In the summer of 2016 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Quad Oa regulations, which were designed to reduce the level of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by the oil and gas industry. In early 2017 the implementation of these regulations is far less clear.

Nonetheless, some clarity remains. Natural gas’ reputation as the “clean” fossil fuel has been earned because it emits about half of the CO2 and significantly less soot, sulfur and other particulates than coal. But this ignores the problem of methane—a powerful greenhouse pollutant that has been analyzed to be more than 80 times more potent than CO2 for the first 20 years after it is emitted.

In April 2015 an analysis conducted by the Rhodium Group and commissioned by the Environmental Defense Fund showed that the 20-year global warming potential of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector has the same near-term impact as about 40% of total CO2 emissions from worldwide coal combustion in 2012. Globally, the oil and gas sector is one of the largest contributors to methane emissions. Methane emissions from the oil and gas industry in 2012 represented about 85 Bcm (3.5 Tcf) of natural gas escaping into the atmosphere. The amount of methane gas that escaped globally almost matched total production from Norway in 2012. Measured globally, lost natural gas would rank as the world’s seventh largest natural gas producer. This wasted gas represents about $30 billion of lost revenue (at average 2012 delivered prices).

With shale gas fundamentally altering the shape of the American energy market and natural gas being promoted as the bridge to a low-carbon future, it’s an important energy source that can’t be wasted. But until methane emissions are fully measured, monitored, controlled and reduced, the position of natural gas as a greener substitute for coal and oil, which is a large part of its appeal, is open to serious question.

Industry response

Given the Rhodium Group’s findings, developing a systematic approach to reducing methane emissions is in the best interests of oil and gas operators from both a safety and cost perspective. It is also beneficial for their customers, their shareholders and the communities in which they operate, regardless of regulatory drivers.

This is something that national and super-national regulators have long recognized, as have the organizations they oversee. A few months after the EPA published its Quad Oa regulations, the five Nordic states in Europe committed to developing a global target to reduce oil and gas methane emissions.

Mexico and Canada have both committed to reducing methane emissions by 45%, while companies such as BP, Engie, ENI, Repsol, Saudi Aramco, Statoil and Total have all followed up their expressed concerns about methane with monitoring for emissions and disclosing information. Within the U.S. regulation regarding methane emissions is stronger in individual states such as California, Colorado and Wyoming than it is at the federal level.

For reasons of public safety, employee safety, environmental protection and operational efficiency, the consensus within the oil and gas industry is that methane emissions must be better controlled. This includes both planned releases of gas and unplanned emissions in the form of leaks, and it requires a three-pronged approach:

  1. The first step is to ensure that new systems are designed in such a way that continuous monitoring and catastrophe prevention is in place. This will mitigate serious events such as the 100,000 tons of methane emitted from a natural gas system in Aliso Canyon, Los Angeles, in 2015. This is a long-term effort.
  2. The second step is to build or modify systems that emit less and prevent losses. Where burning off excess gas from vents was once standard practice, the industry is seeing more new and modified plants incorporating vapor recovery systems that use the excess gas for pneumatic pumps and valves. Often these existing emissions sources are not well documented, and a site survey is the only way to identify fugitive emissions.
  3. The third step is to manage repairs more effectively. In any process facility where there are hundreds if not thousands of connections, seals and vents, a gas leak of some kind is inevitable. Leak detection and repair (LDAR) systems that enable early identification and swift mitigating action in hazardous environments are essential. Aliso Canyon was a big story, but the far more common culprit is a faulty valve on a well-side storage tank, which once spotted might be simply fixed with a spanner.

A sensible LDAR regime

Whereas the first step above requires long-term investment and system design, the second and third are much quicker and easier steps to address. Much of the existing regulation around gas emissions and gas leak detection are based on a series of protocols known as Method 21. These require operators to use “sniffers,” devices that use a physical or chemical reaction to identify the presence of leaked gas.

Sniffers are excellent for routine inspections of known trouble spots, as is often mandated in the regulations. What sniffers don’t do is identify the source of a leak, particularly when it comes from an unexpected source or a facility with complex piping.

However, since 2008 operators have been including optical gas imaging (OGI) in their maintenance and operational regimes, particularly in hazardous locations, to great effect. Using an infrared thermal- imaging camera, these portable and remote OGI devices can enable operators to safely identify specific hydrocarbons from their unique electromagnetic radiation absorption rates. Hence, operators can observe any plumes of leaking methane and its exact source, even when the parts per million rate is relatively low.

The EyeCGas optical gas imaging camera enables users to safely, quickly and accurately pinpoint hydrocarbon leaks. (Source: Opgal)

There is a growing body of evidence that shows that OGI methods can safely identify the vast majority of emissions in a fraction of the time taken by labor-intensive methods. OGI can also be used to verify that any given leak has been fixed. During re-commissioning following plant repairs, OGI can be used to rapidly verify the integrity of repairs to decrease the time the plant is offline.

OGI has been defined by the European Parliament commission as the best available technique for volatile organic compound emission reduction. In Taiwan regulations mirror those in the U.S. in that they require Method 21 but also include OGI. Similar OGI-focused regulation also is coming to China and Canada. For truly global firms, implementing a standard OGI device across worldwide operations is the smart thing to do to ensure safe, efficient and cost-effective operations.

Regulatory twist?

Even if the Quad Oa regulations get watered down or lack fully funded enforcement mechanisms, safety and operational efficiency still makes OGI a shrewd choice. What’s more, the existing Regulation 325 will make fenceline emission monitoring mandatory. Operators will need a virtual “fence” of remote sensing and optical devices that can pick up the existence of pollutants outside the premises of their facilities. The regulations don’t specify OGI devices to be used, but if the presence of contaminants is detected, the next step will be to find the source—a job for which OGI cameras are ideally suited.

In an interesting twist, the actions of the new administration in Washington, D.C., might encourage the use of OGI more quickly. To date, much of the EPA’s regulation has been committed to labor-intensive sniffers and Method 21, which are often to the disadvantage of operators with remote or unmanned sites, for which sniffers are not appropriate.

With its promises to reduce regulatory burdens and boost industrial growth in the U.S., the new government also could look for ways to ease the burden of current LDAR programs while still maintaining the public protection that citizens demand. Being cost-effective and flexible in their deployment, OGI devices would allow operators to capture the majority of leaks more quickly and more efficiently than current practice allows, thus making operations much safer.

Predicting the future is a thankless task. But even as details change, LDAR is likely to remain and be implemented by countries worldwide. And with oil prices still at the lower end of the curve, margins are tough to maintain, and profits are hard-won. In these circumstances OGI is the technology to help enhance operations, maintain safety records and avoid major pollution.

Comments