross basis for company operated facilities only)
CO
2
E
factor
CO
2
E
tonnes/yr
1.1 Total natural gas burned: _______________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 2.06
n
=
1.2 Total propane liquid burned: _____________10
3
m
3
/yr x 1,644.0
m
=
1.3 Total diesel fuel burned: _______________10
3
m
3
/yr x 2,871.0 =
1.4 Total raw flared gas volume
a
: _______________10
3
m
3
/yr x 2.51 =
1.5 Total electricity purchased in Alberta:___________MWh/yr x 1.005 =
1.6 Total electricity purchased in B.C.:_____________MWh/yr x 0.056 =
1.7 Total electricity purchased in N.E. B.C.:_________MWh/yr x 1.040 =
1.8 Total electricity purchased in Sask.:____________MWh/yr x 0.910 =
1.9 Total electricity purchased in Man.:___________MWh/yr x 0.029 =
1.10 Total electricity purchased in Ontario:______MWh/yr x 0.304 =
1.11 Subtotal (Add Lines 1.1 to 1.10): =
2 Fugitive and other Methane Losses
b
:
Line # Description
(on gross thru-put basis for company operated facilities)
Emission
Factor
CO
2
E
tonnes/yr
2.0 Measured vented gas volume
c
: _______10
3
m
3
/yr x _______
d
x 14.25 =
2.1 Light oil sales: _________________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 38.0
e
=
2.2 Conventional heavy oil sales: ____________10
3
m
3
/yr x 529.4
f
=
2.3 Thermal recovery heavy oil sales: _________10
3
m
3
/yr x 27.8
g
=
2.4 Sweet gas plant sales: _______________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 0.0694
m
=
2.5 Sour gas recovery plant sales:____________10
3
m
3
/yr x 0.0576
m
=
2.6 Sour gas plant sales: ________________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 0.0634
m
=
2.7 Straddle plant NGL sales: ____________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 1.52
m
=
2.8 Subtotal (Add Lines 2.0 to 2.7): =
3 CO2 Vented from Sour Gas Processing:
Line # Description
(on a gross basis for company operated facilities)
CO
2
mole
fraction
CO
2
tonnes/yr
3.1 Sour gas processed: _____________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 1.86 x
h
=
3.2 Sour gas processed: _____________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 1.86 x
h
=
3.3 Total CO
2
in inlet gas stream (Add Lines 3.1 + 3.2): =
3.4a Sweet gas sales from sour plants:___________10
3
m
3
/yr x 0.0372
i
=
3.4b Sweet gas sales from sour plants:___________10
3
m
3
/yr x ____
j
=
3.4c CO2 injected downhole: ___________10
3
m
3
/yr x _______
k
x 1.86
l
=
3.5 Total CO
2
Vented: Lines 3.3 - (3.4a+b+c): Subtotal =
4 Total CO
2
E Emissions:
Add Lines 1.11 + 2.8 + 3.5 = ______________ tonnes/yr / 1000 = ___________ ktonnes/yr
Notes:
a
Includes flared gas from solution gas burning, process upsets, and well testing.
b
Except for line 2.0, listed emission factors include methane emissions from pipe fitting leaks,
solution gas venting, and instrument venting.
c
Do not include production associated with measured methane losses in line 2.1 to 2.7,
provided measured values include all losses listed under note b above.
d
This is the methane content (volume or mole fraction) of the vented gas.
e
This factor assumes solution gas venting of 3.2 m
3
/m
3
oil production (with 80 percent
methane content by volume) and fugitive emissions from pipe fittings to be 1.5 tonnes
CO
2
E/1000 m
3
oil production. For different conditions, use formula in note g below.
f
This factor assumes casing plus solution gas venting of 37.8 m
3
/m
3
oil production (with 98
percent methane content by volume) and fugitive emissions from pipe fittings to be 1.5
tonnes CO
2
E/1000 m
3
oil production. For different conditions, use formula in note g
below.
g
This factor assumes casing plus solution gas venting of 2.53 m
3
/m
3
oil production (with 73
percent methane content by volume) and fugitive emissions from pipe fittings to be 1.5
tonnes CO
2
E/1000 m
3
oil production. For different conditions, use the following formula to
determine a new emission factor:
[ (SGv + CGv) x MC x 0.6784 kg/m
3
x GWP ] + 1.5 where:
SGv = Solution gas vented in m
3
/m
3
oil production
CGv = Casing gas vented in m
3
/m
3
oil production
MC = Methane content in volume fraction
GWP = Global Warming potential for methane = 21.0
h
Inlet gas CO
2
content in volume or mole fraction.
i
Generic pipeline specification for CO
2
.
j
CO
2
slippage to pipeline sales if different than i above.
k
CO
2
content (volume or mole fraction) of acid gas being injected downhole.
l
Density of CO
2
(in tonnes/10
3
m
3
) at 15
o
C and 101.3 kpaa.
m
Average value obtained from A Detailed Inventory of CH4 and VOC Emissions from
Upstream Oil and Gas Operations in Canada, by Clearstone Engineering, Dec. 3, 1998.
n
Assumes that 50 percent of total combustion fuel is used for boilers/heaters, 30 percent for
reciprocating engines, 19 percent for turbines and 1 percent for flares (does not include
solution gas flaring). To determine a combustion emission factor specific to your operations,
use the following equation:
(FFBoiler x 1.90) + (FFTurbine x 1.796) + (FFRecip x 2.496) + (FFFlare x 2.14)
where FF is Fuel Fraction (of total fuel used).
Form GHG SS
Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Reductions from Projects
Company: Facility: LSD:
Contact: Title: Phone:
Project Title:
Description:
Start-up Date: MMDDYY Duration: years
1.0 Fuel Gas Conservation (Combustion) t CO
2
E/yr Method
1.1 Reduction from boilers: ______10
3
m
3
/yr x 1.903 = _________ ______
1.2 Reduction from recip. engines: ______10
3
m
3
/yr x 2.496 = _________ ______
1.3 Reduction from turbines: ______10
3
m
3
/yr x 1.796 = _________ ______
1.4 Reduction from flare make-up: ______10
3
m
3
/yr x 2.140 = _________ ______
2.0 Fuel Gas Conservation (Venting) MMF
2.1 Reduction from LDAR survey: _____10
3
m
3
/yr x _____ x 14.25 = _________ ______
2.2 Reduction from gas instruments:_____10
3
m
3
/yr x _____ x 14.25 = _________ ______
2.3 Reduction from chemical pumps_____10
3
m
3
/yr x _____ x 14.25 = _________ ______
2.4 Reduction from dehy. pumps: _____10
3
m
3
/yr x _____ x 14.25 = _________ ______
2.5 Reduction from gas stripping: _____10
3
m
3
/yr x _____ x 14.25 = _________ ______
3.0 Raw Gas Conservation (Combustion)
3.1 Reduction from flaring: ______10
3
m
3
/yr x 2.51 = _________ ______
3.2 Reduction from flaring: ______10
3
m
3
/yr x ______ (CEF) = _________ ______
4.0 Raw Gas Conservation (Venting) MMF
4.1 Reduction from LDAR survey: _____10
3
m
3
/yr x _____ x 14.25 = _________ ______
4.2 Reduction from dehy. reboiler stack: _____10
3
m
3
/yr x _____ x 14.25 = _________ ______
4.3 Reduction from process venting: _____10
3
m
3
/yr x _____ x 14.25 = _________ ______
5.0 CO
2
Venting Conservation (from Gas Sweetening)
5.1 Reduction in acid gas incineration, venting or flaring:
________10
3
m
3
/yr x _______ CO
2
mole fraction x 1.86 = _________ ______
6.0 Purchased Electric Power Conservation PEEF
6.1 Reduction in motor power:____ hp x _____ hrs/yr x 0.000746 x _____ = _________ ______
6.1 Reduction in other power: ____ kW x ____ hrs/yr x 0.001 x _____ = _________ ______
7.0 Increase in Energy Use
7.1 Increase in boiler fuel gas: ______10
3
m
3
/yr x 1.903 = _________ ______
7.2 Increase in recip. engine fuel gas:______10
3
m
3
/yr x 2.496 = _________ ______
7.3 Increase in turbine fuel gas: ______10
3
m
3
/yr x 1.796 = _________ ______
7.4 Increase in flared gas: ______10
3
m
3
/yr x 2.51 or x ____ (CEF) = _________ ______
7.5 Increase in electrical motors:____hp x ____ hrs/yr x 0.000746 x _____
7
= _________ ______
7.6 Increase in electric power:____ kWx ____ hrs/yr x 0.001 x _____
7
= _________ ______
8.0 Total Greenhouse Gas Reduction
(Add sections 1 to 6 and subtract section 7) _________
Notes:
1. Insert the following codes for volume quantification Method: M for measured, MB for mass
balance, EF for emission factor and E for estimated.
2. Attach calculations and assumptions made in quantifying volumes.
3. Attach fuel gas or raw gas compositions.
4. LDAR is leak detection and repair
5. MMF is mole fraction of methane in the gas.
6. CEF is custom emission factor based on specific gas composition
7. PEEF is provincial electrical emission factor: 1.005 for Alberta; 0.056 for BC; 0.910 for
Sask.; and 0.304 for Ontario.
8. tCO
2
E is tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent.
2 Benchmarking
2.1 Introduction
At a workshop held July 18, 1995, representatives from 34 CAPP member
companies discussed and agreed to the methods and conventions outlined in this
section when calculating the benchmarking of energy used and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions per unit of production. On January 23, 1996, another workshop
was held and attending CAPP member companies agreed that as a minimum, both
Production Energy Intensity (PEI) and Production Carbon Intensity (PCI) would
be reported (on a company basis) in their Climate Change Action Plans/Progress
Reports.
Benchmarking is a process commonly used in industry as a method to readily and
reasonably compare one operation, facility, or plant with another. Although the
PEI and PCI may be used to compare similar facilities, they cannot be used to
gauge the performance of one company with respect to another since product
mixes can vary substantially. Therefore, PEI and PCI calculated on a company
basis only should be used to measure a companys performance over time (i.e.,
with respect to a base year).
Benchmarking over time (i.e., comparison with base year results) can provide a
measure of the effectiveness of any improvements taken within the operation
itself and against the performance of its peers.
By determining the amount of energy used or emissions released to produce a unit
volume of product for sale, be it oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids (NGLs) or
sulphur, the upstream petroleum industry can demonstrate its effectiveness in
reducing energy use while consumer demand for its products increases.
1
The
upstream petroleum industry also is faced with the dilemma of increasing energy
used per unit of production (resulting in additional emissions of greenhouse
gases) as oil or gas reservoirs decline, but also given the likely mix of product in
the future, i.e., more heavy oil, sour gas and crude bitumen production.
Reinjection of produced water associated with crude oil production, or injecting
water to maintain reservoir pressure as a field declines, requires more energy, as
does adding field compression to move natural gas from wells to a processing
plant.

1
The National Energy Board Report Canadian Energy Supply & Demand 1993-2010 Current Technical Case
forecasts that Canada's energy requirements will increase over the period 1990 to 2000 due to Canada's increasing
population and probably improved economic growth. Estimated growth of Canada's natural gas production is 52.9
percent, crude oil growth is 34.4 percent, and natural gas liquids growth is 92.1 percent. Much of this increase in
natural gas will be exported to the United States and will serve to reduce U.S. GHG emissions and improve air
quality.
Table 2-1 below shows upstream oil and gas production along with energy use in
each province of operation.
Table 2-1: Upstream Oil and Gas Production and Energy Use in 1998 and 1999
Description Alberta
1998 1999
Sask.
1998 1999
B.C.
1998 1999
Natural Gas in 10
6
m
3
/yr 172,64
4
175,27
9
6,002 21,100 21,200
Light & med. crude 10
3
m
3
/yr
35,243 31,332 13,777 2,766 2,420
Heavy crude 10
3
m
3
/yr 14,532 14,210 9,376 0 14
Bitumen crude 10
3
m
3
/yr 16,364 14,171
Synthetic crude 10
3
m
3
/yr 17,871 18,767
Condensate 10
3
m
3
/yr 393 419
Pentanes plus 10
3
m
3
/yr 8,586 8,493 17 476 434
Ethane 10
3
m
3
/yr 10,768 12,987 0 140 0
Propane 10
3
m
3
/yr 5,674 5,729 40 512 252
Butane 10
3
m
3
/yr 2,729 2,902 20 309 197
NGLs 10
3
m
3
/yr 19,087 19,501 280
Sulphur in 10
3
tonnes/yr 7,186 7,473 941 925
Vented gas in 10
6
m
3
/yr. 151 238
Flared raw gas in 10
6
m
3
/yr.
1,893 1,624 578 199 120
Flared processed gas: 10
6
m
3
/yr.
26 60
Raw Fuel gas in 10
6
m
3
/yr. 9,793 10,020 895 599 644
Processed Fuel gas in 10
6
m
3
/yr.
2,784 3,131
ATCO power GWhr 4,352 4,566
TransAlta power GWhr 3,225 3,197
Electric power purchased
GWhr
7,577 7,763 1,242 1,300 39 37
Total Production in 10
6
m
3
OE
289 287 30 0 25 24
Total energy used GJ 586 597 65 5 32 30
PEI in GJ/m
3
OE 2.03 2.082 2.155 1.293 1.243
Data obtained from Alberta Energy Resources Industries, EUB 99-3, Statistical Series
The industry average PEI (across 3 provinces) was 1.985 GJ/m
3
OE in 1998 and 2.016 GJ/m
3
OE in 1999.
Companies are encouraged to benchmark similar types of operations as
follows: sweet gas gathering and processing, sour gas gathering and
processing, light and medium crude oil production, conventional heavy oil
production, thermal heavy oil production, crude bitumen production and oil
sands.
2.2 Reporting Basis
Both benchmarking performance indicators and success stories should be reported
in company Action Plans to be submitted to the Climate Change Task Group
Secretariat. As a minimum, both PEI and PCI must be reported on a company
basis (simplified forms are included to assist companies).
The following criteria should be used when calculating performance indicators:
1. The CAPP Climate Change Voluntary Challenge Principles (see Section 1.4
of Guide) are applicable to the issue of benchmarking.
2. Benchmarking will apply to company operated facilities only and will be
based on gross facility throughput, not production share.
3. If possible, benchmarking should be done at the facility level, where a facility
includes all contributing wells, gathering systems, storage, metering and
treating components. Total company benchmarking is the total of all
company emissions or energy used divided by total sales production. Fuel gas
and vented volumes are included from the well, battery, gas gathering and
plant level. However, product sales are only included at the end of the
processing cycle (in this case the gas plant). This example assumes that the
gas receipts into the gas plant include all the production from the gas
gathering and battery levels.
4. If companies choose to further breakdown data to compare facilities that are
more practically comparable, that breakdown would be (where HHV is the
Higher Heating Value of the product):
Light and medium oil production (energy content HHV = 38.5GJ/m
3
);
Heavy crude oil production (energy content HHV = 41.4 GJ/m
3
);
Sweet natural gas production (no H
2
S present (HHV = 37.4GJ/10
3
m
3
));
Sour natural gas production with sulphur recovery(any facility where H
2
S
in the gas must be removed to meet pipeline specification (natural gas
product with HHV = 37.4GJ/10
3
m
3
));
Sour natural gas production without sulphur recovery(any facility where
H
2
S in the gas is removed and flared (natural gas product with HHV =
37.4GJ/10
3
m
3
)); and,
Crude bitumen production (energy content HHV = 42.8GJ/m
3
).
5. At this time, no effort will be taken to break production down using royalty
definitions, so, for example, there is no shallow natural gas designation.
6. Benchmarking will be reported in metric units: PEI in GJ/m
3
of oil equivalent
of product sold; PCI in tonnes of CO
2
E/m
3
of oil equivalent of product sold.
7. As the Global Warming Potential of each GHG is subject to change,
companies doing the Detailed Emissions Calculations Method, should report
GHG inventories in terms of separate masses of CO
2
, CH
4
, and N
2
O to more
easily facilitate recalculating CO
2
E PCI over time.
8. Energy used will include electricity purchased, fuel combusted, flared gas,
well testing and energy used by the service sector (i.e., if the operator provides
the fuel or were directly billed for the fuel used). Third party energy or fuel
use will not be included nor will commercial air travel as these uses will be
accounted for elsewhere. Fuel combusted in head office buildings and fleet
vehicles will also be excluded.
9. If vented gas is reported to the regulator as flared gas, this value will be
included in the PEI calculation and PCI even if it is not burned. This will
ensure industry practice matches regulatory practice.
10. Factors to convert different facilities products to an oil equivalent volume
would be based on the products energy or heating value rather than on a
product price basis. Refer to Table 2-2 for the applicable conversion factors.
11. Fugitive emissions will not be included in the PEI calculations, but will be
included in the CO
2
inventory and PCI.
12. Reporting should draw heavily on data that is available or reported to
regulators (e.g., electricity usage statements and Alberta Energy and Utility
Board S reports). Emissions inventories and energy indexes associated with
any international operations (outside Canada) should be reported separately.
13. Vented CO
2
and non-combusted CH
4
emissions need to be reported in the PCI
calculation. Vented sources of CO
2
include sweetening, upgrading (mainly
Syncrude, Suncor and Husky). Fugitive CO
2
and any fire flood or enhanced
oil recovery venting is considered to be negligible and will therefore not be
considered.
Table 2-2: Oil Equivalent (OE) Conversion Factors (on an energy equivalent basis)
Product m
3
OE Conversion
Light oil in m
3
1.0
Heavy crude in m
3
1.075
Crude bitumen in m
3
1.111*
Natural gas in 1000 m
3
0.971
Liquid ethane in m
3
0.48
Liquid propane in m
3
0.66
Liquid butane in m
3
0.75
Liquid condensate C5+ in m
3
0.85
NGL in m
3
(gas plant NGL sales) 0.72
NGL in m
3
(straddle plant production) 0.69
Solid sulphur in tonnes 0.24
*Heavy oil operators are advised to use their own specific bitumen HHV (higher heating value) in
order to determine their own m
3
OE factor as bitumen heating values may vary greatly between
fields. Use the following formula to determine your own m
3
OE factor:
m
3
OE = (Specific Bitumen HHV in GJ/m3 ) / 38.5
2.3 Calculating the Product Energy Intensity (PEI)
The equation used to calculate the PEI is shown below:
Equation #16
PEI (GJ/m
3
OE) = gas flared (GJ) + fuel burned (GJ) + electric power purchased (GJ)
m
3
oil + m
3
OE gas + m
3
OE NGL + m
3
OE sulphur
All the volumes in the denominator of the above equation refer to sales
volumes sent to market or product deliveries and exclude quantities of
sweetened gas used for on-site fuel. Shrinkage and metering error are also
excluded from PEI and PCI calculations.
Form GHG - PEI, at the end of this Section, may be used to calculate the
Production Energy Intensity.
Industry average PEI values for 1995 are shown in Table 2-3. CAPP will
endeavour to update these values in the future.
Table 2-3: Upstream Oil and Gas Industry Average PEI Values (1995 values)
Process / Product Type Industry Average PEI
GJ/m
3
OE
Sweet natural gas 1.4
Sour gas / natural gas 2.2
Sulphur recovery / natural gas 3.7
Light oil 2.12
Conventional heavy oil / crude 1.2
CSS Thermal heavy oil / bitumen 8.5*
SAGD Thermal heavy oil / bitumen 6.6*
Straddle plant / NGLs 3.4
* Year 2001 weighted average data obtained from CAPP survey prepared by Clearstone
Engineering.
CSS is cyclic steam stimulation and SAGD is steam assisted gravity drainage
2.4 Calculating the Product Carbon Intensity (PCI)
The equation used to calculate the PCI is shown below:
Equation #17
PCI (tonnes CO
2
E/m
3
OE) = CO
2
vented (tonnes) + CO
2
E combustion (tonnes) + CO
2
E from electric power
purchased (tonnes) + CO
2
E methane losses (tonnes)
m
3
oil + m
3
OE gas + m
3
OE NGL + m
3
OE sulphur
The CO
2
E values shown in the above equation can be obtained from calculation
performed on Form GHG - SF, found at the end of the previous Section. All the
volumes in the denominator of the above equation refer to sales volumes sent
to market or product deliveries and exclude quantities of sweetened gas used
for on-site fuel.
Year 2001 data analysis show that the weighted average PCI for CSS and SAGD
thermal heavy oil were 0.57 CO
2
E/m
3
OE and 0.37 CO
2
E/m
3
OE respectively.
Form GHG - PCI may be used to calculate the PCI. This form follows the GHG
SF form at the end of the previous Section.
Form GHG - PEI
Rev. 1
Calculation of Production Energy Intensity
(Part 1)
Company: _________________________________ Reporting Year: _______
Prepared by: _______________________________ Date: _____________
1 Energy Consumption:
Line # Description
Energy
factor
GJ/year
x 10
3
1.1 Total natural gas burned: _______________ 10
6
m
3
/yr x 37.4 =
1.2 Total propane liquid burned: ____________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 25.4 =
1.3 Total diesel fuel burned: ______________10
3
m
3
/yr x 38.7 =
1.4 Total flared gas volume: _____________ 10
6
m
3
/yr x 46.0
a
=
1.5 Total electricity purchased:____________10
3
MWhr/yr x
(all provinces facilities operate in)
3.6
=
1.10 Subtotal =
2 Production Sales:
Line # Description
m
3
OE
Factor
m
3
OE/yr
x 10
3
2.1 Light oil sales: ____________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 1.0 =
2.2 Liquid condensate C5+ sales: ___________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 0.85 =
3
m
3
/yr x 1.075 =
2.4 Thermal recovery bitumen sales: _________10
3
m
3
/yr x 1.111 =
2.5 Sweet gas plant sales: ______________ 10
6
m
3
/yr x 0.971 =
2.6 Sulphur recovery gas plant sales:_____________10
6
m
3
/yr x 0.971 =
6
m
3
/yr x 0.971 =
2.8 Gas plant NGL sales: ____________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 0.720 =
2.9 Straddle plant NGL sales ____________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x
or straddle plant C
2
(ethane) sales ____________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x
plus straddle plant C
3
sales ____________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x
0.69
0.48
0.66
2.10 Elemental sulphur sales: ____________ 10
3
tonnes/yr x 0.240 =
2.11 Subtotal =
3 Calculating PEI:
Line # Description Quantity
3.1 Total energy used (Line 1.10 above) =
3.2 Total product sales (Line 2.11 above) =
3.3 PEI = Line 3.1 / Line 3.2
= GJ/m
3
OE
Notes:
a
Assumes flare gas content of 80% CH
4
, 15% C
2
H
6
and 5% C
3
H
8
. Companies should
calculate their own flare gas HHV based on their specific raw gas composition.
Form GHG - PCI
Rev. 1
Calculation of Production Carbon Intensity
Company: _________________________________ Reporting Year: _______
Prepared by: _______________________________ Date: _____________
1 CO
2
E Inventory Totals:
Line # Description Note: values transferred from form GHG - SF
Quantity
tonnes/yr
1.1 Total CO
2
E combustion emissions: Line 1.10 from Form GHG - SF: =
1.2 Total CO
2
E methane losses: Line 2.8 from Form GHG - SF: =
1.3 Total CO
2
vented emissions: Line 3.5 from Form GHG - SF: =
1.4 Subtotal =
2 Production Sales:
Line # Description
m
3
OE
Factor
m
3
OE/yr
x 10
3
2.1 Light oil sales: ________________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 1.0 =
2.2 Liquid condensate C5+ sales: ___________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 0.85 =
3
m
3
/yr x 1.075 =
2.4 Thermal recovery bitumen sales: _________10
3
m
3
/yr x 1.111 =
2.5 Sweet gas plant sales: ______________ 10
6
m
3
/yr x 0.971 =
2.6 Sulphur recovery gas plant sales:_____________10
6
m
3
/yr x 0.971 =
6
m
3
/yr x 0.971 =
2.8 Gas plant NGL sales: ____________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 0.720 =
2.9 Straddle plant NGL sales ____________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 0.69 =
or straddle plant C
2
sales ___________10
3
m
3
/yr x 0.48 =
plus straddle plant C
3
sales __________ 10
3
m
3
/yr x 0.66 =
2.10 Elemental sulphur sales: ____________ 10
3
tonnes/ yr x 0.240 =
2.11 Subtotal =
3 Calculating PCI:
Line # Description Quantity
3.1 Total CO
2
E emissions (Line 1.4 above) =
3.2 Total product sales (Line 2.11 above) x 1000 =
3.3 PCI = Line 3.1 / Line 3.2
= tonnes CO
2
E/m
3
OE
3 How to Build a Success Story
3.1 Introduction
Success stories are one means of capturing and reporting activities that member
companies have undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Switching energy sources, improving the efficiency with which the current energy
source is utilized, or reducing methane venting and fugitive emissions each have
the potential to reduce net GHG emissions. These successes should be reported in
your company Action Plan/Progress Report and to CAPP for inclusion in its
overall industry progress report.
When calculating success stories, it is crucial to consider both the emissions
prevented and the new emissions produced. There are few situations where a
change in operation will have no new emissions. An example would be where a
facility is decommissioned and the emissions reduce to zero. However, if a gas
plant shuts down and the site remains active as a compressor station, emissions
from the compressor station will be present and must be accounted for.
3.2 Reporting Success Stories
CAPP has provided this section to guide members in the steps necessary for
reporting success stories.
The benefits of completing this exercise include:
Collecting detailed project information that will validate its qualification for
early action credit by governments;
Validation of emission reductions claimed to-date (i.e., to the public and
environmental groups);
Creation of a list of reduction options that can be shared within the industry;
Ability to compare the cost of industry initiatives with third party CO
2
offsets/credits; and,
Communication of new technologies that are available.
Member companies are asked to pass on information collected for reduction
options to CAPP. This information will be consolidated and published as a source
of information to all CAPP members.
Success stories can also be used to calculate the increased revenue to the company
by taking the amount of methane conserved from Form GHGRO 02, Revision 2
and calculating the total value of methane conserved.
3.3 Sample Calculations
Calculations are done using factors from Chapter 1, Baselines and Calculating
GHG Emissions.
Replacing electric submersible oil pumps with progressive cavity pumps in oil
operations results in a saving of about 50 percent of the energy required for
the submersible oil pumps. The energy used for the submersible oil pumps in
Alberta would be calculated as follows:
Power in kW = 30 hp x 360/365 days per year x 0.7457 KW/hp = 22.06 kW
CO
2
E = 22.06 kW x 24hrs/day x 365 d/yr. / 1000 MW/KW x 0.991 t/MWhr
= 191.5 tonnes CO2E/yr.
Power Saved = 15 hp x 360/365 days per year x 0.7457 KW/hp = 11.03 kW
CO
2
E Saved = 11.03 kW x 24 hr/day x 365 d/yr. / 1000 x 0.991 t/MWhr
= 95.76 tonnes/year
Net savings per pump = 95.76 tonnes CO2E/year
Replacing two electric motors (in Alberta) with 2 high efficiency electric
motors reduces electric energy consumption by 10 percent (saving of
37Mwhr/month). Units are in operation 363 days/year.
CO
2
E = 37 Mwhr/month x 363/365 x 0.991 t/Mwhr x12 months/year
= 437.6 tonnes/year reduction
Methane losses from glycol dehydrator are reduced through better operation
by 100 m
3
/day. The dehydrator is in operation 205 days/year.
Total methane loss reduction = 100 m
3
/d x 205 d/yr. =20,500 = 20.5 x 10
3
m
3
/yr
CO
2
E tonnes/yr. = 20.5 x 0.8 (methane content) x 0.678 t/10
3
m
3
x 21GWP
(CO
2
/CH
4
)
= 233.5 tonnes/year reduced
(Where 0.8 is the assumed methane content of the natural gas used as
instrument gas.)
3-3
Table 3-1: Checklist
Summary CAPP Voluntary Climate Change Challenge
Action Element Checklist
Company Name _______________________________ Annual Oil Production ____________________________
Company Contact Name ________________________ Annual Gas Production ____________________________
Phone Number _______________________________ Action Plan Element Timing
FAX Number _________________________________ Implemented est. time frame
During period to be implemented
Action Elements 2001 2002 2003 Details/Comments (optional)
1. ENERGY EFFICIENCY
a) Fuel Based
-Increase fuel efficiency of gas processing equipment
-Reduce fuel gas use through plant rationalization
-Reduce fuel consumption
-Shut down well flares and line heaters
-Install new fuel controls
-Install lean burn compressors / engines
-Save fuel consumption by oil battery consolidation
-Optimize combustion in facility boilers
-Save fuel through reducing stack top temperature of
of tail gas incinerator
-Re-engineer continuous burning flare to an ignition
on demand system
-Save fuel by upgrading power boiler instrumentation
-Treat compressor engines with zirconium ceramic to
enhance performance
b) Electricity Based
-Install variable frequency drive on screw type
compressor to use motor horsepower proportionately
with compressor throughput
-Power and fuel saved through installing variable speed
3-4
Action Plan Element Timing
Implemented est. time frame
1. ENERGY EFFICIENCY b) Electricity Based continued
drives on steam condensing system and Bailey
control system
-Install high efficiency electric motors
-Increase pumping unit eff. by installing high
efficiency motors & conducting dynamometer surveys
-Install high efficiency electric motors
-Power consumption reductions
-Increase suction pressure at compressor to reduce
electrical power consumption
-Reduce electrical load from plant rationalization
-Install variable frequency drive on reciprocating
compressor driver allowing 50% turndown on
compressor throughput and power requirements
when demanded
-Reduce field pumping power by measuring motor
thermal current on beam-pump units and closely
matching motor horsepower connection to rod pump
requirements - motor efficiency & power factor maxed.
-Replace electric submersible oil pumps with
progressive cavity pumps
-Install maximum applicable power factor correction
capacitors
-Reduce power consumption by installing variable
frequency drives on process cooling fans
-Horsepower optimization on wells and field compressors
c) Other
-Replace three 60hp plunger pumps with one surplus
140hp unit - variable frequency drive will be installed
if turndown is required
3-5
Implemented est. time frame
1. ENERGY EFFICIENCY C) Other continued
-Substitute CNG as fleet fuel
-Conduct energy efficiency audit
2. ACID GAS and EOR INJECTION
-Inject CO2 for enhanced oil recovery
-Inject acid gas to deep well
-Re-inject sour gas for pressure maintenance and CO2
reduction
3. COGENERATION AT OIL FACILITY (solution gas as fuel)
-Use solution gas to power turbine and recover waste
heat for process heat
4. SOLUTION AND VOC GAS CAPTURE (eliminates flare, vent, or fugitive emissions)
-Collect previously flared solution gas at oil battery
-Eliminate practice of venting low pressure gas in order
to remove produced water from wellbore at low gas
production wells - previously vented gas now produced
to gathering system by using portable compressor
to reduce line pressure
-Reduced injection of methane in wells and satellites
reducing methanol vented from gas powered pumps
-Captured glycol dehydrator pump methane emissions
-Replace instrument gas with instrument air
-Institute comprehensive leak detection/repair program
-Capture and recompress natural gas from large
gathering lines when depressuring for maintenance -
previously this gas was vented
-Conserve flared gas
3-6
Implemented Est. time frame
During period To be implemented
4. SOLUTION AND VOC GAS CAPTURE continued
-Reduce flaring/venting from testing and start-up practices
-Use IFPEXOL process to remove water from gas stream;
eliminates glycol dehydrator emissions
-Install vapour recovery units
-Install solution gas compressor to conserve solution gas
-Install gas boots and incinerator to burn vent gas
off oil and condensate tanks
-Install compressor dehydration and sales line to
conserve solution gas from oil wells
-Recover previous flare solution gas from oil facilities
-Reduce flaring by improved gas plant pigging
practices
-Tied in two wells and eliminated need for flaring
-Install stock tank vapour collection system to
flare previously vented gas
-Switched compressor starters from gas to air
-Consolidate oil battery eliminating flaring of soln gas
-Install sour solution gathering system (oil batteries)
-Collect previously flared solution gas
-Replace gas driven pumping unit with electrical driver
-Sections of pipeline are purged with nitrogen rather
than methane
-Capture and burn methane gas emissions
-Upgrade vapour recovery by adding sales oil cooling
5. OTHER (Education, Awareness, etc.)
-Initiate energy efficiency training for operators

Canadian Emission Control

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Canadian Emission Control

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

GUIDE

Calculating Greenhouse Gas

S-ar putea să vă placă și