COMPARISON OF APPROACHES TOGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ESTIMATION FOR THE GLOBAL OIL &NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY SECTOR

IUAPPA 15th World Clean Air Congress

13-16 September 2010, Vancouver, BC, CA

Paper # 162

K. Ritter, American Petroleum Institute

J. Keating, BP America, Inc.

T. Shires, URS Corporation

M. Lev-On, The LEVON Group

About API

Premier US trade association representing allaspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry

Over 400 corporate members• All segments of the industry: producers, refiners,

suppliers, pipeline operators and marine transporters,as well as service and supply companies

Focus is primarily domestic, with a growinginternational dimension

Broad range of programs• Advocacy, Research & Statistics, Standards,

Certification, and Education

API GHG Emissions Working Group

Established over a decade ago

Collaborates with domestic, regional and global oil andnatural gas industry associations

Focuses on publishing guidance documents forreporting methodologies and regulatory consideration

MISSIONDevelop a set of guidelines andtools for the oil and natural gas

industry to account for, calculateand report GHG emissions

MISSIONDevelop a set of guidelines andtools for the oil and natural gas

industry to account for, calculateand report GHG emissions

A Decade of Initiatives …

Petroleum IndustryGuidelines for ReportingGHG Emissions

Compendium ofGreenhouse Gas EmissionsEstimation Methodologiesfor the Oil and Gas Industry(API Compendium)

Petroleum IndustryGuidelines for GHGEmission Reduction Projects

Oil and Natural GasIndustry Sector Considerations

Special challenges for industry

• Complexity of facility designs and operations

• Heavy reliance on self-generated fuels

• Integrated systems on a continental level

• Resources needed for data collection

Overarching Goal of Industry Guidance

• Reliable, efficient, and cost-effective industry-endorsed methods for estimating and reporting GHGemissions

Scope of Comparison

API Compendium• August 2009 update comprises expanded information

on published emission factors and industry acceptedestimation methods

Methodology proposed by API widely used as aresource for national or regional GHG reportingprograms

Comparison includes four different regulatoryreporting programs and API’s 2009 update

Evaluate the impact of recommended methodson facility emissions inventory

Greenhouse Gas ReportingPrograms Addressed

EU Emissions TradingScheme (2005)

• Applies to 12,000 facilities in 27EU member states

• Covers power plants, oilrefining, iron and steel, cement,glass, and pulp and paper

• Account for nearly half the EU’sCO2 emissions.

Ontario Guideline forGreenhouse Gas EmissionsReporting (2009)

• Part of the regional WesternClimate initiative (WCI)

• Conforms to requirements ofCalifornia and Federal EPAreporting rules

Australia NationalGreenhouse Gas andEnergy Reporting (2008)

• Mandatory reporting systemfor large companies

• Phased-in threshold by facilityand by corporate total

US EPA Greenhouse GasReporting Program (2009)

• Mandatory nationwidereporting requirements

• Covers about 10,000 facilitiesin 31 sectors and fuel suppliers

• Accounting for 85% of USGHG emissions

GHG Programs Comparison

Emissions >25,000tonnes CO2e

Named operations

Emissions>25,000tonnesCO2e

Power > 20MW

Combustion >20,000 tonnes CO2

Based onemissions, energyproduction &consumption

Threshold

Tiers 1-4 based onunit size and fuel

Methods1-4

Tiers 1-4 assignuncertainty values

Methods 1-4

0.99 oxidation

Combustionmethods

None specified 20,000tonnesCO2e or 3%

1,000 tonnesCO2 or 2%

3,000 tonnesCO2e or 0.5%

De minimis

direct GHGemissions only

No bile sources

directemissionsonly

direct CO2

emissions only

No mobilesources

directemissions

indirect energyconsumption

mobile sources

GeneralScope

US EPAOntarioEU ETSAustralia

Combustion EF Comparison,tonnes CO2/TJ (HHV Basis)

1.6%69.370.169.970.369.2Diesel

6.0%72.269.171.073.472.9Fuel Oil

15%96.897.183.392.690.8Pet. Coke

51.8

67.2

70.7

50.3

API

N/A

66.6

70.6

50.3

USEPA

5.2%72.669.668.9Crude

15.8%N/A46.254.2Refinery FuelGas

2.2%66.165.766.7Gasoline

3.0%51.850.551.2P/L Nat. Gas

RangeOntarioEU ETSAustralia

Methane EF Comparison(tonnes CH4/TJ (HHV Basis)

2.14E-04N/AN/AN/ASRU/Tail gas

3.63E-06

(per 1000 Bbl)2.83E-03N/A1.99E+00Flaring

5.55E-04 (C, bbl)

3.07E-03 (UC, bbl)5.47E+05 (UC)

1.32E-04

(c, bbl)N/A

AsphaltBlowing

1.41E-06 (FG)

1.01E-06 (NG)

2.14E-04

3.68E-03

6.23E-01

API

N/A

9.43E-04

9.43E-04

9.43E-04

US EPA

9.61E-049.95E-02NG - turbine

N/AN/AEquipment

Leaks (per bbl)

9.61E-049.95E-02Refinery FuelGas

9.61E-049.95E-02NG – IC Engine

OntarioAustralia

Example Facility forInventory Comparison

Refinery with 250,000 Bbl crude/day throughput

Includes hydrogen plant and fluid catalyticcracking unit (among other units)

Use exclusively gaseous fuels

• 4,000 MMscf/yr of refinery fuel gas (1119 Btu/scf)

• 6,600 MMscf/yr of natural gas (1050 Btu/scf)

Comparison focuses on CO2 sources andmethodologies that use emission factors ordefault fuel characteristics

Refinery Inventory Comparison(tonnes CO2 per year)

-1.5%

0%17,77717,51117,776N/A

SRU/tailgas units

-1.5%

+5.8%598,401589,398597,813633,926598,401

H2 PlantVents

-8.3%

0%408,066413,398411,862408,066375,582

FCCU

154,084

413,438

2,368,296

API

152,075

414,192

2,332,664

US EPA

-2.3%

+2.3%404,110422,988421,995

Engines/Turbines

-11.7%

-1.3%145,851

N/A

136,996Flares

-8.9%

+4.3%2,368,0052,167,1162,472,045

Boilers/Heaters

RangeOntarioEU ETSAustralia

Refinery Inventory Comparison(tonnes CH4 per year)

45N/A4511,200WastewaterTreatment

0.0780N/AN/AN/ASRU/Tail gas

0.331853N/A5,074Flaring

307 (UC)

6.14 (C)321 (UC)1.46 (C)N/A

AsphaltBlowing

220.83 (Bbl Crude)

0.470 (correlation)

10.4

27.8

444

API

11

137

7.14

0.672

US EPA

373757NG - turbine

0.553N/AEquipment

Leaks

46.64,551RFG

35.171.2NG – IC Engine

OntarioAustralia

Conclusions

Published EFs are useful tools for emission calculations• Main applicability for combustion of homogenous fuels• Higher variability for process and fugitive emissions

Wider ranges of uncertainty are evident for CH4 EF andthe respective emissions estimatedCareful documentation of underlying operating conditionsis required to ensure proper application of methods• Large differences exist between controlled and uncontrolled operations• Not all methods are applicable for tracking and reporting emission

reduction activities

API is continuing to upgrade emission estimationmethods and promote reliable and consistent GHGinventory methods• Special guidance published to calculate inventory uncertainty• Activities underway to address intermittent sources

Thank you for your attention

Karin Ritter, API

ritterk@api.org

(202) 682-8472

For additional information: