Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis of Natural Gas ... - Fossil Energy
Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction & Delivery y in the United States Timothy J. Skone, P.E. Office of Strategic Energy Analysis and Planning May 12 12, 2011 (Updated May 23 23, 2011) Presented at: Cornell University Lecture Series
Overview
2
1 1.
Wh is Who i NETL?
2.
What is the role of natural gas in the United States?
3.
Who uses natural gas in the U.S.?
4 4.
Wh Where does d natural t l gas come from? f ?
5.
What is the life cycle GHG footprint of domestic natural g gas extraction and delivery to large end-users?
6.
How does natural gas power generation compare to coal-fired power generation on a life cycle GHG basis?
7.
What are the opportunities for reducing GHG emissions?
Question #1: Who is NETL?
3
National Energy Technology Laboratory MISSION Advancingg energy gy options p to fuel our economy, strengthen our security, and improve p our environment
Albany, OR
Pittsburgh, PA
Morgantown, WV Fairbanks, AK
Oregon 4
Pennsylvania
Sugar Land, TX
West Virginia
Question #2: What is the role of natural gas in the United States?
5
Energy Demand 2008
Energy Demand 2035
100 QBtu / Year F il Energy E 84% Fossil
114 QBtu / Year F il Energy E 78% Fossil
Coal 22%
Gas 24%
+ 14% Nuclear 8%
Oil 37%
Coal 21%
Gas 24% Nuclear 8%
United States
Oil 33%
Renewables 8%
5,838 mmt CO2
6,311 mmt CO2
716 QBtu / Year 79% Fossil Energy
487 QBtu / Year 81% Fossil Energy Coal 27%
Gas 21% %
Oil 33%
Renewables 14%
Nuclear 6%
+ 47%
Coal 29%
Gas 22%
World
Renewables* 13%
29,259 mmt CO2
Oil 28%
Nuclear 8% Renewables* Renewables 15%
42,589 mmt CO2
6 Sources: U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011; World data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2010, Current Policies Scenario
* 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: j 2010 Total Consumption p = 23.8 TCF 9
Electric Power Sector Consumed 31% of U.S. Natural Gas in 2010 (7.4 TCF)
Industrial
Trillion n Cubic Feet (TCF)
8 Electric Power
7 6
Electric Power Usage Does Not Increase Above 2010 Level Until Year 2031
Industrial + 1.9 TCF from 2009 to 2015.
Residential
5 4
Commercial
3 2 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
Lower 48 Unconventional
5
(Shale, Tight, CBM)
Tcff
4 3 Net Supply Increment
2
+2.5 Tcf
1 Alaska
-1 -2
(2035 vs. 2010)
+1.3 1.3 Tcf (2020 vs. 2010)
0
Lower 48 Conventional* Conventional
Net LNG Imports Net Pipeline Imports
* - Includes I l d supplemental l t l supplies, li lower l 48 offshore, ff h associated-dissolved, i t d di l d and d other th production d ti
-3 2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
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 The Type of LCA Conducted Depends on Answers to these Questions:
Goal & Scope Definition
1. What Do You Want to Know? 2. How Will You Use the Results?
International Organization for St d di ti Standardization (ISO) ffor LCA
Inventory Analysis (LCI)
Impact Assessment (LCIA)
Source: ISO 14040:2006, Figure 1 – Stages of an LCA (reproduced) 14
Interpretation (LCA)
•
ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework
•
ISO 14044 Environmental E i t l Management M 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
Overview: Life Cycle Assessment Approach The Type of LCA Conducted Depends on Answers to these Questions : 1 1.
Wh t Do What D Y You W Wantt tto K Know? ?
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?
15
Inform research and development activities to reduce the GHG footprint of both energy feedstock extraction and power production in existing and future operations
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 cycle, from raw material acquisition to the final disposal
LC Stage #1 Raw Material Acquisition (RMA)
LC Stage #2 Raw Material Transport (RMT)
Upstream Emissions
•
LC Stage #3 Energy Conversion Facility (ECF)
LC Stage #4 Product Transport (PT)
Not Included in Power LCA
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
LC Stage #5 End Use
NETL Life Cycle Analysis Approach for Natural Gas Extraction and Delivery Study •
The study boundary for “domestic natural gas extraction and y to large g end-users” is represented by y delivery 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 Not Included in Study (PT) (ECF)
Boundary for Not Included in Power LCA Cradle-to-Gate Cradle to Gate Energy Feedstock Profiles
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
LC Stage #5 End Use
NETL Life Cycle Study Metrics Converted to Global Warming • Greenhouse Gases Potential using IPCC 2007 100-year CO2 equivalents – CO2, CH C 4, N2O, SF S 6 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, water consumption, consumption water returned to source – Water Quality • Land Use – Acres transformed transformed, greenhouse gases 18
NETL Life Cycle Model for Natural Gas Raw Material Transport Well Construction
Venting/Flaring
Well Completion
Pipeline Operation Acid Gas Removal
Venting/Flaring
Pipeline Construction
Venting/Flaring
Energy Conversion Facility Venting/Flaring
Venting/Flaring
Liquids Unloading
Workovers
Dehydration
Venting/Flaring
Gas Centrif ugal Compressor
Other Point Source Emissions
Other Fugitive Emissions
Switchyard and Trunkline Construction
Plant Operation
Trunkline Operation
Valve Fugitive Emissions Reciprocating Compressor
Venting/Flaring
Plant Construction
Other Point Source Emissions
Venting/Flaring Electric Centrif ugal Compressor Transmission & Distribution
Other Fugitive Emissions CCS Operation Venting/Flaring
Valve Fugitive Emissions
Raw Material Extraction
Raw Material Processing Raw Material Acquisition
19
CCS Construction
Product Transport
Natural Gas Composition by Mass Production Gas H₂S H S 0.5%
N₂ 1.8%
Pipeline Quality Gas
H₂O 0.1% CO₂ 0.5%
N₂ 0.5%
H₂S H₂O 0.0% 0.0% NMVOC 5.6%
NMVOC 17 8% 17.8%
CO₂ 1.5%
CH₄ 78.3%
CH₄ 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
Percent
23%
7%
13%
32%
16%
9%
Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR), Production Gas
BCF/well
8.6
4.4
67.7
1.2
3.0
0.2
Production Rate (30-yr average)
MCF/day
782
399
6,179
110
274
20
Percent
51%
51%
51%
15%
15%
51%
MCF/completion
47
47
47
4,657
11,643
63
Well Workover, Production Gas (prior to flaring)
MCF/workover
3.1
3.1
3.1
4,657
11,643
63
Well Workover Workover, Number per Well Lifetime
Workovers/well
11 1.1
11 1.1
11 1.1
35 3.5
35 3.5
35 3.5
Liquids Unloading, Production Gas (prior to flaring)
MCF/episode
23.5
n/a
23.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
Liquids Unloading, Number per Well Lifetime
Episodes/well
930
n/a
930
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pneumatic Device Emissions, Fugitive
lb CH4/MCF
0.11
0.11
0.0001
0.11
0.11
0.11
Other Sources of Emissions, Point Source (prior to flaring)
lb CH4/MCF
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
Other Sources of Emissions, Fugitive
lb CH4/MCF
0.043
0.043
0.010
0.043
0.043
0.043
Natural Gas Extraction Well Flaring Rate at Extraction Well Location Well Completion, Production Gas (prior to flaring)
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
Acid Gas Removal (AGR) and CO2 Removal Unit Percent
100%
Methane Absorbed into Amine Solution
lb CH4/MCF
0.04
Carbon Dioxide Absorbed into Amine Solution
lb CO2/MCF
0.56
Hydrogen Sulfide Absorbed into Amine Solution
lb H2S/MCF
0.21
lb NMVOC/MCF
6.59
Percent
100%
Water Removed by Dehydrator Unit
lb H2O/MCF
0.045
Methane Emission Rate for Glycol Pump & Flash Separator
lb CH4/MCF
0.0003
Percent
100%
Pneumatic Device Emissions, Fugitive
lb CH4/MCF
0.0003
Other Sources of Emissions, Point Source (prior to flaring)
lb CH4/MCF
0.02
Other Sources of Emissions, Fugitive
lb CH4/MCF
0.03
Flaring Rate for AGR and CO2 Removal Unit
NMVOC Absorbed into Amine Solution Glycol Dehydrator Unit Flaring Rate for Dehydrator Unit
Pneumatic Devices & Other Sources of Emissions Flaring Rate for Other Sources of Emissions
22
Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Well
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
Percent
Compressor, Gas-powered Turbine, Centrifugal
Percent
Compressor, Electrical, Centrifugal
Percent
100%
100%
100%
75%
100%
100% 25%
N t Natural lG Gas T Transmission i i Modeling M d li Properties P ti Property
Units
Barnett Onshore Onshore Offshore Tight Sands Shale Conventional Associated Conventional Vertical Well Horizontal Well Well Well Well
Natural Gas Emissions on Transmission Infrastructure Pipeline Transport Distance (national average)
Miles
604
Transmission Pipeline Infrastructure, Fugitive
lb CH4/MCF-Mile
0.0003
Transmission Pipeline Infrastructure, Fugitive (per 604 miles)
lb CH4/MCF
0 18 0.18
Natural Gas Compression on Transmission Infrastructure Distance Between Compressor Stations
23
Miles
75
Compression, Gas-powered Reciprocating
Percent
29%
Compression, Gas-powered Centrifugal
Percent
64%
Compression, Electrical Centrifugal
Percent
7%
Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Well
Uncertainty Analysis Modeling Parameters Parameter
Production Rate
Flaring Rate at Well
Pipeline Distance
Units
MCF/day
%
miles
Scenario
Onshore Conventional Well
Onshore Associated Well
Offshore Conventional Well
Tight Sands Vertical Well
Barnett Shale Horizontal Well
Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Well
Low
403 (-49%) ( 49%)
254 (-36%) ( 36%)
3 140 (-49%) 3,140 ( 49%)
77 (-30%) ( 30%)
192 (-30%) ( 30%)
14 (-30%) ( 30%)
Nominal
782
399
6,179
110
274
20
High
1,545 (+97%)
783 (+96%)
12,284 (+99%)
142 (+30%)
356 (+30%)
26 (+30%)
Low
41% (-20%) ( 20%)
41% (-20%) ( 20%)
41% (-20%) ( 20%)
12% ((-20%) 20%)
12% ((-20%) 20%)
41% (-20%) ( 20%)
Nominal
51%
51%
51%
15%
15%
51%
High
61% (+20%)
61% (+20%)
61% (+20%)
18% (+20%)
18% (+20%)
61% (+20%)
Low
483 ((-20%) 20%)
483 ((-20%) 20%)
483 ((-20%) 20%)
483 ((-20%) 20%)
483 ((-20%) 20%)
483 ((-20%) 20%)
Nominal
604
604
604
604
604
604
High
725 (+20%)
725 (+20%)
725 (+20%)
725 (+20%)
725 (+20%)
725 (+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. result For example to generate the lower bound on the uncertainty range both “Production 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 to a Large g End-User thru Delivery (Percent Mass Basis) Onshore
23%
Offshore
13%
Associated
7%
Tight
32%
Shale
16%
CBM
9%
Extraction
Processing
Transport
99%
91%
87%
Natural Gas Raw Material Acquisition Raw Material Cradle-to-Gate Resource Table Extraction Processing Transport Total: 100.0% n/a n/a 100.0% Extracted from Ground 1.2% 0.1% 0.5% 1.7% Fugitive Losses 0.1% 2.3% 0.0% 2.3% Point Source Losses (Vented or Flared) 0.0% 7.7% 1.6% 9.3% Fuel Use n/a n/a 86.7% 86.7% Delivered to End User 25
Fugitive 1.7% Point Source 2.3% Fuel Use 9.3%
13.3% of Natural Gas Extracted from the Earth is Consumed for Fuel Use, Flared, or Emitted to the Atmosphere (point source or fugitive) Of this, thi 70% iis U Used d tto P Power E Equipment i t
Life Cycle GHG Results for Average Natural Gas y to a Large g End-User Extraction and Delivery Raw Material Acquisition
Raw Material Transport
60
2007 IPCC 100 0-year Global Wa arming Potential (lb CO₂e/MMBtu u)
Domestic Average Mix = 27.9 lb CO2e/MMBtu Low = 21.6,, High g = 36.9 50 45.6
40 35.2
35 4 35.4
Domestic Average, 27.9
30
24.7 22.3 20
21.0 16.6
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 to a Large g End-User Extraction and Delivery 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 2007 IP PCC Global Warmin ng Potential (lbs CO₂e/MMBttu)
120
100
84.1
80
83.6
68.1 62.9
60
49.4
47.9
45.6
44.4
40 35.4
35.2 30.9
27.9 22.3
20
24.7
21.0 16.6
0 100
20
Domestic 100% %
100
20
Onshore % 23.3%
100
20
Offshore % 13.1% Conventional
27
100
20
Associated % 6.8%
100
20
Tight Gas % 32.0%
100
20 CBM % 8.8%
Unconventional
100 Barnett % 15.9%
20
100
20
Imported LNG % 0.0%
Life Cycle GHG Results for “Average” Natural Gas y to a Large g End-User Extraction and Delivery Comparison of Natural Gas and Coal Energy Feedstock GHG Profiles Raw Material Acquisition
Raw Material Transport
2007 IPCC 100-y year Global Warmiing Potential (lb CO₂e/MMBtu)
60
50 45.6
Average Natural Gas has a Life Cycle GWP 116% Higher than Average Coal (on an energy basis)
40 35.4
35.2 30
27.9
26.4
24.7 22.3 20
21.0 16.6 12.9
10 4.3 0 Domestic 100%
Onshore 23.3%
Offshore 13.1%
Associated 6.8%
Tight Gas 32.0%
Conventional
Barnett 15.9%
Imported LNG 0.0%
Domestic 100%
Illinois #6 31%
Unconventional Natural Gas
28
CBM 8.8%
Coal
Powder River Basin 69%
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) CO₂ Well Construction Extraction
8.6%
Workovers
30.3%
Other Fugitive Emissions
3.3%
Other Point Source Emissions
0.2%
Acid Gas Removal
4.1%
Dehydration Processing
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%
8.4%
Valve Fugitive Emissions
RMA
N₂O
0.7%
Well Completion
0.1% 2.1%
Other Fugitive Emissions Other Point Source Emissions
0.2%
Valve Fugitive Emissions
0.0%
Compressors
17.0%
Pipeline Construction RM MT
CH₄
0.1% 9 8% 9.8%
Pi li C Pipeline Compressors Pipeline Futitive Emissions
15.1%
CtG
35.4 lbs CO2e/MMBtu
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2007 IPCC 100-year Global Warming Potential (lbs CO₂e/MMBTU) 30
35
40
45
NETL Upstream Natural Gas Profile: Barnett Shale: Horizontal Well, Hydraulic Fracturing Sensitivity of Model Result to Changes in Parameter Values Production Rate -39.1% g Rate Workover Venting Workover Frequency Pipeline Distance Completion Venting Rate Pneumatic Device Fug., Extraction Extraction Flare Rate Processing Flare Rate Other Fug. Sources, Processing Other Fug. Sources, Extraction Pipeline Elec. Comp. Share Share of Electric Compressors Well Depth
30.3% 30.3% 27.0% 8.6% 8.4% -5.7% -5.1% 3.3% 1.6% 1.0% -0.9%
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10%
0 7% 0.7% 0%
10%
20%
30%
Default Value 11,508 489,023 0.118 604 489,023 0.001210 15.0 100 0.001119 0.001089 7 25 13 000 13,000
Units lb/day lb/episode episodes/yr miles lb/episode lb fugitives/lb extracted gas % % lb fugitives/lb extracted gas lb fugitives/lb processed gas % % f feet
40%
“0%” = 35.4 lb CO2e/MMBtu Delivered; IPCC 2007, 100-yr Time Horizon
Percentages g above are relative to a unit change g in parameter p value;; all parameters p are changed g by y the same amount, allowing comparison of the magnitude of change to the result across all parameters. Example: A 5% increase in Production Rate from 11,508 lb/day to 12,083 lb/day would result in a 1.96% (5% of 39.1%) decrease in cradle-to-gate GWP, from 35.4 to 34.7 lbs CO2e/MMBtu. A 5% increase in Well Depth to 13,650 feet results in a 0.035% increase to 35.41 – the result is less sensitive to changes in W ll Depth Well D h than h Production P d i Rate. R 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 Abbreviation
Fuel Type
Capacity (MW)
Avg. g Coal
Domestic Average
Not Not Calculated Calculated
Existing Pulverized Coal Plant
EXPC
Illinois No. 6
434
85%
35.0%
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant
IGCC
Illinois No. 6
622
80%
39.0%
Super Critical Pulverized Coal Plant
SCPC
Illinois No. 6
550
85%
36.8%
Avg. Gen.
Domestic Average
Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant
NGCC
Domestic Average
555
85%
50.2%
Gas Turbine Simple Cycle
GTSC
Domestic Average
360
85%
32.6%
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant with 90% Carbon Capture
IGCC/CCS
Illinois No No. 6
543
80%
32 6% 32.6%
Super Critical Pulverized Coal Plant with 90% Carbon Capture
SCPC/CCS
Illinois No. 6
550
85%
26.2%
Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant with 90% p Carbon Capture
NGCC/CCS
Domestic Average g
474
85%
42.8%
Plant Type g Coal Fired Power Planta 2009 Average
2009 Average Baseload (>40% CapFac) Natural Gas Planta
a
33
Capacity Factor
Not Not Calculated Calculated
Net Plant HHV Efficiency 33.0%
47.1%
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).
Comparison of Power Generation Technology Life Cycle GHG Footprints Raw Material Acquisition thru Delivery to End Customer (lb CO2e/MWh) Raw Material Acquisition
Raw Material Transport
Energy Conversion Facility
Product Transport
2007 IPCC 100-y year Global Warmin ng Potential (lbs CO₂e/MWh)
3,000
2,500
2,453
2,461
2,085
2,100
Average Natural Gas Baseload Power Generation has a Life Cycle GWP 54% Lower than Average Coal Baseload Power Generation on a 100-year Time Horizon
2,000 1,679 1,500 1,162 1 059 1,059
1,117
1,095 ,095
1,000 572 473
500
380
0 Avg. Coal Domestic Mix
EXPC
IGCC Illinois #6
Coal
SCPC
Avg. Gen.
Avg. Gen.
Conv. Gas
Unconv. Gas
Avg. Gen.
NGCC Domestic Mix
GTSC
IGCC
SCPC
NGCC
With Carbon Capture
Natural Gas
34
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 48% Lower than Average Coal Baseload Power Generation on a 20-year Time Horizon
2007 IPCC Glo obal Warming Po otential (lbs s CO₂e/MWh)
3,000 2,793
2,682 2,500
2,461
2,453
2,385
2,377
2,105
2,100
2,085
2,000
1,679 1,513
1,500
1,390 1 229 1,229 1,059
1,000
1 162 1,162
1,117
1,371 1,095
983 818
500
703 572
473
380
0 100
20
Avg. Coal Domestic o est c Mix
100
20
EXPC
100
20
IGCC Illinois o s #6
100
20
SCPC
100
20
100
20
Avg. Gen.
Avg. Gen.
Conv. Gas Co
Unconv. U co Gas
100
20
Avg. Gen.
100
20
NGCC Domestic o est c Mix
100
20
GTSC
100
20
IGCC
100
20
SCPC
100
20
NGCC
With t Carbon Ca bo Captu Capture e
35
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
36
•
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 d wellll pads d – Gas exploration – Treatment of fracing fluid – Split between venting and fugitive emissions from pipeline transport
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 Performance, Economic Performance Performance, and Social 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. htt // http://www.api.org/ehs/climate/new/upload/2009_GHG_COMPENDIUM.pdf i / h / li t / / l d/2009 GHG COMPENDIUM df ((accessed dM 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 Design g of gas-handling g g systems y and facilities. Arnold. Surface Production Operations: 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 (accessed May 18 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/mc-0382.pdf 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 d April A il 5, 5 2011). 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 Personal Communication with Damian Gaul Gaul." U.S. U S Department of Energy Energy, 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 States total 2009: Distribution of Wells by Production Rate Bracket. Bracket " —. "United 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). —. Inventory I t off Greenhouse G h Gas G Emissions E i i and d Sinks: Si k 1990-2008. 1990 2008 Washington, W hi t D.C.: D C U.S. 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 (accessed March http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/gathering_and_processing_fs.pdf 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." US G U.S. Governmentt A Accountability t bilit Office. Offi J l 2004. 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 " Pickering Energy Partners. U.S. Partners October 2005. 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, 18 2010). 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 NaturalGas.org. Well Completion Completion." Natural Gas.org. Gas org 2004. 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 p of Energy, gy, 2010. —. 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
45
Office of Fossil Energy
NETL
www.fe.doe.gov
www.netl.doe.gov
Timothy J. Skone, P.E.
Joe Marriott, PhD
James Littlefield
Lead General Engineer OSEAP - Planning Team
Associate Booz Allen Hamilton
Associate Booz Allen Hamilton
(412) 386 386-4495 4495 [email protected]
(412) 386-7557 386 7557 [email protected]
(412) 386-7560 386 7560 [email protected]
Overview
2
1 1.
Wh is Who i NETL?
2.
What is the role of natural gas in the United States?
3.
Who uses natural gas in the U.S.?
4 4.
Wh Where does d natural t l gas come from? f ?
5.
What is the life cycle GHG footprint of domestic natural g gas extraction and delivery to large end-users?
6.
How does natural gas power generation compare to coal-fired power generation on a life cycle GHG basis?
7.
What are the opportunities for reducing GHG emissions?
Question #1: Who is NETL?
3
National Energy Technology Laboratory MISSION Advancingg energy gy options p to fuel our economy, strengthen our security, and improve p our environment
Albany, OR
Pittsburgh, PA
Morgantown, WV Fairbanks, AK
Oregon 4
Pennsylvania
Sugar Land, TX
West Virginia
Question #2: What is the role of natural gas in the United States?
5
Energy Demand 2008
Energy Demand 2035
100 QBtu / Year F il Energy E 84% Fossil
114 QBtu / Year F il Energy E 78% Fossil
Coal 22%
Gas 24%
+ 14% Nuclear 8%
Oil 37%
Coal 21%
Gas 24% Nuclear 8%
United States
Oil 33%
Renewables 8%
5,838 mmt CO2
6,311 mmt CO2
716 QBtu / Year 79% Fossil Energy
487 QBtu / Year 81% Fossil Energy Coal 27%
Gas 21% %
Oil 33%
Renewables 14%
Nuclear 6%
+ 47%
Coal 29%
Gas 22%
World
Renewables* 13%
29,259 mmt CO2
Oil 28%
Nuclear 8% Renewables* Renewables 15%
42,589 mmt CO2
6 Sources: U.S. data from EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011; World data from IEA, World Energy Outlook 2010, Current Policies Scenario
* 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: j 2010 Total Consumption p = 23.8 TCF 9
Electric Power Sector Consumed 31% of U.S. Natural Gas in 2010 (7.4 TCF)
Industrial
Trillion n Cubic Feet (TCF)
8 Electric Power
7 6
Electric Power Usage Does Not Increase Above 2010 Level Until Year 2031
Industrial + 1.9 TCF from 2009 to 2015.
Residential
5 4
Commercial
3 2 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
Lower 48 Unconventional
5
(Shale, Tight, CBM)
Tcff
4 3 Net Supply Increment
2
+2.5 Tcf
1 Alaska
-1 -2
(2035 vs. 2010)
+1.3 1.3 Tcf (2020 vs. 2010)
0
Lower 48 Conventional* Conventional
Net LNG Imports Net Pipeline Imports
* - Includes I l d supplemental l t l supplies, li lower l 48 offshore, ff h associated-dissolved, i t d di l d and d other th production d ti
-3 2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
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 The Type of LCA Conducted Depends on Answers to these Questions:
Goal & Scope Definition
1. What Do You Want to Know? 2. How Will You Use the Results?
International Organization for St d di ti Standardization (ISO) ffor LCA
Inventory Analysis (LCI)
Impact Assessment (LCIA)
Source: ISO 14040:2006, Figure 1 – Stages of an LCA (reproduced) 14
Interpretation (LCA)
•
ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework
•
ISO 14044 Environmental E i t l Management M 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
Overview: Life Cycle Assessment Approach The Type of LCA Conducted Depends on Answers to these Questions : 1 1.
Wh t Do What D Y You W Wantt tto K Know? ?
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?
15
Inform research and development activities to reduce the GHG footprint of both energy feedstock extraction and power production in existing and future operations
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 cycle, from raw material acquisition to the final disposal
LC Stage #1 Raw Material Acquisition (RMA)
LC Stage #2 Raw Material Transport (RMT)
Upstream Emissions
•
LC Stage #3 Energy Conversion Facility (ECF)
LC Stage #4 Product Transport (PT)
Not Included in Power LCA
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
LC Stage #5 End Use
NETL Life Cycle Analysis Approach for Natural Gas Extraction and Delivery Study •
The study boundary for “domestic natural gas extraction and y to large g end-users” is represented by y delivery 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 Not Included in Study (PT) (ECF)
Boundary for Not Included in Power LCA Cradle-to-Gate Cradle to Gate Energy Feedstock Profiles
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
LC Stage #5 End Use
NETL Life Cycle Study Metrics Converted to Global Warming • Greenhouse Gases Potential using IPCC 2007 100-year CO2 equivalents – CO2, CH C 4, N2O, SF S 6 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, water consumption, consumption water returned to source – Water Quality • Land Use – Acres transformed transformed, greenhouse gases 18
NETL Life Cycle Model for Natural Gas Raw Material Transport Well Construction
Venting/Flaring
Well Completion
Pipeline Operation Acid Gas Removal
Venting/Flaring
Pipeline Construction
Venting/Flaring
Energy Conversion Facility Venting/Flaring
Venting/Flaring
Liquids Unloading
Workovers
Dehydration
Venting/Flaring
Gas Centrif ugal Compressor
Other Point Source Emissions
Other Fugitive Emissions
Switchyard and Trunkline Construction
Plant Operation
Trunkline Operation
Valve Fugitive Emissions Reciprocating Compressor
Venting/Flaring
Plant Construction
Other Point Source Emissions
Venting/Flaring Electric Centrif ugal Compressor Transmission & Distribution
Other Fugitive Emissions CCS Operation Venting/Flaring
Valve Fugitive Emissions
Raw Material Extraction
Raw Material Processing Raw Material Acquisition
19
CCS Construction
Product Transport
Natural Gas Composition by Mass Production Gas H₂S H S 0.5%
N₂ 1.8%
Pipeline Quality Gas
H₂O 0.1% CO₂ 0.5%
N₂ 0.5%
H₂S H₂O 0.0% 0.0% NMVOC 5.6%
NMVOC 17 8% 17.8%
CO₂ 1.5%
CH₄ 78.3%
CH₄ 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
Percent
23%
7%
13%
32%
16%
9%
Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR), Production Gas
BCF/well
8.6
4.4
67.7
1.2
3.0
0.2
Production Rate (30-yr average)
MCF/day
782
399
6,179
110
274
20
Percent
51%
51%
51%
15%
15%
51%
MCF/completion
47
47
47
4,657
11,643
63
Well Workover, Production Gas (prior to flaring)
MCF/workover
3.1
3.1
3.1
4,657
11,643
63
Well Workover Workover, Number per Well Lifetime
Workovers/well
11 1.1
11 1.1
11 1.1
35 3.5
35 3.5
35 3.5
Liquids Unloading, Production Gas (prior to flaring)
MCF/episode
23.5
n/a
23.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
Liquids Unloading, Number per Well Lifetime
Episodes/well
930
n/a
930
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pneumatic Device Emissions, Fugitive
lb CH4/MCF
0.11
0.11
0.0001
0.11
0.11
0.11
Other Sources of Emissions, Point Source (prior to flaring)
lb CH4/MCF
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
Other Sources of Emissions, Fugitive
lb CH4/MCF
0.043
0.043
0.010
0.043
0.043
0.043
Natural Gas Extraction Well Flaring Rate at Extraction Well Location Well Completion, Production Gas (prior to flaring)
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
Acid Gas Removal (AGR) and CO2 Removal Unit Percent
100%
Methane Absorbed into Amine Solution
lb CH4/MCF
0.04
Carbon Dioxide Absorbed into Amine Solution
lb CO2/MCF
0.56
Hydrogen Sulfide Absorbed into Amine Solution
lb H2S/MCF
0.21
lb NMVOC/MCF
6.59
Percent
100%
Water Removed by Dehydrator Unit
lb H2O/MCF
0.045
Methane Emission Rate for Glycol Pump & Flash Separator
lb CH4/MCF
0.0003
Percent
100%
Pneumatic Device Emissions, Fugitive
lb CH4/MCF
0.0003
Other Sources of Emissions, Point Source (prior to flaring)
lb CH4/MCF
0.02
Other Sources of Emissions, Fugitive
lb CH4/MCF
0.03
Flaring Rate for AGR and CO2 Removal Unit
NMVOC Absorbed into Amine Solution Glycol Dehydrator Unit Flaring Rate for Dehydrator Unit
Pneumatic Devices & Other Sources of Emissions Flaring Rate for Other Sources of Emissions
22
Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Well
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
Percent
Compressor, Gas-powered Turbine, Centrifugal
Percent
Compressor, Electrical, Centrifugal
Percent
100%
100%
100%
75%
100%
100% 25%
N t Natural lG Gas T Transmission i i Modeling M d li Properties P ti Property
Units
Barnett Onshore Onshore Offshore Tight Sands Shale Conventional Associated Conventional Vertical Well Horizontal Well Well Well Well
Natural Gas Emissions on Transmission Infrastructure Pipeline Transport Distance (national average)
Miles
604
Transmission Pipeline Infrastructure, Fugitive
lb CH4/MCF-Mile
0.0003
Transmission Pipeline Infrastructure, Fugitive (per 604 miles)
lb CH4/MCF
0 18 0.18
Natural Gas Compression on Transmission Infrastructure Distance Between Compressor Stations
23
Miles
75
Compression, Gas-powered Reciprocating
Percent
29%
Compression, Gas-powered Centrifugal
Percent
64%
Compression, Electrical Centrifugal
Percent
7%
Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Well
Uncertainty Analysis Modeling Parameters Parameter
Production Rate
Flaring Rate at Well
Pipeline Distance
Units
MCF/day
%
miles
Scenario
Onshore Conventional Well
Onshore Associated Well
Offshore Conventional Well
Tight Sands Vertical Well
Barnett Shale Horizontal Well
Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Well
Low
403 (-49%) ( 49%)
254 (-36%) ( 36%)
3 140 (-49%) 3,140 ( 49%)
77 (-30%) ( 30%)
192 (-30%) ( 30%)
14 (-30%) ( 30%)
Nominal
782
399
6,179
110
274
20
High
1,545 (+97%)
783 (+96%)
12,284 (+99%)
142 (+30%)
356 (+30%)
26 (+30%)
Low
41% (-20%) ( 20%)
41% (-20%) ( 20%)
41% (-20%) ( 20%)
12% ((-20%) 20%)
12% ((-20%) 20%)
41% (-20%) ( 20%)
Nominal
51%
51%
51%
15%
15%
51%
High
61% (+20%)
61% (+20%)
61% (+20%)
18% (+20%)
18% (+20%)
61% (+20%)
Low
483 ((-20%) 20%)
483 ((-20%) 20%)
483 ((-20%) 20%)
483 ((-20%) 20%)
483 ((-20%) 20%)
483 ((-20%) 20%)
Nominal
604
604
604
604
604
604
High
725 (+20%)
725 (+20%)
725 (+20%)
725 (+20%)
725 (+20%)
725 (+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. result For example to generate the lower bound on the uncertainty range both “Production 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 to a Large g End-User thru Delivery (Percent Mass Basis) Onshore
23%
Offshore
13%
Associated
7%
Tight
32%
Shale
16%
CBM
9%
Extraction
Processing
Transport
99%
91%
87%
Natural Gas Raw Material Acquisition Raw Material Cradle-to-Gate Resource Table Extraction Processing Transport Total: 100.0% n/a n/a 100.0% Extracted from Ground 1.2% 0.1% 0.5% 1.7% Fugitive Losses 0.1% 2.3% 0.0% 2.3% Point Source Losses (Vented or Flared) 0.0% 7.7% 1.6% 9.3% Fuel Use n/a n/a 86.7% 86.7% Delivered to End User 25
Fugitive 1.7% Point Source 2.3% Fuel Use 9.3%
13.3% of Natural Gas Extracted from the Earth is Consumed for Fuel Use, Flared, or Emitted to the Atmosphere (point source or fugitive) Of this, thi 70% iis U Used d tto P Power E Equipment i t
Life Cycle GHG Results for Average Natural Gas y to a Large g End-User Extraction and Delivery Raw Material Acquisition
Raw Material Transport
60
2007 IPCC 100 0-year Global Wa arming Potential (lb CO₂e/MMBtu u)
Domestic Average Mix = 27.9 lb CO2e/MMBtu Low = 21.6,, High g = 36.9 50 45.6
40 35.2
35 4 35.4
Domestic Average, 27.9
30
24.7 22.3 20
21.0 16.6
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 to a Large g End-User Extraction and Delivery 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 2007 IP PCC Global Warmin ng Potential (lbs CO₂e/MMBttu)
120
100
84.1
80
83.6
68.1 62.9
60
49.4
47.9
45.6
44.4
40 35.4
35.2 30.9
27.9 22.3
20
24.7
21.0 16.6
0 100
20
Domestic 100% %
100
20
Onshore % 23.3%
100
20
Offshore % 13.1% Conventional
27
100
20
Associated % 6.8%
100
20
Tight Gas % 32.0%
100
20 CBM % 8.8%
Unconventional
100 Barnett % 15.9%
20
100
20
Imported LNG % 0.0%
Life Cycle GHG Results for “Average” Natural Gas y to a Large g End-User Extraction and Delivery Comparison of Natural Gas and Coal Energy Feedstock GHG Profiles Raw Material Acquisition
Raw Material Transport
2007 IPCC 100-y year Global Warmiing Potential (lb CO₂e/MMBtu)
60
50 45.6
Average Natural Gas has a Life Cycle GWP 116% Higher than Average Coal (on an energy basis)
40 35.4
35.2 30
27.9
26.4
24.7 22.3 20
21.0 16.6 12.9
10 4.3 0 Domestic 100%
Onshore 23.3%
Offshore 13.1%
Associated 6.8%
Tight Gas 32.0%
Conventional
Barnett 15.9%
Imported LNG 0.0%
Domestic 100%
Illinois #6 31%
Unconventional Natural Gas
28
CBM 8.8%
Coal
Powder River Basin 69%
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) CO₂ Well Construction Extraction
8.6%
Workovers
30.3%
Other Fugitive Emissions
3.3%
Other Point Source Emissions
0.2%
Acid Gas Removal
4.1%
Dehydration Processing
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%
8.4%
Valve Fugitive Emissions
RMA
N₂O
0.7%
Well Completion
0.1% 2.1%
Other Fugitive Emissions Other Point Source Emissions
0.2%
Valve Fugitive Emissions
0.0%
Compressors
17.0%
Pipeline Construction RM MT
CH₄
0.1% 9 8% 9.8%
Pi li C Pipeline Compressors Pipeline Futitive Emissions
15.1%
CtG
35.4 lbs CO2e/MMBtu
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2007 IPCC 100-year Global Warming Potential (lbs CO₂e/MMBTU) 30
35
40
45
NETL Upstream Natural Gas Profile: Barnett Shale: Horizontal Well, Hydraulic Fracturing Sensitivity of Model Result to Changes in Parameter Values Production Rate -39.1% g Rate Workover Venting Workover Frequency Pipeline Distance Completion Venting Rate Pneumatic Device Fug., Extraction Extraction Flare Rate Processing Flare Rate Other Fug. Sources, Processing Other Fug. Sources, Extraction Pipeline Elec. Comp. Share Share of Electric Compressors Well Depth
30.3% 30.3% 27.0% 8.6% 8.4% -5.7% -5.1% 3.3% 1.6% 1.0% -0.9%
-50% -40% -30% -20% -10%
0 7% 0.7% 0%
10%
20%
30%
Default Value 11,508 489,023 0.118 604 489,023 0.001210 15.0 100 0.001119 0.001089 7 25 13 000 13,000
Units lb/day lb/episode episodes/yr miles lb/episode lb fugitives/lb extracted gas % % lb fugitives/lb extracted gas lb fugitives/lb processed gas % % f feet
40%
“0%” = 35.4 lb CO2e/MMBtu Delivered; IPCC 2007, 100-yr Time Horizon
Percentages g above are relative to a unit change g in parameter p value;; all parameters p are changed g by y the same amount, allowing comparison of the magnitude of change to the result across all parameters. Example: A 5% increase in Production Rate from 11,508 lb/day to 12,083 lb/day would result in a 1.96% (5% of 39.1%) decrease in cradle-to-gate GWP, from 35.4 to 34.7 lbs CO2e/MMBtu. A 5% increase in Well Depth to 13,650 feet results in a 0.035% increase to 35.41 – the result is less sensitive to changes in W ll Depth Well D h than h Production P d i Rate. R 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 Abbreviation
Fuel Type
Capacity (MW)
Avg. g Coal
Domestic Average
Not Not Calculated Calculated
Existing Pulverized Coal Plant
EXPC
Illinois No. 6
434
85%
35.0%
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant
IGCC
Illinois No. 6
622
80%
39.0%
Super Critical Pulverized Coal Plant
SCPC
Illinois No. 6
550
85%
36.8%
Avg. Gen.
Domestic Average
Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant
NGCC
Domestic Average
555
85%
50.2%
Gas Turbine Simple Cycle
GTSC
Domestic Average
360
85%
32.6%
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant with 90% Carbon Capture
IGCC/CCS
Illinois No No. 6
543
80%
32 6% 32.6%
Super Critical Pulverized Coal Plant with 90% Carbon Capture
SCPC/CCS
Illinois No. 6
550
85%
26.2%
Natural Gas Combined Cycle Plant with 90% p Carbon Capture
NGCC/CCS
Domestic Average g
474
85%
42.8%
Plant Type g Coal Fired Power Planta 2009 Average
2009 Average Baseload (>40% CapFac) Natural Gas Planta
a
33
Capacity Factor
Not Not Calculated Calculated
Net Plant HHV Efficiency 33.0%
47.1%
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).
Comparison of Power Generation Technology Life Cycle GHG Footprints Raw Material Acquisition thru Delivery to End Customer (lb CO2e/MWh) Raw Material Acquisition
Raw Material Transport
Energy Conversion Facility
Product Transport
2007 IPCC 100-y year Global Warmin ng Potential (lbs CO₂e/MWh)
3,000
2,500
2,453
2,461
2,085
2,100
Average Natural Gas Baseload Power Generation has a Life Cycle GWP 54% Lower than Average Coal Baseload Power Generation on a 100-year Time Horizon
2,000 1,679 1,500 1,162 1 059 1,059
1,117
1,095 ,095
1,000 572 473
500
380
0 Avg. Coal Domestic Mix
EXPC
IGCC Illinois #6
Coal
SCPC
Avg. Gen.
Avg. Gen.
Conv. Gas
Unconv. Gas
Avg. Gen.
NGCC Domestic Mix
GTSC
IGCC
SCPC
NGCC
With Carbon Capture
Natural Gas
34
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 48% Lower than Average Coal Baseload Power Generation on a 20-year Time Horizon
2007 IPCC Glo obal Warming Po otential (lbs s CO₂e/MWh)
3,000 2,793
2,682 2,500
2,461
2,453
2,385
2,377
2,105
2,100
2,085
2,000
1,679 1,513
1,500
1,390 1 229 1,229 1,059
1,000
1 162 1,162
1,117
1,371 1,095
983 818
500
703 572
473
380
0 100
20
Avg. Coal Domestic o est c Mix
100
20
EXPC
100
20
IGCC Illinois o s #6
100
20
SCPC
100
20
100
20
Avg. Gen.
Avg. Gen.
Conv. Gas Co
Unconv. U co Gas
100
20
Avg. Gen.
100
20
NGCC Domestic o est c Mix
100
20
GTSC
100
20
IGCC
100
20
SCPC
100
20
NGCC
With t Carbon Ca bo Captu Capture e
35
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
36
•
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 d wellll pads d – Gas exploration – Treatment of fracing fluid – Split between venting and fugitive emissions from pipeline transport
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 Performance, Economic Performance Performance, and Social 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. htt // http://www.api.org/ehs/climate/new/upload/2009_GHG_COMPENDIUM.pdf i / h / li t / / l d/2009 GHG COMPENDIUM df ((accessed dM 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 Design g of gas-handling g g systems y and facilities. Arnold. Surface Production Operations: 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 (accessed May 18 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/mc-0382.pdf 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 d April A il 5, 5 2011). 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 Personal Communication with Damian Gaul Gaul." U.S. U S Department of Energy Energy, 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 States total 2009: Distribution of Wells by Production Rate Bracket. Bracket " —. "United 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). —. Inventory I t off Greenhouse G h Gas G Emissions E i i and d Sinks: Si k 1990-2008. 1990 2008 Washington, W hi t D.C.: D C U.S. 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 (accessed March http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/gathering_and_processing_fs.pdf 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." US G U.S. Governmentt A Accountability t bilit Office. Offi J l 2004. 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 " Pickering Energy Partners. U.S. Partners October 2005. 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, 18 2010). 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 NaturalGas.org. Well Completion Completion." Natural Gas.org. Gas org 2004. 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 p of Energy, gy, 2010. —. 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
45
Office of Fossil Energy
NETL
www.fe.doe.gov
www.netl.doe.gov
Timothy J. Skone, P.E.
Joe Marriott, PhD
James Littlefield
Lead General Engineer OSEAP - Planning Team
Associate Booz Allen Hamilton
Associate Booz Allen Hamilton
(412) 386 386-4495 4495 [email protected]
(412) 386-7557 386 7557 [email protected]
(412) 386-7560 386 7560 [email protected]
