15th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies GHGT-15

14th -19th March 2021, Abu Dhabi, UAE

A comprehensive and systematic modelling tool for natural gas

value chain greenhouse gas emissions quantification
Zhenggang Niea, Anna Korrea, b*, Ernesto Santibanez-Bordaa, Yu Zhanga, Sevket
Durucana
a
Department of Earth Sience and Engineering, Royal School of Mines, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom
b
Energy Futures Lab, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom

Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive and systematic life cycle assessment tool developed at Imperial College, the ICLCA model, that can be used
to accurately account for greenhouse gas emissions from any natural gas value chain and quantify their global warming potential. The ICLCA tool
covers conventional gas production (onshore, offshore), unconventional gas production (shale gas, tight gas, and coalbed methane), gas processing,
pipeline transmission, liquefaction, LNG loading, LNG shipping, LNG unloading, regasification and pipeline transport to city gate. The tool is built
at unit processes level. Moreover, engineering design features, operational parameters and GHG emission mitigation options are considered in
detail and are fully integrated in the tool. The detailed accounting methodology used allows to reconcile top-down and bottom-up emissions
estimation approaches, which is an important step change as compared to currently employed methods. The results demonstrate that the tool
successfully identifies and quantifies GHG emissions (CO2, CH 4, N2O) at unit process level or equipment level and over time, covering combustion
emissions, vent, fugitives, and flares. The dynamics of life cycle CO2 emissions, methane emissions and carbon intensity can be captured accurately
and reliably.

Keywords: Gas supply chain; greehouse gas emissions; life cycle modelling; CO2, CH4, N2O emissions quantification

1. Introduction

Global demand for natural gas is estimated to grow more than four times faster than demand for oil over the next
two decades, with a 1.6% of annual increase rate in the IEA Stated Policies Scenario [1, 2]. Global energy-related CO2
emissions in 2018 were more than 33 Gt indicating a dangerous disconnect with global climate goals [2]. While
renewable energy and energy efficiency measures are the most important drivers in the energy sector transition of the
IEA Sustainable Development Scenario (a scenario that is fully consistent with the GHG mitigation targets in the Paris
Agreement), natural gas (through coal to gas switching) contributes around 8% of the GHG emissions mitigation
required in the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario [2].
On a life cycle basis, our work has shown that natural gas combustion releases approximately 50% lower CO2
equivalent emissions than coal per unit of electricity generated. Over 80% of gas consumed today has a lower life
cycle GHG emissions intensity than coal when used for power or heat, considering wide variation of sources of coal
and gas [2]. Our work has also demonstrated a significant variation of life cycle GHG emissions for different natural

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 20 7594 7372, E-mail address: a.korre@imperial.ac.uk

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3821740

 GHGT15 Zhenggang Nie, Anna Korre, Ernesto Santibanez-Borda, Yu Zhang, Sevket Durucan 2

gas supply chains with the geological features of production systems, engineering design, operational parameters and
emission control options being the key drivers of the variation [3]. However, some literature estimates of methane
leakage from natural gas supply chains have challenged the GHG reduction benefits of switching from coal to gas [4-
7]. Therefore, there are significant benefits to improving the accuracy of GHG (especially methane) emission
quantification and reporting for natural gas supply chains [2, 8]. In addition, the EU and many governments are
considering actions and measures to ensure gas is produced or imported as clean and environmentally consciously as
possible [2, 8].
Quantification of GHG emissions from natural gas supply and use, especially that of methane emissions, is
complex. Two quantification approaches, “bottom-up” and “top-down” are available and currently in use, showing
significant disparity [9, 10]. The so-called “bottom-up” approach estimates emissions from individual emission
sources, based on emission factors or emission rates for particular types of emission sources. The top-down approach
is based on measuring atmospheric concentrations of emissions either at the surface using vehicles or at higher
altitudes by aircraft or satellite [11]. The key limitation of the bottom-up approach is that the equipment currently
sampled are not likely to be representative of future equipment or practices [9]. The key challenge of the top-down
approach is that factors such as atmospheric variability, sampling biases, and choice of upwind background can
produce unreliable results [10]. Currently, the majority of government and industry reporting of GHG emissions is
based on bottom-up approaches, such as U.S EPA, EUETS, CDP.
Therefore, it is imperative to develop a consistent framework to quantify GHG emissions through a combination
of calculations, modelling and measurements that is fit for specific gas supply chains, with the advantage that it can
be used to improve emission quantification accuracy and capture the true dynamics of the life cycle GHG emissions.
This paper presents a comprehensive and systematic life cycle assessment tool that has been developed at Imperial
College (ICLCA model) and has these desired features.

2. Methodology

The LCA system boundary chosen covers conventional gas production (onshore, offshore), unconventional gas
production (shale gas, tight gas, and coalbed methane), gas processing, pipeline transmission, liquefaction, LNG
loading, LNG shipping, LNG unloading, regasification and pipeline to city gate (fig 1). The distribution of natural gas
to individual customers is not included. The functional unit is 1 MJ natural gas produced and delivered to the city
gate.

Fig. 1. The system boundary of the ICLCA model for natural gas value chain greenhouse gas emissions quantification.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3821740

 GHGT15 Zhenggang Nie, Anna Korre, Ernesto Santibanez-Borda, Yu Zhang, Sevket Durucan 3

A bottom-up approach is employed for the quantification of GHG emissions in the ICLCA model, as illustrated in fig
2. First, the GHG emissions sources are identified at equipment level or process level. When emission monitoring data
are not readily available for a representative time period, GHG emission rates are quantified by using emission
simulation or engineering calculations,. If detailed information for simulation or engineering calculations is
unavailable, published emission factors can also be used in the model. Process specific data, representing emission
duration, emission frequency, emission control methods employed, and number of equipment/processes for the
specific facility studied is preferably collected for the facilities forming the value chain, or else estimated. Finally,
based on the collected data and emission rates calculated, GHG emissions are estimated at equipment or process level.

Fig. 2. Bottom-up approach employed for the quantification of GHG emissions.

Given the life cycle inventory models within the ICLCA model are built at unit processes level, they allow to
quantify individual GHG emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O) over time at unit process or equipment level covering
combustion emissions, vent, fugitives, and flares. Fig. 3 presents the level of the detail and accounting possible using
as an example the ICLCA sub-model element developed for offshore platform production. Engineering design
features, operational parameters and GHG emission mitigation options are considered in detail and fully integrated in
the tool. Table 1 illustrates the operational parameters considered for shale gas well completion GHG emissions
modelling and Table 2 illustrates the GHG emission mitigation options integration in the ICLCA model for vented
gas in a gas processing plant, as respective examples.
The tool user has the option to use emission factors, engineering calculations (considering operational parameters
and system design), or else use emission measurements, depending on the level of detail of the data available or
acquired. In the absence of detailed data, default values for operational parameters and mitigation options are available
for implementation within the tool and the model employs engineering calculations to quantify the emissions. Where
detailed operational parameters or measurement data is available for some processes or particular years, the Advanced
User Mode choice allows to input the detailed information. In such cases, modelling considers the site-specific
information and generates more accurate emission estimates. In this integrated framework, the tool enables the
successful quantification of GHG emissions through a combination of measurements, calculations and modelling to
fit specific gas supply chain scenarios as they truly function, with improved emission quantification accuracy and
capturing the temporal dynamics of the life cycle emissions, which are typically substantially variable.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3821740

 GHGT15 Zhenggang Nie, Anna Korre, Ernesto Santibanez-Borda, Yu Zhang, Sevket Durucan 4

Fig. 3. Level of the detail involved in the ICLCA model for offshore platform production as an example.

Table 1. Operational parameters considered for shale gas well completion GHG emissions modelling.
Stages From (ith hour) to (jth hour)
Flow to gas-buster in open top tank 0 4
Flow sent to separator; gas from separators to flare and fluids sent to flowback tanks
4 75
(hydrocarbon tanks and water tanks)
Gas to sales (Flowback ended) 75 afterwards
Other parameters: Unit
Methane fraction of the raw gas during flowback 0.74 %
Hydrocarbon liquid produced during flowback 1,594 bbl
Fraction of fracking fluid flowing back during completion of a shale well 0.05
Separator pressure 1,000 psia
Separator temperature 100 F

Table 2. GHG emission mitigation options for vented gas in gas processing plant.
Type of vent Flare (vol%) Fuel gas (vol%) Atmosphere (vol%)
Dehydration vents 95 - 5
Amine unit CO2 vent 0 - 100
Compressor blowdowns 80 - 20
Processing maintenance blowdowns 80 - 20
Pneumatic pumps 80 - 20
Pressure level control 80 - 20
Condensate storage tanks 80 - 20
Pig launchers and receivers blowdowns 80 - 20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3821740

 GHGT15 Zhenggang Nie, Anna Korre, Ernesto Santibanez-Borda, Yu Zhang, Sevket Durucan 5

The tool developed can reconcile top-down and bottom-up approaches, which is a significant step change as
compared to currently employed approaches. By identifying and locating the emission sources, their significance is
also illustrated within the specific value chain context.
Moreover, the tool developed can be used to identify individual emission points at process or equipment level, and
can be updated as emission mitigation practices and technologies are used or a need to test their efficacy arises (based
on engineering calculations). The high resolution and unit process disaggregation implemented, including the use of
monitored data, allows the use of bottom-up emissions estimation to calculate emissions for individual points or value
chain segments and extrapolate the data using sampling techniques to develop emission factors or emission rates for
particular types of emission points or segments relevant for regional or technological segments of the gas supply chain.
This functionality enables the implementation of a systematic approach to identify, detect, quantify, report and verify
emissions.
3. Results and conclusions

Testing and implementation of the tool in several industry value chains around the world has been shown to
successfully identify and quantify GHG emissions and specifically quantify methane emissions at process and
equipment level. Fig. 4 illustrates as an example the methane emissions for a shale gas production facility for a
particulate year of field operation. The model recognises that methane emissions are primarily derived from vented
emissions: well completion (flowback hydrocarbon liquid tank and water tank), well workover (flowback hydrocarbon
liquid tank, separator and water tank), liquid loading and wellhead bleed pneumatic devices.
Wellbore leakage
PRV CH4 emissions / tonnes year-1
Pipeline Leak
Meters
Separators
Fugitive

In-line heaters
Wellheads
Compressor Centrifugal wet seals
Compressor Centrifugal dry seals
Reciprocating Compressor (<1000HP)
Reciprocating Compressor (>1000HP)
Liquid loading
Workover: Flowback gas vent from separator
Workover: Flowback water tank
Workover: Flowback hydrocarbon liquid tank
Wrokover: Flowback gas to open tank
Gathering line: Mishaps blowdowns
Gathering line: Compressor Start Blowdowns
Gathering line: Compressor Blowdowns
Gathering line: Blowdowns
Flares

Wellhead: water tank

Wellhead: Vessel Blowdowns
Wellhead: Chemical Injection Pumps
Wellhead: Low-Bleed Pneumatic Devices
Wellhead: Intermittent Bleed Pneumatic Devices
Well head: High-Bleed Pneumatic Devices
Completion: Flowback gas vent from separator
Completion: Flowback water tank
Completion: Flowback hydrocarbon liquid tank
Completion: Flowback gas to open tank
Liquid loading
Workover: Flowback gas vent from separator
Workover: Flowback water tank
Workover: Flowback hydrocarbon liquid tank
Wrokover: Flowback gas to open tank
Gathering line: Mishaps blowdowns
Gathering line: Compressor Start Blowdowns
Gathering line: Compressor Blowdowns
Gathering line: Blowdowns
Vent

Wellhead: water tank

Wellhead: Vessel Blowdowns
Wellhead: Chemical Injection Pumps
Wellhead: Low-Bleed Pneumatic Devices
Wellhead: Intermittent Bleed Pneumatic Devices
Well head: High-Bleed Pneumatic Devices
Completion: Flowback gas vent from separator
Completion: Flowback water tank
Completion: Flowback hydrocarbon liquid tank
Completion: Flowback gas to open tank
Gathering line compressors
Combustion

Completion: Hydraulic Fracturing Pump Engines

Completion: Rig Mobilization and Demobilisation
Well drilling
Site Preparation and Demobilisation

0 400 800 1,200 1,600

Fig. 4. Methane emissions (tonnes year-1) of shale gas production operation for a particular year.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3821740

 GHGT15 Zhenggang Nie, Anna Korre, Ernesto Santibanez-Borda, Yu Zhang, Sevket Durucan 6

Fig. 5 illustrates the annual methane emissions of a gas value chain with offshore production, LNG processing,
LNG shipping, LNG regasification and gas onshore pipeline transmission. The dynamics of the life cycle methane
emissions over the life of the facilities (40 years) are captured accurately and reliably. The methane emissions across
the value chain from the LNG plant, loading, shipping, unloading and regasification elements are closely correlated
to the natural gas production amounts. The methane emissions from the offshore platform and production are stable
across the life cycle, because methane emissions mainly come from fugitive emissions and well unloading, which are
not considerably affected by the amount of gas produced from the offshore operations.

tonnes CH4
2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0
Year 01
Year 02
Year 03
Year 04
Year 05
Year 06
Year 07
Year 08
Year 09
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
Year 16
Year 17
Year 18
Year 19
Year 20
Year 21
Year 22
Year 23
Year 24
Year 25
Year 26
Year 27
Year 28
Year 29
Year 30
Year 31
Year 32
Year 33
Year 34
Year 35
Year 36
Year 37
Year 38
Year 39
Year 40
Offshore platform LNG plant LNG loading
LNG shipping LNG unloading LNG regasification

Fig. 5. Annual methane emissions (tonnes) of a natural gas value chain with offshore production.

Fig. 6 shows the dynamics of life cycle carbon intensity of a natural gas value chain with onshore shale gas
production, gas processing, onshore pipeline transmission, LNG processing, LNG shipping, LNG regasification. The
carbon intensity of a gas value chain is defined as g CO2 eq. MJ-1 gas delivered. The carbon intensity is an important
indicator used by the oil and gas industry to report and compare GHG emissions of their products. Figure 6 reveals
that the carbon intensity is higher in the beginning and the end of the life cycle for the value chain. This is mainly
caused by the lower gas production rate in the beginning and the end, which leads to high GHG emissions per MJ gas
delivered. During the normal gas production years, the carbon intensity keeps nearly stable.

g CO2eq MJ-1
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Year 01
Year 02
Year 03
Year 04
Year 05
Year 06
Year 07
Year 08
Year 09
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Year 13
Year 14
Year 15
Year 16
Year 17
Year 18
Year 19
Year 20
Year 21
Year 22
Year 23
Year 24
Year 25
Year 26
Year 27
Year 28
Year 29
Year 30
Year 31
Year 32
Year 33
Year 34
Year 35
Year 36
Year 37
Year 38
Year 39
Year 40

Shale gas production Gas processing plant Onshore pipeline transmission

LNG plant LNG loading LNG shipping
LNG unloading LNG regasification

Fig. 6. The life cycle carbon intensity of a shale gas value chain (g CO2eq. MJ-1 gas delivered).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3821740

 GHGT15 Zhenggang Nie, Anna Korre, Ernesto Santibanez-Borda, Yu Zhang, Sevket Durucan 7

Besides accurately quantifying GHG emissions from natural gas value chains using a combination of
measurements, calculations and modelling, the ICLCA tool presented respects the specifics of the systems studied and
valorises in an environmental context the high quality operational data readily available to industry operators. The
framework developed also improves emission quantification accuracy by capturing the geological features,
operational parameters, emission control options, geography of supply and market of any given gas value chain and
captures the temporal dynamics of the life cycle emissions. Combining “bottom-up” and “top-down” approaches, it is
possible to offer a systematic and tractable means to identify, detect, quantify, report and verify emissions, which is
imperative in meeting industry decarbonisation targets and government requirements.

Acknowledgements
This research was carried out by members of the Minerals, Energy and Environmental Engineering Research
(MERG) group in the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London and Energy Futures
Lab, and has been generously supported with operational data and technical support by BP, Equinor, Shell, ENI and
Repsol (Oil and Gas Climate Initiative LCA research project). Ernesto Santibanez Borda has been supported by the
BG Group/Shell funded Sustainable Gas Institute and the Minerals Energy and Environmental Engineering Research
Group (MERG) at Imperial College with a PhD research fellowship.

References
[1] IEA (International Energy Agency), 2019a, World Energy Outlook 2019, https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019/.
[2] IEA (International Energy Agency), 2019b, The role of gas in today’s energy transitions, https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-gas-in-todays-
energy-transitions.
[3] Korre A, Nie Z, Durucan S, , Life Cycle Assessment of the natural gas supply chain and power generation options with CO2 capture and
storage: Assessment of Qatar natural gas production, LNG transport and power generation in the UK, Sustainable Technologies, Systems &
Policies; 2012.
[4] Karion A, Sweeneyet C, Pétron G, Frost G, Hardesty RM, Kofler J, Miller BR, Newberger T, Wolter S, Banta R, Brewer A, Dlugokencky E,
Lang P, Montzka SA, Schnell R, Tans P, Trainer M, Zamora R, Conley S. Methane emissions estimate from airborne measurements over a
western United States natural gas field, Geophysical Research Letters, 2013; 40:4393–4397, doi:10.1002/grl.50811.
[5] Peischl J, Ryerson TB, Brioude J, Aikin KC, Andrews AE, Atlas E, Blake D, Daube BC, de Gouw JA, Dlugokencky E, Frost GJ, Gentner
DR, Gilman JB, Goldstein AH, Harley RA, Holloway JS, Kofler J, Kuster WC, Lang PM, Novelli PC, Santoni GW, Trainer M, Wofsy SC,
Parrish DD, Quantifying sources of methane using light alkanes in the Los Angeles basin, California, Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres 2013; 118(10): 4974–4990.
[6] Pétron G, Frost G, Miller, BR, Hirsch AI, Montzka SA, Karion A, Trainer M, Sweeney C, Andrews AE, Miller L, Kofler J, Bar-Ilan A,
Dlugokencky EJ, Patrick L, Moore Jr CT, Ryerson TB, Siso C, Kolodzey W, Lang PM, Conway T, Novelli P, Masarie K, Hall B, Guenther D,
Kitzis D, Miller J, Welsh D, Wolfe D, Neff W, Tans P. Hydrocarbon emissions characterization in the Colorado Front Range: A pilot study,
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2012; 117(D4).
[7] McKain K, Down A, Raciti SM, Budney J, Hutyra LR, Floerchinger C, Herndon SC, Nehrkorn T, Zahniser MS, Jackson RB, Phillips N, Wofsy
SC. Methane emissions from natural gas infrastructure and use in the urban region of Boston, Massachusetts, PNAS 2015; 112 (7) 1941-1946.
[8] GIE (Gas Infrastructure Europe), 2019, Potential ways the gas industry can contribute to the reduction of methane emissions Report for the
Madrid Forum, https://www.gie.eu/index.php/gie-media/press-releases/13-news/gie/397-press-release-gie-and-marcogaz-published-the-
report-on-potential-ways-the-gas-industry-can-contribute-to-the-reduction-of-methane-emissions
[9] Brandt AR, Heath GA, Kort EA, Sullivan F, Pétron G, Jordaan SM, Tans P, Wilcox J, Gopstein AM, Arent D, Wofsy S, Brown NJ, Bradley
R, Stucky GD, Eardley D, Harriss R. Methane leaks from North American natural gas systems, Science, 2014; 343(6172):733-735.
[10] Bruhwiler LM, Basu S, Bergamaschi P, Bousquet P, Dlugokencky E, Houweling S, Ishizawa M, Kim HS, Locatelli R, Maksyutov S, Montzka
S, Pandey S, Patra PK, Pétron G, Saunois M, Sweeney C, Schwietzke S, Tans P, Weatherhead EC. U.S. CH4 emissions from oil and gas
production: Have recent large increases been detected? Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2017; 122(7): 4070–4083.
[11] Karion A., Pétron G, Sweeney C. Top-down estimation of CH4 emissions from oil and natural gas operations in the Denver and Uintah oil and
gas Basins, EPA workshop: Area-Based Measurements of Methane Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Operations- September 2012.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3821740