MONITORING FUGITIVE METHANE FROM LARGE SCALE … · Results of Sub Project 3 “Impact on air quality and global climate ... •Preparation phase ... Monitoring Fugitive Methane from

MONITORING FUGITIVE METHANE

FROM LARGE SCALE SHALE GAS

OPERATIONS IN EUROPE

Results of Sub Project 3 “Impact on air quality and global climate” of the M4ShaleGas project

Antoon Visschedijk

Hugo Denier van der Gon

Mara Hauck

Richard Kranenburg

Arjo Segers

AMBITION: IDENTIFY HIGH LEAKAGE FROM

SHALE GAS PRODUCTION INDEPENDENTLY,

USING AIR QUALITY MEASUREMENTS AND

CHEMICAL TRANSPORT MODELLING

Presentation outline:

• Preparation phase;

• Reserves

• Production scenarios

• Tracer for Shale Gas leakage emission

• Tracer emission scenarios

• Modelling

• Testing phase

• Production phase

• Analysis phase

• Conclusions & outlook

2 | Monitoring Fugitive Methane from Large Scale Shale Gas Operations in Europe

PREPARATION PHASE; SG PLAYS

Identification of most promising shale gas plays in Europe

• Mostly based on US EIA (2015)1) and TNO information


Compare US: 25 Tcm 1) “Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources” publication series;

US Energy Information Administration (EIA)

ID Country Play Risk Recov. Res. (Tcm)

6 GBR Bowland Basin 0.71

2 POL Lublin Basin 0.26

4 POL Podlasie Basin 0.14 (Dry); 0.12 (Wet)

13 POL Baltic Basin 2.3 (Dry); 0.61 (Wet)

11 NLD Posidonia Shale 0.093

3; 5; 9 NLD Geverik/Epen 0.26

7; 14 DNK Alum Shale 0.90

15 SWE Alum Shale 0.28

12 DEU Posidonia Shale 0.48

8 FRA Paris Basin 2.0

PREPARATION PHASE; ESTIMATED

PRODUCTION BY PLAY

Considerations for a production scenario:

• If Netherlands and UK use shale gas instead of conventional natural gas,

own reserves would last 10 years (France 100 years)

• Technical lifetime of the infrastructure 20-30 years

• Replacing projected EU coal-based electricity generating capacity by

shale gas, reserves would last 70 years (60 years for gas-based)

• IASS (L. Cremonese): Drilling rate under current economic conditions

would exhaust reserves in 100 years in Germany

Assumed production window between 30 and 150 years for all plays (3 cases: 30, 70 and 150 years)


PREPARATION PHASE; A TRACER FOR

LEAKAGE EMISSION FROM SHALE GAS

Need tracer component for SG emissions, as methane has too many other sources

• In the US and globally ethane (C2H6) is used to track HC leakage from oil

and gas production (e.g. Schwietzke et al. 20142))

• Ethane is cheap to measure and always present in natural gas but

concentrations may vary 2 orders of magnitude (e.g. 0.2% to 20+%)

• Ethane content varies with Thermal Maturity, %R0 (e.g. Berner 19893)), a

basic reservoir characteristic

2) ”Natural Gas Fugitive Emissions Rates Constrained by Global Atmospheric Methane and Ethane”,

ES&T 48 (14) 3) ”Entwicklung und Anwendung empirischer Modelle für die Isotopenvariationen in Mischungen

thermogener Erdgase, Ph.D. thesis, Techn. Univ. Clausthal

PREPARATION PHASE; VARIATION IN

TRACER CONCENTRATION IN SG

TNO Analysis of 2000+ European natural gas composition

data: Observed ethane (C2H6) content and thermal maturity


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Ob

serv

atio

n C

ou

nt

(-)

Ethane to methane ratio (-)

WET GASDRY GAS

%Ro ≈ 1.3

%Ro < 1.2

%Ro > 1.5

PREPARATION PHASE; ESTIMATED

ETHANE EMISSIONS BY PLAY

Thermal maturity SG plays varies from 0.5 – 1.8, corresponding

to a C2 to C1 ratio of 1.5 – 10%, assuming NG = SG

Overall gas leakage rates observed in the US vary from 0.2 to

10% of the produced amount (= assumed range in scenarios)


Country Play

Known

average %R0

Est. C2/C1

ratio

Est.

prod.

(Bcm/y)

C2H6 emission

0.2 - 5% leak.

(kt/y)

GBR Bowland Basin 1.3 0.04 5 - 24 0.3 - 76

POL Lublin Basin 1.35 0.04 0.1 - 28

POL Podlasie Basin 1.8; 1.15 0.015; 0.1 0.2 - 42

POL Baltic Basin 1.8; 1.15 0.015; 0.1 1.1 - 270

NLD Posidonia Shale 0.5 - 1.2 0.1 0.1 - 28

NLD Geverik/Epen 2 0.015 0.04 - 9

DNK Alum Shale 2 0.015 6 - 30 0.1 - 31

SWE Alum Shale 2 0.015 2 - 9 0.04 - 10

DEU Posidonia Shale >1.5 0.015 3 - 16 0.07 - 17

FRA Paris Basin 1.3; 0.85 - 1.15 0.04; 0.1 23 - 116 2.7 - 660

23 - 116

2 - 12

PREPARATION PHASE; SG LEAKAGE

COMPARED TO OTHER ETHANE SOURCES

Figure: estimated range in ethane (C2H6) from SG (5 – 1200 Kt), compared

with current ethane sources (total 293 Kt, TNO MACC3 database)

Medium prod. scenario: SG should be noticable at 2% leakage (~100 Kt)

and dominate at 5+% (~300 Kt); Max. 1200 Kt is High scen. at 10% leak.


68 90 80 24 32 5

1200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

EMIS

SIO

N (

KTO

N)

Scenario range in C2H6

emissions from shale gas

INTRODUCING THE LOTOS-EUROS

CHEMISTRY TRANSPORT MODEL


LOTOS-EUROS CTM CAN MODEL SPATIAL CONCENTRATIONS

OF SUBSTANCES, BASED ON E.G. EMISSION DATA

Processes:

Chemistry

Transport

Dry deposition

Wet deposition

Boundary conditions

Initial conditions

Landuse

Emissions

Meteorology

> 200 modules

Ethane (C2H6) is transported by winds, mixed vertically and

simultaneously broken down by reaction with hydroxyl radicals

Implementation Carbon Bond (CB05) mechanism in LOTOS

EUROS , which keeps ethane a separate substance in the

atmospheric chemical reaction scheme

LOTOS EUROS run in Labelling Mode, keeping track of source

contributions to ethane concentrations (Shale gas sources,

Other ethane sources and Boundary influx)

What are the ethane boundary concentrations?

Literature: ethane has an average lifetime of 2 months (relatively

long, which has important implications as we will see)


PREPARATION PHASE: SETTING UP THE

LOTOS-EUROS CTM FOR ETHANE

CONCENTRATION MODELLING


MEASURED ETHANE BACKGROUND

CONCENTRATIONS AT DIFFERENT

EUROPEAN AIR QUALITY

MONITORING

STATIONS (EBAS)

• Similar with strong

seasonal pattern

• Little trend over ‘88 – ‘14

S. England

Spitsbergen

Switzerland +3000m

Type of signal we

would like to see

for SG

TESTING PHASE: LOTOS-EUROS BASELINE

RUN (NO SG EMISSIONS YET)

If run w/o boundary conditions L-E predicts severely impacted average

ethane concentrations in the whole domain (mainly because of its long

lifetime) but way lower than observations

Ethane’s long lifetime also results however in significant boundary

concentrations (both at the area boundaries and the top)

Boundary concentrations will be based on daily observed

concentrations at remote locations with no local sources


Ethane rural background

obs. at Auchencorth, Central

Scotland (blue line),

compared to the L-E

baseline results (red line)

Note the similar seasonal

pattern in both data and

measurement peaks of 2-3

times the average

L-E baseline results 2012

GB0048R

PRODUCTION PHASE: L-E WITH SG ADDED

(HIGH PROD. SCEN., 5% LEAKAGE, 600 KT)


EXISTING ATMOSPHERIC MONITORING

SITES AND SG FIELDS


Prevailing

wind

direction

Selected monitoring

stations:

• FR0008R (France)

• DE0002R (Germany)

• PL0005R (Poland)

ANALYSIS PHASE: MODELLED SG

CONTRIBUTIONS FOR SELECTED SITES

Modelled contributions to total ethane concentration, averaged over the

periods Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, Jul-Sep and Oct-Dec


FR0008R PL0005R

DE0002R * Even for the high emission

scenario and closest

monitoring sites, the average

SG contribution never

exceeds 30%

* At almost all sites far lower

contributions are found

ANALYSIS PHASE: EXTENT OF INFLUENCE OF

THE SG PLAYS (HIGH PROD., 5% LEAK., 600 KT)


• Yearly average contribution

• Outside SG field influence

quickly drops, especially for

smaller plays

• In reality emission is not

homogeneously distributed

over the play area

• 10-30% contribution may be

too low to be detected as

significant elevation of

concentration

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

Due to its relatively long lifetime ethane (C2H6) has a significant

background concentration with boundary influx being of major influence

Our current set-up of monitoring in Europe with very limited ethane data

and an AQ/CT model can provide the baseline for monitoring

However, current set-up is insufficient to conclusively identify even high

leakage rates [impact on ethane background levels seems too low]

To monitor independently, new (perhaps mobile) stations will have to be

installed preferably located between 5 and 20 km downwind of SG

exploration and production activities. [not costly compared to O&G

investments and revenues]

To predict tracer concentrations close to the source a plume model could

be used

Selecting a different tracer (e.g. stable C and H isotopes in methane)

would not have made the detection of SG leakage easier


THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Take a look: TIME.TNO.NL

The content of this presentation reflects only the authors’ view. The

Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) is not responsible for

any use that may be made of the information it contains

Documents

MONITORING FUGITIVE METHANE FROM LARGE SCALE … · Results of Sub Project 3 “Impact on air quality and global climate ... •Preparation phase ... Monitoring Fugitive Methane from