Vibe.cira.colostate.edu



National Oil and Gas Emissions CommitteeMonthly Meeting Minutes for Thursday, September 8, 2016AttendeesOAQPS, EPA (Julia Gamas, Jennifer Snyder)OAP, EPA (Adam Eisele)R6, EPA (Diana Lundelius)CenSARA (Theresa Pella)MARAMA (Julie McDill)WRAP/WESTAR (Tom Moore, Mary Uhl)ERG (Regi Oommen, Mike Pring)Ramboll Environ (John Grant)CIRA, CSU (Rodger Ames)R3: Allegheny County (Tony Sadar), MD (Tim Wallace), VA (Thomas Foster)R4: NC (Tammy Manning)R5: OH (Erica Fetty, Tom Velalis)R6: NM (Mark Jones, Mike Schneider), OK (Mark Gibbs, Tom Richardson), TX (Michael Ege)R7: KS (Lynn Deahl)R8: CO (Jeremy Neustifter, Dale Wells), RAQC (Amanda Brimmer), UT (Greg Mortensen), WY (Brett Davis, Ben Way)R10: AK (John Clark)Moderator: Mark Gibbs of OKApprove minutes of the August 2016 meetingContinued review of SLT O&G submissions to the 2014 NEILatest version of the National Oil & Gas Area Emissions Tool is now published at: the assembly of oil and gas emissions in the 2014 NEI Version 1 – Jennifer SnyderStatus of the National O&G Inventory Analysis Project – John GrantAugust Progress ReportMidstream Survey (see attached example email)O&G events at the 2017 Emissions Inventory Conference in Baltimore (August 14-18, 2017)Review of topics for future callsSoliciting content for the Oil & Gas Emissions Information Repository ()Resources for the Future (RFF) and Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment Webinar on “Cost-Effective Approaches for Managing Methane Emissions from US Oil & Gas” (September 13, 2016, 1 pm Central)Register at Energy Transition Symposium and ARPA-E Methane Test Site Kickoff in Fort Collins, CO (September 28-29, 2016; see attached email from Tom Moore)Next meeting: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm Eastern, same call in number and confirmation numberThe minutes for the August meeting were approved.Lynn Deahl initiated a discussion of gas analyses in Kansas. See Lynn’s workbook, developed for the 2011 NEI, for more details. He focused on extended gas analyses rather than abbreviated analyses. The Kansas Geological Survey gathered quite a bit of data but this was not useful for Lynn’s purposes. His spreadsheets can be copied and pasted into Access tables.Julie McDill asked about a spreadsheet with individual analyses rather than county averages. She is interested in the variability of concentrations of each species. Lynn only has this information for the crude oil analyses.Mark commented that Oklahoma did a similar analysis for counties with sufficient data. Basin-wide averages were used for counties without sufficient data. The discussion continued, focusing on the method of populating counties or basins with data depending on the number of gas analyses per county.Mark shifted to a discussion on the latest version of the National Oil & Gas Area Emissions Tool. The Tool is now published online and can be accessed using the link provided in the agenda. He mentioned that Wyoming represents the “gold standard” in inventories for the oil and gas sector. Ben Way explained that they gather detailed facility data. Their system rolls up individual (granular) facility data to the county level with SCCs assigned to the various emission sources. Wyoming stores facility level data on a SQL server.Mark encouraged Ben to compare the SCCs Wyoming uses with those in the Tool. Ben was unsure that all the SCCs used were in the Tool. Mark then asked about leftover emissions when they were aggregated at the county level and apportioned to the area SCCs. Brett Davis explained that yes, emissions were left over. Some of the data that do not end up being submitted to the NEI include non-road/mobile data and methane data. In general, Wyoming maps most emissions data to the closest available SCC, even if it is not a perfect fit.Mark stated that the Tool already incorporated changes for Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Julie McDill asked for confirmation on this.Dale Wells explained that Colorado talked to their major producers (producers that account for 80 percent of production in the non-attainment area). Rather than using the Tool, Colorado scaled up that data from their major producers. They were careful not to double-count point source data. Ultimately, some limited double counting outside of the non-attainment area may have occurred.Mark pointed out that as Colorado’s approach is different, Colorado will be an interesting test case. He reiterated that the Tool is not the last word on the subject. States are encouraged to incorporate permitting data (where available) and other sources to improve the estimates from the Tool.Lynn asked about top-down versus bottom-up and what plans the committee has to investigate pipeline leaks or abandoned wells. Mark emphasized that these are important sources to explore and continued improvements are needed.The committee briefly discussed moving memos and other documentation on the Tool development to the repository.The target release for v1 of the 2014 NEI is September 15, 2016. Jennifer Snyder will send the schedule for version 2 after the call. She is currently identifying possible updates to the Tool. Better characterization of emissions from wells (without necessarily using the artificial oil well / gas well distinction) is needed. Mike Pring mentioned various planned updates, including a new HPDI pull. He brought up a quirk in the emissions from dehydrator flares and additional tweaks to the calculations for engines.John Grant updated the committee on the status of the National O&G Inventory Analysis Project. See the summary memo and the midstream survey for details. This project looks at three key pieces of data: EPA O&G Tool v1.5, NEI point source (primarily midstream) emissions, and NEI area (primarily wellsite) emissions. The full NEI for area sources is yet to be released. The survey was sent out to SLTs on midstream O&G emission inventory data. The goal is to get all survey responses by September 16, 2016. The project schedule may need to be revised to accommodate the release of the NEI.Mark requested the committee liaise with their point source colleagues to get a better idea of how midstream submissions are being handled. Mark asked the states if they include synthetic minor midstream sources (e.g., minor source gas plants). Facilities were excluded in states without oil and gas production because they are assumed to be booster stations on interstate pipelines. Additionally, concerns were raised about missing midstream sources based on AERR reporting thresholds and which states report which sources to the NEI.Tom Moore brought up ancillary sources, which may be associated with gas plants/storage facilities. If these facilities are included in the inventory, they should be defined as either point sources or area sources.Mark Gibbs asked for possible topics for O&G events at the 2017 Emissions Inventory Conference in Baltimore, MD (August 14-18, 2017). Ideas generated by the committee are as follows:Continued coordination between the Tool (and related work), the GHGRP, and the GHG Inventory remain important.Diana Lundelius mentioned that a number of sources were not included in the recent NSPS. Perhaps these source types should be reviewed. It would be valuable to get input from states on how their emissions are characterized and to find out how many states request speciation of VOC (and possibly PM-2.5) emissions. To these suggestions, Lynn Deahl asked if EPA is looking into photochemical reactivity of various VOCs. Diana said no, unless HQ personnel have different info.Diana also suggested the overlap between the ICR results versus the work coming out of the National O&G Inventory Analysis Project as a possible topic.Mark added that Madeleine Strum spoke previously to the committee about the importance of speciation on modeling efforts and that the strategic selection of panel members could be helpful.Diana would like to get EPA regional staff more involved in supporting state efforts and, in addition, providing input to HQ and OAQPS on sector emissions (especially in characterizing fat tails).Mark asked for possible topics for future calls. Ideas include working on lining up future presenters, e.g., EIA personnel discussing the AEO process, fat tails in the Four Corners area (JPL work), and the release of 2015 GHGRP data. Other suggestions should be forwarded to Mark.Regarding the 2017 EI conference, Julie McDill would like to see a panel on projecting future inventories. For future calls, it would be helpful to step outside our typical areas of focus to get presentations from, for example, industry on controls and efforts to identify and control fat tails. Mark emphasized the importance of planning and inventory projections and suggested this be conveyed to Tesh Rao who is Technical Chair of the conference. Tom Moore suggested bringing in experts on mobile and other sectors to hear about progress on characterizing mobile source activity associated with oil and gas activity.Mark solicited the committee for content for the Oil & Gas Emissions Information Repository. Rodger Ames added that submissions are appreciated and can include additional info from states. For example, how they use the tool or other resources, etc.Mark briefly mentioned the upcoming webinar and symposium that are items 9 and 10 on this month’s agenda. A link to register for the webinar can be found on the agenda. Mark had forwarded an email from Tom Moore to the committee prior to the start of the meeting regarding the symposium.Next call will be Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 2 pm Eastern. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download