Unprecedented Measurements Provide Better Understanding of Methane Emissions During Natural Gas Production

Sept. 16, 2013

Completion emissions are lower than previously estimated; Data show emissions from pneumatic controllers and equipment leaks are higher than EPA national emission projections; Estimates of total emissions are similar to the most recent EPA national inventory of methane emissions from natural gas production.

AUSTIN, Texas — A new study from The University of Texas at Austin reports on extensive measurements of methane emissions — including the first measurements for methane emissions taken directly at the well pad — during completion operations for hydraulically fractured wells. A team of researchers from UT Austin’s Cockrell School of Engineering and environmental testing firms URS and Aerodyne Research completed measurements at 190 natural gas production sites across the United States. The study was published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study, a unique partnership between the Environmental Defense Fund, participating companies, an independent Scientific Advisory Panel and the study team:

  • Is based on measurements made directly at 190 production sites throughout the United States, with access provided by nine participating energy companies.
  • Found that the majority of hydraulically fractured well completions, which were sampled during the study, had equipment in place that reduces methane emissions by 99 percent. Because of this equipment, methane emissions from well completions are 97 percent lower than calendar year 2011 national emission estimates, released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April 2013.
  • Found that emissions from certain types of pneumatic devices are 30 percent to several times higher than current EPA estimates for this equipment; combined, emissions from pneumatics and equipment leaks account for about 40 percent of estimated national emissions of methane from natural gas production.
  • Found that the total methane emissions from natural gas production, from all sources measured in the study, were comparable to the most recent EPA estimates.

“The way in which wells are drilled and brought into production has been evolving,” said David Allen, professor of chemical engineering at UT’s Cockrell School of Engineering and principal investigator for the study. “The overall goal was to measure methane emissions during production at a large number of recently developed sites, and to assess the national implications for methane emissions. The team performed the first-ever direct measurements of methane emissions from some of these sources.”

The UT-led field study was a cooperative effort involving experts from the Environmental Defense Fund; Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; BG Group plc; Chevron; Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.; Pioneer Natural Resources Company; SWEPI LP (Shell); Southwestern Energy; Talisman Energy USA; and XTO Energy, an ExxonMobil subsidiary. The collaboration of the energy companies and unprecedented access to their natural gas production facilities and equipment allowed researchers to acquire direct measurements of methane emissions from natural gas production operations where hydraulic fracturing is used.

The study’s measurements will help inform policymakers, researchers and industry, providing information about some of the sources of methane emissions from the production of natural gas and better inform and advance national and international scientific and policy discussions with respect to natural gas development and use.

“This study tackles one of the most hotly debated issues in environmental science and policy today,” said Mark Brownstein, associate vice president and chief counsel of the US Climate and Energy Program, Environmental Defense Fund. “It shows that when producers use practices to capture or control emissions, such as green completions, methane can be dramatically reduced. The study also demonstrated, however, that certain methane emissions are larger than previously thought, indicating that there are many further opportunities to reduce emissions.”

During the yearlong study, the UT-led study team selected times and general locations for sampling activities, and companies provided access to completions that occurred during those periods. Production sites near the completions were selected by the study team for sampling based on lists of available sites in the region provided by the participating companies. The sampling was designed to be representative of company operations in the Gulf Coast, Mid-Continent, Rocky Mountain and Appalachian regions.  Measurements of active equipment at 150 production sites with 489 wells, 27 well completion flowbacks, nine well unloadings and four well workovers were included in the study. The types of sources measured account for two-thirds of methane emissions that occur during natural gas production, as estimated in the most recent national greenhouse gas inventory.

Measured emissions from completion flowbacks were much lower than previously estimated. During hydraulic fracturing, liquids that typically consist of water, sand and additives are injected at high pressure into low-permeability formations. After a well is fractured, it is cleared of sand and liquids that were injected into the well in a process called completion flowback. Two-thirds of the well completion flowbacks measured in the study either captured or combusted emissions, resulting in emissions measurements that were 99 percent lower than would have occurred in the absence of capture and combustion. The remaining one-third of completion flowbacks vented methane, but these were low-emitting wells, so in total, the emissions from completion flowbacks were 97 percent lower than current EPA estimates.

“The net emissions for completion flowbacks is significantly lower than previous estimates, indicating the type of emission control activities observed during these events are very effective,” Allen said.

The study’s measurements of methane emissions from equipment leaks on well sites were comparable to current EPA estimates for this type of equipment; when scaled to national emission estimates, however, the study’s estimated emissions are higher than EPA estimates that include assumed voluntary reductions. The study also showed higher emissions for certain types of pneumatic devices used for controlling mechanical processes. Pneumatic devices, which are designed to release small amounts of methane in normal operation, were found to have emissions that were on average 70 percent higher than estimates in the EPA national inventory.

The study team made the first reported measurements of unloading emissions, collecting data for nine wells. In a liquids unloading, wells are cleared of water and other liquids that are inhibiting production. Wells may be unloaded daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, or not at all, depending on the geology of the formation. Because unloadings are intermittent, complex, and vary in frequency and characteristics between production regions, the researchers believe that a larger sample size is required to accurately characterize an average emissions rate.

“Understanding the level of methane emissions during unloadings will be important in establishing both national and regional inventories," said Allen, who will lead a study team that plans to collect additional data on both unloadings and pneumatic controllers, beginning later this month and concluding in early 2014. The additional measurements, which represent a second phase to the study, are being funded by Environmental Defense Fund, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; BG Group plc; Chevron; Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.; Pioneer Natural Resources Company; SWEPI LP (Shell); Southwestern Energy; and XTO Energy, an ExxonMobil subsidiary, ConocoPhillips and Statoil.

A Scientific Advisory Panel made up of six independent academic experts reviewed the study. The panel reviewed project plans before data collection and preliminary findings during data collection. Its members reviewed the draft final report and co-authored the published manuscript. Prior to publication, the study also went through the peer review process of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

This study, focused on natural gas production, is part of a larger research effort spearheaded by the Environmental Defense Fund to measure methane emissions throughout the natural gas supply chain. Results for the studies addressing other parts of the supply chain will be reported during the next 12-18 months.

—---—---—---—---—---—---—-

The University of Texas at Austin is committed to transparency and disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest of its researchers. Lead researcher David Allen serves as chair of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board, and in this role is a paid Special Governmental Employee. He is also a journal editor for the American Chemical Society and has served as a consultant for multiple companies, including Eastern Research Group and ExxonMobil. He has worked on other research projects funded by a variety of governmental, nonprofit and private sector sources including the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the American Petroleum Institute and an air monitoring and surveillance project that was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Financial support for this work was provided by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF); Anadarko Petroleum Corporation; BG Group plc; Chevron; Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc.; Pioneer Natural Resources Company; SWEPI LP (Shell); Southwestern Energy; Talisman Energy USA; and XTO Energy, an ExxonMobil subsidiary.

Major funding for the EDF’s 30-month methane research series, including their portion of the University of Texas study, is provided for by the following individuals and foundations: Fiona and Stan Druckenmiller, Heising-Simons Foundation, Bill and Susan Oberndorf, Betsy and Sam Reeves, Robertson Foundation, TomKat Charitable Trust, and Walton Family Foundation.

For more information and press materials, visit: www.engr.utexas.edu/news/releases/methanestudy

For more information, contact: Gary Susswein, Office of the President, 512-471-4945;  Sandra Zaragoza, Cockrell School of Engineering College of Engineering, 512-471-2129.

5 Comments to "Unprecedented Measurements Provide Better Understanding of Methane Emissions During Natural Gas Production"

1.  Rudy Haugeneder said on Sept. 17, 2013

Nothing humans do anymore is natural and there are deep and steep prices prices paid, and to be paid. And a report paid for by the petroleum industry in oil-friendly Texas is somewhat like believing Assad's assertions that he doesn't store chemical weapons.
Nevertheless, Nature is already slowly fighting back.
Sciences shows and the news media increasingly reports that more and more deadly diseases (superbugs) that were once thought to be eradicated by vaccines are now immune and on the verge of an explosive comeback in a world with seven-plus billion people -- many of us worldwide having lost all or part of the immunity we had against the former weaker versions of these lethal diseases. The almost total annihilation of Native Indians in the Americas is an example of how deadly these multiple pandemics can be.

2.  Benoit Croteau said on Sept. 17, 2013

In the UT/EDF study, pneumatics are the major issues related to methane leaks.

"... Data show emissions from pneumatic controllers and equipment leaks are higher than EPA national emission projections ..."

The fun part of this is that there are clear solutions with amazing results, easily fixed:

Encana (-98%) and Chesapeake (-90%) have obtained amazing results in reducing methane leaks by simply converting from high-bleed to low-bleed valve.

1) Encana success story:
Valve conversion proves valuable for the environment

With the help of our Environmental Innovation Fund, our South Piceance field operations team in Colorado has successfully converted approximately 500 high-bleed valves to their low-bleed, environmentally-friendly counterparts.

Pneumatic devices, such as pressure controllers, temperature controllers and liquid level controllers, are widely used throughout production and midstream operations. Pneumatic devices work by converting pressure energy from a compressed gas, such as air or natural gas, into mechanical motion. Being readily available, pressurized natural gas has become the industry choice for powering pneumatic instruments. Once the gas has been used to power the instrument, it is left to vent or bleed to the atmosphere. Vented emissions are the largest source of methane emissions in oil and gas activities.

Retrofitting or replacing high-bleed valves with low-bleed devices lowers methane emissions and increases production by utilizing gas that is currently vented to the atmosphere. After converting multiple liquid-level controllers to low-bleed valves, the vent rate was reduced by over 98%, conserving more than an estimated 64 million standard cubic feet per year of natural gas and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 24,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

Source: http://www.encana.com/news-stories/our-stories/innovation-valve-conversion-proves-valuable.html

2) Chesapeake success story:

Chesapeake Mizer Pneumatic Retrofit Project

Under normal operating conditions, many common pneumatic controllers are designed to “bleed” natural gas continuously. Under the same operating conditions, retrofitted controllers can vent up to 90% less gas into the atmosphere. Within this project, over 2,700 high-bleed controllers have been retrofitted to function as low-bleed controllers, which are expected to reduce over 960,000 metric tons of CO2e emissions over the life of the project.

Source: http://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-registry/projects/chesapeake-mizer-pneumatic-retrofit-project

3.  Benoit Croteau said on Sept. 17, 2013

This study comes to the same conclusion as the NREL last Nov. 29, 2012, that as also in line with the MIT conclusions:

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study: Shale gas as clean as natural gas

Report: Shale gas as clean as natural gas

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Colorado State University

Colorado School of Mines

University of Colorado Law School

Stanford University

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Natural gas obtained from shale differs little in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when compared to other natural gas obtained through more conventional means ...

The study was piped through the Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis, a consortium of five universities and the U.S. Department of Energy's NREL.

In line with this week MIT 4000 wells study.

4.  Benoit Croteau said on Sept. 17, 2013

In line with these EPA findings:

Wells that require hydraulic fracturing to stimulate or enhance gas production may need a lengthy completion, and therefore are good candidates for RECs (Reduced Emissions Completions).

Wells that do NOT require hydraulic fracturing are not good candidates for reduced emissions completions.

Ref.: "Reduced Emissions Completions for
Hydraulically Fractured Natural Gas Wells" document

Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Partners

5.  Laurie-Ann Curry said on Sept. 18, 2013

Frackademia at it's best