Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Dutch Natural Gas

Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Dutch Natural Gas Industry Doreen Wunderlich

1 2 Motivation Emissions from the Dutch Industry 3 Methane and CO 2 equivalent emissions 4 Conclusions

Motivation

• Natural gas burns“cleaner”than coal -> bridge fuel • life-cycle assessment: all greenhouse gases across fuel´s supply chain • CH 4 emissions can offset benefits of lower combustion emissions -> methane loss rate: CH 4 emissions in % of extracted CH 4 Hayhoe et al. (2002), 2002 Wigley (2011): 2. 0% Mommers (2016): 3 -8%

• TNO, 1995: Methane emissions due to oil and natural gas operations in The Netherlands • CH 4 emissions for the supply chain exploration production procecssing transmission storage distribution end use • comparison of bottom-up and top-down approach

• Imperial College London, 2015: • indication of emission estimates found in 240 papers • GHG emissions in g. CO 2 eq/MJ • Methane loss rate

• Imperial College London, 2015: Key findings: • vast range of GHG emissions across the supply chain • incomplete and under-represented data • no data about the Netherlands

Emissions from the Dutch Industry

Structure in the Netherlands KIWA: Keurings Instituut voor Waterleiding Artikelen NAM: Nederlandse Aardolie Matschapij EBN: Energie Beheer Nederland NOGEPA: Netherlands Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Association

Exploration/Production/Processing: e-MJV

Exploration/Production/Processing:

Exploration/Production/Processing:

Exploration/Production/Processing:

Transmission and Storage: 2013 CO 2 emissions: 2014 2015 2016

Distribution: CH 4 emissions: CO 2 emissions: from NIR reports: 0. 18 ktonne in 2013 -2015

Methane and CO 2 -equivalent emissions

Carbon footprint GHG emissions across the entire supply chain J M q/ 2. 0 e 2 O C g J /M eq O 2 C 4 g 1. = 86 = 34

Carbon footprint Comparison to Balcombe et al. 42 g. CO 2 eq/MJ (HHV) 1. 4 g. CO 2 eq/MJ 2 g. CO 2 eq/MJ (HHV)

Carbon footprint

Methane only emissions TNO, 1995: 148 (98) ktonne > 70% reduction

Methane loss rate 10 % Hayhoe et al. Balcombe et al. 0. 2 %

Conclusions

Key emission sources: • key segments across supply chain: production and processing • CO 2 from energy generation • CH 4 from venting and fugitive emissions Comparison with TNO-study, 1995: • > 70% reduction in absolute amount of CH 4 emissions • > 2/3 reduction of methane loss rate HOW ? - mitigation measures - country-specific emission factors Comparison with literature (Balcombe et al. ): • methane loss rate lower than any indication from literature REA • CO -equivalent / MJ lower than any indication from literature SO NS ? 2

Explanation of the “good”results: • abandonment of unconventional gas fields • strict regulations, dense population -> requires low-emitting technology • reporting system -> country-specific emission factors -> intensive measurements (Gasunie)

BUT. . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear

BUT. . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear • exact emission sources

BUT. . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear • which emission sources • neglecting insignificant sources by DSO (and other companies ? )

BUT. . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear • which emission sources • neglecting insignificant sources by DSO (and other companies ? ) • low transparency of emissions reported in NIR

BUT. . . • emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear • which emission sources • neglecting insignificant sources by DSO (and other companies ? ) • low transparency of emissions reported in NIR • partly incorrect in reporting tools intransparent - incomplete - incorrect reliability ?

What is needed: completeness transparency independent auditing