GAS RECOVERY Optical Fugitive Emission Pilot Study

Terence Trefiak P. Eng. January 17th 2007

• •

Pilot Study Scope Summary of Findings

• Source Data • Facility Comparison • Economics

Overview

• Background

• Path Forward

Fugitive Emissions Losses (leaks) of HC product (methane, propane, VOC’s)

UNINTENTIONAL FUGITIVES – normal wear and tear / damage – improper or incomplete assembly of components – inadequate material specification – manufacturing defects

INTENTIONAL FUGITIVES – venting (tanks, controllers, comp. seals, stacks, etc.)

• On average natural gas processing plants lose between 0.05 to 0.5% of their total production to fugitive emissions

• up to 95% of these emissions can be prevented by identification and repair

• Based on CPC production, fugitive gas loses may amount to between $2,000,000 and $20,000,000 USD per year

• This provides a significant opportunity to increase production through fugitive emission reduction

• Majority of fugitive emissions arise from a minority of leaking components

“Why worry about some little leaks?”

“What is the Problem?” Gas leaks are invisible,

unregulated and go unnoticed

Background Study Objective

– evaluate new leak detection and measurement technology and determine actual facility fugitive emission rates

Drivers – Increase production & reduce costs by recovering

lost gas – CAPP Fugitive Emission Management BMP – Increase operations Health & Safety – Reduce GHG emissions / Carbon Credits – Part of CPC E/E, Gas Star Program, and BIC

Initiative

Background Detection Technology • GasfindIR - optical emission technology

– infrared video camera with hydrocarbon/VOC filter – provides visible images of a HC gas emissions in real-time

Benefits : • Rapid, accurate and safe detection • Scan hard-to-reach components from a

distance • Assessments performed without

interruption of operations • Inspection times are minimal, which can

keep costs down. • With exact leak source info, repairs are

less time consuming and less expensive.

• Cost-effectively scan hundreds ofcomponents simultaneously

Approx. Cost: $75,000.00USD

Background Measurement Technology • HiFlow Sampler – volumetric leak measurement

– vacuum flow rate detection uses dual-element hydrocarbon (methane) detector

– measures hydrocarbon concentrations in the captured air stream and determines the leak flow rate (+- 10%)

Benefits : – offers a much higher

accuracy of measurement (compared toconventional methods)

– allows an objective cost-benefit analysis of each repairopportunity

Approx. Cost: $14,000 USD

• • •

13 comp. stns.) from various asset areas Obtain fugitive emission data Complete repair cost/benefit analysis Create recommendations for applying a Canada-wide program (CAPP BMP)

SCOPE

• Evaluate 22 facilities (9 gas plants and

SOURCE INFO # of Sources

• 77% leaking components (111) • 23% other fugitive emission

sources (33) • 92% economical to repair (133)

Composition - 75% Process gas (108) - 21% Fuel gas (30) - 4% Propane (6)

Location - 72% Compressor Buildings - 20% Process Buildings - 4% Outside piping - 4% Tanks

SOURCE TYPES

15%

23% 27%

35%

7%

77%

5% 11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Flanges Vents Treaded Connections

Valves

Sources

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tot

al

Total # of Sources

Total Volume of Sources

GAS PLANT COMPARISON

0.00

20000.00

40000.00

60000.00

80000.00

100000.00

120000.00

GP #5GP #9GP

# 8GP #1 GP

#2GP#7GP #3GP

# 6GP #4

Facility

Thro

ughp

ut (m

mcf

/yea

r)

$-

$10,000.00

$20,000.00

$30,000.00

$40,000.00

$50,000.00

$60,000.00

Pote

ntia

l Sav

ings

(USD

/yea

r .

GAS PLANT COMPARISON

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

GP#1

GP#2

GP#3

GP#4

GP#5

GP#6

GP#7

GP#8

GP#9

Facility

Faci

lity

Age

(yea

rs)

$0.00

$10,000.00

$20,000.00

$30,000.00

$40,000.00

$50,000.00

$60,000.00

Pote

ntia

l Sav

ings

(USD

/yea

r)

ECONOMICS

630,000CO2e/year Reduction (tonnes)

$35,000,000.00Total Est. NPV (US$/year)

$8,000.00Average Total Cost/Facility (US$/year) (assessment and repairs)

$16,300.00Average Yearly Savings/Facility (US$/year)

0.50Average Est. Payout Period (years)

$10,400,000.00Total Gross Est. Annual Savings

$15,750,000.00CO2e Credit Value (US$)

(US$/year)

* Using $5.50 USD/mmbtu and $25.00 USD/tonne CO2e

CAPP BMP CONTROL STRATEGY

• Fugitive Assessment Schedule – Company-wide assessment of all facilities

Fugitive Maintenance Plan•– Operating procedures and performance

objectives for minimizing fugitive emissions – Directed Inspection & Maintenance (DI&M)

Program • Prioritize inspections to target high potential

processes and components – Influence facility design (i.e. flow meters,

low bleed, vapour recovery, etc.)

All With Gas Conservation or

Implemented over years

100kW to<600 kW

Implemented over three years600 kWto 1500 kW

Implemented over four years>1500 kW

Implemented over years

<0.7 x 106 m3/d

Implemented over three years0.7 106 m3/dto 7 x 106 m3/d

Implemented over four years>7 x 106 m3/dnts

Year 4Year 3Year 2Year 1Design Capacity

Component Categories Subject to DI&MFacilityemissions BMP.

Vapour Control

Group Batteries Single-Well

two

Compressor Stations

two

Gas Pla

Type

Table 1. Proposed schedule for implementation of this fugitive

Initial 4-year Schedule – ~150 Facilities/ year

• Majority of GP in 1st year

– ~ 70 assessment days/year – Coordinate with turn-arounds when possible

After 4 years – 2 year maintenance-phase schedule – Average assessment times drop due to leak

rates decline – Leak-prone facilities will require a higher

priority/rate of assessment – Operators request assessments based on

fugitive maintenance findings

Batteries

PATH FORWARD

• Set schedule to follow CAPP BMP guideline • Evaluate pipeline opportunities • Decide on resources

– i.e. third party, in-house, cost/benefit evaluation

Develop Fugitive Maintenance Plan•– Imbed Fugitive Management into Operations and Facility Design

Education / Knowledge Sharing•

QUESTIONS?