Methane Emissions Management at TransCanada PipeLines by Hasan Imran (2004 Natural Gas STAR...

Methane Emissions Management at TransCanada PipeLines by Hasan Imran

(2004 Natural Gas STAR Technology Transfer Workshop,

Houston, Texas. Sept. 2004)

AGENDA

•TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. Introduction & Background

•TransCanada Climate Change Strategy•Greenhouse Gas Emissions•Emissions Management Strategy•TransCanada’s Experience

Control Methodologies

Research & Development

•Conclusion

Methane Emissions Management at TransCanada PipeLines

TransCanada PipeLines at a Glance


Corporate GHG Emitters O

nta

rio

Po

wer

Tra

nsA

lta

Sas

kPo

wer

Tra

nsC

anad

a

Imp

eria

l O

il

Atc

o P

ow

er

Syn

cru

de

Wes

tco

ast

Su

nc

or

En

Ca

na

Do

fas

co

No

va C

he

mic

als

Du

po

nt

Fo

rd C

ana

da

Dai

mle

r C

hry

sler

0

5

10

15

20

25

mill

ion

to

nn

es C

O2E

38


Climate Change PolicyClimate Change Policy

• Climate Change issue is not going away.

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions is potential liability for TransCanada.

• We have a plan in place to manage climate change.

• TransCanada believes in promoting global solutions to this global challenge.

• TransCanada believes prudent action is required.

• TransCanada believes in a strong commitment to technological innovation.


Participation in National Processes

Participation in National Processes

Direct EmissionsReduction

Direct EmissionsReduction

Technology Development

Technology Development

Business Opportunities

Business Opportunities

Emissions OffsetsEmissions Offsets

Fugitive Emissions Management

Blowdown Emissions Management

Landfill Gas Reuse

CDM/JI

Dry Gas Seals

Methane Biofiltration

Combustion processes

CO2 service ?

Issue Table Process

Upstream Oil and Gas Working Group


Climate Change StrategyClimate Change Strategy


Source of Greenhouse Gas inTransCanada

- C om pany Vehicle- R enta l Vehicle- Em ployee Vehicle

C ancarb - C arbonblack facility

P ipelines (include Valves,C om pressor and M eter

S tations)

Power P lants

C O 2C H 4N 2O

Direct Indirect

U tility C onsum ption

E lectric ity

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Pipe Power Indirect

kilo

ton

ne

s C

O2

E

2002 vs 2003 GHG Emissions by Type


Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Pipeline OperationsGreenhouse Gas Emissions from Pipeline Operations


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

kt C

O2E

Carbon Dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide Indirect


Methane Emissions DistributionMethane Emissions Distribution

Methane Emissions

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

30%

70%

13%

87%

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methane Emissions

TCPL Emissions Management System

Combustion Emissions Vented Emissions (CH4, CO2)

Fugitive Emissions Blowdown Emissions

Energy Efficiency andconservation

LDAR(leak detection& repair)

HFS (measurement)

- CO2 - CH4

- N2O

- transfer compression- pipeline inspection tools- buttering and hot tapping- stopple plugs- repair sleeves- hot line lowering- incineration

- CO- VOC’s- NOx

R & D



•High Flow Sampler Measurement

- Accuracy; + 25%

- identification of most “cost effective fixes”

•Bacharach HFS - NEW

Fugitive Emissions Management Fugitive Emissions Management (LDAR vs Measurement)(LDAR vs Measurement)

CST62%

CSE3%

CSR22%

MSW3%

MSR2%

BMS4%

BV3%

MD1%

2003 Methane Emissions from system by Faciltiy Type


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

nu

mb

er o

f le

aks

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

High Flow Sampler Data (1999-2003)

CS MS BV

Total Leaking Components measured = 19457


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Cumulative Fraction of Leaking Components

Cu

mu

lati

ve F

ract

ion

of

Tota

l L

eak

Rat

e

Sample Field Measurement Data Sample Field Measurement Data Analysis Analysis



TCP TCT VS VP GP HV O GS PRV FC IC OM RC CC BL BE MC RV HA GC RP

Number of leaking Components by Category at CS, MS & BV in 2003

60 % of total

Benefit - Cost Effective Repairs

LDAR Program AchievementsLDAR Program Achievements

$2.6

$3.4

0.454 0.528

2002 2003

$ Value of gas savedNatural gas volume saved

Bcf Bcf

191

223

2002 2003ki

lo t

onne

CO

2EEmissions saved


M

M

232,000

270,630

210,000

220,000

230,000

240,000

250,000

260,000

270,000

280,000

no. o

f tr

ees

2002 2003

TransCanada’s Contribution to EnvironmentTransCanada’s Contribution to EnvironmentEmissions saved in no. of Emissions saved in no. of TreeTree Equivalents Equivalents


•Total Equivalent Cars taken off the road = 42,330•Total Equivalent Homes which can be heated for one year = 3,427

•Scheduling Practices

•Operational Adjustments

•Transfer (Pull-down) Compressors

•Buttered Stubs

•Hot Tapping

•Sleeves

•Stopples

•Hot line lowering

Blowdown Emissions Management Blowdown Emissions Management ((Control Methods and Technologies Used)Control Methods and Technologies Used)


Reducing Emissions by using Transfer Compressor

Methane Emissions Management at TransCanada Pipelines

Outcome from Reduction Programs

2003 Summary of Savings from Methane Emission Reduction Programs

Minimizing Blowdown Emissions

1,132 tonnes of CO2E

Transfer Compression 626,966

Valve Sealing 61,678

Buttering & Hot Tapping 154,632

Repair Sleeves 164,949

Reducing Fugitive Emissions

223,270

Savings Outcome

(million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent - Mt CO2E)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Methane Emissions 3.29 2.82 2.55 2.45 2.37 2.15 1.06 0.82 0.81

Savings 0.15 0.23 1.74 1.26 1.20 2.10 1.59 1.24 1.13

Methane Emissions and Savings

Research & Development

Incineration of Blowdown Gas using new TechnologyBiofilter for Meter station methane emissions oxidationDry Gas Seal Emissions capture technologyIncineration Methane emissions by the use of CH4ReactorFuel Cells


Technology R&D at TCPL (use of incinerator for blowdowns)

•Incineration of blowdown gas instead of venting

(after transfer compression)

•At Caron Compressor Station, Moose Jaw, November 2002

1315

212

0

500

1000

1500

ton

ne

CO

2E

CO2 equivalent frommethane venting

CO2 from methaneincineration

GHG Emission Comparison with & without Incineration after Transfer Compression


Emission savings of 1,100 t CO2E

Meter Station, Alberta

Biofilter Pilot Plant for Methane Emissions Reduction

Research at University of Calgary

Biofilter


0

20

40

60

80

100

9:00 AM 12:00 PM 3:00 PM 6:00 PM 9:00 PM

Time

% o

xid

atio

n


Biofilter Pilot Plant forMethane Emissions Reduction

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

% O

xida

tion

Predicted observed

Compressor Dry Gas Seal Emissions Mitigation Research Project

•Use of gas-gas ejector to recompress seal gas emissions

•Re-injecting to high pressure system

•Application to TransCanada Compressors would save 538 MMSCF/yr. of natural gas

227,000 tCO2E/yr. of greenhouse gas emissions

•Negligible operating cost


653 t CO2 E/yr. (538 MMCF/yr)

348 seals1 seal

227 kt CO2 E/yr.

Emissions Value = $ 0.68 M

Market value of gas = $ 3.70M@ $6.84/1000 ft3



Cost

to R

ed

uce G

HG

s (

$/t

on

ne)

GHG Emissions Reductions Required(million tonnes CO2e)

Methane Management Programs in place

CONCLUSION - Cost Curve


Methane Emissions Management at TransCanada PipeLines by Hasan Imran (2004 Natural Gas STAR...

Documents

Transcript of Methane Emissions Management at TransCanada PipeLines by Hasan Imran (2004 Natural Gas STAR...