Read Microsoft PowerPoint - SKONE_NG_LC_GHG_Profile_Cornell_12MAY11_Final.pptx text version

Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction & Delivery in the United States y

Timothy J. Skone, P.E. Office of Strategic Energy Analysis and Planning May 12 2011 12,

Presented at: Cornell University Lecture Series

Overview

1. 1 2. Who i Wh is NETL? What is the role of natural gas in the United States? Who uses natural gas in the U.S.? Where does natural gas come from? Wh d t l f ? What is the life cycle GHG footprint of domestic natural gas extraction and g delivery to large end-users? How does natural gas power generation compare to coal-fired power generation on a life cycle GHG basis? What are the opportunities for reducing GHG emissions?

3. 4. 4 5.

6.

7.

2

Question #1: Who is NETL?

3

National Energy Technology Laboratory

MISSION Advancing energy options g gy p to fuel our economy, strengthen our security, and improve our environment p

Albany, OR Pittsburgh, PA

Morgantown, WV Fairbanks, AK Sugar Land, TX

Oregon

4

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

Question #2: What is the role of natural gas in the United States?

5

Energy Demand 2008

100 QBtu / Year 84% F il E Fossil Energy Coal 22% Oil 37% 5,838 mmt CO2 487 QBtu / Year 81% Fossil Energy Coal 27% Oil 33% 29,259 mmt CO2

6 Sources: U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011; World data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2010, Current Policies Scenario

Energy Demand 2035

114 QBtu / Year 78% F il E Fossil Energy Coal 21% Oil 33% 6,311 mmt CO2 Gas 24%

Nuclear 8% Renewables 14%

Gas 24%

Nuclear 8% Renewables 8%

+ 14%

United States

716 QBtu / Year 79% Fossil Energy + 47%

World

Gas 21% %

Nuclear 6% Renewables* 13%

Coal 29% Oil 28%

Gas 22%

Nuclear 8% Renewables Renewables* 15%

42,589 mmt CO2

* Primarily traditional biomass, wood, and waste.

Question #3: Who uses natural gas in the United States?

7

Domestic Natural Gas Consumption

Sectoral Trends and Projections: 2010 Total Consumption = 23.8 TCF j p 9 8

Electric Power Sector Consumed 31% of U.S. Natural Gas in 2010 (7.4 TCF)

Industrial Electric Power

Electric Power Usage Does Not Increase Above 2010 Level Until Year 2031

Trillion n Cubic Feet (TCF)

7 6 5 4 3 2

Industrial + 1.9 TCF from 2009 to 2015.

Residential

Commercial

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

+1.9 TCF Resurgence in Industrial Use of Natural Gas by 2015 Exceeds the Net Incremental Supply; No Increase in Natural Gas Use for Electric Power Sector Until 2031

8

Source: EIA Annual Energy Review 2009 and Annual Energy Outlook 2011

Question #4: Where does natural gas come from?

9

Schematic Geology of Onshore Natural Gas Resources

10 Source: EIA, Today in Energy, February 14, 2011; Modified USGS Figure from Fact Sheet 0113-01; www.eia.doe.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=110 Last Accessed May 5, 2011.

EIA Natural Gas Maps

11 Source: EIA, Natural Gas Maps, http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/maps/maps.htm Last Accessed May 5, 2011.

Sources of Incremental Natural Gas Supply

(Indexed to 2010) 7 6 5 4 Lower 48 Unconventional

(Shale, Tight, CBM)

Tcf f

3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

+1.3 Tcf (2020 vs. 2010) 1.3

Net Supply Increment

+2.5 Tcf

(2035 vs. 2010)

Alaska Lower 48 Conventional Conventional*

Net LNG Imports Net Pipeline Imports

* - I l d supplemental supplies, lower 48 offshore, associated-dissolved, and other production Includes l t l li l ff h i t d di l d d th d ti

Unconventional Production Growth Offset by Declines in Conventional Production and Net Pipeline Imports; 1.3 Tcf Increment by 2020 Does Not Support Significant Coal Generation Displacement

12 Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011

Question #5: What is the life cycle GHG footprint of domestic natural gas extraction and delivery to large end-users?

13

Overview: Life Cycle Assessment Approach

Goal & Scope Definition

The Type of LCA Conducted Depends on Answers to these Questions: 1. What Do You Want to Know? 2. How Will You Use the Results?

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) f LCA St d di ti for

Inventory Analysis (LCI)

Interpretation (LCA)

·

ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management ­ Life Cycle Assessment ­ Principles and Framework ISO 14044 Environmental Management ­ E i t lM t Life Cycle Assessment ­ Requirements and Guidelines ISO/TR 14047:2003 Environmental Management ­ Life Cycle Impact Assessment ­ Examples of Applications of ISO 14042 ISO/TS 14048:2002 Environmental Management ­ Life Cycle Assessment ­ Data Documentation Format

·

·

Impact Assessment (LCIA)

·

Source: ISO 14040:2006, Figure 1 ­ Stages of an LCA (reproduced) 14

Overview: Life Cycle Assessment Approach

The Type of LCA Conducted Depends on Answers to these Questions : 1. 1 What Do You Want to Know? Wh t D Y W t t K ?

The GHG footprint of natural gas, lower 48 domestic average, extraction, processing, and delivery to a large end-user (e.g., power plant) ( l t) The comparison of natural gas used in a baseload power generation plant to baseload coal-fired power generation on a lbs CO2e/MWh basis

2. How Will You Use the Results?

Inform research and development activities to reduce the GHG footprint of both energy feedstock extraction and power production in existing and future operations

15

NETL Life Cycle Analysis Approach

· Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and the potential environmental impacts of a product or service throughout its life cycle from raw material acquisition to the cycle, final disposal

LC Stage #3 Energy Conversion Facility (ECF)

LC Stage #1 Raw Material Acquisition (RMA)

LC Stage #2 Raw Material Transport (RMT)

LC Stage #4 Product Transport (PT)

LC Stage #5 End Use

Not Included in Power LCA

Upstream Emissions

Downstream Emissions

·

The ability to compare different technologies depends on the functional unit (denominator); for power LCA studies:

­ 1 MWh of electricity delivered to the end user

16

NETL Life Cycle Analysis Approach for Natural Gas Extraction and Delivery Study

· The study boundary for "domestic natural gas extraction and y g y delivery to large end-users" is represented by Life Cycle (LC) Stages #1 and #2 only.

LC Stage #1 Raw Material Acquisition (RMA)

LC Stage #2 Raw Material Transport (RMT)

LC Stage #3 LC Stage #4 Energy Product Conversion Transport Facility Included in Study Not (PT) (ECF)

Boundary for Not Included in Power LCA Cradle-to-Gate Cradle to Gate Energy Feedstock Profiles

LC Stage #5 End Use

Upstream Emissions

Downstream Emissions

·

Functional unit (denominator) for energy feedstock profiles is:

­ 1 MMBtu of feedstock delivered to end user

(MMBtu = million British thermal units)

17

NETL Life Cycle Study Metrics

Converted to Global Warming · Greenhouse Gases Potential using IPCC 2007 100-year CO2 equivalents ­ CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6 C S CO2 = 1 · Criteria Air Pollutants CH4 = 25 ­ NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, Pb N2O = 298 SF6 = 22,800 , · Air Emissions Species of Interest ­ Hg, NH3, radionuclides · Solid Waste · Raw Materials ­ Energy Return on Investment · Water Use ­ Withdrawn water, consumption, water returned to source water consumption ­ Water Quality · Land Use ­ Acres transformed greenhouse gases transformed,

18

NETL Life Cycle Model for Natural Gas

Raw Material Transport

Well Construction Pipeline Operation Acid Gas Removal Venting/Flaring Venting/Flaring Pipeline Construction

Venting/Flaring

Well Completion

Energy Conversion Facility

Venting/Flaring Liquids Unloading Dehydration Venting/Flaring Gas Centrif ugal Compressor Plant Construction Switchyard and Trunkline Construction

Venting/Flaring

Workovers

Valve Fugitive Emissions Reciprocating Compressor Plant Operation

Trunkline Operation

Venting/Flaring

Other Point Source Emissions

Other Point Source Emissions

Venting/Flaring Electric Centrif ugal Compressor

Other Fugitive Emissions

Other Fugitive Emissions CCS Operation

Transmission & Distribution

Valve Fugitive Emissions

Venting/Flaring

Raw Material Extraction

Raw Material Processing Raw Material Acquisition

CCS Construction

Product Transport

19

Natural Gas Composition by Mass

Production Gas

HS H S 0.5% HO 0.1% CO 0.5%

Pipeline Quality Gas

N 0.5% HS HO 0.0% 0.0% NMVOC 5.6%

N 1.8% CO 1.5%

NMVOC 17.8% 17 8%

CH 78.3%

CH 93.4%

Carbon content (75%) and energy content (1,027 btu/cf) of pipeline quality gas is very similar to raw production gas (within 99% of both values)

20

Natural Gas Extraction Modeling Properties

Property Units Barnett Onshore Onshore Offshore Tight Sands Shale Conventional Associated Conventional Vertical Well Horizontal Well Well Well Well Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Well

Natural Gas Source Contribution to 2009 Natural Gas Mix Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR), Production Gas Production Rate (30-yr average) Natural Gas Extraction Well Flaring Rate at Extraction Well Location Well Completion, Production Gas (prior to flaring) Well Workover, Production Gas (prior to flaring) Well Workover Number per Well Lifetime Workover, Liquids Unloading, Production Gas (prior to flaring) Liquids Unloading, Number per Well Lifetime Pneumatic Device Emissions, Fugitive Other Sources of Emissions, Point Source (prior to flaring) Other Sources of Emissions, Fugitive Percent MCF/completion MCF/workover Workovers/well MCF/episode Episodes/well lb CH4/MCF lb CH4/MCF lb CH4/MCF 51% 47 3.1 1.1 11 23.5 930 0.05 0.003 0.043 51% 47 3.1 1.1 11 n/a n/a 0.05 0.003 0.043 51% 47 3.1 1.1 11 23.5 930 0.01 0.002 0.010 15% 4,657 4,657 3.5 35 n/a n/a 0.05 0.003 0.043 15% 11,643 11,643 3.5 35 n/a n/a 0.05 0.003 0.043 51% 63 63 3.5 35 n/a n/a 0.05 0.003 0.043 Percent BCF/well MCF/day 23% 8.6 782 7% 4.4 399 13% 67.7 6,179 32% 1.2 110 16% 3.0 274 9% 0.2 20

21

Natural Gas Processing Plant Modeling Properties

Property Units Barnett Onshore Onshore Offshore Tight Sands Shale Conventional Associated Conventional Vertical Well Horizontal Well Well Well Well Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Well

Acid Gas Removal (AGR) and CO2 Removal Unit Flaring Rate for AGR and CO2 Removal Unit Methane Absorbed into Amine Solution Carbon Dioxide Absorbed into Amine Solution Hydrogen Sulfide Absorbed into Amine Solution NMVOC Absorbed into Amine Solution Glycol Dehydrator Unit Flaring Rate for Dehydrator Unit Water Removed by Dehydrator Unit Methane Emission Rate for Glycol Pump & Flash Separator Pneumatic Devices & Other Sources of Emissions Flaring Rate for Other Sources of Emissions Pneumatic Device Emissions, Fugitive Other Sources of Emissions, Point Source (prior to flaring) Other Sources of Emissions, Fugitive Percent lb CH4/MCF lb CH4/MCF lb CH4/MCF 100% 0.05 0.02 0.03 Percent lb H2O/MCF lb CH4/MCF 100% 0.045 0.0003 Percent lb CH4/MCF lb CO2/MCF lb H2S/MCF lb NMVOC/MCF 100% 0.04 0.56 0.21 6.59

22

Natural Gas Processing Plant Modeling Properties

Property Units Barnett Onshore Onshore Offshore Tight Sands Shale Conventional Associated Conventional Vertical Well Horizontal Well Well Well Well Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Well

Natural Gas Compression at Gas Plant Compressor, Gas-powered Combustion, p g Reciprocating Compressor, Gas-powered Turbine, Centrifugal Compressor, Electrical, Centrifugal Percent Percent Percent 100% 100% 100% 25% 100% 75% 100%

Natural G T N t l Gas Transmission Modeling Properties i i M d li P ti

Property Units Barnett Onshore Onshore Offshore Tight Sands Shale Conventional Associated Conventional Vertical Well Horizontal Well Well Well Well Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Well

Natural Gas Emissions on Transmission Infrastructure Pipeline Transport Distance (national average) Transmission Pipeline Infrastructure, Fugitive Transmission Pipeline Infrastructure, Fugitive (per 450 miles) Miles lb CH4/MCF-Mile lb CH4/MCF 450 0.0003 0.15 0 15

Natural Gas Compression on Transmission Infrastructure Distance Between Compressor Stations Compression, Gas-powered Reciprocating Compression, Gas-powered Centrifugal Compression, Electrical Centrifugal

23

Miles Percent Percent Percent

75 29% 64% 7%

Uncertainty Analysis Modeling Parameters

Parameter Units Scenario Onshore Conventional Well Onshore Associated Well Offshore Conventional Well Tight Sands Vertical Well Barnett Shale Horizontal Well Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Well

Low Production Rate MCF/day Nominal High Low Flaring Rate at Well % Nominal High Low Pipeline Distance miles Nominal High

403 (-49%) ( 49%) 782 1,545 (+97%) 41% ( 20%) (-20%) 51% 61% (+20%) 360 ( 20%) (-20%) 450 540 (+20%)

254 (-36%) ( 36%) 399 783 (+96%) 41% ( 20%) (-20%) 51% 61% (+20%) 360 ( 20%) (-20%) 450 540 (+20%)

3,140 ( 49%) 3 140 (-49%) 6,179 12,284 (+99%) 41% ( 20%) (-20%) 51% 61% (+20%) 360 ( 20%) (-20%) 450 540 (+20%)

77 (-30%) ( 30%) 110 142 (+30%) 12% ( 20%) (-20%) 15% 18% (+20%) 360 ( 20%) (-20%) 450 540 (+20%)

192 (-30%) ( 30%) 274 356 (+30%) 12% ( 20%) (-20%) 15% 18% (+20%) 360 ( 20%) (-20%) 450 540 (+20%)

14 (-30%) ( 30%) 20 26 (+30%) 41% ( 20%) (-20%) 51% 61% (+20%) 360 ( 20%) (-20%) 450 540 (+20%)

Error bars reported are based on setting each of the three parameters above to the values that generate the lowest and highest result. Note: "Production Rate" and "Flaring Rate at Well" have an inverse relationship on the effect of the study result For example to generate the lower bound on the uncertainty range both "Production result. Production Rate" and "Flaring Rate Well" were set to "High" and "Pipeline Distance" was set to "Low".

24

Accounting for Natural Gas from Extraction y g thru Delivery to a Large End-User

(Percent Mass Basis)

Onshore Offshore Associated Tight 23% 13% 7% Fugitive 1.7% Point Source 2.5% Fuel Use 6.8%

Extraction

32%

Processing 91%

Transport 89%

99%

Shale CBM

Natural Gas Resource Table Extracted from Ground Fugitive Losses Point Source Losses ( e ted o a ed) (Vented or Flared) Fuel Use Delivered to End User

25

16% 9%

Raw Material Acquisition Extraction 100% 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% N/A Processing N/A 0.2% 2.4% 5.3% N/A Raw Material Cradle-to-Gate Transport Total: N/A 0.4% 0.0% 1.6% 89.0% 100% 1.7% 2.5% 6.8% 89.0%

11% of Natural Gas Extracted from the Earth is Consumed for Fuel Use, Flared, or Emitted to the Atmosphere (point source or fugitive) Of this, 62% is Used to Power Equipment

Life Cycle GHG Results for Average Natural Gas y g Extraction and Delivery to a Large End-User

Raw Material Acquisition 60 Raw Material Transport

2007 IPCC 100-y year Global Warmin Potential ng (lb COe/MMBtu)

50

Domestic Average Mix = 25.2 lb CO2e/MMBtu Low = 19.6, High = 33.4

45.8

40 32.2 30 Domestic Average, 25.2 21.8 21 8 20 19.3 16.1 18.0 32.3

10

0 Onshore 23.3% Offshore 13.1% Conventional

26

Associated 6.8%

Tight Gas 32.0%

CBM 8.8% Unconventional

Barnett 15.9%

Imported LNG 0.0%

Life Cycle GHG Results for Average Natural Gas y g Extraction and Delivery to a Large End-User

Comparison of 2007 IPCC GWP Time Horizons: 100-year Time Horizon: CO2 = 1, CH4 = 25, N2O = 298 20-year Time Horizon: CO2 = 1, CH4 = 72, N2O = 289

120 2007 IPCC Global Warm I ming Potential (lbs COe/MMB Btu)

100

80

77.1

76.6 71.8

60

56.8 42.6 37.7 31.1 25.2 32.2 18.0 21.8 32.3 45.8

40

41.1

20

19.3

16.1

0 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 CBM 8.8% Unconventional 20 100 20 100 20

Domestic 100%

Onshore 23.3%

Offshore 13.1% Conventional

Associated 6.8%

Tight Gas 32.0%

Barnett 15.9%

Imported LNG 0.0%

27

Life Cycle GHG Results for "Average" Natural Gas y g Extraction and Delivery to a Large End-User

Comparison of Natural Gas and Coal Energy Feedstock GHG Profiles

Raw Material Acquisition 60 2007 IPCC 100-ye Global Warmin Potential ear ng (lb COe/MMBtu) b Raw Material Transport

50

Average Natural Gas has a Life Cycle GWP 95% Higher than Average Coal (on an energy basis)

45.8

40 32.2 30 25.2 21.8 20 19.3 16.1 18.0 12.9 10 4.3 0 Domestic 100% Onshore 23.3% Offshore 13.1% Associated 6.8% Tight Gas 32.0% CBM 8.8% Barnett 15.9% Imported LNG 0.0% Domestic 100% Illinois #6 31% Powder River Basin 69% 32.3 26.4

Conventional Natural Gas

28

Unconventional Coal

A Deeper Look at Unconventional Natural Gas Extraction via Horizontal Well, Hydraulic Fracturing (the Barnett Shale Model)

29 Source: NETL, Shale Gas: Applying Technology to Solve America's Energy Challenge, January 2011

NETL Upstream Natural Gas Profile: Barnett Shale: Horizontal Well, Hydraulic Fracturing

GWP Result: IPCC 2007, 100-yr (lb CO2e/MMBtu)

CO Well Construction Well Completion Extraction Workovers Other Fugitive Emissions Other Point Source Emissions RMA Valve Fugitive Emissions Acid Gas Removal Proces ssing Dehydration Other Fugitive Emissions g Other Point Source Emissions Valve Fugitive Emissions Compressors Pipeline Construction RMT T Pipeline Compressors Pipeline Fugitive Emissions CtG 0.1% 8.0% 12.4% 3.1% 0.2% 0 2% 3.3% 4.5% 0.1% 2.9% 0.2% 3.9% 18.5% 0.7% 9.3% 33.0% CH NO

Well Completions and Workovers are Influenced by Three Primary Factors: 1. Production Rate: 3.0 BCF, EUR 2. Quantity of Production Gas Vented or Flared per Activity: 11,643 MCF/Completion and Workover 3. Average Unconventional Well Flaring Rate: 15%

32.3 lbs CO2e/MMBtu

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

0

5

2007 IPCC 100-year Global Warming Potential (lbs COe/MMBtu)

30

NETL Upstream Natural Gas Profile: Barnett Shale: Horizontal Well, Hydraulic Fracturing

Sensitivity Analysis

Prod. Rate Barnett -42.6% Workover Vent Barnett Workover Frequency, Unconv. Pipeline Distance Completion Vent Barnett Extraction flaring, Barnett Processing flare rate Pneumatic Fugitives, Processing Pneumatic Fugitives, Onshore Other Fugitive, Onshore Other Fugitive, Processing Barnett Electric Compressor Pipeline Electric Compressor Well depth, Barnett Other Point Vent, Processing -60% -40% -20% -6.2% -5.6% -5 6% 4.0% 3.3% 3.1% 2.9% 1.0% 0.8% 0.7% 0.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 9.3% 33.0% 33.0% 22.0% Default Value 11,508 489,023 0.118 450 489,023 15.0 100 0.001480 0.001210 0.001119 0.001089 25 7 13,000 0.0003940 Units lb/day lb/episode episodes/yr miles lb/episode % % lb fugitives/lb processed gas lb fugitives/lb extracted gas lb fugitives/lb extracted gas g p gas lb fugitives/lb processed g % % feet lb fugitives/lb processed gas

"0%" = 32.3 lb CO2e/MMBtu Delivered; IPCC 2007, 100-yr Time Horizon

Example: A 1% increase in production rate from 11,508 lb/day to 11,623 lb/day results in a 0.426% decrease in cradle to gate GWP, from 32.3 to 0 426% cradle-to-gate GWP 32 3 32.2 lbs CO2e/MMBtu

31

Question #6: How does natural gas power generation compare to coal-fired power generation on a life cycle GHG basis?

32

Power Technology Modeling Properties

Plant Type g 2009 Average Coal Fired Power Planta Existing Pulverized Coal Plant Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant Super Critical Pulverized Coal Plant 2009 Average Baseload (> 40 MW) Natural Gas Planta Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant Gas Turbine Simple Cycle Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant with 90% Carbon Capture Super Critical Pulverized Coal Plant with 90% Carbon Capture Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant with 90% p Carbon Capture

a

Plant Type Abbreviation Avg. Coal g EXPC IGCC SCPC Avg. Gen. NGCC GTSC IGCC/CCS SCPC/CCS NGCC/CCS

Fuel Type Domestic Average Illinois No. 6 Illinois No. 6 Illinois No. 6 Domestic Average Domestic Average Domestic Average Illinois No 6 No. Illinois No. 6 Domestic Average g

Capacity (MW)

Capacity Factor

Net Plant HHV Efficiency 33.0% 35.0% 39.0% 36.8% 47.1% 50.2% 32.6% 32.6% 32 6% 26.2% 42.8%

Not Not Calculated Calculated 434 622 550 85% 80% 85%

Not Not Calculated Calculated 555 360 543 550 474 85% 85% 80% 85% 85%

Net plant higher heating value (HHV) efficiency reported is based on the weighted mean of the 2007 fleet as reported by U.S. EPA, eGrid (2010).

33

Comparison of Power Generation Technology Life Cycle GHG Footprints

Raw Material Acquisition thru Delivery to End Customer (lb CO2e/MWh)

Raw Material Acquisition 3,000 3 000 Raw Material Transport Energy Conversion Facility Product Transport

2007 IPCC 100-ye Global Warming Potential ear g (lb COe/MWh) bs

2,500

2,453

2,461

2,085 2,000

2,100

Average Natural Gas Baseload Power Generation has a Life Cycle GWP 55% Lower than Average Coal Baseload Power Generation on a 100-year Time Horizon

1,644

1,500 1,139 1 139 1,041 1,000 572 500 473 353 1,096 1 096 1,072

0 Avg. Coal Domestic Mix EXPC IGCC Illinois #6 SCPC Avg. Gen. Avg. Gen. Avg. Gen. Conv. Gas Unconv. Gas NGCC Domestic Mix GTSC IGCC SCPC NGCC

With Carbon Capture

Coal

34

Natural Gas

Note: EXPC, IGCC, SCPC, and NGCC (combustion) results, with and without CCS, are based on scenario specific modeling parameters; not industry average data.

Comparison of Power Generation Technology Life Cycle GHG Footprints (lbs CO2e/MWh)

Comparison of 2007 IPCC GWP Time Horizons: 100-year Time Horizon: CO2 = 1, CH4 = 25, N2O = 298 20-year Time Horizon: CO2 = 1, CH4 = 72, N2O = 289 Average Natural Gas Baseload Power Generation has a Life Cycle GWP 50% Lower than Average Coal Baseload Power Generation on a 20-year Time Horizon

3,000 2007 IPCC Gl lobal Warming Potential (lb COe/MWh) bs

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 Avg. Coal EXPC Domestic Mix IGCC Illinois #6 SCPC Avg. Gen. Avg. Gen. Avg. Gen. NGCC Conv. Gas Unconv. Gas Domestic Mix GTSC IGCC SCPC NGCC

With Carbon Capture

Coal

35

Natural Gas

Note: EXPC, IGCC, SCPC, and NGCC (combustion) results, with and without CCS, are based on scenario specific modeling parameters; not industry average data.

Study Data Limitations

· Data Uncertainty ­ Episodic emission factors ­ Formation-specific production rates ­ Flaring rates (extraction and processing) ­ Natural gas pipeline transport distance y Data Availability ­ Formation-specific gas compositions (including CH4, H2S, NMVOC, and water) ­ Effectiveness of green completions and workovers ­ Fugitive emissions from around wellheads (between the well casing and the ground) ­ GHG emissions from the production of fracing fluid ­ Direct and indirect GHG emissions from land use from access roads and well pads d ll d ­ Gas exploration ­ Treatment of fracing fluid ­ Split between venting and fugitive emissions from pipeline transport

·

36

Question #7: What are the opportunities for reducing GHG emissions?

37

Technology Opportunities

· Opportunities for Reducing the GHG Footprint of Natural Gas Extraction and Delivery ­ Reduce emissions from unconventional gas well completions and workovers

· Better data is needed to properly characterize this opportunity based on basin type, drilling method, and production rate

­ Improve compressor fuel efficiency ­ Reduce pipeline fugitive emissions thru technology and best management practices (collaborative initiatives) · Opportunities for Reducing the GHG Footprint of Natural Gas and Coal-fired Power Generation ­ Capture the CO2 at the power plant and sequester it in a saline aquifer or oil bearing reservoir (CO2-EOR) ­ Improve existing power plant efficiency ­ Invest in advanced power research, development, and demonstration

All Opportunities Need to Be Evaluated on a Sustainable Energy Basis: Environmental Performance Economic Performance and Social Performance Performance, Performance, (e.g., energy reliability and security)

38

Data Sources

ALL Consulting. "Coal Bed Methane Primer: New Source of Natural Gas - Environmental Implications." 2004. American Petroleum Institute (API). "Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry." 2009. http://www.api.org/ehs/climate/new/upload/2009_GHG_COMPENDIUM.pdf ( htt // i / h / li t / / l d/2009 GHG COMPENDIUM df (accessed M d May 18, 2010). Argonne National Laboratory. A White Paper Describing Produced Water from Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Bed Methane. National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2004. 2004 --. "Transportation Technology R&D Center, DOE H2A Delivery Analysis." 2008. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/h2a_delivery_analysis/ (accessed November 11, 2008). p g g g y Arnold. Surface Production Operations: Design of gas-handling systems and facilities. Houston, Texas: Gulf Professional Publishing, 1999. Bylin, Carey, Zachary Schaffer, Vivek Goel, Donald Robinson, Alexandre do N. Campos, and Fernando Borensztein. Designing the Ideal Offshore Platform Methane Mitigation Strategy. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2010. Dennis, Scott M. "Improved Estimates of Ton-Miles." (Journal of Transportation and Statistics) 8, no. 1 (2005). Department of Energy (DOE). "Buying an Energy-Efficient Electric Motor." U.S. Department of Energy, Industrial Technologies Program. 1996. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/mc-0382.pdf http://www1 eere energy gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/mc 0382 pdf (accessed May 18 18, 2010).

39

Data Sources

Energy Information Administration (EIA). Annual Energy Outlook Early Release. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2011. --. "Federal Gulf 2009: Distribution of Wells by Production Rate Bracket." www.eia.doe.gov. November 2, 2010. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrosystem/fg_table.html (accessed April 5, 2011). ( d A il 5 2011) --. "Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production." www.eia.doe.gov. March 29, 2011. http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_a_EPG0_VRN_mmcf_a.htm (accessed April 5, 2011). --. "Personal Communication with Damian Gaul " U S Department of Energy Energy Personal Gaul. U.S. Energy, Information Administration, Natural Gas Division, Office of Oil and Gas, May 10, 2010. --. United States Total 2008: Distribution of Wells by Production Rate Bracket. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2009. United Bracket --. "United States total 2009: Distribution of Wells by Production Rate Bracket." www.eia.doe.gov. December 29, 2010. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrosystem/us_table.html (accessed April 5, 2011). --. "2009 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Background Technical Support Document Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Division, 2011.

40

Data Sources

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, AP-42." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 1995. http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42 (accessed May 18, 2010). --. I Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008. W hi t t fG h G E i i d Si k 1990 2008 Washington, D.C.: U.S. DC US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. --. "Natural Gas STAR Recommended Technologies and Practices - Gathering and Processing Sector." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010b. http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/gathering_and_processing_fs.pdf http://www epa gov/gasstar/documents/gathering and processing fs pdf (accessed March 2, 2011). --. "Replacing Glycol Dehydrators with Desiccant Dehydrators." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. October 2006. http://epa.gov/gasstar/documents/II_desde.pdf (accessed June 1, 2010). Government Accountability Office (GAO). Federal Oil and Gas Leases: Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented and Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments and Reduce Greenhouse Gases. GAO-11-34, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2010. --. "Natural Gas Flaring and Venting: Opportunities to Improve Data and Reduce Emissions." U.S. Government A US G t Accountability Office. J l 2004. t bilit Offi July 2004 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04809.pdf (accessed June 18, 2010). GE Oil and Gas. Reciprocating Compressors. Florence, Italy: General Electric Company, 2005. Hayden, J., and D. Pursell. "The Barnett Shale: Visitors Guide to the Hottest Gas Play in the U.S. U S " Pickering Energy Partners. October 2005. Partners 2005 http://www.tudorpickering.com/pdfs/TheBarnettShaleReport.pdf (accessed June 14, 2010).

41

Data Sources

Houston Advanced Research Center. "Natural Gas Compressor Engine Survey for Gas Production and Processing Facilities, H68 Final Report." Houston Advanced Research Center. 2006. http://www.utexas.edu/research/ceer/GHG/files/ConfCallSupp/H068FinalReport.pdf (accessed May 18, 2010). 18 2010) Little, Jeff, interview by James Littlefield. Natural Gas Production Analyst (March 10, 2011). Lyle, Don. "Shales Revive Oilpatch, Gas Patch." 2011 North American Unconventional Yearbook, November 10, 2011: 2010. NaturalGas.org. Well Completion. NaturalGas org "Well Completion " Natural Gas.org. 2004 Gas org 2004. http://naturalgas.org/naturalgas/well_completion.asp#liftingwell (accessed July 1, 2010). National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants: Volume 1. DOE/NETL-2010/1397, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: U.S. Department of Energy, 2010. p gy, --. Life Cycle Analysis: Existing Pulverized Coal (EXPC) Power Plant. DOE/NETL-403/110809, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: U.S. Department of Energy, 2010. --. Life Cycle Analysis: Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Plant. DOE/NETL-403/110209, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: U.S. Department of Energy, 2010. --. Life Cycle Analysis: Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Power Plant. DOE/NETL403/110509, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: U.S. Department of Energy, 2010 --. Life Cycle Analysis: Supercritical Pulverized Coal (SCPC) Power Plant. DOE/NETL403/110609, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: U.S. Department of Energy, 2010.

42

Data Sources

Polasek. Selecting Amines for Sweetening Units. Bryan Research and Engineering, 2006. Steel Pipes & Tools. Steel Pipe Weight Calculator. 2009. http://www.steel-pipestubes.com/steel-pipe-weight-calculator.html (accessed May 1, 2009). Swindell, Gary S. "Powder River Basin Coalbed Methane Wells ­ Reserves and Rates." 2007 SPE Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Technology Symposium. Denver, Colorado: Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2007.

43

Recent NETL Life Cycle Assessment Reports

Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/:

· · · · · Life Cycle Analysis: Existing Pulverized Coal (EXPC) Power Plant Life Cycle Analysis: Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Power Plant Life Cycle Analysis: Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Power Plant Life Cycle Analysis: Supercritical Pulverized Coal (SCPC) Power Plant Life Cycle Analysis: Power Studies Compilation Report

Analysis complete, report in draft form:

· · · Life Cycle GHG Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction and Delivery Life Cycle Assessment of Wind Power with GTSC Backup Life Cycle Assessment of Nuclear Power

Other related Life Cycle Analysis publications available on NETL web-site: · Life Cycle Analysis: Power Studies Compilation Report (Pres., LCA X Conference) · An Assessment of Gate-to-Gate Environmental Life Cycle Performance of WaterAlternating-Gas CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery in the Permian Basin (Report) · A Comparative Assessment of CO2 Sequestration through Enhanced Oil Recovery and Saline Aquifer Sequestration (Presentation, LCA X Conference)

44

Contact Information

Office of Fossil Energy

www.fe.doe.gov

Timothy J. Skone, P.E.

Lead General Engineer OSEAP - Planning Team

(412) 386-4495 386 4495 [email protected]

45

NETL

www.netl.doe.gov

Joe Marriott, PhD

Associate Booz Allen Hamilton

(412) 386-7557 386 7557 [email protected]

James Littlefield

Associate Booz Allen Hamilton

(412) 386-7560 386 7560 [email protected]

Information

Microsoft PowerPoint - SKONE_NG_LC_GHG_Profile_Cornell_12MAY11_Final.pptx

45 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

991257