FULL PAPER

www.entechnol.de

Energy and Environmental Contributions for Future

Natural Gas Supply Planning in Brazil
Hugo Sakamoto, Michelli Maciel, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and Luiz Kulay*

expansion of the natural gas supply is

Natural gas has become a strategic source of energy, despite its technical and not restricted to technical and economical
economic benefits, largely due to its lower environmental impacts compared with variables, as the most recent developments
other fuels. Given this scenario, Brazil has increased the availability of this have also taken into account the environ-
resource to meet the demand of more interior regions and increases its autonomy mental variable in the design of more effi-
with respect to this fuel. The aim of this study is to evaluate the environmental cient finished product extraction, refining,
and distribution systems.[7] This view was
impacts of current and future natural gas supply situations in Brazil. To this end,
adopted by Yang et al. when proposing
the life cycle assessment (LCA) technique is applied, with a cradle-to-gate
an optimization model for China’s gas
approach for the climate change (CC) and primary energy demand (PED) impact supply network that consider pollutant
categories. For the current scenario, the main contributions to CC occur in the emissions in addition to economic costs
form of CH4 emissions during gas transportation operations (crude or refined) of the system.[8] A similar reading was
and resource withdrawal from reserves. For future supplies, the applied analysis adopted by Mikojlaková et al. in the
identifies transport distance as an important PED focus, whereas the same design of a gas supply arrangement for
parameter and the distributed volume of refined gas are noteworthy as impact Finland.[9] In this case, the optimal supply
sources concerning CC. of natural gas considered economic and
environmental variables, expressed as costs
for the feasibility of supply alternatives.
Strantzali et al. performed a multi-criteria
1. Introduction analysis to evaluate all the potential export terminals liquefied
natural gas from Greece.[10] The approach considered for criteria
Natural gas is a strategic source of energy, both because of its the environmental impact of transportation and the current and
high thermal performance and the moderate environmental future supply availabilities.
effects it generates when providing energy.[1] Atmospheric emis- Although the environmental indicators generated in these
sions from natural gas are reduced compared with those caused investigations are consistent, none of them applied such a robust
by coal, diesel oil, and gasoline burning, thus resulting in more approach as provided by the life cycle assessment (LCA)
discrete contributions toward acidification, ozone formation, and technique. Following this path, Sapkota et al. coordinated
climate change (CC).[2] technical–economic and environmental analysis via the supply
Brazil is the main natural gas consumer in South America, chain of the natural gas extracted in Canada and distributed
reaching usage levels of 82.9 million m3 a day (MMm3 d
1) of in European territory.[11] The results show that the supply of
this resource at the end of 2016.[3] However, only 61% of this gas from the west coast generates more impact as global warm-
total comes from the country’s coastal reserves. Remaining ing than when it originates from the east coast fields. To cushion
demand is supplied by imports from Bolivia.[4] The Brazilian these effects, the authors recommend the use of shale gas
government has been exploring other alternatives to supply recovery and processing technologies to capture flared and
the domestic demand, with the objectives of expanding the sup- vented greenhouse gas (GHG).
ply to inland north and midwest areas, which is yet to have a This research aims to contribute to the theme from an
distribution network, and reducing the dependence on Bolivian energy-planning perspective. In addition to verifying the energy
gas.[5,6] However, when performed in other scenarios, the and environmental performance of the current supply of natu-
ral gas in Brazil, the study identifies and discusses effects,
which would be generated by system expansion actions.
H. Sakamoto, M. Maciel, F. Henrique Cardoso, Prof. L. Kulay
Department of Chemical Engineering The analyses were performed through attributional LCA
Polytechnic School focusing from well-to-distributor, with the energy dimension
University of São Paulo being described in terms of primary energy demand (PED),
Lineu Prestes Avenue, 580, Block 18, São Paulo 05508-000, SP, Brazil energy returned on energy invested (ERoEI), and the environ-
E-mail: luiz.kulay@usp.br
mental in terms of CC. The findings of this research are
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article expected to help motivate the use of the environmental variable
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/ente.201900976. in future decision-making processes in the Brazilian gas
DOI: 10.1002/ente.201900976 segment.

Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976 1900976 (1 of 13) © 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
2. Experimental Section
The method used to meet the objectives defined for this study
comprises the following: 1) the elaboration of a model capable
of representing the current operating conditions of the natural
gas production chain in Brazil; 2) the application of LCA tech-
nique to determine the energy and environmental performance
of this productive arrangement; 3) a survey of short- and
medium-term alternatives that result in increased domestic
natural gas supply; 4) the creation of models that accurately
describes future circumstances of system operation; and
5) the estimation of the energy and environmental performance
of this arrangement, as well as the verification of the effective-
ness of the implemented actions.
2.1. Description of the Brazilian Gas Supplying System
In 2016, the Brazilian gas supplying system processed an average
of 102 MMm3 d
1 of offshore source gas to fully serve the south
and southeast regions of the country, as well as part of the north-
east and midwest. To reach such a level, the network infrastruc-
ture available at the time relied on 18 natural gas processing units
(NGPUs) and three regasification of liquefied natural gas (LNG)
terminals. For transportation from the extraction fields to
the NGPUs, 64 pipelines (9409 km) and five transfer ducts
(30 km) were available. The connections between processing
and loading units were established by 254 flow ducts (4650 km).
The finished product distribution network to the delivery
points comprised 31 807 km of pipes with variable diameters.
Figure 1. Natural gas balance in Brazil—base year: 2016 (MMm3 d
1). Source: adapted from MME (2017).[17]
Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976 1900976 (2 of 13)
www.entechnol.de
Reinjection activities and consumptions occurred in the explora-
tion and production units (E&P) units, absorptions in NGPUs, as
well as burning fuel for compression (and transport) and losses,
reducing the amount of refined gas to 50.7 MMm3 d
1. However,
4.30 MMm3 d
1 of product were wasted by processing conditions
and operational deviations during this stage of the process.
The northern states of the country (Acre: AC; Amazonas:
AM; Amapá: AP; Pará: PA; Rondônia: RO; e Roraima: RR) are
supplied by regional gas reserves (Urucu I, II, III, and IV fields)
and thus are detached from the Brazilian network. The same is
true for Goiás (GO), Maranhão (MA), Piauí (PI), Tocantins (TO),
and the Federal Disctrict (DF), whose demands are not met by
pipelines. Because it is not connected to the gas supply system,
this large area of the Brazilian territory is known as isolated
territory.[12]
In addition, the distribution system was also used for a
35.6 MMm3 d
1 flow of gas acquired from Bolivia. Bolivian
gas is of onshore origin, and thus, in addition to exempting
reinjection actions, this circumstance reduces to about 1.0%
the losses of the extraction process.[13] The available raw gas
in that region has CH4 levels of about 91%v/v,[14] which is higher
than that found off the coast of Brazil (83–89%v/v).[15] This prop-
erty directly affects the refining process, reducing the burning
and consumption rates to 1.5% of the volume collected from
the environment. Another characteristic of Bolivia’s gas is the
low amount of medium chain alkanes (C3–C6þ), which result
in liquid conversion (LPG and derivatives) quotas of 1.0%.[16]
Considering all these aspects, the average daily supply of product
in the period reached 82.9 MMm3 (Figure 1).
© 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
2.2. Design of the Life Cycle Model
As a rule, the gas processing and distribution cycle comprises
five stages: 1) gas E&P units; 2) transport; 3) gas refining in a
NGPU until the concentration limits of methane (CH4) and
impurities reach levels sufficient for their commercialization;
4) storage and loading; and 5) distribution of the finished prod-
uct to the end user. In the case of Brazil’s natural gas network,
this arrangement presents some adaptations due to its
amplitude, and the amount of operational variations created
to avoid supply discontinuation even in the case of production
fluctuations.[18] This context directly influenced the construc-
tion of a robust model to represent the gas production and dis-
tribution cycle in Brazil. The first action taken within the
modeling process was to disregard the isolated territory
(Figure 2a). This decision was taken due to the following:
1) the uncertainty associated with data depicting operations
carried out in the region and 2) the sum of the individual con-
sumptions of these states is less than 2.5% of the national
demand in the reference period.
The model was based on official data and records that describe
technological, operational, and environmental aspects (consump-
tion and emissions) associated with this cycle.[12,13,17] The effects
of the variety of gas flow options have been simplified by setting
the design conditions to regularize system operations. From this
premise, refined gas transportation and distribution activities
could be represented by a peculiar strategy called Scheduling
Method. In addition, quantitative data on GHG emissions are
not always available concerning CO2 and CH4 in these trans-
ports. Such a limitation was circumvented by applying a
procedure to estimate these losses.
The implementation of the Scheduling Method was based on
the formulation of assumptions derived from calculation memo-
rials and annotations available for the gas network design.[19,20]
From these documents, it was defined that the distribution of
processed natural gas should be modeled only at the
Brazilian state level. Thus, a state’s gas demand (Dj ) would
be supplied by the local supply available in the same federative
unit (LSj ), whenever (and while) it existed. Conversely, in
situations where demand exceeds the domestic state supply
(Dj >LSj ), the difference in consumption would be supplied
by resources of the immediately bordering state (LSk ) in
the preferred direction of the gas movement. If this other
provision also runs out without Dj being met, the available sup-
ply of the bordering state is consumed, and so on until the
expectation is met. This problem-solving strategy is described
by Equation (1)
If Dj >LSj ! Dj ¼ LSj þ LSk þ LSm þ LSn þ ð : : : Þ (1)
where: Dj ∶ natural gas demand from a Brazilian state (j); LSj ∶
local supply of natural gas from the state (j); LSk , LSm , LSn , ð : : : Þ:
local supply of natural gas from the adjacent states to (j).
The gas transfer between states is continuous. This regime is
interrupted only when Dj is met, or if the local supply runs out
(LSj ¼ LSk ¼ LSm ¼ LSn ¼ : : : ¼ 0). Estimates of meeting Dj
were carried out considering the natural gas consumption of
compression stations for transport of this asset. It was admitted
that the Duque de Caxias Refinery (Reduc) would act as a NGPU,
Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976 1900976 (3 of 13)
www.entechnol.de
supplying refined gas to the states of Bahia (BA), Espírito Santo
(ES), and Minas Gerais (MG). Reduc would also supply part of
the demands of São Paulo (SP) and Rio de Janeiro (RJ). The rest
of these needs would be met by Presidente Bernardes Refinery
(RPBC).
Similarly, the Gas Treatment Unit of Cacimbas (GTU–
Cacimbas) would supply gas to Alagoas (AL), Sergipe (SE),
and Pernambuco (PE), as well as BA, whereas the Gas
Processing Unit of Candeias (GPU–Candeias) would supply
Rio Grande do Norte (RN), Ceará (CE), Paraíba (PB), and western
PE. Finally, it was admitted that the CE would be fed from the
Pilar, Atalaia, and Lubnor NGPU. Figure 2b shows infrastructure
and logistics aspects of the distribution network.
The specificity of maritime transport was based on the
geographical positions of coastal reservoirs, terminals, and
NGPUs. The itineraries established from combinations of these
destinations ranged from 46 to 184 km. Road travel occurs
between terminals and refineries and may range from 18.4 to
940 km. Finally, the paths between the NGPUs and the delivery
points in the northeast region extend from 20 to 1145 km,
whereas in the southeast, these routes range from 20 to
1570 km.[20]
The Tarija department accounts for 67% of Bolivia’s gas pro-
duction. To achieve this performance, the region has 13 gas
fields, among which are the largest reserves in the country:
Sabalo, San Alberto, and Margarita–Huacaya, which is shared
in the Huacaya portion with the Chuquisaca department.[21]
In addition to the representativeness of their extraction vol-
umes in 2016, these fields are in historical records as gas
suppliers for Brazil.[22] For these reasons, Sabalo, San Alberto,
and Margarita were selected to represent the Brazilian foreign
gas supply.
Processed gas in Bolivia feeds the midwest and south regions
of Brazil, in addition to meeting the remaining demands of RJ
and SP. The refined gas transportation model from local reser-
voirs and the most remote delivery points in the southern region
(in Canoas—RS) considered distances of 3265 km (from Sábalo),
3193 km (Margarita), and 4381 km (San Alberto). These routes
ranged from 1821 to 2997 km for the midwest. The common part
of the route, which is also the longest, is made by the Brazil–
Bolivia pipeline (GASBOL), whose length from Rio Grande
(BO) to Canoas is 3150 km.[23]
The loss estimation procedure was based on the historical data
series for the year 2016.[14] According to those records, 4.3% of
the total volume of natural gas injected into the distribution net-
work did not reach final consumption (Figure 1). About 70% of
this amount (3.0% of losses) was due to oscillations and opera-
tional deviations in the compression system, and the remainder
to leaks in the pipeline network. It was assumed for the purpose
of calculation that losses incurred during the transport of the fin-
ished product (compression) would be restricted to CO2 and
water vapor, whereas those emanating from leaks and singulari-
ties in the pipelines and distribution stations would occur in the
form of CH4. In addition, the nitrogen (N2) that makes up the
combustion air was treated in the present case as an inert sub-
stance. This simplification eliminates the possibility that natural
gas compression will generate dinitrogen monoxide (N2O) or
other nitrogen-derived secondary pollutants resulting in the
formation of GHG.
© 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.entechnol.de

Figure 2. a) Map of the current Brazilian gas distribution network; b) Structural aspects of the system: detailing of the gas processing plants and of the
gas pipeline network with emphasis on GASBOL. Source: ANP/SCM (2018).[19]

Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976 1900976 (4 of 13) © 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
3. Life Cycle Assessment
3.1. Scope Definition
During the investigation, the LCA technique has always been
used with an attributional focus for an application domain of
the “cradle-to-gate” type. In conceptual terms, the LCA-based
analyzes followed methodological guidelines and conditioning
described by the ISO 14044 standard.[24] The reference flow
(RF) established for this early stage of research was “to produce
and distribute 82.9 MMm3 of natural gas with sufficient refining
to meet the needs of the Brazilian market,” which corresponds to
the country’s daily refined natural gas demand.
As for data requirements and as already discussed in
Section 2.1, the model was elaborated from secondary data
obtained from referable technical sources. Information collected
from the Ecoinvent database was added. Before being definitively
incorporated into the model, the data were submitted to a harmo-
nization process applied to reduce the effects that the disparities
between their origins could provide. Concerning the data quality,
the temporal coverage established for the study was 2016. Except
for the isolated territory, all regions of the country where oper-
ations related to the natural gas supply chain are performed were
covered by the study’s geographic coverage. In addition, the proc-
essing carried out in Bolivia near the fields of Sabalo, Margarita,
and San Alberto was also considered. Finally, technology cover-
age took into account the specificities and constraints setting for
model building.
The product system is directly matched with the model
designed to represent the Brazilian gas production and distribu-
tion system. Figure 3 shows the arrangement highlighting its
boundaries with other systems and the environment (dotted
lines). The subsystems (E&P units and NGPUs) and unit pro-
cesses (terminals and storage areas) were represented with an
operational aggregation level equivalent to that available for data
collection.
Regarding the extraction of raw gas, offshore fields located in
the coastal zones of the states of CE, RN, AL, SE, SP, and RJ were
considered. As for refining, the model comprised the Lubnor
(CE), Pilar (AL), and Atalaia (SE) NGPUs, as well as the
GPU–Candeias (BA), and the GTU–Cacimbas (ES). Reduc (RJ)
Figure 3. Product System that describes the current condition of the productive centers and the Brazilian natural gas network.[17]
Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976 1900976 (5 of 13)
www.entechnol.de
and RPBC (SP) were also included as, even though they are crude
oil refineries, they may act as NGPU. The state of ES was also
considered in the model because it is an important center for
storage and distribution of gas refined in RJ and SP for the
Brazilian northeast. Table 1 shows the daily production, availabil-
ity, and consumption volumes of each state. It also describes the
form (source and amount) of gas supply for each of these centers,
obtained from the application of the Scheduling Method.
The last stage of the model comprises the transportation of
refined gas to the delivery points of the northeast (states of
CE, RN, PB, AL, PE, SE, and BA), southeastern (ES, RJ, MG,
and SP), midwest, and south regions. Figure 3 also shows the
Bolivian branch of the gas-processing model. This begins at
the onshore extraction of the Sábalo, San Alberto, and
Margarita gas fields and pursues by terminals to the NGPUs.
To adequately represent the existing arrangement, the modeling
assumed that gas emanating from each field would be refined
into a specific NGPU located near the extraction sites. After con-
cluding this stage, the finished product goes to storage areas
from where it will be delivered to the states of Mato Grosso
do Sul (MS), the western state of SP, and the midwest and south
regions.
Given that the production volume of natural gas is vastly
higher than in other fractions derived from crude gas (i.e.,
ethane, propane, i-butane, C5, and others), the multifunctional
situation that characterizes these coproducts was addressed by
the Surplus Method.[25] Because of this approach, all environ-
mental loads generated upstream of the refining were attributed
exclusively to refined gas.
At this stage of the study, the life cycle impact assessment
(LCIA) provides a diagnosis of the energy and environmental
performance of Brazil’s current natural gas supply system.
The analyses were performed with the objective of generating
subsidies for the decision-making processes that may occur in
the Brazilian gas sector in the future.
The energy dimension has been approached from two per-
spectives. The first was concerned with determining impacts
in the form of PED). Thus, the method cumulative energy
demand (CED)—v 1.09 was applied for the following impact
categories: nonrenewable fossil (NRF), nonrenewable nuclear
(NRN), nonrenewable biomass (NRB), renewable, wind, solar,
© 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.entechnol.de

Table 1. Natural gas distribution in Brazil determined by the Scheduling Method.

Brazilian Production Availability Consumption CE RN AL SE BA ES RJ SP BO MG South region Midwest region

state/region 3
1
[MM m d ]

CE 0.25 0.02 2.84 0.02 0.62 1.14 0.48 0.58 – – – – – – –

RN 1.06 0.62 2.11 – – – – 2.11 – – – – – – –
PB 0.00 0.00 0.42 – – – – 0.42 – – – – – – –
PE 0.00 0.00 4.52 – – – – 3.34 1.18 – – – – – –
AL 1.14 1.14 0.12 – – – – – 0.12 – – – – – –
SE 2.59 0.48 1.36 – – – – – 1.36 – – – – – –
BA 7.45 6.45 8.74 – – – – – 5.88 2.86 – – – – –
ES 10.60 8.54 7.19 – – – – – – 7.19 – – – – –
MG 0.00 0.00 2.80 – – – – – – 2.80 – – – – –
RJ 45.4 19.3 20.6 – – – – – – 5.60 5.59 9.41 – – –
SP 15.9 9.92 14.6 – – – – – – 0.85 4.33 9.42 – – –
South region 0.00 0.00 15.9 – – – – – – – – 15.9 – – –
Midwest region 0.00 0.00 1.72 – – – – – – – – 1.72 – – –
Bolivia – 36.5 – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Total 84.4 82.9 82.9 0.02 0.62 1.14 0.48 6.45 8.54 19.3 9.92 36.5 – – –

geothermal (RWSG), renewable biomass (RB), and renewable extraction process. CO2 losses also occur due to process
water (RWA).[26] deviations during gas refining and are released into the air via
The second perspective considered the ERoEI index, which is flare.[29,30]
often used for fuel energy performance accounting.[27] ERoEI is
obtained by the ratio between the energy supplied by the fuel
ðE S Þ, and that required to in fact turn it into an energy provider 3.2. Life Cycle Impact Assessment
ðE R Þ (Equation (2))
3.2.1. Energy Analysis
 
ES
ERoEI ¼ (2) According to Table 2, Brazil’s current natural gas processing and
ER
distribution system have an energy performance as PED of 4904
TJ RF
1. As might be assumed beforehand, the most significant
Two premises were established for the purpose of harmoniz- contribution (99%) for this impact is in the form of consump-
ing the ERoEI concept with the systemic character adopted by tions of NRF) due to the depletion of raw natural gas. This is
this analysis: 1) the value of ðE R Þ would only be described in due to several factors. The first refers to operational circumstan-
terms of the consumption of NRF assets and 2) the determina-
ces associated with gas extraction, such as the need for well
tion of ðE R Þ would take into account the entire natural gas reinjection offshore, in addition to losses during exploration
processing and distribution chain.
and consumption on the platforms (E&P units). The main
In addition to considering almost all the PED consumption of
contributions to PED at this stage of the process were recorded
the system, the expression of ðE R Þ from NRF provides as an
by the basins of Campos (RJ) (1291 TJ RF
1), Recôncavo (BA)
additional perspective the possibility of verifying the amount
of fossil resources consumed to produce a fuel of the same
nature. In the present case, the value of ðE S Þ was determined
Table 2. Energy impacts associated with current natural gas production
from the weighting between mean low heat values of finished and distribution in Brazil.
products obtained in Brazil (LHVBR ¼ 32.8 MJ m
3) and
Bolivia (LHVBO ¼ 31.5 MJ m
3). Impact categories Total [TJ RF
1]
The environmental performance of the system was repre-
NRF 4855
sented by impacts in the form of CC. To enhance this effect,
the method proposed by the Intergovernamental Panel of NRN 4.61
Climate Change in 2013 (IPCC WGI AR5) was applied.[28] NRB 1.12.10
3
This choice was based on two factors: 1) the characteristics of RB 2.59
the system being analyzed and the waste tailings and 2) the recur- RWSG 2.38.10
2
rent use of results from this impact category in energy-planning RWA 41.8
actions. CH4 and CO2 are CC impact precursors of the natural
Total 4904
gas industry, and their emissions are concentrated in the

Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976 1900976 (6 of 13) © 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.entechnol.de

(510 TJ RF
1), Santos (SP) (452 TJ RF
1), and of the Espirito Table 3. Natural gas consumption and ERoEI index calculated for different
Santo (286 TJ RF
1). Brazilian states and regions.
Around 75% of Brazil’s offshore processing comes from
associated fields, where crude gas is dissolved in oil or forms Brazilian Consumption ES ER ERoEI NGBO
raw

a surrounding layer. In such cases, reinjection is used as a tech- state/region 3
1
1
1

[MMm RF ] [TJ RF ] [TJ RF ] [%]
nical procedure to maintain the static pressure of the reservoirs
CE 2.84 93.0 211 0.441 0.00
and thereby increase oil extraction. Therefore, from this perspec-
RN 2.11 69.1 157 0.440 0.00
tive, gas production that occurs in associated fields is determined
by crude oil production.[31] The reinjection also helps to keep the PB 0.42 13.8 31.2 0.441 0.00
atmospheric emissions from E&P units at levels below those of PE 4.52 148 336 0.440 0.00
current environmental regulations by preventing the gas burning AL 0.12 3.93 8.99 0.437 0.00
at flare towers[32] However, in addition to the non-utilization of SE 1.36 44.5 101 0.439 0.00
part of the extracted gas, reinjection implies in consuming this
BA 8.74 286 650 0.440 0.00
resource to be operationalized. In 2016, the average gas reinjec-
tion rate in offshore associated wells was 29%, much higher than ES 7.19 236 529 0.446 0.00
the value calculated for the period 2011–2015 (18%), but confirm- MG 2.80 91.7 207 0.443 0.00
ing the growth trend observed in 2015, when the index reached RJ 20.6 663 1189 0.558 45.7
24% of the total volume of gas produced in Brazil [33] SP 14.6 467 743 0.628 64.5
Another gas consumption focus lies in the processing that
South region 15.9 501 625 0.802 100
occur at Reduc (RJ) (248 TJ RF
1), RPBC (SP) (87 TJ RF
1),
and with the GPU–Candeias (ES) (98 TJ RF
1). Reduc and Midwest region 1.72 54.2 66.8 0.812 100

RPBC account for the largest individual daily volumes of gas
refining in the country (Table 1). However, the units were con-
ceptually designed to act as oil refineries, not as NGPUs. This
slight mismatch resulted in consumptions about 3.6%[34] higher
than the national average of E&P plants, which was around 12%
of the full amount of gas produced in the period (Figure 1).
In 2016, GPU–Candeias had higher rates of burning and
losses than other gas refining units and even than its own
historical performance. A possible explanation for this behavior
may be in the volume of gas treated by the unit, which also
reached levels higher than in previous years.[13,34]
Leaks also stand out at the production units installed at Sábalo,
Margarita, and San Alberto. The contributions for PED associ-
ated to these sources were, respectively, of 577, 444, and
291 TJ RF
1. In fact, although onshore extraction tends to be
more efficient than at sea, losses at Sábalo, Margarita, and San
Alberto reached close to 27% of the total accumulated PED. This
deficit can be explained by the obsolescence of drilling techni-
ques practiced in Bolivia and the difficulties afforded by the irreg-
ular geological disposition of the underground gas layers.[35]
Another source of impacts for PED is related to raw gas trans-
port within the Bolivian territory, whose consumption sumed up
42 TJ RF
1. The performance can be justified because of the spe-
cific average emission rate of CH4 for stretches between the
fields of Sabalo, San Alberto, and Margarita and the compression
plant located in Rio Grande (BO) (270 kg (RF Km)
1), the starting
point of GASBOL. Such value corresponds to about twice that
determined for similar transports carried out within the
Brazilian territory (132 kg (RF Km)
1) and can also be attributed
to the high wear and tear of the Bolivian transfer system.[15] Also
regarding transport, the distribution of the refined product
through GASBOL brings 46 TJ RF
1 of PED. The sources of
these impacts lie in gas consumption by the 16 existing compres-
sion stations along the route and by losses in connections and
vents.[23]
Table 3 provides individualized ERoEI values per state of
northeast and southeast regions and consolidated results for
the midwest and south regions. An analysis of these findings
Total 82.9 2672 4855 0.550 –
indicates that the natural gas supply for the states of CE, RN,
PB, PE, AL, SE, BA, ES, and MG has similar energy balances
(ERoEI  0.44). All these demands are met by gas entirely pro-
duced in Brazil, when consumptions and losses from E&P units
and NGPUs are significantly higher than those generated during
the finished product transport (Figure 1) regardless of the final
destination. Thus, the PED associated with gas processing
decisively influences the global performance of the systems with
respect to this impact. Despite the technical and operational
specificities of each arrangement, their PED values tend to be con-
stant, making the accumulated ERoEI results behave similarly.
In situations in which the gas imported from Bolivia also sup-
plies the Brazilian market—RJ, SP, and the south and midwest
regions—an increase in the values of ERoEI was observed com-
pared with the performances registered before. This occurred for
two reasons: 1) onshore extraction eliminates the use of reinjec-
tion practice and 2) fewer thermal utilities (usually produced
through gas consumption) are required to achieve adequate
refining grades for the product to be marketed. Because of this,
the PED from Bolivian gas is naturally lower than that of the
Brazilian counterpart, which results in a more satisfactory global
ERoEI when it is combined for the purpose of demand supply-
ing, as occurs with RJ (0.558) and SP (0.628).
Therefore, it is not surprising that the significant values of
ERoEI obtained for the south (0.802) and midwest (0.812)
regions, which provisioning originates exclusively from imports.
Comparing these results also provides a discrete estimate of the
contribution of processed gas transport to the energy perfor-
mance of each situation. This is because, even displacing a
significant volume of gas (15.9 MMm3) throughout the length
of GASBOL (3150 km), the energy balance for supplying the
southern region’s demand is similar to that achieved by the mid-
west from less restrictive conditions: 1.72 MMm3 and 1890 km,
distributed between the services of Cuiabá (MT) and Campo
Grande (MS).

Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976 1900976 (7 of 13) © 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
3.2.2. Environmental Analysis
The distribution of 82.9 MMm3 of refined natural gas in the
country generates 362 kt CO2eq of impact in terms of CC.
About 44% of this total comes from transport, followed by
processing (29%) and extraction (28%). In this context, the
performances obtained by the E&P units located on the coast-
lines of RJ (1.71 kt CH4 RF
1), SP (591 t CH4 RF
1), and ES
(421 t CH4 RF
1) are noteworthy.
Because they account for the largest offshore extraction vol-
umes in Brazil (Table 1), these regions record high reinjection
rates, from which amounts of CH4 typically ranging from
66 to 190 mg m
3 gas are released into the environment.[31,33,34]
Bolivia’s onshore gas extraction also plays a role in the impacts of
CC, albeit to a lesser extent than in Brazil. The fields of Sabalo,
Margarita, and San Alberto contribute, respectively, with 131,
98.5 and 66.1 t CH4 RF
1.
In contrast, foreign gas refining generates more contributions
to CC than do domestic practices. Together the Bolivian NGPUs
provide 52.8 kt CO2 eq RF
1, with the Sabalo plant accounting for
the largest fraction of this total (62%), followed by San Alberto
(30%) and Margarita. The prevalence of NGPU–Sabalo over the
others is directly related to the high volume of gas it processes to
Brazil. In contrast, the NGPU–San Alberto registers more GHG
emissions than the refinery that serves the Margarita field, vice-
leader in terms of gas exports, as it is an old unit. CO2 emissions
from NGPUs originate from the production of thermal energy
and the use of flare systems to absorb process fluctuations or sim-
ply to burn off the excess gas. CH4 releases occur due to process
losses or vents.[35,36] Among the Brazilian plants are significant
the impacts provided by GPU–Candeias (14.5 kt CO2 eq RF
1),
RPBC. (12.7 kt CO2 eq RF
1), and GTU-Cacimbas (7.45 kt CO2 eq
RF
1) also due to emissions of fossil CO2 and CH4.
The transportation of finished product stands out as the most
important source of CC impact of the entire system with a con-
tribution of 156 kt CO2 eq RF
1. The long journey traveled from
Bolivia to the far south of Brazil is responsible for 43% of that
rate due to the CO2 releases from gas combustion at the compres-
sion stations on the same circuit (19 in total, four in Bolivia and
15 in Brazil).[23] Another significant contribution refers to the dis-
placement of crude gas from the Bolivian fields to their NGPUs,
which generated 12.6 kt CO2 eq RF
1 due to conservation and
maintenance aspects of the facilities that have previously been
discussed (Section 3.2.1).
3.2.3. Sensitivity Analysis
As expected, the modeling of Brazilian gas supply system was
based on assumptions and hypothesis that have been established
according to some of its specificities: 1) the significant volumes
of processed gas; 2) the origins onshore and offshore of crude
gas, which determine the refining process in technological
and operational terms; and 3) some aspects of the product dis-
tribution network (e.g., amplitude, complexity, and configura-
tion). This context has led to a careful verification of the data
selected to describe the system to reduce the uncertainties.
The Brazilian section of the system has been characterized in
detail from official and recent documents. Thus, performance
Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976 1900976 (8 of 13)
www.entechnol.de
indicators (e.g., reaction rates, conversion efficiencies, consump-
tion and losses of the E&P units, NGUPs, and compression
stations) and infrastructure factors (pipe dimensions, energy
demand of compressors per stretch) were accurately determined.
A statistical treatment applied to the gas flows that circulate
through the different branches of the network resulted in coeffi-
cient of variation CV < 15%, confirming the low dispersion of
such data in relation to the mean. The Bolivian sector had lower
level of information, especially for the operations carried out
within that country. In any case, it was found that the gas extrac-
tion and its refining are carried out from traditional methods that
could therefore be specified by similar technologies. The distance
traveled by refined gas from Rio Grande (BO) to Corumbá (MS),
the first compression station located in the Brazilian territory,
was precisely determined. In addition, monthly average data
on the performance of gas capture and refining were also avail-
able (e.g., produced volumes, conversion ratio of gas in liquids,
burning and losses rates, gas consumption in NGPUs and
during its transportation).[37]
In contrast, records about crude gas extraction fields (their
exact locations and the individual volumes produced) were con-
troversial or inaccurate. The magnitude of such limitations on
overall system performance was verified from a Sensitivity
Analysis. In addition to being the major gas reserves in
Bolivia, the fields of Sabalo, San Alberto, and Margarita were
selected to represent the extraction stage in model because of
two other reasons: 1) they are frequently cited in official docu-
ments as suppliers of large volumes of gas to Brazil[36] and
2) Sabalo and San Alberto are operated by Petrobrás (main
Brazilian petrochemical company).[38] The participations of each
field and their approximate locations were defined by cross-
referencing records obtained from various sources.[21,22,37,38]
Thus, it was possible to gauge the combined effect that these
amounts and the distances that travel to the border with
Brazil could cause. The composition defined in Table 4 as SA
corresponds to the most frequent situation in terms of gas pro-
duction and distribution (baseline scenario) being therefore used
for model construction.
In recent years, San Alberto has been reducing its production
capacity.[38] This information led to the creation of an alternative
scenario (SB ), in which the contribution related to this field was
weighted between Sabalo and Margarita. The Sensitivity Analysis
also examined an extreme situation when the Bolivian gas supply
would be provided only by Sabalo (SC ).
Table 4 also indicates the system performance in terms of PED
and CC considering each possibility. Compared with the baseline
scenario, discontinuing the San Alberto gas supply (SB ) would
bring minor changes in the overall impact of PED. This is
Table 4. Sensitivity Analysis: Gas supply from Bolivia.
Scenario Relative distribution of production PED CC
among Bolivia’s gas fields [%] [TJ/RF] [kt CO2 eq/RF]
Sábalo Margarita San Alberto
A(baseline) 44.0 33.8 22.2 4904 362
B 55.1 44.9 – 4901 354
C 100 – – 4912 389
© 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
because the increases in energy consumption from Sabalo (from
580 TJ RF
1 in SA , to 727 TJ RF
1 in SB ) and Margarita (437–581
TJ RF
1) are offset by the San Alberto demand reduction
(293 TJ RF
1). A similar behavior was observed when all the sup-
ply Bolivian concentrated in Sabalo (SC ). The slight increase in
the overall PED of the system compared with that of SA can be
explained by the energy consumptions for refining and transport
the gas of each field. Although San Alberto’s quota in the baseline
scenario is the smallest in the series, the gas extracted and proc-
essed in this field must cover 1231 km until reaching GASBOL
whereas the distances traveled from Sabalo and Margarita until
the same destination are shorter (115 and 43 km).[23] If the gas
handling (production and transportation) is restricted to Sabalo
the PED, rate increases linearly with the processed flow rate. As a
result, the system consumes more primary energy than if oper-
ating with Margarita and San Alberto.
The effects of Sensitivity Analysis on CC are in part divergent
from those observed for PED. In this case, the interruption of gas
supply from San Alberto resulted in a decrease in the impact of
2.2%. This result is influenced by the increase in contributions
for the gas processing in Sábalo (from 36.6 in SA , to 45.9 kt CO2 eq
RF
1 in SB ) and Margarita (from 7.14 to 9.49 kt CO2 eq RF
1) are
largely offset by the reduction provided by the suspension of
San Alberto (18.0 kt CO2 eq RF
1). In addition, the cumulative
CC impacts of gas transportation have also been decreased from
12.5 to 9.09 kt CO2 eq RF
1 when SA!SB.
Conversely, the impact generated by SC exceeds that of SA by
7.5%. The contributions provided exclusively by Sabalo for gas
processing and transportation reach limits, respectively, of
83.2 and 17.6 kt CO2 eq RF
1, corresponding to an increase in
36% over SA . Such growth is mainly due to atmospheric losses
of CH4, which are also equivalent to the gas volumes to be
treated.
4. Modeling Future Alternatives for Natural Gas
Distribution
Petrobras AS has been taking steps to expand the Brazilian gas
processing and distribution system. In 10 years, the existing
arrangement is expected to have received up to 14 modifications,
which would increase the country’s gas supply by 32% from cur-
rent standards.[17,18,36] However, these developments are in dis-
tinct stages of evolution, some even still in the early prospecting
Table 5. Alternatives for expanding Brazil’s natural gas distribution network (expressed in daily volumes).
Expanding option Source Destiny
1 Bolivia Federal District (FD)
2 Rio Grande (RS) Uruguaiana (RS)
3 Penedo (AL) Arapiraca (AL)
4 Parnaíba (PI) Belém (PA)
5 Parnaíba (PI) Teresina (PI)
6 Bolívia Palmas (TO)
7 Bolívia Imperatriz (MA)
a)
Legend: (–): absence of NGPU; (þ): existence of NGPU.
Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976
www.entechnol.de
stages. Given the disparity in project progress, the selection of
system growth alternatives was guided by the following criteria:
1) the feasibility of the action; 2) project start-up perspective
by 2022; and 3) data availability. Thus, seven projects were
selected that present implementation licenses granted by regula-
tory bodies, financing authorized for the full management of
civil works and that were already in progress. All these projects
serve regions disregarded by the current national gas system.
Table 5 describes each alternative in terms of source and desti-
nation, supply capacity, pipe mesh length and number of
compression units, and NGPU. Figure 4 shows the trajectory
and geographical location of the pipelines. Color coding delimits
each section and numbering correlates with the information
provided in Table 5.
As the stretches (1), (2), (6), and (7) originate in Bolivia, their
modeling admitted that gas extraction and refining would con-
tinue to take place in Sabalo, Margarita, and San Alberto and
their respective NGPUs. Another hypothesis considered that
technical yields, consumptions, flare rates, and losses for the
new operating conditions would only dependent on the volume
of crude gas extracted. Proven reserves of Bolivian fields can sup-
ply the additional gas demand that these expansions will provide.
Thus, and as it is not possible to estimate the future gas supply
regime for each field, the individual contributions practiced for
the current condition were maintained despite San Alberto’s
reserves declining. Similarly, it was assumed that the compres-
sion ratios and gas losses of each country’s distribution network
would be equivalent to the existing in relative values.
Sections (3), (4), and (5) were modeled according to assump-
tions similar to those established for other network expansion
alternatives. In addition, for these cases, the raw gas origins were
determined based on the Scheduling Method. Section (3) is a der-
ivation of the gas pipeline that connects the states of SE and AL
that originates in the municipality of Penedo. A medium-sized
compression station is responsible for moving the finished prod-
uct to Arapiraca, and thus, the gas consumption expended for
this operation was estimated at 18 L (t km)
1.[20]
The branch corresponding to Section (5) (remarked in yellow
color in Figure 4) is a extension of the pipeline that, in the current
system configuration, ends at Lubnor NGPU. Its trajectory is
unconventional, converging in the north direction to the munic-
ipality of Parnaíba (PI), from where it goes to the south of the
state until reaching the final destination in Terezina. The maneu-
ver to Parnaíba is justified because this location is also the
Extension [km] Demand [MMm3] Nof compression stations NGPUa)
2954 6.00 6 (–)
715 8.00 3 (þ)
67 0.34 1 (–)
1360 3.501 6 (þ)
300 8.40 3 (þ)
3323 4.00 12 (þ)
4218 4.00 12 (þ)
1900976 (9 of 13) © 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
Figure 4. Map of the future Brazilian gas distribution network, representing only the connections that will be in operation by 2022.[19]
starting point of section (4) that crosses the state of Maranhão to
supply the city of Imperatriz, where there is a junction with sec-
tion (7), before heading to Belém (PA). Due to the irregularity of
the tracings, which results in great pressure drop, sections (4)
and (5) were modeled considering large compression stations,
for which gas consumption is 24 L (t km)
1.[20]
The survey of future operation conditions of these arrange-
ments was based on documents published by Petrobras SA
and validated by the Brazilian Association of Piped Gas
Distribution Companies (ABEGÁS). These conditions were
determined for a time horizon ranging from 2016 to 2022.[22,39]
5. Energy and Environmental Performance of the
Future System
Future gas supply performances in Brazil were measured in rel-
ative terms, by reference to the behavior of the current system.
Verifications for each expansion concerning which energy and
CC impacts on the environment would be generated due to
the increase in gas supply capacity that the action can provide were
performed. This approach motivated the creation of scenarios.
The relationship of these parameters (Equation (3) and (4))
originated energy impact ðEN RI Þ and environmental ðEV RI Þ
indices. The use of relative indicators was intended to make var-
iations in specific impact rates (per m3 of finished gas) indicating
energy and environmental trends that would then be applied
for sector planning and management.
Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976 1900976 (10 of 13)
www.entechnol.de
 
PEDf
PEDc
EN RI ¼ (3)
Sf
Sc
where: EN RI ∶ Energy impact index (GJ m
3); PEDf : Total Energy
Impacts as PED for the future situation (GJ RF
1); PEDc : Total
Energy Impacts as PED for the current situation (GJ RF
1); Sf :
Total gas supply for the future situation (m3 RF
1); Sc : Total gas
supply for the current situation (m RF
1)
 
CC f
CCc
EV RI ¼ (4)
Sf
Sc
where: EV RI ∶ Environmental impact index (kg CO2 eq m
3);
CC f : Total Environmental Impact as CC for the future situation
(kg CO2 eq RF
1); CC C : Total Environmental Impact as CC for
the current situation (kg CO2 eq RF
1).
Table 6 presents the performance results for the future gas
supply system in Brazil assuming that the incorporation of each
expansion alternative took place exclusively. An analysis of this
data shows that there is an added impact on all projects for which
EN RI >0 and EV RI >0. The exception is the scenario S3 , whose
gas supply increase did not change the impact limits in any of
the dimensions analyzed. In general, this finding is not surpris-
ing, considering the size of the projects and the exemption of a
systemic environmental analysis for their approval.
In energy terms, the EN RI values obtained for S2 and S5 ,
of 44.38 and 43.69 TJ (MM m3 day
1)
1 are noteworthy.
Similarities are noted between the characteristics of these
© 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com www.entechnol.de

Table 6. Future system energy and environmental performances.

Scenario ðSf
Sc Þ PEDf ðPEDf
PEDc Þ ENRI CC f ðCC f
CC c Þ EV RI

3
1
[MM m ] 3
[PJ] [TJ] [TJ (MM m ) ] [kt CO2 eq] [kt CO2 eq] [kt CO2 eq (MM m3)
1]

S1 6.00 5.18 275 45.83 395 32.8 5.47

S2 8.00 5.26 355 44.38 423 60.9 7.61
S3 0.34 4.90 0.0 0.0 362 0.0 0.0
S4 3.50 5.06 155 44.29 383 20.8 5.94
S5 8.40 5.27 367 43.69 407 44.5 5.30
S6 4.00 5.09 183 45.75 387 24.5 6.12
S7 4.00 5.09 185 46.25 388 26.1 6.52

scenarios regarding the number of compressors, and the need
for a NGPU suitable for supplying the demand (Table 5). In con-
trast, the difference between the displacement distances (715 km
for S2 and 300 km for S5 ) appears to be more determinant for
impacts of PED than the volume to be transported.
The comparison of such results with the performance
obtained for S1 corroborates this conclusion. The distribution
of 6.00 MMm3 d
1 of gas from Bolivia to the FD over a course
of 2954 km and, making use of six compressors, accumulated an
EN RI ¼ 45.83 TJ (MM m3 d
1)
1, i.e., a distribution of a volume
about 25% lower than those practiced by S2 and S5 , but over a
significantly longer distance has caused the PED impacts in S1 to
be higher than those respectively in 3.3% and 4.9%.
S6 and S7 follow the same trend. In these cases, although the
local demand to be met is of 4.00 MMm3 d
1 (therefore close to
50% lower than met by S2 and S5 ), their EN RI values are among
the highest in the series, especially given the high distribution
distances (S6 : 3323 km and S7 : 4218 km). At the other end of the
set appears S4 and S3 . These extensions are characterized by
distributing smaller volumes of gas over short distances.
Even though the 3.50 MMm3 d
1 of gas distributed in S4 are
similar to the volume practiced in S6 and S7 , the fact that
the stretch between Parnaiba (PI) and Belém (PA) comprises
1360 km led EN S4 RI to be among the lowest among the options
under review. It is noted that S4 performance resembles that
obtained by S2 , which carries 2.3 times more gas over a distance
shortened by about 47%. From the same perspective, it is also
important to revisit S3 , whose EN S3 RI  0. This is due to the
smaller volume of gas to be distributed than in other scenarios,
as well as a linear and shorter transport distance (67 km), requir-
ing only one compressor, without the need for NGPU for
refining.
The values obtained for CC suggest similar trends to those
observed in the energy analysis. For this dimension of analysis,
S2 accumulates the worst specific impact rate, followed by
S7 and S6 . When comparing the performances of these scenarios
with each other, and with their respective operating conditions,
the transport distance-logistics binomial continues to exert more
influence on CC results than the volume of distributed gas.
Although these scenarios move half of the refined gas flow from
S2 , the routes followed by S7 and S6 are much longer than the Rio
Grande—Uruguaiana itinerary. Because of this, S7 and S6 cause
lower impacts than that obtained by S2 by 14% and 20%,
respectively. Along the same line of reasoning, S5 distributes
an amount of gas similar to that of S2 with a shorter displace-
ment, generating about 30% less impact as CC.
The comparison between S1 and S4 introduces another ele-
ment in the analysis. In view of the reasoning established with
the aid of the previous scenarios, S1 should perform worse than
S4 when transporting 6.00 MMm3 d
1 of gas per 2954 km, com-
pared with 3.50 MMm3 d
1 distributed by the branch over
1360 km. However, the absence of a NGPU in S1 reduces
GHG emissions from this scenario by enough to make it less
aggressive than S4 . Finally, the profile described by S3 for CC
corroborates earlier observations that the distribution of small
volumes of gas over short stretches, and without the need for
NGPU, does not vary the impacts of the system’s future situation
on the existing framework.
6. Conclusions
This study sought to verify the energy and environmental perfor-
mance associated with current and future natural gas supplies in
Brazil. The analyses were performed by attributional LCA with a
focus on well-to-distributor for the processing and distribution of
82.9 MMm3 of refined gas to the point of delivery. The model
established to represent the current gas grid comprises 17
Brazilian states. In addition, about 44% of the gas consumed
in the country is extracted and refined in Bolivia.
The energy performance for the current system measured in
terms of PED) reached 4904 TJ RF
1. The most significant con-
tributions in this case were due to the exhaustion of raw natural
gas. This is due to 1) the use of rejection practices during off-
shore gas extraction (that are typical in Brazil); 2) the raw gas
consumption during refining and losses and leaks along pipe-
lines; and 3) leaks, which are mainly concentrated in existing
facilities in Bolivia due to their obsolescence. When the energy
dimension has been assessed in terms of ERoEI, only natural gas
supplies to the outh and Midwest regions present favorable
energy balances (ERoEI  0.8). This supremacy can be explained
by the fact that these areas are served by fully extracted and
refined gas in Bolivia. These processes have lower consumption
and losses of crude gas than their developed counterparts in
Brazil. As for environmental performance, the system generates
362 kt CO2eq/82.9 MMm3 of distributed gas. This effect is driven
by CH4 emissions that occur during natural resource extraction
and transport.

Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976 1900976 (11 of 13) © 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
To model the future condition of the system, seven projects for
expanding the current distribution network were selected. When
fully implemented by 2022, these initiatives will have increased
Brazil’s daily gas supply by 41% over 2016.
An analysis of the obtained data indicated an increase in
impact in almost all projects, due to the distributed volumes
and distances traveled between refining units and the points
of delivery. The exception is the scenario that assesses the inter-
connection between Penedo and Arapiraca (both in the state of
Alagoas) where the low distribution volume and displacement
distance, as well as the absence of a refining unit of its own,
did not change the impact limits compared with the current
system situation. These findings are not surprising considering
the size of the projects and the absence of a systemic environ-
mental analysis for their approval.
LCA applications with such characteristics are not adopted for
energy-planning purposes in Brazil. The academic interest in the
subject also seems to have not yet been aroused. This point of
view can be justified because the survey carried out to identify
studies whose results could be compared with the findings of this
research was unsuccessful. The context suggests that in addition
of being necessary from a management perspective, this initia-
tive is also scientifically relevant. Because of all this, the results
generated by this analysis are expected to help raise the degrees
of precision and effectiveness of future decision-making pro-
cesses within the Brazilian gas segment.
Acknowledgements
This study was financed in part by the Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento
de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Keywords
energy return, energy invested, environmental performances, life cycle
assessments, natural gases
Received: August 16, 2019
Revised: October 28, 2019
Published online:
[1] A. D. Woldeyohannes, M. A. A. Majid, Simul. Modell. Pract. Theory
2011, 19, 196.
[2] BP Technology Outlook, Technology Choices for a Secure, Affordable
and Sustainable Energy Future, London, UK 2015.
[3] Confederação Nacional da Indústria, Gás natural Liquefeito: Cenários
Globais e Oportunidades Para a Indústria Brasileira, CNI, Brasília, Brazil
2016.
[4] C. P. F. Muñoz, I. Gomes, L. Hollanda, Cadernos FGV Energia - Gás
Natural, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2014.
Year 1, No. 2.
[5] M. F. Chávez-Rodríguez, R. Garaffa, G. Andrade, G. Cárdenas,
A. Szklo, A. F. P. Lucena, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016, 33, 717.
[6] F. I. Leal, E. E. Rego, C. O. Ribeiro, Energy Policy 2019, 128, 817.
Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976 1900976 (12 of 13)
www.entechnol.de
[7] A. F. Campos, N. F. da Silva, M. G. Pereira, M. A. V. Freitas, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 1207.
[8] X. Yang, H. Li, F. Wallin, Z. Yu, Z. Wang, Appl. Energy. 2017, 207, 553.
[9] M. Mikojlaková, C. Haikarainen, H. Saxén, F. Pettersson, Energy.
2017, 125, 848.
[10] E. Strantzali, K. Aravossis, G. A. Livanos, C. Nikoloudis, J. Clean. Prod.
2019, 222, 414.
[11] K. Sapkota, A. O. Oni, A. Kumar, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2018, 52, 401.
[12] Série Cenários Energia – Gas: Yearbook 2017–2018, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil 2018.
[13] MME, Natural Gas Industry Monitoring Monthly Bulletin – no.130,
Ministry of Mines and Energy, Brasília, Brazil 2017.
[14] M. Fioreze, K. F. S. Hedlund, C. Graepin, T. C. N. Silva,
F. C. G. Azevedo, P. D. C. Kemerich. Rev. Elet. em Gestão,
Educação e Tecnologia Ambiental. 2013, 10, 2251.
[15] J. P. B. Teixeira, Gás Natural: O Energético Mais Competitivo.
Companhia de Gás da Bahia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 2015.
[16] ANP, Statistical Yearbook 2018. National Petroleum Agency, Oil,
Natural Gas and Biofuels, Brasilia, Brazil 2018.
[17] MME, Natural Gas Industry Monitoring Monthly Bulletin – no.109.
Ministery of Mines and Energy, Brasília, Brazil 2017.
[18] National Petroleum Agency, The Promotion of Competition in the
Natural Gas Industry, National Petroleum Agency, Brasilia, Brazil
2018.
[19] C. D. Vasconcelos, S. R. Lourenço, C. D. A. Gracias. J. Nat. Gas Sci.
Eng, 2013, 14, 211.
[20] EPE, Ten Year Plan for Expansion of the Duty Transport Network -
PEMAT 2022. Energy Research Company, Brasília, Brazil, 2014.
[21] YPBF, Plan Estratégico Corporativo (PEC) 2015–2019. Yacimientos
Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos, La Paz, Bolivia 2015.
[22] ANH, Audiencia Pública de Rendición de Cuentas Parcial 2015,
Ministerio de Hidrocarburos y Energía, La Paz, Bolivia 2015.
[23] BNDES, Infrastructure Report: Brazil-Bolivia Gas Pipeline. no.45, The
Brazilian Development Bank. Curitiba, Brazil 2000.
[24] ISO, 14044, Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-
Requirements and Guidelines. ISO, Genéve, Switzerland 2006.
[25] R. Heijungs, S. Suh, The Computational structure of Life Cycle
Assessment, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands
2002.
[26] R. Frischknecht, N. Jungbluth, H.-J. Althaus, C. Bauer, G. Doka,
R. Hischier, S. Hellweg, S. Humbert, T. Köllner, Y. Loerincik,
M. Margni, T. Nemecek, Implementation of Life Cycle Impact
Assessment Methods: Data v2.0. Ecoinvent report No. 3, Swiss
Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland 2007.
[27] R. Hammerschlag, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 1744.
[28] G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon, W. Collins, J. Fuglestvedt,
J. Huang, D. Koch, J.-F. Lamarque, D. Lee, B. Mendoza,
T. Nakajima, A. Robock, G. Stephens, T. Takemura, H. Zhang, in
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the 5th Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Eds. T.F. Strokes,
D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung,
A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, P.M. Midgley). Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK 2013, Ch 8.
[29] D. Picard, Fugitive Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Activities, IPCC,
Geneva, Switzerland 2000.
[30] A. P. Hansen, G. A. da Silva, L. Kulay, Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 532, 655
[31] E.M. dos Santos, G. C. Zamalloa, L. D. Villanueva, M. T. W. Fagá. Gás
Natural: Estratégias Para Uma Energia Nova no Brasil, Annablume,
São Paulo, Brazil 2002.
[32] IBP, Gás do Pré-Sal: Oportunidades, Desafios e Perspectivas. Instituto
Brasileiro de Petroleo, Gas e Biocombustiveis, Rio de Janeiro,
Brasil 2017.
© 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
www.advancedsciencenews.com
[33] M. Faist Emmenegger, T. Stern, N. Jungbluth. in Life Cycle Inventories
of Energy Systems: Principles for the Ecological Comparison of Energy
Systems and the Integration of Energy Systems in Life Cycle
Assessments for Switzerland (Ed: R. Dones). Swiss Center for Life
Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland 2007.
[34] MME, Boletim Mensal de Acompanhamento da Indústria de Gás
Natural– no 118, Ministery of Mines and Energy, Brasília, Brazil 2016.
[35] EPE, Natural Gas Industry Overview in Bolivia. Energy Research
Company. Brasília, Brazil 2017.
Energy Technol. 2019, 1900976 1900976 (13 of 13)
www.entechnol.de
[36] ANH, Anuario Estadístico 2016. Agencia Nacional de Hydrocarburos,
La Paz, Bolívia 2017.
[37] MHE, De la Nacionalización a la Industrialización. Ministerio de
Hidrocarburos y Energía, La Paz, Bolivia 2014.
[38] CNI, Restructuring the Natural Gas Sector: A Regulatory Agenda,
National Industry Confederation. Brasília, Brazil 2016.
[39] CNI, Liquefied Natural Gas: Global Scenarios and Opportunities for
Brazilian Industry, National Industry Confederation, Brasília, Brazil
2016.
© 2019 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim