Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Analysis ofNatural Gas Extraction & Delivery in the United StatesyTimothy J. Skone, P.E.Office of Strategic Energy Analysis and PlanningMay 12 2011 (Updated May 23 2011)May 12, 2011 (Updated May 23, 2011)

Presented at: Cornell University Lecture Series

Overview1 Wh i NETL?1. Who is NETL?

2. What is the role of natural gas inthe United States?

3. Who uses natural gas in the U.S.?

4 Wh d t l f ?4. Where does natural gas come from?

5. What is the life cycle GHG footprint of domestic natural gas extraction andgdelivery to large end-users?

6. How does natural gas power generation compare to coal-fired power generationcompare to coal-fired power generationon a life cycle GHG basis?

7. What are the opportunities for reducing

2

GHG emissions?

Question #1:Who is NETL?

3

National Energy Technology Laboratory

MISSIONAdvancing energy options

Pittsburgh, PAAlbany,OR

g gy pto fuel our economy,

strengthen our security, andimprove our environment Morgantown,

WVp

WV

Fairbanks, AKSugar Land,TX

4

West VirginiaPennsylvaniaOregon

Question #2:What is the role of natural gas

in the United States?

5

114 QBtu / Year78% F il E

Energy Demand 2008100 QBtu / Year

84% F il E

Energy Demand 2035

GasGas24%24%

CoalCoal21%21%

GasGas24%24%

CoalCoal22%22%

78% Fossil Energy

+ 14%

84% Fossil Energy

NuclearNuclear8%8%

RenewablesRenewables

OilOil33%33%

NuclearNuclear8%8%

RenewablesRenewables8%8%

OilOil37%37%

United StatesUnited States

14%14%8%8%

716 QBtu / Year487 QBtu / Year

5,838 5,838 mmtmmt COCO22 6,311 6,311 mmtmmt COCO22

GasGas22%22%

CoalCoal29%29%

GasGas21%21% NuclearNuclear

CoalCoal27%27%

716 QBtu / Year79% Fossil Energy

487 QBtu / Year 81% Fossil Energy

+ 47% 22%22%NuclearNuclear

8%8%

Renewables*Renewables*

OilOil28%28%

29%29%%% NuclearNuclear6%6%

Renewables*Renewables*13%13%

OilOil33%33%

27%27%WorldWorld

6

RenewablesRenewables15%15%

13%13%

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

29,259 29,259 mmtmmt COCO22 42,589 42,589 mmtmmt COCO22

* 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

8

9Industrial

j p

Electric Power Sector Consumed 31% of U.S.

Natural Gas in 2010 (7.4 TCF)

Electric Power Sector Consumed 31% of U.S.

Natural Gas in 2010 (7.4 TCF)

7

8

t (TCF) Electric Power

Electric Power Usage Does Not Increase Above

5

6

n Cu

bic Fee

Residential

Industrial + 1.9 TCF from 2009 to 2015.

Increase Above 2010 Level Until

Year 2031

3

4

Trillion

Commercial

2

3

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

8

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

+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

Question #4:Where does natural gas come from?

9

Schematic Geology of OnshoreNatural Gas ResourcesNatural 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 Maps11

EIA Natural Gas MapsSource: 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)

6

7

Lower 48Lower 48

3

4

5Lower 48

Unconventional(Shale, Tight, CBM)

Lower 48 Unconventional(Shale, Tight, CBM)

f

1

2

3

Tcf

Net Supply IncrementNet Supply Increment

+2.5Tcf

(2035 vs.

+2.5Tcf

(2035 vs. +1.3 Tcf (2020 vs. 2010)+1.3 Tcf (2020 vs. 2010)

-2

-1

0

Lower 48 Conventional*

Lower 48 Conventional* * I l d l t l li l 48 ff h i t d di l d d th d ti

Net LNG ImportsNet LNG ImportsNet Pipeline ImportsNet Pipeline Imports

AlaskaAlaska2010)2010)

1.3 Tcf (2020 vs. 2010)1.3 Tcf (2020 vs. 2010)

-32010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

ConventionalConventional * - Includes supplemental supplies, lower 48 offshore, associated-dissolved, and other production

Unconventional Production Growth Offset by Declines in Conventional Production and Net Pipeline Imports;

12

Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011

1.3 Tcf Increment by 2020 Does Not Support Significant Coal Generation Displacement

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?

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

2. How Will You Use the Results?

Standardization (ISO) for LCA

• ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –Principles and Framework

ISO 14044 E i t l M t

Inventory Analysis(LCI)

Interpretation(LCA)

• ISO 14044 Environmental Management –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)

14

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

Overview: Life Cycle Assessment Approach

The Type of LCA Conducted Dependson Answers to these Questions :

1 Wh t D Y W t t K ?1. What Do You Want to Know? The GHG footprint of natural gas, lower 48 domestic average,

extraction, processing, and delivery to a large end-user( l t)(e.g., power plant)

The comparison of natural gas used in a baseload power generation plant to baseload coal-fired power generation on a lbs CO e/MWh basislbs CO2e/MWh basis

2. How Will You Use the Results? Inform research and development activities to reduce the GHG 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 thethroughout its life cycle, from raw material acquisition to the final disposal

LC Stage #1Raw Material Acquisition

(RMA)

LC Stage #2Raw Material

Transport(RMT)

LC Stage #3Energy

Conversion Facility(ECF)

LC Stage #4Product

Transport(PT)

LC Stage #5End Use

Not Included in Power LCA

Upstream Emissions Downstream Emissions

in Power LCA

• 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

1 MWh of electricity delivered to the end user

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

• The study boundary for “domestic natural gas extraction and delivery to large end-users” is represented byy g yLife Cycle (LC) Stages #1 and #2 only.

LC Stage #1Raw Material Acquisition

(RMA)

LC Stage #2Raw Material

Transport(RMT)

LC Stage #3Energy

Conversion Facility(ECF)

LC Stage #4Product

Transport(PT)

LC Stage #5End Use

Not Included in Power LCA

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

Upstream Emissions Downstream Emissions

in Power LCACradle to Gate Energy Feedstock Profiles

• Functional unit (denominator) for energy feedstock profiles is:– 1 MMBtu of feedstock delivered to end user

17

(MMBtu = million British thermal units)

NETL Life Cycle Study Metrics

• Greenhouse Gases– CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6

Converted to Global Warming Potential using IPCC 2007 100-year CO2 equivalents

Converted to Global Warming Potential using IPCC 2007 100-year CO2 equivalentsCO2, C 4, 2O, S 6

• Criteria Air Pollutants– NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, Pb

• Air Emissions Species of Interest

2

CO2 = 1CH4 = 25N2O = 298

SF6 = 22,800

2

CO2 = 1CH4 = 25N2O = 298

SF6 = 22,800Air Emissions Species of Interest– Hg, NH3, radionuclides

• Solid Waste• Raw Materials

6 ,6 ,

Raw Materials– Energy Return on Investment

• Water Use– Withdrawn water consumption water returned to source– Withdrawn water, consumption, water returned to source– Water Quality

• Land UseAcres transformed greenhouse gases

18

– Acres transformed, greenhouse gases

NETL Life Cycle Model for Natural Gas

PipelineOperation

Pipeline Construction

Raw Material Transport

Acid Gas Venting/Flaring

WellConstruction

Venting/Flaring

Plant ConstructionSwitchyard and

Trunkline Construction

Energy Conversion Facility

Gas CentrifugalCompressorDehydration

Removal

LiquidsUnloadingVenting/Flaring

Venting/Flaring

Venting/Flaring

WellCompletionVenting/Flaring

Plant Operation Trunkline Operation

Valve FugitiveEmissions

ReciprocatingCompressor

WorkoversVenting/Flaring

Other PointOther PointVenting/Flaring

Transmission & Distribution

CCS Operation

ElectricCentrifugal

Compressor

Other PointSource Emissions Venting/Flaring

Other FugitiveEmissions

Source EmissionsVenting/Flaring

Other FugitiveEmissions

Raw Material Acquisition Product Transport

CCS Construction

Valve Fugitive Emissions

Venting/Flaring

Raw Material Extraction Raw Material Processing

19

Raw Material Acquisition Product Transport

Natural Gas Composition by Mass

H SH₂O

Production Gas Pipeline Quality Gas

NMVOC17 8%

H₂S0.5%

0.1%CO₂0.5%

N₂0.5%

NMVOC5.6%

H₂S0.0%

H₂O0.0%

CO₂1.5%

N₂1.8%

17.8%

CH₄CH₄78.3% CH₄

93.4%

20

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)

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)

Natural Gas Extraction Modeling Properties

Property UnitsOnshore

Conventional Well

Onshore Associated

Well

Offshore Conventional

Well

Tight Sands -Vertical Well

Barnett Shale -

Horizontal 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

Natural Gas Extraction Well

Flaring Rate at Extraction Well Location Percent 51% 51% 51% 15% 15% 51%

Well Completion, Production Gas (prior to flaring) 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 Number per Well Lifetime Workovers/well 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 3 5 3 5Well Workover, Number per Well Lifetime Workovers/well 1.1 1.1 1.1 3.5 3.5 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

21

Natural Gas Processing Plant Modeling Properties

Property UnitsOnshore

Conventional Well

Onshore Associated

Well

Offshore Conventional

Well

Tight Sands -Vertical Well

Barnett Shale -

Horizontal Well

Coal Bed Methane

(CBM) Well

Acid Gas Removal (AGR) and CO2 Removal Unit

Flaring Rate for 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

NMVOC Absorbed into Amine Solution lb NMVOC/MCF 6.59

Glycol Dehydrator Unit

Flaring Rate for Dehydrator Unit Percent 100%

Water Removed by Dehydrator Unit lb H2O/MCF 0.045Water Removed by Dehydrator Unit lb H2O/MCF 0.045Methane Emission Rate for Glycol Pump & Flash

Separator lb CH4/MCF 0.0003

Pneumatic Devices & Other Sources of Emissions

Flaring Rate for Other Sources of Emissions 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

22

Natural Gas Processing Plant Modeling PropertiesOnshore Onshore Offshore Tight Sands

Barnett Shale Coal Bed

Property Units Conventional Well

Associated Well

Conventional Well

Tight Sands -Vertical Well

Shale -Horizontal

Well

Methane (CBM) Well

Natural Gas Compression at Gas PlantCompressor, Gas-powered Combustion,

Reciprocating Percent 100% 100% 100% 75% 100%p gCompressor, Gas-powered Turbine, Centrifugal Percent 100%

Compressor, Electrical, Centrifugal Percent 25%

N t l G T i i M d li P tiNatural Gas Transmission Modeling PropertiesProperty Units

Onshore Conventional

Well

Onshore Associated

Well

Offshore Conventional

Well

Tight Sands -Vertical Well

Barnett Shale -

Horizontal Well

Coal Bed Methane

(CBM) Well

Natural Gas Emissions on Transmission Infrastructure

Pipeline Transport Distance (national average) Miles 604

Transmission Pipeline Infrastructure, Fugitive lb CH4/MCF-Mile 0.0003Transmission Pipeline Infrastructure, Fugitive lb CH4/MCF 0 18(per 604 miles) lb CH4/MCF 0.18

Natural Gas Compression on Transmission Infrastructure

Distance Between Compressor Stations Miles 75

Compression, Gas-powered Reciprocating Percent 29%

23

Compression, Gas-powered Centrifugal Percent 64%

Compression, Electrical Centrifugal Percent 7%

Uncertainty Analysis Modeling Parameters

Parameter Units ScenarioOnshore

Conventional Well

Onshore Associated

Well

Offshore Conventional

Well

Tight Sands -Vertical Well

Barnett Shale -Horizontal Well

Coal Bed Methane (CBM) Well

Low 403 (-49%) 254 (-36%) 3 140 (-49%) 77 (-30%) 192 (-30%) 14 (-30%)

Production Rate

MCF/day

Low 403 ( 49%) 254 ( 36%) 3,140 ( 49%) 77 ( 30%) 192 ( 30%) 14 ( 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%) 41% ( 20%) 41% ( 20%) 12% ( 20%) 12% ( 20%) 41% ( 20%)

Flaring Rate at Well

%

Low 41% (-20%) 41% (-20%) 41% (-20%) 12% (-20%) 12% (-20%) 41% (-20%)

Nominal 51% 51% 51% 15% 15% 51%

High 61% (+20%) 61% (+20%) 61% (+20%) 18% (+20%) 18% (+20%) 61% (+20%)

Low 483 ( 20%) 483 ( 20%) 483 ( 20%) 483 ( 20%) 483 ( 20%) 483 ( 20%)Pipeline Distance miles

Low 483 (-20%) 483 (-20%) 483 (-20%) 483 (-20%) 483 (-20%) 483 (-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 For example to generate the lower bound on the uncertainty range both “Production

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

24

study result. For example to generate the lower bound on the uncertainty range both Production Rate” and “Flaring Rate Well” were set to “High” and “Pipeline Distance” was set to “Low”.

study result. For example to generate the lower bound on the uncertainty range both Production Rate” and “Flaring Rate Well” were set to “High” and “Pipeline Distance” was set to “Low”.

Accounting for Natural Gas from Extractionthru Delivery to a Large End-User

Onshore 23%

Fugitive 1.7%Point Source 2.3%Fuel Use 9.3%

y g(Percent Mass Basis)

Onshore 23%

Associated 7%

Offshore 13%

TransportTight 32%

Processing

87%91%99%

Extraction

Shale 16%

CBM 9%

13.3% of Natural Gas Extracted from the13.3% of Natural Gas Extracted from theNatural Gas Raw Material Acquisition Raw Material Cradle-to-Gate 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 thi 70% i U d t P E i t

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 thi 70% i U d t P E i t

Natural Gas Raw Material Acquisition Raw Material Transport

Cradle-to-Gate Total: Resource Table Extraction Processing

Extracted from Ground 100.0% n/a n/a 100.0%Fugitive Losses 1.2% 0.1% 0.5% 1.7%Point Source Losses (Vented or Flared) 0.1% 2.3% 0.0% 2.3%Fuel Use 0.0% 7.7% 1.6% 9.3%

25

Of this, 70% is Used to Power EquipmentOf this, 70% is Used to Power EquipmentDelivered to End User n/a n/a 86.7% 86.7%

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

60Raw Material Acquisition Raw Material Transport

y g

Domestic Average Mix = 27.9 lb CO2e/MMBtuLow = 21.6, High = 36.9

Domestic Average Mix = 27.9 lb CO2e/MMBtuLow = 21.6, High = 36.9

35.2 35 4

45.6

40

50

arm

ing

Pote

ntia

lu)

, g, g

22.3 21.0

35.2

24.7

35.4

30

0-ye

ar G

loba

l Wa

(lb C

O₂e

/MM

Btu

Domestic Average, 27.9

16.6

10

20

2007

IPC

C 1

00

0Onshore23.3%

Offshore13.1%

Associated6.8%

Tight Gas32.0%

CBM8.8%

Barnett15.9%

Imported LNG0.0%

26

Conventional Unconventional

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

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

100

120

ng P

oten

tial

tu)

62.9

84.1 83.6

68.1

60

80

PCC

Glo

bal W

arm

in(lb

s C

O₂e

/MM

Bt

27.922.3

47.9

16.6

30.9

21.0

44.4

35.2

24.7

49.4

35.4

45.6

20

402007

IP

0100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20 100 20

Domestic100%

Onshore23.3%

Offshore13.1%

Associated6.8%

Tight Gas32.0%

CBM8.8%

Barnett15.9%

Imported LNG0.0%

27

% % % % % % % %

Conventional Unconventional

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

60

Raw Material Acquisition Raw Material Transport

y gComparison of Natural Gas and Coal Energy Feedstock GHG Profiles

Average Natural Gas has a Average Natural Gas has a

45.650

60

ing

Pote

ntia

l

Life Cycle GWP 116% Higher than Average Coal

(on an energy basis)

Life Cycle GWP 116% Higher than Average Coal

(on an energy basis)

27.9

22.3 21.0

35.2

24.7

35.4

26.430

40

year

Glo

bal W

arm

ilb

CO₂e

/MM

Btu

)

16.612.9

4.310

20

2007

IPC

C 1

00-y (

0Domestic

100%Onshore23.3%

Offshore13.1%

Associated6.8%

Tight Gas32.0%

CBM8.8%

Barnett15.9%

Imported LNG0.0%

Domestic100%

Illinois #631%

Powder River Basin69%

Conventional Unconventional

28

Natural Gas Coal

A Deeper Look at Unconventional Natural Gas Extraction via Horizontal Well, Hydraulic FracturingExtraction 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

0.7%Well Construction

CO₂ CH₄ N₂O

Barnett Shale: Horizontal Well, Hydraulic FracturingGWP Result: IPCC 2007, 100-yr (lb CO2e/MMBtu)

0.2%

3.3%

30.3%

8.6%

Other Point Source Emissions

Other Fugitive Emissions

Workovers

Well Completion

Ext

ract

ion

2.1%

0.1%

4.1%

8.4%

Other Fugitive Emissions

Dehydration

Acid Gas Removal

Valve Fugitive Emissions

essi

ng

RM

A Well Completions and Workovers are Influenced by Three Primary Factors:1. Production Rate: 3.0 BCF, EUR2. Quantity of Production Gas Vented

or Flared per Activity: 11,643

Well Completions and Workovers are Influenced by Three Primary Factors:1. Production Rate: 3.0 BCF, EUR2. Quantity of Production Gas Vented

or Flared per Activity: 11,643

9 8%

0.1%

17.0%

0.0%

0.2%

Pi li C

Pipeline Construction

Compressors

Valve Fugitive Emissions

Other Point Source Emissions

Pro

c

MT

or Flared per Activity: 11,643 MCF/Completion and Workover

3. Average Unconventional Well Flaring Rate: 15%

or Flared per Activity: 11,643 MCF/Completion and Workover

3. Average Unconventional Well Flaring Rate: 15%

35.4 lbs CO2e/MMBtu15.1%

9.8%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Pipeline Futitive Emissions

Pipeline Compressors

CtG

RM

30

2007 IPCC 100-year Global Warming Potential(lbs CO₂e/MMBTU)

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

Sensitivity of Model Result to Changes in Parameter ValuesDefault Value Units

11,508 lb/day489,023 lb/episode30.3%

-39.1%Workover Venting Rate

Production Rate489,023 lb/episode0.118 episodes/yr604 miles

489,023 lb/episode0.001210 lb fugitives/lb extracted gas

15.0 %-5.7%8.4%8.6%

27.0%30.3%30.3%

Extraction Flare RatePneumatic Device Fug., Extraction

Completion Venting RatePipeline Distance

Workover Frequencyg

100 %0.001119 lb fugitives/lb extracted gas0.001089 lb fugitives/lb processed gas

7 %25 %

13 000 f0 7%-0.9%

1.0%1.6%3.3%

-5.1%

Well DepthShare of Electric Compressors

Pipeline Elec. Comp. ShareOther Fug. Sources, Extraction

Other Fug. Sources, ProcessingProcessing Flare Rate

“0%” = 35.4 lb CO2e/MMBtu Delivered; IPCC 2007, 100-yr Time Horizon

Percentages above are relative to a unit change in parameter value; all parameters are changed by the same Percentages above are relative to a unit change in parameter value; all parameters are changed by the same

13,000 feet0.7%

-50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Well Depth

g g p ; p g yamount, 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 D h h P d i R

g g p ; p g yamount, 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 D h h P d i R

31

Well Depth than Production Rate.Well Depth than Production Rate.

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 Plant Type Abbreviation Fuel Type Capacity

(MW) Capacity Factor

Net Plant HHV Efficiency

2009 Average Coal Fired Power Planta Avg. Coal Domestic Average

NotCalculated

NotCalculated 33.0%g g Average 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%

2009 Average Baseload (>40% CapFac) Natural Gas Planta Avg. Gen. Domestic

AverageNot

CalculatedNot

Calculated 47.1%

DomesticNatural 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 IGCC/CCS Illinois No 6 543 80% 32 6%with 90% Carbon Capture IGCC/CCS Illinois No. 6 543 80% 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% Carbon Capture NGCC/CCS Domestic

Average 474 85% 42.8%

33

p g

a 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

3,000

Raw Material Acquisition Raw Material Transport Energy Conversion Facility Product Transport

Life Cycle GHG FootprintsRaw Material Acquisition thru Delivery to End Customer (lb CO2e/MWh)

2,453 2,461

2,085 2,100

2,500

ng P

oten

tial

Average Natural Gas Baseload Power Generationhas a Life Cycle GWP 54% Lower than

Average Coal Baseload Power Generation on a 100-year Time Horizon

Average Natural Gas Baseload Power Generationhas a Life Cycle GWP 54% Lower than

Average Coal Baseload Power Generation on a 100-year Time Horizon

1 0591,162 1,117 1,095

1,679

1,500

2,000

year

Glo

bal W

arm

inbs

CO₂e

/MW

h)

1,059 ,095

473572

380500

1,000

2007

IPC

C 1

00-y (l

0Avg. Coal EXPC IGCC SCPC Avg. Gen. Avg. Gen. Avg. Gen. NGCC GTSC IGCC SCPC NGCC

Domestic Mix

Illinois #6 Conv. Gas Unconv. Gas

Domestic Mix With Carbon Capture

34

Coal 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 TechnologyLife Cycle GHG Footprints (lbs CO2e/MWh)

Average Natural Gas Baseload Power GenerationAverage Natural Gas Baseload Power Generation

Comparison of 2007 IPCC GWP Time Horizons:100-year Time Horizon: CO2 = 1, CH4 = 25, N2O = 29820-year Time Horizon: CO2 = 1, CH4 = 72, N2O = 289

2,453

2,682

2,461

2,793

2,377 2,3852,500

3,000

oten

tial

Average Natural Gas Baseload Power Generationhas a Life Cycle GWP 48% Lower than

Average Coal Baseload Power Generation on a 20-year Time Horizon

Average Natural Gas Baseload Power Generationhas a Life Cycle GWP 48% Lower than

Average Coal Baseload Power Generation on a 20-year Time Horizon

2,085 2,100

1 2291 162

1,5131,390 1,371

1,679

2,105

1,500

2,000

obal

War

min

g Po

s C

O₂e

/MW

h)

1,0591,2291,162 1,117 1,095

473

818

572

983

380

703500

1,000

2007

IPC

C G

lo(lb

s

0100 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 IGCC SCPC Avg. Gen. Avg. Gen. Avg. Gen. NGCC GTSC IGCC SCPC NGCC

Domestic Illinois #6 Conv. Gas Unconv. Domestic Mix With Carbon Capture

35

o est cMix

o s #6 Co Gas U coGas

o est c t Ca bo Captu e

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)– Flaring rates (extraction and processing)– Natural gas pipeline transport distance

• Data Availabilityy– 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– 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

d ll dand well pads– Gas exploration– Treatment of fracing fluid– Split between venting and fugitive emissions from pipeline transport

36

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 bestReduce pipeline fugitive emissions thru technology and best

management practices (collaborative initiatives)

• Opportunities for Reducing the GHG Footprint of Natural Gas and Coal-fired Power GenerationCoal-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

demonstrationAll Opportunities Need to Be Evaluated on a Sustainable Energy Basis:

Environmental Performance Economic Performance and Social Performance

38

Environmental Performance, Economic Performance, and Social Performance(e.g., energy reliability and security)

Data SourcesALL 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 // i / h / li t / / l d/2009 GHG COMPENDIUM df ( d Mhttp://www.api.org/ehs/climate/new/upload/2009_GHG_COMPENDIUM.pdf (accessed 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, 20042004.

—. "Transportation Technology R&D Center, DOE H2A Delivery Analysis." 2008. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/h2a_delivery_analysis/ (accessed November 11, 2008).

Arnold. Surface Production Operations: Design of gas-handling systems and facilities.p g g g yHouston, 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

39

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/mc-0382.pdf (accessed May 18, 2010).

Data SourcesEnergy 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 ( d A il 5 2011)(accessed April 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 Communication with Damian Gaul. U.S. Department of 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 ". 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 SourcesEnvironmental 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 t f G h G E i i d Si k 1990 2008 W hi t D C U S—. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2008. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 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 Marchhttp://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 G t A t bilit Offi J l 2004U.S. Government Accountability Office. 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 October 2005

41

U.S. Pickering Energy Partners. October 2005. http://www.tudorpickering.com/pdfs/TheBarnettShaleReport.pdf (accessed June 14, 2010).

Data SourcesHouston 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)(accessed May 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 " Natural Gas org 2004NaturalGas.org. Well Completion. Natural 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/NETL-403/110509, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: U.S. Department of Energy, 2010

—. Life Cycle Analysis: Supercritical Pulverized Coal (SCPC) Power Plant. DOE/NETL-403/110609, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: U.S. Department of Energy, 2010.

42

Data SourcesPolasek. Selecting Amines for Sweetening Units. Bryan Research and Engineering, 2006.Steel Pipes & Tools. Steel Pipe Weight Calculator. 2009. http://www.steel-pipes-

tubes.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• 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 Water-

Alternating-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

NETLNETLwww.netl.doe.gov

Office of Fossil Energywww.fe.doe.gov

Timothy J. Skone, P.E.Lead General EngineerOSEAP - Planning Team(412) 386-4495

Joe Marriott, PhDAssociateBooz Allen Hamilton(412) 386-7557

James LittlefieldAssociateBooz Allen Hamilton(412) 386-7560

45

(412) 386 4495timothy.skone@netl.doe.gov

(412) 386 7557marriott_joe@bah.com

(412) 386 7560littlefield_james@bah.com