Arvind P Ravikumar

The Role of Natural Gas in a

Carbon-Constrained

World

@arvindpawan1

Stanford University | The Payne Institute at Mines

2

World share of primary energy

BP Statistical Review of Energy (2017)

• Globally, natural gas is expected to grow in both OECD and non-OECD countries

• Increased supply (US, Australia) and demand (SE Asia, China, India, EU)

Natural Gas: Future Growth in All Regions

• Assists grid integration of large % renewables

• Reduce PM2.5 pollution → improved air quality →health outcomes

IEA World Energy Outlook 2017

Energy-related emissions of pollutants and CO2

IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2014)

NOAA Global Air Sampling Network

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html 3

• Methane – second most abundant GHG globally.

• 16% of global emissions, 11% of US GHG emissions (EPA GHGI 2016)

• Significantly higher global warming potential than CO2 (GWP: 36 IPCC AR5)

• Oil and Gas activity major industrial source of emissions

• Easier to tackle methane from O&G due to readily available path to market

Methane as a Greenhouse Gas

4

Expectation vs. Reality

> 55% believe US should use < 10 Tcf of

gas by 2050

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Natural gas productiontrillion cubic feet

2017history projections

High Oil and Gas Resource and TechnologyHigh Oil PriceHigh Economic GrowthReferenceLow EconomicGrowthLow Oil PriceLow Oil and Gas Resource and Technology

billion cubic feet per day

But, EIA projects record high production >

40 Tcf by 2040

5

Climate Implications of Cheap Natural Gas

• Total U.S. natural gas production = 27 Tcf (2016)

• Production/consumption estimates through 2050 diametrically oppose to Paris targets

• Fossil NG emissions account for 60 – 85% of total C-budget

Ravikumar et al. 2018 (in preparation)

6

Overview of Natural Gas Work

2. Technology Assessments 4. Spillover Impacts

3. GHG Mitigation Policy1. System Modelling

• Modeling and empirical studies of emissions

detection technology

• Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge –

testing new leak detection platforms

• FEAST platform – Fugitive Emissions Abatement

Simulation Toolkit

• Life-cycle Assessments of LNG trade, emissions,

and economic impact

• Multi-year effort on measuring efficacy of

emissions mitigation policy (Alberta, Canada)

• Advanced mitigation frameworks (multi-tiered

approach, quantification)

• Distributional impact of methane emissions

on electricity and other sectors

• Incorporating methane into broader climate

policies (carbon tax, cap and trade, etc.)

‘Micro Analysis’ ‘Macro Strategies’

Methane Leakage – Superemitters

1 – Leakage is dominated by ‘super-emitters’

• ‘5 – 50’ rule: small number of leaks responsible for large fraction of emissions

Ravikumar et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 12 044023 (2017)7

Methane Leakage – Difficult to Find Leaks

2 – Emissions are difficult to detect and expensive

• Millions of potential sources (production, gas plants, pipelines, etc.)

• Leaks are (mostly) stochastic – wear & tear, operator error, equipment malfunction

→ little predictive capability

• Technologies to detect methane are slow/expensive (this is changing)

8

Methane Leakage – Prescriptive Policies

3 – Emissions mitigation policy is prescriptive

• Mandate specific actions instead of mitigation targets

• Leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs most common approach

• ‘Allowed’ technologies include infrared cameras and handheld sensors

• Push to incorporate innovation into policy (drones, planes, trucks, etc.)

0.4%0.1%0.85%

1.4% 9

Overview of Natural Gas Work

2. Technology Assessments 4. Spillover Impacts

3. GHG Mitigation Policy1. System Modelling

• Modeling and empirical studies of

emissions detection technology

• Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring

Challenge – testing new tech platforms

• FEAST platform – Fugitive Emissions

Abatement Simulation Toolkit

• Life-cycle Assessments of LNG trade,

emissions, and economic impact

• Measuring efficacy of emissions

mitigation policy (Alberta, Canada)

• Advanced mitigation frameworks

(multi-tiered approach, quantification)

• Distributional impact of methane

emissions on electricity

• Impact of climate policies on future

use of natural gas

‘Micro Analysis’ ‘Macro Strategies’

10

Technology Innovation

~45 min flying time

Revisit time ~ 1 week

‘Fast screening’

Fox et al. In review (2018) 11

Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge

• Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge (MMC)

• Platforms – drones, trucks, and plane-based systems

• 3 weeks of blind controlled release tests: April – May 2018

• 10 technologies participated

• METEC test site (CSU, Fort Collins) Visit: methane.stanford.edu

12

Example Technology Testing - Drone

13

Technology A (Drone)

Total number of leaks 63Number of zeros 41

Yes No TotalLeak 59 4 63No Leak 0 41 41

Total number of leaks 63Number detected 59Number location identified 50% location identified correctly 0.85

Yes NoLeak True + False -No Leak False + True -

0.94 0.060.00 1.00

Locational Accuracy

Leak identification (overall)

• Best in class performance (detection & quantification)

• Professionally managed operations (standard protocols)

• Real time data including quantification (initial estimate)

14

Technology A - Quantification

• Most leak estimates within 2x of actual leak rates

• (Quantification, in general, is very difficult. Within 2x is exceptional performance for

sensors that don’t directly measure flow rates)

15Ravikumar et al. In review (2018)

16

How can technology inform mitigation

policy?

FEAST

• Fugitive Emissions Abatement Simulation Toolkit

• Open-source

• Updated with new technologies, emissions data, policy scenarios

• Web-based version in development

• Tool simulates evolution of natural gas leaks over time

• Assess leak-detection technology

• Assess mitigation policy

• Assess long-term impact of business practices

17

Technology/Platform

Models

Methane Emissions

Data

• OGI, Method-21, Drones,

Planes, Trucks

• Economic data

• Activity/Inventory counts

• Published emissions data

(facility or component level)

Kemp et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 4546 (2016)

FEAST Platform Capabilities

Policy Scenarios

Business Practices

1.Technology inter-comparison

studies

2.Long-term mitigation trends

(changes to baseline)

3.Cost-effectiveness of

alternative approaches

4.Trade-offs in survey

frequency vs. mitigation

18

• Markov process to ‘generate’ leaks

Emissions Mitigation = ‘Natural repair rate’ + Mitigation Policy

0.5 g/s = 5 tons per year

Various mitigation

scenarios

Random leak

generation

FEAST: Dynamic Simulation

19

• Existing policies require use of infrared cameras to detect leaks

• But regs do not specific how leak surveys should be designed

• Results in mitigation uncertainty

Effectiveness reduces

with increasing distance

Ravikumar et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 718 (2016)

Analyze Policy Blind-Spots

20

FEAST Capabilities: Cost-Benefit Analysis

• EPA over-estimates cost of mitigation policy

Mitigation benefits

variable

Requires regional

focus in policy

Ravikumar et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 12 044023 (2017)

Uncertainty and Cost-effectiveness

21

Field Campaign To Assess Policy Effectiveness

• Campaign sponsored by consortium of Canadian O&G industry and regulators

• 50 x 50 km area NW of Calgary

• ~ 200 sites selected for leak detection

and repair surveys

• 3 different survey schedule (1, 2 or 3

times per year) and 1 control group

• Goals: Determine time evolution of

emissions mitigation – ‘sunset policy’

22

Bringing Policy Makers And Scientists Together

• Workshop to develop future mitigation frameworks for regulators

• Invite-only workshop with academics, regulatory agencies, and industry

• Environment Canada, Alberta Energy Regulator

• U.S. EPA, Colorado DPHE, California ARB

23

24

Why does this matter?

Impact on Broader Energy Systems

Barnett

Fayetteville

Upper

Green

River

Uintah

San Juan

25

Major Shale Plays and Emissions Studies

Peischl (2015)

Ren (2017)

Omara (2016)

Caulton (2014)

Peischl (2015)

Ren (2017)

Kort (2016)

Schneising (2014)

Petron (2012, 2014)

Brantley (2014)

Robertson (2017)

Smith (2017)

Karion (2013)

Robertson (2017)

Araiza (2015)

Lyon (2015)

Lan (2015)

Karion (2015)

Brantley (2014)

Lavoie (2017)

Schneising (2014)

Roest (2016)

Peischl (2015)

Peischl (2015)

Robertson (2017)

Schweitzke (2017)

• Large variation among basins

• Estimates have high uncertainty – including single point estimates

M. Omara (2016), X. Ren (2017), J. Peischl (2015), D. Caulton (2014), G. Roest (2016), O.

Schneising (2014), A. Robertson (2017), S. Schwietzke (2017), J. Peischl (2016), X. Lan

(2015), D. Lyon (2015), D. Zavala-Araiza (2015), A. Karion (2015), H. Brantley (2014), M.

Smith (2017), EPA (2016)

Production Normalized Leakage Rates

Large variation → distributional

impacts critical to understanding

benefits of natural gas use

26

• Avg. Emissions intensity: 430 g CO2/kWh, about 50% lower than coal

• Varies from 391 g CO2/kWh (GA) to 588 g CO2/kWh (IN)

GHG Emissions from Gas – No Leakage

Single cycle

natural gas

plants

Ravikumar et al. In review (2018)27

• Avg. Emissions intensity ↑ from 430 g CO2/kWh to 542 g CO2e/kWh

• Western states (WA, OR, CA, AZ, NV) typically do worse due to originating gas basins

GHG Emissions from Natural Gas – 100 yr GWP

28

A Cautionary Tale

Are we repeating mistakes of the past?

29