M-1773|2020

Cold venting and fugitive emissions from

Norwegian oil and gas activities

Sub-report 4
Check of calculation methods for fugitive
emissions and small leaks

Prepared for the Norwegian Environment Agency

Geir Husdal
Lene Osenbroch
Özlem Yetkinoglu
Andreas Østebrøt

15 March 2016
COLOPHON
Executive institution

Add Novatech AS

Project manager for the contractor Contacts at the Norwegian Environment Agency
Geir Husdal Sissel Wiken Sandgrind/Bjørn A Christensen

M number Year Pages Norwegian Environment Agency contract no

M-1773|2020 2016 36 14088187

Publisher Financed by

Norwegian Environment Agency Norwegian Environment Agency

Authors
Geir Husdal, Lene Osenbroch, Özlem Yetkinoglu and Andreas Østebrøt

Title
Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 - Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Summary
Fugitive emissions and small leaks are extremely difficult to quantify. Efforts were made to check factor methods used in
similar industries in Canada and the UK, as well as default factors referenced in NS-EN 15446, against Dial measurement
data for land plants in Norway. Lack of data and shortage of time meant the results were not as good as expected.
Independently, the study revealed big variations between emission quantities calculated with the aid of the specified
factors and Dial measurements at land plants. The latter gave significantly higher emissions.

Similarly, a check was made against emission measurements with the aid of soap spray and bubble measurements on an
NCS facility. This gave far lower emissions than the factors.

These conditions indicate that the calculated emission quantities from fugitive emissions and small leaks are very
uncertain.

Substantial work has been done internationally with the OGI Leak/No Leak method for quantifying such emissions. This
appears to be the trend for calculating fugitive emissions. Adopting the method on the NCS is recommended.

Four subject words

Fugitives, methane, nmVOC, quantification

Front cover photo

Heimdal. Source: Statoil, photographer: Øyvind Hagen

 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Summary
The main purpose of this sub-project, hereafter module 4, was to investigate whether
methods for quantifying fugitive emissions and small leaks, as discussed in sub-report 2 from
the project, could be verified by comparing them with differential absorption Lidar (Dial)
measurements at land-based gas processing plants.

The quantification methods for fugitive emissions/small leaks discussed in sub-report 2 derive
from large projects, primarily in the USA and Canada, and are reflected in Norwegian
Standard NS-EN 15446:2008. They are based on screening components with the aid of
sniffing, and a combination of screening results and emission factors/correlations. The
literature also contains general emission/default factors based on extensive screening results.

Dial measurements made at gas processing plants on land are used to determine total
hydrocarbon (HC) emissions from these facilities. However, limited information is available on
how the emissions break down between point sources and fugitive emissions/small leaks. The
approach in module 4 was to identify and quantify all point emissions of methane and nmVOC
at the various land plants, compare these with total emissions determined using Dial, and
thereby calculate residual quantities representing fugitive emissions/small leaks.

Point sources were identified through meetings with the operators of four land plants: Gassco
Kollsnes, Gassco Kårstø, the Ormen Lange land terminal at Nyhamna and Hammerfest LNG at
Melkøya. Quantification of point emissions proved very difficult within the available time
frame, and it was only possible to calculate amounts for a small number of them.

Nevertheless, the project showed that the quantification methods assessed for fugitive
emissions/small leaks – all based on emission factors per component type – yielded far lower
emissions than had been established by Dial measurements. The variations were in 1:5 to
1:10 range. Reasons for this could be that emissions calculated by the methods evaluated
were far too low, or that the Dial results – which are obtained indirectly – were too high. It
could also be that point emissions exist which were not identified by the land-plant review.

Another comparison was also made on the basis of investigations conducted by Statoil on the
two Draupner facilities. Leaks from these were first identified with an infra-red (IR) camera
and then with the aid of soapy water and bubble counting. As with the Dial measurements,
the results were then compared with other assessed quantification methods (see above). It
transpired that the factor methods calculated much higher emissions than the soapy
water/bubble counting approach. The proportions varied from 1:5 to 200:1, depending on the
calculation method employed.

The comparisons accordingly revealed that the investigated quantification methods give very
divergent results. Large and unquantifiable uncertainties are therefore likely to arise
regardless of the method chosen. Although its uncertainty remains unknown, the OGI
Leak/No Leak method is recommended for future quantification of fugitive emissions/small
leaks from facilities on the Norwegian continental shelf (NCS). This is based on optical
screening of leak points using an IR camera, and calculating leak quantities with the aid of
established factors per component type. Yielding consistent results and able to identify trends
over time, this method will make an important contribution to active maintenance and
improvement work.

Until more screening results are available with the method specified above, estimating
emission quantities is recommended using Canadian average factors. These are based on data
acquired from 120 upstream oil and gas plants in Canada, where a leak detection and repair
(LDAR) check is conducted similar to the one carried out on offshore facilities and at land
plants in Norway. However, emission figures calculated in that way could well be significantly
affected by the transition to the OGI Leak/No Leak method.
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Contents
1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................5

2 Methodology .....................................................................................................................................................6
2.1 Calculating fugitive emissions from Dial measurements .................................................................................... 6
2.2 Calculating fugitive emissions with other methods ............................................................................................ 6

3 Review of point emissions at the land plants .....................................................................................................9

4 Results .............................................................................................................................................................10
4.1 Fugitive emissions computed from Dial measurements ................................................................................... 10
4.2 Calculated emissions with other methods ........................................................................................................ 12
4.3 Comparison of emissions calculated with Dial.................................................................................................. 13
4.4 Effect of instruments in the process plants ....................................................................................................... 14

5 Discussion of the results ..................................................................................................................................16

5.1 Measurements using bubble-counting ............................................................................................................. 16
5.2 Check using OGI Leak/No Leak model .............................................................................................................. 17
5.3 Concluding reflections ...................................................................................................................................... 18

6 Proposed method for quantifying fugitive emissions/small leaks ....................................................................19

7 Other conditions related to direct methane and nmVOC emissions .................................................................21

7.1 Dial measurements and follow-up in operations .............................................................................................. 21
7.2 Operating conditions and parameters which affect methane and nmVOC emissions...................................... 21
7.3 Mapping sampling points and composition: proportions of methane and nmVOC from various sources ....... 21
7.4 Routines for leak detection and maintenance .................................................................................................. 21
7.5 Cold venting and flaring strategy ..................................................................................................................... 22
7.6 Identifying implemented emission-reducing measures .................................................................................... 22

Abbreviations .........................................................................................................................................................23

References ..............................................................................................................................................................24

Appendix 1 ..............................................................................................................................................................25

Status for quantifying fugitive emissions and leaks of methane and nmVOC ..........................................................25

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................25

2. Measurement methods ...................................................................................................................................26

3 Quantification methods ...................................................................................................................................29

3.1 EPA screening approach ................................................................................................................................... 29
3.2 EPA correlation approach (Method 21) ............................................................................................................ 30

4 Comparison of calculation methods .................................................................................................................36

4
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

1 Introduction
Petroleum operations on the NCS involve the release of methane and non-methane volatile
organic compounds (nmVOC) to the air from a number of sources. Reported direct emissions
accounted for about 80 and 28 per cent of total methane and nmVOC emissions respectively
by the Norwegian oil and gas industry in 2014.1

The Norwegian Environment Agency has commissioned Add Novatech AS to improve the
knowledge base for these emissions. This assignment originally involved three modules, but
was extended in its final phase with a fourth covering a comparison of emission sources/
calculation methods on offshore facilities and at petroleum plants on land.

Module 1 involved a survey of possible emission sources.

Module 2 identified proposed methods for quantifying methane and nmVOC emissions from
each identified source, and produced a new emission estimate.
Module 3 assessed opportunities for reducing these emissions.

This sub-report covers module 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and
small leaks. The main aim of this module was to verify component-based emission factors for
fugitive emissions and leaks using a combination of differential absorption Lidar (Dial)
measurements at the land plants and calculated quantities from their point emissions. This
sought to establish whether calculating emission quantities with the factor method gives
similar results to the Dial measurements. The goals of the review included:

• establishing an overview of emission sources and vent points at the four land
plants
• establishing an overview of the number of potential leak points (valves, pumps and
flanges/connectors)
• investigating operating conditions and parameters affecting methane and nmVOC
emissions
• identifying sampling points and composition – the relative proportions of methane
and nmVOC for various sources
• checking routines for leak detection and maintenance, including the number and
type of detection systems and detection/alarm levels
• investigating the cold venting and flaring strategies, which sources were flared or
cold-vented
• assessing how results from the Dial measurement campaigns are utilised in
following up operations (including maintenance and abatement assessments)
• identifying implemented emission-reducing measures, the emission reductions
achieved and the potential for further reductions.

Four gas processing plants on land in Norway were included in the study: Gassco Kollsnes,
Gassco Kårstø, the Ormen Lange land plant at Nyhamna and Hammerfest LNG at Melkøya.
The review of the first three plants was conducted in the form of meetings with their
operations organisations. A video meeting was used with Melkøya.

As part of the work, a more detailed review of available estimation methods was also
undertaken. These are described in more detail in appendix 1 to this sub-report.

1 Source: Environment Hub.

5
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

2 Methodology
Fugitive emissions/small leaks are difficult to measure directly. Land-based processing plants
use the indirect Dial measurement method, which cannot be used on offshore facilities
because of inadequate access.

Several methods for quantifying emissions have been evaluated in this module, including
screening based on sniffing and an IR camera as well as standard emission factors. Efforts
have been made to compare and verify these with the Dial measurements at land plants. The
latter have been conducted at such facilities in Norway since the 1990s. In addition, the
methods have been assessed on an independent basis. The goal has been to assess whether
any of them can provide representative emission data for the NCS facilities.

2.1 Calculating fugitive emissions from Dial

measurements
Dial is a laser-based technique which enables concentrations of a wide range of gases to be
measured remotely. Two contractors (the National Physical Laboratories (NPL) and
Spectrasyne Ltd) have developed methods which transform concentration data into emission
rates (in kilograms per hour). This allows emissions to be measured for defined geographical
areas at the plants. Measurement campaigns are conducted roughly every three years. A
more detailed description is provided in appendix 1.

The survey was based on the most recent Dial measurements at each plant. Every
measurement area was reviewed to identify the point sources it might contain. This aimed to
estimate point emissions (from local vents and exhausts) in each area in order to deduct
these from the Dial figures. The remainder would represent the contribution from fugitive
emissions/small leaks:

Fugitive emissions and small leaks = Dial measurements – point emissions (1)

Point emissions were identified in the meetings with the operators where the plants were
reviewed in detail, area by area.

2.2 Calculating fugitive emissions with other

methods
As described in sub-report 2 (ref 2), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
published a protocol (ref 6) which documents that fugitive emission/small leak quantities can
be calculated by screening using sniffers (see appendix 1) combined with emission and
correlation factors. Various quantification methods have been developed on this basis:

• EPA screening approach

• EPA correlation approach
• EN 15446:2008, a European standard adopted in Norway as Norwegian standard NS-
EN 15446:2008.
• CAPP method from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).

All these methods are based on sniffing with the aid of hand-held instruments using special
detection solutions (which differ somewhat from the sniffer methods used as part of safety
work on NCS facilities).

The American Petroleum Institute (API) has developed a method for quantification of fugitive
emissions/small leaks based on optical gas imaging (OGI) technology, which uses hand-held
IR cameras. Also known as OGI Leak/No Leak quantification, this method utilises a set of
emission factors for components with registered leaks and a different set for corresponding
components with no detected leaks (see appendix 1 for an overview). The European Oil
Company Organisation for Environment, Health and Safety (Concawe ), which is particularly

6
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

oriented towards the refinery sector, recently carried out a project which compared the OGI
and sniffer methods. Published in October 2015 (ref 7), the report from this project concludes
that they give equivalent results.

The UK environmental authorities operate with purely factor-based emission quantification in

their environmental and emissions monitoring system (EEMS) (ref 10). It is unclear what
these factors are based on.

Appendix 1 to this report contains a more detailed description of these methods.

The methods in the EPA screening approach, the EPA correlation approach, the Norwegian
standard, the CAPP method and the Concawe report are based on extensive field
measurements. The CAPP report (ref 8) also operates with average figures in the form of
emissions per component type, based on 120 land-based upstream oil and gas plants (more
than 276 000 potential emission components). This represents an industry which implements
a programme for leak control and follow-up which largely corresponds to procedures
established for and applied on NCS facilities (and at Norwegian land plants).

Norwegian standard 15446 operates with “default” emission factors. These are used for
components (valves, flanges and so forth) which cannot be sniffed because of access
constraints.

The British EEMS calculates emissions solely with the aid of a fixed emission factor per
component. It has such factors for five component types.

All these methods involve the use of emissions factors expressed as kilograms per hour
(kg/h) per component type and/or correlation factors based on screening values. Where
emission factors are used, the emissions are calculated using the following simple formula:

Fugitive emissions = Emission factorper component type x No of componentsper component type (2)

A precondition for using the methods is the availability of an overview of component numbers
in each component group for the individual facility/plant.

An estimate of emissions can be obtained without any form of component screening by using:

• EEMS emission factors

• CAPP average factors
• Norwegian standard NS-EN 15446 (default factors).

The project has not identified any information which documents accuracy or
representativeness when using such factors. These calculations will provide a static and
statistically based emission quantity, but without opportunities to identify long-term trends.

Methods which require screening using either sniffers or IR measurements cannot be used to
produce an estimate of emissions at the present time, since screening data are not available.

On the other hand, the methodological basis of EPA screening, the CAPP method, Norwegian
standard NS-EN 15446 and the OGI method will allow future use of these techniques to reveal
developments and trends over time and thereby permit a continuous improvement strategy to
also be used for fugitive emissions/small leaks.

The land-plant operators provided Add Novatech with an overview of the number of
components per plant. On that basis, the project calculated fugitive emission quantities using
EEMS, CAPP and the NS. The following component types were used in the calculations:

• control valves
• other valves
• flanges
• pumps.

7
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

NS-15446 and the CAPP method utilise different emissions factors depending on whether the
component contains gas or condensate. The EEMS method does not distinguish between gas
or condensate service.2 The operators specified the number of components per gas and
condensate service.

The CAPP method has specific emission factors for control valves and provides a common
factor for all other types of valves (collectively). NS-EN 15446 and the EEMS method do not
distinguish between control valves and other valve types. The number of components per
valve type was not specified by the operators and, to make the calculations as simple as
possible, five per cent of the valves at a plant are assumed to be the control type (based on
data from two NCS facilities).

Emission factors specified in the NS-EN 15446 method only represent emission rates from
components with diameters above two inches. Table 1 presents emission factors for VOC
(methane and nmVOC) for each method and component.

Table 1 Emission factors for hydrocarbons (methane+nmVOC) in kg/h/component.

Calculation method Valves Flanges Pumps Control valves3
Gas Condensate4 Gas Condensate Condensate Gas Condensate
NS-EN 15446 0.02680 0.01090 0.00025 0.00025 0.11400 - -
CAPP 0.00057 0.00086 0.00082 0.00016 0.00291 0.03992 0.03992
EEMS 0.00052 0.00052 0.00011 0.00011 0.00020 - -

2
Piping systems which largely contain hydrocarbons (HC) in liquid form.
3 The NS-EN 15446 and EEMS methods do not have specific emission factors for control valves.
4
Condensate is used in this report as the designation for what the various standards call light liquid.
8
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

3 Review of point emissions at the land

plants
Virtually all the point sources were identified by the review of the land plants. With very few
exceptions, however, the operators then had to do work in order to quantify emissions from
each source.

Because the operators ended up with less time available for this work than they had wished,
the response was poorer than expected. Only one of the land plants could contribute
calculations for virtually all relevant emission points. Feedback was less complete for the
others. One reason for this was undoubtedly that the plants use Dial measurements for
emission quantification, and thereby are not organised to be able to estimate point emissions
by calculation at short notice. All the operators observed that the time available to do this was
(too) short. That is also connected with the fact that module 4 was initiated right at the end of
the project, which thereby left very little time available.

9
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

4 Results
4.1 Fugitive emissions computed from Dial
measurements
The land-based plants in Norway measure methane and nmVOC emissions triennially with the
aid of Dial. These measurements are currently made by the UK’s National Physical
Laboratories (NPL), and were earlier performed by Spectrasyne Ltd.

Measurements are conducted in process areas where such emissions are anticipated. Total
methane and nmVOC emissions at the plant are obtained by summing emissions from the
various sub-areas. Typical areas where measurements are made can be summarised as:

• compressor housing
• MEG storage and regeneration unit
• gas dewatering unit
• water treatment unit
• receiving area for gas and condensate
• area for the pig trap and slug catcher
• storage tanks for condensate and natural gas liquid (NGL) fractions
• gas metering station
• hot-oil boiler areas
• flare stack.

Each plant has a unique process design, and the positioning of the various process modules
differs from plant to plant. The distribution of the areas where measurements are made and
the processes/equipment each area contains will therefore vary between the plants. This
makes it impractical to compare measured emissions per predefined area. As a result, it has
been decided to look at total emissions from the plants. Large storage tanks for liquefied
natural gas (LNG), liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) and condensate, loading facilities for
liquefied problems and the flare stack were excluded since they are located at some distance
from the process plants and moreover do not contain large proportions of components which
could potentially leak.

The Dial campaigns cover a series of measurements at the same point, which are corrected
with wind data to arrive at a final emission rate in kg/h. The most recent measurements were
conducted in the summer/autumn of 2013 and new sets are planned for 2016. At one plant,
measurements were last conducted in 2011.

Point emissions calculated by the operators are presented together with results from the Dial
measurements in table 2 and in figures 1 and 2.

As noted in chapter 3, quantification of emissions from individual point sources was

incomplete. Only plant D provided an almost complete overview. In this case, point emissions
accounted for only about three and 12 per cent of the methane and nmVOC emissions
respectively as measured and calculated with the aid of Dial. At the other three plants,
feedback was less complete. But the study nevertheless yielded several useful answers.

Point emissions were calculated by various plant-specific methods on the basis of information
available to the individual operators. Despite several unidentified point sources and the lack of
emission overviews, the information which emerged from the review makes it unlikely that
the point emissions will collectively account for more than a few 10ths of the emission
quantities reported for the plants on the basis of Dial measurements. The signs are therefore
that fugitive emissions are responsible for well over half the amounts directly released,
measured by Dial, from all four plants.

10
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Table 2 Dial measurement results for methane og nmVOC emissions in tonnes per year (t/y),
calculated point emissions and resulting potential fugitive emissions from the four land plants.
Dial results (total emissions) Calculated point emissions Fugitive emissions (equation 1)
Land
plants Methane nmVOC Methane nmVOC Methane nmVOC Total HC
gas
A 1 000 1 260 Missing Missing 1 000 1 260 2 260
B 1 722 452 89 24 1 634 429 2 063
C 828 766 9 2 819 764 1 583
D 325 390 9 48 316 342 658

Figures 1 and 2 place the respective sizes of point and fugitive emissions in perspective. Since
information on the order of magnitude of point emissions for plants A, B and C is lacking,
plant D is the only one to give a more or less representative picture in the two figures.

2 000,00
1 800,00
Methane emissions in t/y

1 600,00
1 400,00
1 200,00
1 000,00
800,00
600,00
400,00
200,00
-
Installation A Installation B Installation C Installation D

Point emissions Fugitive emissions

Figure 1 Dial measurements – methane emissions.

1 400,00
NMVOC utslipp i tonn per år

1 200,00

1 000,00

800,00

600,00

400,00

200,00

-
Installation A Installation B Installation C Installation D

Point emissions Fugitive emissions

Figure 2 Dial measurements – nmVOC emissions.

In accordance with the revised BAT reference document (Bref) for oil and gas refineries, VOC
(methane and nmVOC) emissions can be reduced to less than 200-250 kg/h per plant,
including fugitive emissions (section 4.17.3, ref 5).

In addition to Bref, the European Commission prepares BAT conclusion documents

(Commission decisions) which support the implementation of BAT in accordance with the
industrial emissions directive (IED) in the various sectors. Oil and gas refineries (gas
processing plants) are subject to Commission implementing decision 2014/738/EU, published
11
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

on 9 October 2014. Governments are required to observe the BAT conclusions when setting
conditions for emissions from enterprises covered by these conclusions. Establishing a leak
detection and repair programme (LDAR) is BAT. This includes the sniffer and IR camera (OGI)
methods as well as possible Dial or solar occultation flux (SOF) measurements to quantify
emissions. BAT also involves use of high-integrity equipment, including valves with double
packing seals, pumps, and compressors equipped with mechanical seals.

4.2 Calculated emissions with other methods

The operators for the four land plants obtained overviews of the number of components in HC
systems. These data were taken from their quantitative risk assessment (QRA) work.

This information covered total components (valves, flanges and pumps) for both gas and
condensate service at all four plants, but not specific details on the number of control valves.
The Canadian CAPP method distinguishes between these and other types of valves. Control
valves are estimated to make up five per cent of all valves at the plants. 5 The CAPP method
assigns a much higher emission factor to control valves than to other types.6 That
corresponds well with the information obtained from the review meetings for both NCS
facilities and land-based plants. It was reported there that control valves are strongly over-
represented for registered leaks compared with other valves because they “work” the whole
time, while other valves are either open or closed for long periods.

Table 3 presents the total number of components at the four plants by type (valves, control
valves, flanges and pumps). The number of control valves in the table is based on the five per
cent approach described above.

The count from the plants produced a total of 48 445 components (all four plants combined).
Table 3 presents the overview. Some uncertainty must be expected in these figures. The first
row in the table represents components of all sizes, while row two contains those above two
inches in diameter. These amount to 30 692 in all.

Table 3 Total components at the four Norwegian gas plants (source: QRA data from the
plants).
Valves Control valves Flanges Pumps Total
Gas Condensate Gas Condensate Gas Condensate Condensate
Total
9 366 5 642 493 297 20 883 11 634 130 48 445
components7
Total
components 5 550 3 031 292 160 13 949 7 585 125 30 692
over >2 inches8

Based on the component overview in table 3, emissions were calculated using the default
factors in NS 15446, the CAPP average factors and the EEMS emission factors. The results are
presented in table 4 and figure 3.

Table 4 HC emissions from the four Norwegian gas plants in t/y, calculated using the NS
15446, CAPP and EEMS methods.
Calculation Valves Flanges Pumps Control valves Total
method Gas Condensate Gas Condensate Condensate Gas Condensate
NS-EN 15446
1 371 305 31 17 125 1 848
emission factors
CAPP average
47 43 150 16 3 172 104 535
factors
EEMS emission
334 69 50 17 13 484
factors

5
Based on data from two NCS facilities, where two-three per cent of all valves were for control.
6
This accords very well with information which emerged from the reviews of many of the facilities, both on land
and offshore. Control valves were reportedly strongly over-represented in registered leaks compared with other
types.
7
Used in the CAPP and EEMS calculation methods. Includes components of all sizes.
8
Used in the NS-EN 15446 method. Includes only components larger than two inches in diameter.
12
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

HC (methane + NMVOC) emissions in t/y 1400

1200
NS15446 CAPP EEMS
1000

800

600

400

200

0
Valves Valves Flanges Flanges Pumps Control Control
condensate gas condensate valves
valves gas
condensate

Figure 3 Total HC emissions from various component types at the four Norwegian gas plants,
calculated using the NS 15446, CAPP and EEMS methods.

Calculations using NS-EN 15446 give the highest emission quantities. The most important
contributor is the emission factor for valves, which is far higher than in the other methods. It
should also be added that default factors have been used here which, according to the
standard, ought only to be applied to components which cannot be screened. As a result, the
factors are considered to be perhaps particularly conservative.

4.3 Comparison of emissions calculated with Dial

Since figures on point emissions could only be obtained to a limited extent, it has not been
possible to calculate how large a proportion of the measured emissions represent fugitive
emissions/small leaks. Point emissions are only quantified adequately for plant D. Calculated
point emissions accounted here for only about 10 per cent of the total quantity measured by
Dial.

Given the information secured from the review of the land plants, little suggests that point
emissions will be significant in relation to the total figure measured by Dial at plants A, B and
C. The decision has therefore been taken to compare calculated emissions based on the
various factor methods in table 3 with the figures on potential fugitive emissions from the Dial
measurements in table 2. Had sufficient information on point emissions been available, the
calculations would have shown fugitive emissions below the potential figures presented in
table 5 – but by how much is not known.

Results from the comparison are presented in table 5 and figure 4.

Table 5 Calculated potential fugitive HC emissions (methane and nmVOC) using the NS
15446, CAPP and EEMS methods (t/y).
Plant NS-EN 15446 CAPP method EEMS Latest Dial measurements –
method method max potential fugitive emissions
A 575 201 181 2 251 9
B 316 95 81 2 062 10
C 435 145 139 1 583 11
D 523 94 83 660
Total 4 074 695 620 7 217

9
Point emissions have not been quantified for plant A. The Dial figures therefore represent both fugitive and
point emissions.
10
Some but not all point emissions have been quantified for plant B. The Dial figure is therefore too high.
11
As for plant B.
13
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Note particularly that the Dial measurements for the plants with footnotes also include a
number of point emissions. Great care should therefore be taken when comparing the
methods. All the methods may be affected by substantial uncertainties and methodological
errors, including with the Dial measurements. The table primarily illustrates the uncertainty
affecting these quantification methods. The challenge is that no better solutions are currently
available given the data to hand at present. This is expected to improve if the proposed new
method is adopted (see chapter 6).

2500
HC (methane + nmVOC) emissions in t/y

2000

1500

1000

500

0
Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D

Fugitive emissions calculated from DIAL NS-EN 15446 method CAPP EEMS

Figure 4 Calculated fugitive HC emissions (methane and nmVOC) using the NS15446, CAPP
and EEMS methods.

Table 5 and figure 4 suggest that calculated emission quantities vary very considerably
between Dial measurements and the various factor-based quantification methods.

Emissions calculated in accordance with NS-EN 15446 show the smallest deviation from the
Dial measurements. This is primarily because the default emission factors for valves are much
higher than with the other methods (about 40 times higher than those in the CAPP report for
ordinary valves). The reason could be that the factors have been consciously pitched at a
conservative level because they relate to equipment which cannot be sniffed (inaccessibility,
insulation hampering access or safety concerns).

Emission calculations based on the CAPP and EEMS methods show collective figures (for all
four plants) which are about a 10th of the figures obtained with the Dial method. Even if
account is taken of the fact that a considerable number of point emissions have not been
deducted from the Dial figures, the deviation will be substantial (more or less the same order
of magnitude).

It should also be noted that the deviations vary considerably between the plants.

Based on the study, it can therefore be concluded that the available Dial measurements from
the land plants cannot verify the emissions obtained using emission factors from NS-EN
15446, CAPP or EEMS. The reason could a lack of information about point sources/number of
components. But it could also be the result of other conditions which are not known. Devoting
more detailed attention to identified point sources in forthcoming Dial measurements,
supplemented by OGI measurements, should be considered in order to learn more about this.

4.4 Effect of instruments in the process plants

The component overview from the QRA reports for the four land plants also provides an
overview of the number of instruments (pressure gauges, temperature gauges and the like).
It is uncertain whether the connections of these instruments to equipment and piping systems

14
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

is included in the figure for connectors shown in the component overviews from the plants. A
sensitivity analysis has therefore been conducted, where instruments are added to the
number of connectors. The results are presented in figure 5, which shows the effect to be
negligible.

Figure 5 Calculated fugitive HC emissions (methane and nmVOC) using various methods, with
and without instruments.

15
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

5 Discussion of the results

Several reasons could account for the big differences between Dial measurements and factor-
based calculations.

a. The component figures which form the basis for the emission calculations could be too
low. Data on components were derived from the operators’ QRA process. Neither time
nor resources have been available in this project to check the quality of the
component tables used in the QRA work.
b. Emission factors presented in the CAPP report and the EEMS could be far too low.
c. Emission figures from the Dial measurements could be too high. The NPL itself
operates with measurement uncertainties of +/- 10-15 per cent for methane and +/-
20-30 per cent for nmVOC. Although it might appear surprising at first glance that
fugitive emissions are significantly higher than the collective point emissions, this does
not need to be wrong. More surprising is the fact that the Dial measurements at two of
the plants yield nmVOC emissions from the compressor units which are almost as high
or higher than methane. Since the latter accounts for more than 90 per cent of the
relevant gas content, this appears to be less credible. Possible vaporisation of
lubricating oil in the compressors could account for some of the amount, but the
measured emissions are far higher than the total quantity of lube oil used.
d. Emissions from point sources are significantly higher than the figure obtained for this
report, and otherwise assumed, or it could be that several large point emissions have
not been picked up in the reviews.
e. A combination of these and other reasons could be involved.

Two sets of measurements have also been made offshore as a control. These are:

1. measurement of emissions with the aid of bubble-counting

2. check of emissions using the OGI method.

5.1 Measurements using bubble-counting

Statoil has measured fugitive emissions/small leaks with the aid of soapy water and bubble-
counting in the two Draupner facilities (ref 11). Components investigated were those relevant
from a safety and risk perspective – in other words, the 1 883 of them containing natural gas
under pressure and a leak potential, broken down between control valves, other valves,
instruments and connectors.

The project was implemented as follows:

1. all components were leak-checked using a Flir GF320 OGI camera

2. a total of 12 with leaks were detected, with the smallest having a leak rate of 0.2
grams per hour
3. all 12 with detected leaks were sprayed with soapy water
4. the leaks became visible in the form of bubbles, which were counted and measured as
the basis for calculating the quantity emitted from the leaking component
5. to take account of measurement uncertainties, Statoil added an uncertainty factor of
1.8.

On the basis of the measurements, the emissions were calculated to total 785 kilograms per
year (kg/y) of VOC. Methane accounted for 730 kg/y of this figure and nmVOC for 55 kg/y.

Given the number of components on the facilities, emissions were calculated using the
Norwegian standard and the CAPP and EEMS methods. The results are presented in table 6.

16
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Table 6 Comparison of emissions calculated using factor-based methods and emissions

measured with aid of soapy water and bubble-counting on Draupner.
Method Emissions in t/y (methane+nmVOC)
EEMS 4.1
CAPP 47
NS-EN 15446 152
Measurements with bubble counting 0.785

In contrast to the comparisons with the Dial measurements, the soap test indicates that the
factor-based methods overestimate the emissions – to some extent substantially.

Because the OGI camera operated with a detection limit well below three grams per hour
(g/h), the OGI Leak/No Leak method can also be applied here. With a factor based on a
detection limit of three g/h, calculations using this method give overall emissions of 5.23 t/y
(methane + nmVOC), with 5.10 t/y from components with a detected leak and 0.13 t/y from
ones without leaks.

Once again, calculations using “recognised” methods yield higher emissions than the
measurements. This could be because of substantial measurement inaccuracies. Concawe (ref
7) shows that using the OGI Leak/No Leak method when testing a plant gave good agreement
between calculated and measured emissions ("bagging" with the aid of a high flow sampler
(HFS)), but that calculations in a different test yielded emissions 4.5 times higher than
corresponding measurements.

5.2 Check using OGI Leak/No Leak model

The project has also checked emissions from the land plants using the OGI Leak/No Leak
model. Overall methane and nmVOC emissions have been calculated here on the basis of the
component overview in table 3. Detection limits of three and six g/h respectively have been
assumed. Since leak screening in line with the OGI method has not been performed at the
land plants, the same percentage leakage as with the soap test in section 5.1 has been
assumed:

• valves: 1.41 per cent

• flanges: 0.24 per cent
• pumps: 1.41 per cent (not included in the soap test, expected to have same
frequency as valves).

As a sensitivity, a calculation with five times the leak proportion has also been done:

• valves: 7.1 per cent

• flanges: 1.2 per cent
• pumps: 7.1 per cent.

Table 7 Overall HC gas emissions from the land plants calculated with the OGI Leak/No Leak
method.
Calculation/measurement
3 g/h detection limit (t/y) 6 g/h detection limit (t/y)
Leak share as for soap test 131 181
Five times higher leak share 641 875
Dial measurements (all plants)12 6 564

In the Concawe project, the leak proportion varied from 0.85 per cent to 4.7 per cent of all
components, with a specified average value of 2.2 per cent.13

12
Excluding tanks, the flare system and the loading system.
13
How the average is calculated is not specified.
17
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

During the project’s review of both NCS facilities and the land plants,14 it emerged that the
number of registered leaks during the year was largely in the range of 10-30 per facility/
plant, which is well under one per cent of components per facility/plant. Although the lead
detection method used here differs from the OGI Leak/No Leak model, it nevertheless gives
an indication that the leak proportion on the NCS is in line with or lower than the one at the
plants investigated by the Concawe project.

5.3 Concluding reflections

On the basis of the investigations conducted, very considerable uncertainties clearly exist over
quantifying fugitive emissions/small leaks. The following points can be noted.
• A number of methods are available, some based on fixed emission factors and the
majority on screening combined with emission factors and correlations.
• All yield significantly lower emissions than measurements with Dial (which cannot be
used on offshore facilities). Calculations based on these methods give emissions in the
order of five to 50 per cent of the Dial measurements.
• All the calculations also produced significantly higher emission quantities than
measuring with soap on Draupner (from five to 200 times higher).
• Regardless of the quantification method used, the results will suffer from substantial
(and unquantifiable) uncertainty.
• Substantial work has been and continues to be done internationally by such bodies as
the API, Concawe og the CAPP to come up with improved quantification methods.

On that basis, it is clear that the investigations of the land plants and the Dial measurements
made there have failed to provide any good clarification of how fugitive emissions/small leaks
of methane and nmVOC should be quantified on the NCS facilities.

At the same time, the project has surveyed several other methods. None can contribute to
great clarity on the issue but, viewed overall, have nevertheless provided greater
understanding of the problems and may form the basis for sensible recommendations and
proposals on quantification methods which can be applied in a practical manner.

14
The all-day meetings Add Novatech had with the operators for 15 NCS facilities and four land plants.
18
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

6 Proposed method for quantifying

fugitive emissions/small leaks
A future method for quantifying fugitive emissions/small leaks should preferably satisfy two
main requirements:

1. it should permit positive or negative trends to be registered

2. it should be implementable in a practical way and not too expensive.

Only an LDAR-compatible quantification system can meet the requirements for continuous
improvement, since these are the sole methods able to identify and document development
trends.

Of the LDAR-compatible methods, the OGI Leak/No Leak model is recommended for use
because – unlike the sniffer-based solutions – it can cover every component in a facility. It is
also less expensive. On the basis of data from the Concawe report, sniffing is expected to cost
an estimated three-five times more than OGI per measurement campaign.

Pursuant to the BAT conclusions document for refineries (ref 5), BAT is to monitor fugitive
emissions of methane and nmVOC from the plants by using all the following techniques:

(i) sniffing methods associated with correlation curves for “key equipment”
(ii) OGI methods
(iii) calculations based on emission factors, which are periodically (every other year,
for example) validated by measurements (using Dial, for example).

Because the OGI method is far better than today’s Dial measurements for presenting trends
at the sub-system and component level, it should also provide a better basis for managing
and controlling fugitive emissions/small leaks of methane and nmVOC from the land plants.

Substantial efforts are being devoted to replacing sniffing with OGI for both quantification and
LDAR work (safety). The US EPA is participating in this work. This is because OGI gives total
cover, is equally good at leak detection and is significantly cheaper than the sniffer method.
As a result of the work on OGI, “smart LDAR” has emerged as a new concept. A lot of
information on smart LDAR has appeared on the internet, and this seems to be the direction
developments are taking internationally.

In such a context, it would be natural in the future to integrate safety work with quantification
requirements by utilising the same methods and common procedures.

No screening data are available so far which allows the OGI method to be used to produce an
estimate of emissions here and now. Using average factors per component type is the only
way to estimate emissions on the basis of the limited information available. Three methods/
factor sets are available.

a. Norwegian standard NS-EN 15446:2008. Its default factors can be used. The method has
two drawbacks:
• it does not distinguish between control valves and other valve types
• the basis for determining the default factors is not provided.
b. The CAPP report (ref 8). This provides average factors for a large number of components
at upstream oil and gas plants utilising a leak monitoring and follow-up system which
corresponds with the one applied on NCS facilities.
c. EEMS standard factors. Their background is not known. The factors are also to some extent
far lower than those used by the CAPP and the Norwegian standard.

Going by the information available, the average factors in the CAPP method appear to be the
best documented and to contain the fewest uncertainties. These are therefore recommended
for producing an initial estimate of emissions, which should be updated when screening data
are available.
19
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Establishing the relative proportions of methane and nmVOC in the emission gases represents
almost as big a challenge as determining the total emissions. The recommended approach for
simplifying this is to assume that these proportions match the composition of the facility’s fuel
gas. Uncertainty over this split is significantly smaller than for quantification of the total
emissions.

20
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

7 Other conditions related to direct

methane and nmVOC emissions
7.1 Dial measurements and follow-up in
operations
When reviewing the four land plants, the operators were asked how far they checked the
results of the Dial measurements against other methods. It transpired that very little of this
was done. A single plant took samples from one of the emission sources to check its
composition and compare this with the Dial measurements. One plant also reported that this
work would become more relevant in the future because the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
(NPD) now required carbon tax to be paid for such emissions there. The survey revealed that
very little use is made of the Dial results in following up operation of the plants. None of the
plants go through the measurements with operations personnel unless these have has
resulted in specific activities for operational follow-up.

7.2 Operating conditions and parameters which

affect methane and nmVOC emissions
It emerged from the review that frequent start-ups and shut-downs of the plants mean
operating the control valves, and therefore indirectly affect leaks which may occur through
these. An unstable plant will thereby produce more fugitive emissions because the control
valves are operated a great deal and because experience shows that control valves are a
significant contributor to small leaks.

7.3 Mapping sampling points and composition:

proportions of methane and nmVOC from
various sources
It also emerged that, apart from regular sampling of fuel gas, only unusual emissions were
sampled – such as accidental releases of gas (big leaks) and emissions from the MEG storage
tanks. In connection with the Christian Michelsen Research (CMR) model of the flare system,
some of the operators reported that monthly samples of flare gas were taken on the upstream
side of the main flare-gas pipe. How far the composition of these samples is more
representative of fugitive emissions/small leaks than the fuel gas analyses is not known.

7.4 Routines for leak detection and maintenance

Leak testing of stuffing boxes, valves and flanges at plant start-up is conducted using
nitrogen and helium as test gas. This is also done in parts of the plant after maintenance
involving local disassembly. Leak testing also takes place with sniffers, pressure testing and
soapy water.

Several measures are utilised when the plants are in operation.

• Fixed gas detectors installed around the plant. These operate continuously and
activate an alarm if leaks above 20 per cent of the lower explosive limit (LEL) are
registered.
• Inspections around the plant using hand-held meters (sniffers). These measure at the
equipment/component level. Identified leaks are registered as a notification. A sniffer
response is checked by measuring at a distance of 10 centimetres in the most
unfavourable wind direction (at one of the plants, an initial measurement is made at a
distance of one cm and, if this gives a response, at 10 cm as well).
• All registered leaks (above about one per cent LEL) are logged and followed up with
subsequent measures to check whether the leak rate is increasing.

21
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

• If emissions above 20 per cent LEL are detected, this entered in the log for fugitive
emissions as a corrective job and is prioritised in relation to its criticality.

7.5 Cold venting and flaring strategy

Apart from seeking generally to avoid cold venting, in part by sending waste gases to the low-
pressure flare, no specific strategies were presented during the reviews. It is important that
such strategies are in place at the conceptual design phase. Operating personnel contacted by
the project team must operate the plant they are handed, and do not necessarily have an
overview of the strategies pursued in the conceptual design phase.

7.6 Identifying implemented emission-reducing

measures
Several operational measures were noted which have been initiated at the plants to reduce
direct methane and nmVOC emissions.

• Reduced flaring, including the introduction of an automated valve control function

which reduces flaring at startup and shutdown.
• Changes to technical solutions, such as modifications to the ventilation system for
MEG and the VOC recycling plant from loading. Generally speaking, the operators were
unable to contribute much supplementary information – in part because of the short
notice.
• New procedures for operation.
• Optimisation of the VOC regeneration compressor.

The operators have not documented/calculated what emission reductions these measures
have produced.

22
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Abbreviations
API American Petroleum Institute
Atex Appareils destinés à être utilisés en Atmosphères Explosibles, EU directive
which specifies equipment and working conditions permitted in an
environment with an explosive atmosphere
BAT Best available techniques
Bref Best available techniques reference document
CAPP Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Concawe European Oil Company Organisation for Environment, Health and Safety
CH4 Methane
CO2 Carbon dioxide
Dial Differential absorption Lidar
EEMS Environmental and emissions monitoring system
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
FID Flame-ionisation detector
HC Hydrocarbon
He Helium
HFS High flow sampler
IED Industrial emissions directive (EU)
IR Infra-red
LDAR Leak detection and repair
LEL Lower explosive limit
Lidar Light detection and ranging
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LPG Liquefied petroleum gas
MEG Monoethylene glycol
NCS Norwegian continental shelf
NGL Natural gas liquids
NmVOC Non-methane volatile organic compounds
NPD Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
NPL National Physical Laboratories
NS-EN Standard developed for Europe (CEN) and then adopted as a Norwegian
standard
NS-EN 15446 Norwegian standard for calculating fugitive emissions
N2 Nitrogen
OGI Optical gas imaging
PID Photoionisation detector
Ppmv Parts per million volume
QRA Quantitative risk assessment
SOF Solar occultation flux
UV Ultra-violet
VOC Volatile organic compounds

23
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

References
Ref 1 Surveying installations to identify potential emission sources. Sub-report 1, Cold
venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities, Add Novatech,
Norwegian Environment Agency, 2015

Ref 2 Emission estimates and quantification methods. Sub-report 2, Cold venting and
fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities, Add Novatech, Norwegian
Environment Agency, 2015

Ref 3 BAT, Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities, Add
Novatech, Norwegian Environment Agency, 2015

Ref 4 Annual report 5, Intergovernmental panel on climate change, 2013: p 714 (with
climate-carbon feedbacks)

Ref 5 Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for the Refining of Mineral Oil
and Gas, 2015, and Commission implementing decision of 9 October 2014
establishing BAT conclusions, pursuant to Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU
Ref 6 Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimates, US Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995

Ref 7 Techniques for detecting and quantifying fugitive emissions – results of comparative
field studies, Concawe report 6/15, October 2015

Ref 8 Update of Fugitive Equipment Leak Emission Factors, Canadian Association of

Petroleum Producers (CAPP), February 2014

Ref 9 Fugitive emissions av felles betydning for industrisektoren – Måling av flyktige

forbindelser fra lekkasjer i utstyr og rør, Norwegian standard NS-EN 15446:2008

Ref 10 EEMS – Atmospheric Emissions Calculations, version 1.10, Department of Energy and
Climate Change, UK

Ref 11 Quantified fugitive emissions - Statoil Draupner, November 2015

24
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Appendix 1

Status for quantifying fugitive emissions

and leaks of methane and nmVOC

1. Introduction
Several methods for quantifying fugitive emissions/small leaks have been identified. A
characteristic of these emissions is that they are difficult to measure. Emission quantification
must therefore be carried out with the help of indirect methods, which all suffer different
degrees of uncertainty, and verifying the emission figures is difficult.

Fugitive emissions/small leaks primarily occur from components which are assumed to be
sealed, such as stuffing boxes, flanges, threaded connections and so forth. Some of the leaks
are detectable, but most are so small that they escape detection.

An extensive and thorough leak detection programme is pursued on Norwegian offshore

facilities (and at land plants) with the primary goal of preventing and safeguarding these
assets against undesirable incidents, and to minimise the risk of such events occurring. This
programme also indirectly helps to keep emissions at a low level. In most cases, large natural
gas leaks lead to a shutdown and an investigation of the incident as well as a calculation of
the size of the HC leak. This type of emission is under good control. Table 8 presents an
overview of such escapes on NCS facilities since 2002.

Table 8 Emissions of HC gas (methane + nmVOC) from large acute gas emissions.

Year Tonnes No of incidents Tonnes per incident

2002 8.1 10 0.81
2003 590.0 20 29.50
2004 1371.9 19 72.21
2005 21.4 20 1.07
2006 34.9 28 1.25
2007 2.6 26 0.10
2008 13.3 35 0.38
2009 54.6 19 2.87
2010 11.5 26 0.44
2011 15.4 7 2.20
2012 93.7 8 11.71
2013 2.8 13 0.22
2014 1.7 17 0.10

Where small leaks (in other words, acute escapes not quantified separately) are concerned,
good quantification methods and an overview of their contribution to emissions have been
lacking. However, considerable work on this has been done internationally in recent years,
and several methods have been developed. A brief overview of the ones most widely used is
provided below.

25
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

2. Measurement methods
Four different groups of methods have been identified.

1. Area measurements

These are indirect methods based on concentrations of emitted gases in given areas of the
plant. Two are described in the Bref document for oil and gas refining (ref 5). Both are
approved as BAT for measuring fugitive emissions.

Differential absorption Lidar (Dial)

This is a laser-based technique utilising light detection and ranging (Lidar), an optical
analogue to radio-wave-based radar. The measuring equipment is placed in a mobile unit
(trailer) positioned in various places around the areas to be measured. This method
measures the aggregate methane and nmVOC emissions in the area, including dedicated
point emissions, unburnt methane and nmVOC as components in waste gases from gas
turbines, boilers, the flare system and other combustion processes as well as fugitive
emissions/small leaks.

Dial is used to determine methane and nmVOC emissions from large oil and gas plants on
land in Norway, where the method has been used since the 1990s.

Solar occultation flux (SOF)

This technique is based on Fourier transformation analysis of a broadband IR or ultra-violet
(UV) spectrum along a given path which crosses the wind direction and cuts through a
methane and nmVOC plume. The method requires sunlight during measurement.

With both these methods, the measurement results can be converted to emission rates in
kg/h and split into methane and partially also into other VOC components. In order to
convert the emission rates to annual emission data, the measurements must be conducted
under operational conditions which are representative for the annual average. Two or more
measurements are normally made per area as the basis for calculating average emission
rates. Where Norwegian land plants are concerned, the requirement (with some
exceptions) is that measurement campaigns are conducted every third year.

2. Direct measurement

These are measurements of emissions from the individual potential emission components – a
flange, a valve, an instrument and so forth. The best-known technique is bagging, whereby
the component is isolated with a gas-tight plastic bag. This allows the component’s leak rate
to be measured very accurately.

Bagging can be implemented with various techniques:

• vacuum bagging
• blow through
• high flow sampling (HFS).

26
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Figure 5 Simplified diagram of bagging with the vacuum method (source: ref 6).

Bagging is a very labour-intensive method and, for practical and cost reasons, cannot be
applied to all potential leak sources in a large process plant. However, it is very suitable for
research and calibrating/checking other quantification methods.

Bubble-counting with soapy water is another direct measurement technique. The water is
sprayed on the component (flange, valve stem and so forth), bubbles form in the event of
leaks, and these can be counted. Using known correlations, this information can be converted
to emission rates. Bubble-counting is cheaper than bagging, but less accurate.

3. Component screening

Like bagging, this method is based on measuring (scanning) “all” components which could be
potential candidates for fugitive emissions/small leaks. Unlike bagging, however, the
measurements as greatly simplified. Two methods exist, both accepted as BAT in ref 5.

Screening with the aid of sniffing

Measurements are made with a hand-held instrument (sniffer). The commonest are the
flame-ionisation detector (FID) and the photoionisation detector (PID). These are the same
types of instruments used for detection and measurement of gas leaks during safety checks
on NCS facilities and at land plants in Norway. Since the purpose of the measurements differs,
the methods vary a good deal. The method used for gas detection and control at Norwegian
facilities is based on measuring the gas concentration in per cent LEL about 10 cm from the
leak point in the most critical position (downstream).

Quantification utilises methods described in a protocol developed by the US EPA in 1995 (ref
6). These are based on passing the sniffer close to and over the whole area which potentially
could produce fugitive emissions – round the whole periphery of a flange or valve shaft, for
example. Readings are made in parts per million volume (ppmv) and are taken from all
components in all systems containing more than 20 per cent HC.

This basic method forms the foundation for much of the work done later on developing
application methods and standards to quantify fugitive emissions. EN-15446 (Norwegian
standard NO-EN 15446:2008), the European (and Norwegian) standard for quantifying
fugitive emissions, builds on this method.

27
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

The method is labour-intensive, since it basically requires all potential leak points to be
screened with the sniffer. Pursuant to NO-EN 15446, the following can be excluded:

• components which are inaccessible

• components requiring disassembly for access
• components where sniffing poses a safety risk.

A standard (default) emission factor can be used for these.

OGI techniques (also known as smart LDAR)

This is a newer technique which is increasingly being accepted and is now also under
assessment by the US EPA. It utilises a light hand-held camera which creates an image of the
gas leak. Figure 6 provides an example of how a leak shows up on the camera.

Figure 6 Leak from a valve (source: ref 5).

The method makes it possible to detect leaking components fairly quickly and efficiently.
Several types of camera are available, with Flir as the first to produce one and dominant in
the market. Opgal also entered the scene in 2010. Their cameras (Flir GF 320 og Opgal Eye
C) are said to produce comparable results (ref 7). (The Opgal Eye C is Atex-certified for zone
2). Other types are now also said to be on the market. These cameras are expensive (EUR
70-100 000). This project has identified a Norwegian company, IR Vision AS at Sola, which
has acquired an OGI camera and has conducted leak scanning for several years. The method
is used by several operators on the NCS for leak inspection (in connection with controlling
risk). Statoil has acquired its own IR camera for use in safety inspections.

The OGI method makes it possible to access all potential leak points in the plant, including
insulated components. This cannot be achieved with sniffing. A distance of two metres or less
from the component to be scanned is recommended. When scanning, components are
registered as Leak or No Leak, depending on whether a leak is detected in the camera. The
detection limit for the camera is very good and can be adjusted as required. Where HC gases
are concerned, the detection limit is less than one g/h, corresponding to about eight-nine
kg/y.

Compared with sniffing, OGI is a far less labour-intensive operation. Concawe notes that a
trained two-member team can scan up to 2 000 components per day. That corresponds to
two-five work-days on most NCS facilities. Because the method is simple and efficiently
locates the larger emissions, it has also been dubbed smart LDAR.

28
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

3 Quantification methods
Of the measurement methods described in chapter 2 of this appendix, both area and direct
measurement are unsuitable for NCS facilities – in the first case because access is impossible
with a large instrument trailer in a secure area on an offshore facility, and in the second
(bagging) because it is a very extensive, labour-intensive and expensive operation.

The sniffing-based quantification method was developed by the US EPA and is described in a
substantial protocol published in 1995 (ref 6). It is based on a correlation between the
screening value in ppmv and the emission rate in g/h, depending on component type. These
correlations are based on extensive laboratory and field measurements of emissions –
including with the use of bagging.

This means that a measured screening value of 3 500 ppmv, for example, corresponds to a
given emission rate, independently of pipe dimension and pressure. A great number of
measurements have been made as the basis for developing the method. The protocol also
provides detailed descriptions of how and where sniffing is to be done on various types of
valves, flanges and so forth. An example is presented in figure 7. Performing sniffing as
prescribed in the protocol is essential for utilising the method.

Figure 7 Examples of where to sniff on two valve types (source: ref 6).

On this basis, several methods have been established which can be used to calculate the
quantity of HC gas released as fugitive emissions/small leaks from a plant. The most widely
used methods are described below:

• EPA screening ranges approach (Leak/No Leak factors)

• EPA correlation approach (also known as Method 21)
• CAPP emission factors
• NS-EN 15446.

All these methods require a complete database of relevant components which could give rise
to fugitive emissions/small leaks in the plant, and screening of these (in other words,
measuring their emissions by sniffer using the specified approach.

3.1 EPA screening approach

This involves registering all components which yield a screening value of ≥10 000 ppmv. The
emissions are calculated with the aid of factors listed in table 9.

29
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Table 9 Screening range emission factors (source ref 7).

Component type Service ≥ 10 000 ppmv emission < 10 000 ppmv emission
factor (kg/h/component) factor (kg/h/component)
Valves Gas 0.2626 0.0006
Valves Light liquid 0.0852 0.0017
Valves Oil 0.00023 0.00023
Pump seals Light liquid 0.437 0.012
Pump seals Heavy oil 0.03885 0.0135
Compressor seals Gas 1.608 0.0894
Safety valves Gas 1.691 0.0477
Connectors All 0.0375 0.00006
Open-ended All 0.01195 0.0015

Table 9 has been developed for refineries, but should in principle also apply to other plants
processing HCs.

No unambiguous definition of “service” is available. Where NCS facilities are concerned, the
following are expected to be applicable:

oil = crude oil downstream of the last separator

light liquid = condensate systems
gas = gas systems.

Compressor-seal emissions are calculated using other methods and are not included here.

Emission factors for safety valves apply to those blowing directly to the air. Such solutions are
unlikely to be found on the NCS.

Connectors are flanges, threaded connections and other connector types.

Open-ended are shut-off valves (in closed position) which can be opened directly to the air.
The survey of Canadian upstream oil and gas plants on land found very few such valves, and
the position on NCS facilities is likely to be the same.

As table 9 shows, the method operates with two sets of emission factors. These are calculated
by multiplying the number of components in the given category. An example is presented
below.

Gas service embraces 1 000 valves. Sniffing has registered screening values above 10 000
ppmv on 20 of these. The calculation is then:

Emissions from valves above 10 000 ppmv: 20 x 0.2626 kg/h = 5.252 kg/h
Emissions from valves below 10 000 ppmv 980 x 0.0006 kg/h = 0.588 kg/h
Total emissions from gas-service valves: 5.84 kg/h = 51.1 t/y

Emissions from the other component categories are calculated in the same way. Their sum
provides annual methane and nmVOC emissions. The relative proportions of methane and
nmVOC can be determined subsequently by the operator.

3.2 EPA correlation approach (Method 21)

3.2.1 Original method

This approach involves sorting the screening results into two groups:

• pegged items: components giving a reading above a given set level (such as 100 000 ppmv)
30
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

• non-pegged items: components giving a reading below the set level.

Based on calibration and control measurements, including with bagging, emission and
correlation factors have been established on a statistical basis for pegged and non-pegged
components. With screenings between one ppmv and the set level, the emission quantity is
calculated by the following formula to convert screening value in ppmv to emission rate.

LR (kg/h) = correlation factor 1 x (SV)correlation factor 2 (1)

where:
LR = the leak rate (per component)
correlation factors 1 and 2 are shown in table 10
(SV) = screening value per component.

The correlation factors do not apply to screenings above the set level. Emission factors shown
in table 10 are used here in the same way as with the screening approach. If the set level is
100 000 ppmv, emissions for all components with a screening value between 1 and 100 000
ppmv are calculated using formula (1), while emissions from the (few) components with a
screening value above 100 000 ppmv are calculated using the emission factor for pegged
components given in table 10.

Table 10 Emission and correlation factors for various component types (set level = 100 000
ppmv).
Pegged component emission
Source factor (kg/h) Correlation factor 1 Correlation factor 2
Open-ended 0.079 2.20E-06 0.704
Valve 0.14 2.29E-06 0.746
Flange 0.084 4.61E-06 0.703
Connector 0.03 1.53E-06 0.735
Pump seal 0.16 5.03E-05 0.61
Other 0.11 1.36E-05 0.589

This method is more labour intensive than the screening approach.

Method 21 does not distinguish between the phases within the piping systems, or between
flanges and other connector types such as threaded connections.

3.2.2 Norwegian standard NS-EN 15446:2008

Norwegian standard NS-EN 15446:2008 is based on the EPA correlation approach (Method
21). By and large, the screening method and calculation formula are the same. However, the
following components are not sniffed:

• those with flow apertures below 50.8 millimetres

• those which are inaccessible (need scaffolding or the like to be sniffed), require
disassembly (removal of insulation), or pose a risk if sniffing is used.

Components which do not provide a screening value are excluded (below the sniffer detection
limit).

Otherwise, the standard operates with two upper limits for the screening value: 100 000 and
10 000 ppmv. The equation is the same as for Method 21:

ER = A x (SV)B (2)
where:
ER = emission rate (kg/h)
A = correlation factor A
B = correlation factor B
(SV) = screening value.

Correlation and emission factors are presented in table 11.

31
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Table 11 Correlation and emission factors, NS-EN 15446:2008.

Emission factor at Emission factor
screening value at screening Average
Component >10 000 (kg/h) value >100 000 factor
type Service A B (kg/h) (kg/h)
Valves Gas 2.26 x 10-6 0.746 0.064 0.140 0.02680
Valves Light liquid 2.26 x 10-6 0.746 0.064 0.140 0.01090
Pump seals All 5.03 x 10-5 0.610 0.074 0.160 0.11400
Connectors All 1.53 x 10-6 0.735 0.028 0.130 0.00025
Flanges All 4.61 x 10-6 0.703 0.085 0.084 0.00025
Open-ended All 2.20 x 10-6 0.704 0.03 0.079 0.00230
Other All 1.36 x 10-6 0.589 0.073 0.110 N/A

If 10 000 ppmv is set as the upper limit for screening value, formula 2 is used to calculate
emissions from all components with a screening value below 10 000 ppmv and the associated
emission factors for all components with a screening value above 10 000 ppmv.

If 100 000 ppmv is set as the upper limit for screening value, formula 2 is used to calculate
emissions from all components with a screening value below 100 000 ppmv and the
associated emission factors for all components with a screening value above 100 000 ppmv.

“Other” is not relevant for the NCS, since these components are covered by different
quantification methods.

Pursuant to the standard, the given average factor will be used to calculate emissions from
components which are not accessible for sniffing.

3.2.3 CAPP method

The CAPP has devoted substantial efforts to quantifying, checking and reducing fugitive
emissions through an LDAR programme. As part of this work, the association has mapped
emissions over many years and further developed quantification methods derived from
Method 21. A report published in 2014 updated the emission factors (ref 8).

Two methods are used, both based on Method 21. A total of 276 947 components from 120
upstream oil and gas plants in Alberta and British Columbia form the basis for the project.

As a result of this work, the CAPP has also presented average factors per component type. It
operates with two sectors, oil and gas. Factors for the gas sector are presented in table 12.

The decision has been taken to exclude the oil sector, since the report (ref 8) does not explain
how the two sectors are defined. Emission factors for the gas sector are generally a little
higher than for the oil sector.

Table 11 Updated average CAPP emission factors (gas sector).

Component Number of Emission factor
Service
type components kg/h/component
Connector Gas vapour 170 148 0.000820
Connector Light liquid 25 203 0.000160
Valve Gas vapour 25 227 0.000570
Valve Light liquid 8 138 0.000860
Control valve All 61 0.039920
Open-ended All 1 012 0.466300

32
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

The emission factors presented in table 5 are averages for the 120 plants which participated
in the project. The latter are all included in the formal LDAR programme, which aims to
reduce such emissions in the longer term. This programme is very similar to practice on NCS
facilities, which takes a less formalised form. It is therefore likely that the position on the NCS
does not deviate substantially from the results seen in the Canadian project.

The CAPP report indicates that these results can be used for emission quantification at plants
using the programme.

3.2.4 EEMS

Britain’s EEMS system for quantifying fugitive emissions from the oil and gas industry
operates with emission factors (ref 10) for calculating emissions. Factors are provided for the
following component types:

• connections (includes flanges, threaded connections and so forth)

• valves (all types)
• open-ended
• pumps
• other (unclear what this includes).

Separate factors have been developed for land plants and offshore facilities. Where the latter
are concerned, no distinction is made between type of service (oil, gas or condensate).

Factors for offshore facilities are presented in table 13.

Table 12 EEMS emission factors for offshore facilities (source: ref 10).

Component type Emission factor (kg/y/component)

Connections 0.946
Valves 4.520
Open-ended 8.940
Pumps 1.720
Other 60.900

These factors are supplemented by age adjustment factors, which are as follows:

• facilities built between 1980 and 1988: 1.3

• facilities built before 1980: 1.5.

This means the emission factors for facilities built before 1989 must be multiplied by the
relevant age adjustment factor.

The EEMS document (ref 10) makes no reference to sources for the specified factors, or how
far they build on Method 21 or other known work. Its factors also deviate (to some extent
substantially) from the average factors established by the other methods referenced.

3.2.5 OGI Leak/No-Leak method

Concawe, an oil-company organisation, has recently (October 2015) published a report on

several parallel LDAR campaigns conducted in i 2012-2013 at two European refineries for
natural gas and light HCs (ref 7). The purpose of these campaigns was to compare sniffing
and OGI in terms of emission quantification.

Plant 1: 3 931 detection points (components)

Plant 2: three campaigns

campaign 1: 25 642 detection points
campaign 2: 4 692 detection points
campaign 3: 4 692 detection points
33
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

A total of 171 components (74 at plant 1 and 97 at plant 2) were checked by measuring with
bagging in accordance with the HFS method.

The Concawe report concludes as follows.

Access:
OGI: no restrictions
Sniffing: a number of components inaccessible.

Detection limit:
OGI: 1-10 g/h (in a controlled experiment, 0.1 g/h was detected)
Sniffing: 0.01 g/h (average).

Workload and cost

Sniffing involved four times as much work as OGI.

Costs
Equipment: OGI camera costs about five times more than a sniffer.
Workload: using a sniffer involves far more work than an OGI camera .
Conclusion: OGI has a substantial cost advantage (when workload is taken into
account).

The method developed is based on the Leak/No Leak principle, where the number of
components with leaks detected by OGI was registered. Emission factors were established for
Leak and No Leak components respectively. Since the OGI camera can be set to different
sensitivity levels, factors were established for four detection limits – three g/h, six g/h, 30 g/h
and 60 g/h.

Table 13. Emission factors from the use of OGI as a function of detection limits (ref 7).
Emission factor (g/h/component)
Component Emission
type factor type Detection limit Detection Detection limit Detection limit
3 g/h limit, 6 g/h 30 g/h 60 g/h
No Leak 0.019 0.043 0.17 0.27
Valves
Leak 55 73 140 200
Pumps, No Leak 0.096 0.13 0.59 0.75
compressors Leak 140 160 310 350
No Leak 0.0026 0.0041 0.01 0.014
Flanges
Leak 29 45 88 120
No Leak 0.007 0.014 0.051 0.081
Others
Leak 56 75 150 210

The Concawe project compared the OGI method with sniffing using Method 21 and direct
measurement using bagging (the HFS method). The comparisons were made for Site 1 and
for unit 2 at Site 2, campaign 3. The results are presented in figures 8 and 9. These show
calculated emission quantities (i kg/h for all components included), based on OGI
measurements with three, six, 30 and 60 g/h detection limits respectively.

34
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

Figure 8 Comparison of OGI with sniffing and direct measurement, Site 1 (source (ref 7).

Concawe itself concludes as follows:

As noted above, the number of large leaks in Site 1 was very low. For this facility, with relatively
low fugitive emissions, both Method 21 correlations and OGI factors gave an over-estimate of VOC
mass emissions.

Figure 9 Comparison of OGI with sniffing and direct measurement, Site 2 (source ref 7).

Concawe’s conclusion was:

The Leak/No Leak factors over-estimated the VOC emissions, as did the Method 21 correlations.
OGI Leak/No Leak factors for 3 g/h and 6 g/h limit seemed to give a relatively reasonable VOC mass
emissions estimate for Site 2 and bracket the average value determined by Method 21.

This indicates that the OGI method, when implemented with detection limits of three or six
g/h, gives comparable results to the sniffing methods, as well as results which do not deviate
substantially from more accurate direct measurements based on bagging.

35
 Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian oil and gas activities
Sub-report 4 – Check of calculation methods for fugitive emissions and small leaks

4 Comparison of calculation methods

The various methods described in chapter 3 are comparable on the basis of some important
criteria.

The following methods are not included in the comparison:

• the Dial and SOF methods, because they cannot be used on NCS facilities.
• bagging, because this method is suited to research and calibration, but not for
measurement in and checking of complete industrial plants.

Table 14 Comparison of quantification methods.

Method Coverage LDAR compatible Field work Cost level

Sniffer screening:
- EPA screening Partial Yes Extensive Expensive
- EPA correlation Partial Yes Extensive Expensive
- NS-EN 15446:2008 Partial Yes Extensive Expensive
CAPP standard factors Full No None Low
EEMS standard factors Full No None Low
OGI Leak/No Leak Full Yes Fairly extensive Less expensive

Partial coverage indicates that the method cannot include all components (because of
inaccessible location or coverage with insulation).

LDAR compatible indicates that the method can be incorporated as a key element in an
LDAR procedure. Development (improvement/deterioration) over time will be picked up both
for the plant as a whole and for individual components. Methods which are not LDAR
compatible calculate a single emission level based solely on the number of components in the
plant.

Field work indicates how much work is required for full mapping of the facility. The Concawe
report specifies that a trained two-member operative team can cover 1 500-2 000
components per working day. Sniffing is estimated to cover 500 components in that space of
time.

Cost level. Labour costs are supplemented by equipment prices. A sniffer costs EUR 5-20 000
per instrument, while an OGI camera is EUR 70-100 000 each (source: ref 7).

36