Methane emissions from pneumatic devices, by operator, by basin

Methane leaks from 1M pneumatic devices across the US onshore oil and gas industry comprise 50% of all US upstream methane leaks and 15% of all upstream CO2. This data-file aggregates data on 500,000 pneumatic devices, from 300 acreage positions, of 200 onshore producers in 9 US basins.

The data are broken down acreage position by position, from high-bleed pneumatic devices, releasing an average of 4.1T of methane/device/year to pnuematic pumps and intermediate devices, releasing 1.4T, through to low-bleed pneumatic devices releasing 160kg/device/year.

It allows us to rank operators. Companies are identified, with a pressing priority to replace medium and high bleed devices. Other companies are identified with best-in-class use of pneumatics (chart below). The download contains 2018 and 2019 data, so you can compare YoY progress by company.

A summary of our conclusions is also written out in the second tab of the data-file.  For opportunities to resolve these leaks and replace pneumatic devices, please see our recent note on Mitigating Methane.

Oil Sands CO2 Intensity

This data-file quantifies the CO2 intensity of oil sands production: disaggregating averge emission factors for both mining operations and SAGD. Emissions are estimated for running trucks, bitumen extraction, steam-flooding, upgrading, methane leaks, flaring, et al; based on real-world data.

A CO2 curve can also be derived from the data, ranking c2.5Mbpd of production across Alberta, in order to compare different facilities and different operators. Steam-oil-ratios explain c60% of the variance in SAGD assets’ emissions.

Permian CO2 Emissions by Producer

This data-file tabulates Permian CO2 intensity based on regulatory disclosures from 20 of the leading producers to the EPA in 2018. Hence we can  calculate the basin’s upstream emissions, in tons and in kg/boe.

The data are fully disaggregated by company, across the 20 largest Permian E&Ps, Majors and independents; and across 18 different categories, such as combustion, flaring, venting, pneumatics, storage tanks and methane leaks.

A positive is that CO2 intensity is -52% correlated with operator production volumes, which suggests CO2 intensity can be reduced over time, as the industry grows and consolidates into the hands of larger companies.

LNG Process Technologies — an Overview

This file will give a helpful overview of the different process technologies, which are used in LNG liquefaction: APCI, APX (Exxon), Optimised Cascade (Conoco), Fluid Cascade (Equinor), DMR, SMR, PRICO (Golar) and MMLS (Shell, small-scale). For each one, we summarise how it works, advantages and disadvantages, plus typical train sizes, energy efficiencies, examples and involved-companies. We also touch on applicability for FLNG and small-scale LNG.

Copyright: Thunder Said Energy, 2022.