Fugitive Emission Management Program Effectiveness Assessment – Literature Review and Recommended Field Study Phase I (Clearstone Engineering)

Clearstone Engineering Ltd.

August 23, 2018

Executive Summary

This report provides a critical review and summary of key published literature relevant to upstream oil and natural gas (UOG) fugitive emission management practices (FEMP) and their effectiveness. It identifies knowledge gaps and prioritizes field efforts to quantitatively assess effectiveness questions. This study is funded by Alberta Upstream Petroleum Research Fund Program (AUPRF) managed by Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada (PTAC) and directed by the Methane Research Planning Committee (MRPC). The report is prepared by Clearstone Engineering Ltd. with support from Greenpath Energy Inc and Carleton University.

Fugitive emissions from UOG operations has motivated a tremendous number of research initiatives ranging from leak detection and measurement technology development to inventory estimation and regulatory management strategies. Publications that provide the most insight into the effectiveness of FEMP to detect, document, and reduce the risk of small leaks becoming large leaks are summarized in Table ES1. These studies are typically based on field measurements with the leak detection method, number of sites surveyed and key findings summarized in columns 3 to 5 of Table ES1 plus critical observations presented in columns 6 to 11.A critical review of each publication was completed to determine whether it addressed the following FEMP effectiveness knowledge gaps?

Did the facility maintenance program repair the leaks detected and then confirm component screening concentrations were less than 500 ppmv?
What was the cost to repair or replace the leaking component documented?
What was the minimum detection limit of the survey method applied?
Was a reference method applied to confirm 100% of the leaking components were detected by the primary survey method?
What impact does survey frequency have on reducing leak magnitude and frequency?
Was abnormal process venting assessed and distinguished from equipment component leaks?

Four field research priorities are recommended below based on the literature review and analysis of data collected during a 2017 field campaign conducted in Alberta (Clearstone, 2018).