Flare reduction projects - issues underlying limited uptake - Steve Ross (SGS)

2,714 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,714
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
105
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Flare reduction projects - issues underlying limited uptake - Steve Ross (SGS)

  1. 1. Flare Reduction Projects - Issues underlying limited uptake Steve Ross Global Forum on Flaring Reduction & Natural Gas Utilization Amsterdam 3 rd – 5 th December 2008
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Objective - Improve understanding of flare reduction project issues and suggest methodology improvements to enable increased uptake </li></ul><ul><li>Current lack of certainty in the flare reduction project development process presents a barrier to investment. Investment confidence is not currently afforded by the validation, registration, verification and issuance process for flare reduction projects. The main issues to be resolved: - </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Applicability criteria </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Additionality assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Methodology issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitoring issues </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. AM0009 v3 History <ul><li>Apr 08 – Clarified AG must be used for energy products only </li></ul><ul><li>Apr 08 – AMREV_0086 - Revision to include CNG rejected </li></ul><ul><li>Aug 08 - CLA107 – Correction to equation 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Sep 08 – Revised to v3.2 to correct equation 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Sep 08 – AMREV_0109 - Revision to include gas lift and gas from other oil fields – no response posted </li></ul><ul><li>Nov 08 – CLA119 - Clarified lift gas rejected and projects can not use fuel gas from other fields. </li></ul><ul><li>Nov 08 – CLA118 - Clarified default CH4 factors can not be used. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Applicability Criteria <ul><li>AM0009 / AM0037 revisions have become project specific and no longer generic. Now unusable for most projects without further revisions. </li></ul><ul><li>AM0009 v3 now refers to AG only. </li></ul><ul><li>AM0037 v2 now also refers to AG (but downstream of processing) and therefore methodology can no longer be used for process or tail gas flare reduction (semantics). </li></ul><ul><li>New methodologies required where the only changes are products (e.g. NM268 –CNG) </li></ul><ul><li>New facilities / oil fields? </li></ul><ul><li>Need to move towards consolidated methodology </li></ul>
  5. 5. Project delays <ul><li>No latitude for DOE judgement where all projects are subject to review by RIT for any perceived deviation from AM. Therefore DOE now adopt same approach as no allowance for materiality </li></ul><ul><li>Reasons for RfR </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Additionality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitoring </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Only 4 registered as CDM </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rang Dong (original AM9 v2) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Kwale (complete rework) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Al-Shaheen (monitoring issues) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Tambun </li></ul></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Additionality <ul><li>Oil company investment priority is exploration and production. Flare reduction project return needs to meet E&P rate of return. E.g. 20% rather than CDM suggested 10%. In current investment climate 30% would be more realistic. </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity for private investment at lower rate is limited. Vast majority AG flare reduction potential are either international oil companies, state owned oil companies or JV. </li></ul><ul><li>Gas / product contract price fluctuation - Local market price v international spot / long term stability. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Methodology Issues <ul><li>Fundamental principle </li></ul><ul><li>Emission reduction = Avoided Flare </li></ul><ul><li> Avoided flare = Products </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring product end use is now required for new revisions, to be treated as leakage where lower carbon fuel is offset, higher efficiency technology is replaced, or where the product or fuel source leads to increased production. Possible confusion between fuel switch and flare reduction. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Methodology Issues <ul><li>Fugitive CH4 - Fugitives CH4 emissions in modern plant are about 0.001% of total project emissions, but inclusion in methodologies is proving most problematic </li></ul><ul><li>AM0009 v2 approach - Default equipment factors such as from EPA / GRI studies as used in original AM0009 carry high uncertainty, but inclusion in methodology is conservative </li></ul><ul><li>AM0009 v3.2 methodology uses CH4 mass balance but : - </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A) Balance calculation not possible due to inherent measurement uncertainty and mathematical principles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>B) For this balance, measurement point A is placed after compression, which is the largest potential source of fugitive emissions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>C) Includes process flare as CH4 (assumes venting) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Either fugitive CH4 can be ignored on materiality grounds, or methodology should stipulate LDAR (measured) and flare measurement. </li></ul>
  9. 9. Monitoring issues - Materiality <ul><li>Inclusion of a materiality assessment for each input to final calculated ERs within the PDD / MP / MR would prevent needless RfD / RfR delays where the deviation has no material effect on ER or quality of the MR. </li></ul><ul><li>Example project specific AM0009 ER equations :- </li></ul><ul><li>ER = BL-PE CO2 -PE CH4 </li></ul><ul><li>Where:- </li></ul><ul><li>BL = Feed gas (previous flare) </li></ul><ul><li>PE CO2 = MCO2 12&quot;feed - MCO2 MO1 - MCO2 LPG – MCO2 LPGcond – MCO2 1stGrade - MCO2 2ndGrade </li></ul><ul><li>PE CH4 = PE CH4Plant + PE CH4Pipeline + PE CH4PipelineAccident </li></ul><ul><li>The expanded ER equation becomes: - </li></ul><ul><li>ER = ((V12&quot;*EF12&quot;)+(V4&quot;*EF12&quot;))-((V12&quot;*EF12&quot;)-(VM01*EFM01)-(VLPG*EFLPG)-(VLPGcond*EFLPGcond)-(V1st*EF1st)-(V2nd*EF2nd))-PECH4plant - PECH4pipeline-PECH4 pipeline accident </li></ul>
  10. 10. Monitoring Issues - Materiality <ul><li>Sensitivity coefficients (S) are found by varying the inputs to the expanded equation one at a time, as used for financial analysis, or by partial differentiation as per ISO GUM </li></ul>
  11. 11. Monitoring Issues - Equipment <ul><li>Rather than defining monitoring equipment to be used within methodologies, reference to the measurement uncertainty level required for each parameter would allow greater flexibility for PP with regard to selection of instrumentation in consideration of project specific process conditions and country specific custody transfer methodologies. </li></ul><ul><li>The uncertainty level required can be defined using the materiality analysis on the effect of each input parameter on the calculated ER </li></ul><ul><li>Each PDD can then state the measurement technology to be employed to meet the AM requirement </li></ul><ul><li>Currently there is no clear guidance offered on measurement uncertainty calculation or consistent treatment of uncertainty within CDM. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Monitoring Issues - Semantics <ul><li>RfD / RfR have been initiated over definitions of terms used in methodology. </li></ul><ul><li>Without UN definitions such terms are highly dependent on interpretation and cause severe project delays, for no material reason. </li></ul><ul><li>E.g. AM0037 refers to AG, but this is downstream of processing plant </li></ul><ul><li>E.g. DOE required flow meters installed for product measurement, however process conditions could not support flow metering, and weighbridges have been employed on previously verified projects as meeting ‘continuous measurement’. Subject to clarification request – define continuous as ‘not sampled’ </li></ul><ul><li>E.g. process flare now treated as fugitive </li></ul>
  13. 13. Summary <ul><li>Combine AM0009/AM0037 as essentially same methodology – AG / Tail gas / Waste gas etc </li></ul><ul><li>Include all product scenarios and treatment of these </li></ul><ul><li>Include all project emission scenarios for project compression and process fuel, including the monitoring methodologies required for each </li></ul><ul><li>Include CO2 mass balance option for AG fuel and flare consumption as well as measurement approach. </li></ul><ul><li>Include production / pipeline sharing option and calculations </li></ul><ul><li>Include process emission (CO2 venting) for sour gas scenarios </li></ul><ul><li>Fugitive CH4 via LDAR or defaults (if process fugitives captured by flare headers, these can not be treated as fugitive CH4) </li></ul><ul><li>Include requirement for materiality assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Define parameter uncertainty requirements rather than stating equipment to be used. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Finally…. <ul><li>Suggest development of generic CDM/JI Monitoring Guidelines to include instrument selection, maintenance requirements and uncertainty calculations. </li></ul><ul><li>Removing ambiguity and lack of consistency in monitoring requirements between methodologies and between projects </li></ul><ul><li>Provide level playing field for CER in uncertainty terms in line with e.g. EUETS </li></ul><ul><li>Prevent non-material project delays and increase project uptake </li></ul>

×