Browsing by Author "Zimmerle, Daniel, author"
Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Appendices for "Characterization of methane emissions from gathering compressor stations: final report"(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2019) Zimmerle, Daniel, author; Vaughn, Timothy, author; Luck, Benjamin, author; Lauderdale, Terri, author; Keen, Kindal, author; Harrison, Matthew, author; Marchese, Anthony, author; Williams, Laurie, authorThis document is the appendices for the final report to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for contract DE-FE0029068 awarded to Colorado State University (CSU). CSU and subcontractor AECOM partnered with nine U.S. midstream operators to characterize emissions from natural gas gathering and boosting stations ("gathering stations") - a sector of the natural gas supply chain where few measurements have been made and little data are available for component emissions. Although here is overlap in the classes of equipment on gathering stations with those on production sites or transmission stations that have been measured recently, emissions are likely to differ for functional and operational reasons. Partner companies provided the study team site access to (1) measure methane emissions and (2) collect activity data on equipment and operations. Field measurements were made at 180 facilities in 11 U.S. states during June-November 2017. Measured facilities were sampled from 1705 partner facilities located in 28 American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) basins. Measurements were made in basins representative of current U.S. production and facilities selected for measurement shared key characteristics in proportion to all partner facilities. The principal deliverable of this study is a set of emission factors for components and major equipment at gathering stations. Leaker and population emission factors were developed for components, and population factors were developed for major equipment. All data was also incorporated into a model to produce a nationally representative estimate of emissions from gathering stations. Emission factors and model results are intended to inform the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) greenhouse gas inventory (GHGI). Components were counted on 1002 major equipment units (compressors, dehydrators, separators, tanks, acid gas removal units, and yard piping). Emission measurements were made on 1938 major equipment units. Data from a parallel study performed by GSI Environmental Inc. under the same DOE funding program were also incorporated. The field campaign supported a robust updating of emission factors for fugitive and vented emissions on components and major equipment. In general, the study indicates that study emission factors either agree with, or are larger than, current greenhouse gas reporting program (GHGRP) emission factors for the western U.S. and most GHGI emission factors, and are substantially larger than emission factors used by the GHGRP for the eastern U.S. This study also developed and field-tested two measurement methods to better characterize emissions from unburned methane entrained in compressor engine exhaust ("combustion slip") and vented and fugitive methane emissions from gas-powered, pneumatically actuated valves and controllers. Emissions from these sources are not well characterized at compressor stations. Long-term, direct measurements of pneumatic controller emissions were made on 72 pneumatic controllers (PCs) at 16 gathering stations; measurements averaged 76 hours in duration. New emission factors could not be developed due to measurement errors with the meters utilized for the study (see Section 4.3), and as a consequence, GHGRP emission factors were utilized to estimate pneumatic controller emissions in station and national estimates. However, the PC emissions data is still useful for a qualitative examination of pneumatic controller emissions [1]. In particular, these long-duration measurements provide insight into PC emissions behaviors that are not reflected in manufacturer's literature and have not been shown in prior studies. Recorded PC data shows a high degree of variability in operation over the course of hours or days - especially for intermittent vent PCs. Recordings also show an unexpectedly high occurrence of abnormal emission behavior - 25 of 40 intermittent vent controllers show abnormal behavior at some point during the recording, and 5 of 24 were emitting at higher than the low-bleed maximum of 6 scfh. Combustion slip was measured on 102 individual compressor drivers at 51 gathering stations. Results from combustion slip measurements indicate emissions similar to emission factors from EPA AP-42 [2]. Although component fugitive and vented emission factors are higher, current GHGI estimates are based upon whole-station measurements made in a prior field campaign [3] and subsequent national model [4]. Relative to these prior studies, and by extension the GHGI, emissions at stations measured during the field campaign are statistically lower. The current study drew a nationally-representative sample from a larger population of stations than the previous study (1705 stations versus 700 stations) while working with a larger group of industry partners (9 partners versus 4 partners), which raises confidence in the current study. While reasons cannot be definitively stated, likely causes of the lower methane emissions in this study are: (1) the previous study measured facilities with substantially higher throughput than the current study (39.5 [0.223 to 382] versus 19.7 [0.068 to 116] MMscfd whole gas); (2) the partner population in the previous study indicated a larger proportion of more complex stations {this study sampled 60% compression-only stations versus 30% in the previous study [3]; (3) the two studies utilized different measurement methods; and, (4) there may have been operational improvements to gathering stations during the intervening four years. To complete national estimates, the study utilized 319 per-basin GHGRP reports for gathering systems in 36 AAPG basins, including 15,895 reported compressors, and counts for other equipment, including gas pneumatic controllers, dehydrators, ares and other equipment. Using GHGRP activity data and data collected in the field campaign, the study estimated 6,108 [5,846 to 6,374] stations nationally, which is statistically higher then the current GHGI estimate of 5,241 stations. However, the study's national model indicated emissions that are statistically lower than current GHGI estimates for the gathering & boosting sector - 1,484 [1,439 to 1,537] Gg - y-1CH4 versus a GHGI estimate of 1,955.1 Gg - y-1CH4. Reasons for this difference align with those for station emission estimates - updated mix, size and throughput of stations, more complete activity data for stations, better estimates for unmeasured emission sources, including unit and station blowdowns, and possibly improvements in operations at gathering stations since prior studies. Results presented in this report are supported by several supplemental volumes which are cited throughout. Supplemental volumes are further supported by appendices, as cited within. In addition, results will be disseminated in three peer-reviewed publications currently in preparation.Item Open Access Characterization of methane emissions from gathering compressor stations: final report(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2019) Zimmerle, Daniel, author; Bennett, Kristine, author; Vaughn, Timothy, author; Luck, Ben, author; Lauderdale, Terri, author; Keen, Kindal, author; Harrison, Matthew, author; Marchese, Anthony, author; Williams, Laurie, author; Allen, David, authorThis document is the final report to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for contract DE-FE0029068 awarded to Colorado State University (CSU). CSU and subcontractor AECOM partnered with nine U.S. midstream operators to characterize emissions from natural gas gathering and boosting stations ("gathering stations") – a sector of the natural gas supply chain where few measurements have been made and little data are available for component emissions. Although there is overlap in the classes of equipment on gathering stations with those on production sites or transmission stations that have been measured recently, emissions are likely to differ for functional and operational reasons. Partner companies provided the study team site access to (1) measure methane emissions and (2) collect activity data on equipment and operations. Field measurements were made at 180 facilities in 11 U.S. states during June-November 2017. Measured facilities were sampled from 1705 partner facilities located in 28 American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) basins. Measurements were made in basins representative of current U.S. production and facilities selected for measurement shared key characteristics in proportion to all partner facilities. The principal deliverable of this study is a set of emission factors for components and major equipment at gathering stations. Leaker and population emission factors were developed for components, and population factors were developed for major equipment. All data was also incorporated into a model to produce a nationally representative estimate of emissions from gathering stations. Emission factors and model results are intended to inform the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) greenhouse gas inventory (GHGI). Components were counted on 1002 major equipment units (compressors, dehydrators, separators, tanks, acid gas removal units, and yard piping). Emission measurements were made on 1938 major equipment units. Data from a parallel study performed by GSI Environmental Inc. under the same DOE funding program were also incorporated. The field campaign supported a robust updating of emission factors for fugitive and vented emissions on components and major equipment. In general, the study indicates that study emission factors either agree with, or are larger than, current greenhouse gas reporting program (GHGRP) emission factors for the western U.S. and most GHGI emission factors, and are substantially larger than emission factors used by the GHGRP for the eastern U.S. This study also developed and field-tested two measurement methods to better characterize emissions from unburned methane entrained in compressor engine exhaust (“combustion slip”) and vented and fugitive methane emissions from gas-powered, pneumatically actuated valves and controllers. Emissions from these sources are not well characterized at compressor stations. Long-term, direct measurements of pneumatic controller emissions were made on 72 pneumatic controllers (PCs) at 16 gathering stations; measurements averaged 76 hours in duration. New emission factors could not be developed due to measurement errors with the meters utilized for the study (see Section 4.3), and as a consequence, GHGRP emission factors were utilized to estimate pneumatic controller emissions in station and national estimates. However, the PC emissions data is still useful for a qualitative examination of pneumatic controller emissions [1]. In particular, these long-duration measurements provide insight into PC emissions behaviors that are not reflected in manufacturer’s literature and have not been shown in prior studies. Recorded PC data shows a high degree of variability in operation over the course of hours or days – especially for intermittent vent PCs. Recordings also show an unexpectedly high occurrence of abnormal emission behavior – 25 of 40 intermittent vent controllers show abnormal behavior at some point during the recording, and 5 of 24 were emitting at higher than the low-bleed maximum of 6 scfh. Combustion slip was measured on 102 individual compressor drivers at 51 gathering stations. Results from combustion slip measurements indicate emissions similar to emission factors from EPA AP-42 [2]. Although component fugitive and vented emission factors are higher, current GHGI estimates are based upon whole-station measurements made in a prior field campaign [3] and subsequent national model [4]. Relative to these prior studies, and by extension the GHGI, emissions at stations measured during the field campaign are statistically lower. The current study drew a nationally-representative sample from a larger population of stations than the previous study (1705 stations versus ≈700 stations) while working with a larger group of industry partners (9 partners versus 4 partners), which raises confidence in the current study. While reasons cannot be definitively stated, likely causes of the lower methane emissions in this study are: (1) the previous study measured facilities with substantially higher throughput than the current study (39.5 [0.223 to 382] versus 19.7 [0.068 to 116] MMscfd whole gas); (2) the partner population in the previous study indicated a larger proportion of more complex stations – this study sampled 60% compression-only stations versus 30% in the previous study [3]; (3) the two studies utilized different measurement methods; and, (4) there may have been operational improvements to gathering stations during the intervening four years. To complete national estimates, the study utilized 319 per-basin GHGRP reports for gathering systems in 36 AAPG basins, including 15,895 reported compressors, and counts for other equipment, including gas pneumatic controllers, dehydrators, flares and other equipment. Using GHGRP activity data and data collected in the field campaign, the study estimated 6,108 [5,846 to 6,374] stations nationally, which is statistically higher then the current GHGI estimate of 5,241 stations. However, the study’s national model indicated emissions that are statistically lower than current GHGI estimates for the gathering & boosting sector – 1,484 [1,439 to 1,537] Gg · y−1CH4 versus a GHGI estimate of 1,955.1 Gg · y−1CH4. Reasons for this difference align with those for station emission estimates - updated mix, size and throughput of stations, more complete activity data for stations, better estimates for unmeasured emission sources, including unit and station blowdowns, and possibly improvements in operations at gathering stations since prior studies. Results presented in this report are supported by several supplemental volumes which are cited throughout. Supplemental volumes are further supported by appendices, as cited within. In addition, results will be disseminated in three peer-reviewed publications currently in preparation.Item Open Access MAES study sheet guide(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2024-09-19) Mollel, Winrose, author; Mdigo, Jacob, author; Santos, Arthur, author; Vora, Prajay, author; Duggan, Jerry, author; Zimmerle, Daniel, authorThis document provides definitions and instructions for completing Mechanistic Air Emissions Simulator (MAES) Study Sheets, one of the key input files required for running MAES. MAES is an updated version of the Methane Emission Estimation Tool (MEET). For details on additional input files, curated emissions data, and activity data, please refer to the main MAES documentation. The content addresses terms found in each tab and includes examples where applicable. Note that this document does not cover equipment operating states; for that information, consult the MAES help documentation at MEET2/README.html, then select ”MEET Model Reference” from the left-side menu.Item Open Access METEC controlled test protocol: continuous monitoring emission detection and quantification(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2020-09-22) Bell, Clay, author; Zimmerle, Daniel, authorThis testing will assess the performance of continuous monitoring (CM) systems which perform leak detection and quantification (LDAQ) under Single-Blind controlled release testing over a range of environmental conditions and emission rates. Testing will evaluate system-level performance measures including Probability of Detection and Detection Time. Additional metrics including accuracy and precision of localization and quantification estimates will be evaluated if applicable. Due to the dependence of methods on weather conditions, testing will require an extended period, typically months, with active emission and non-emissions periods to (1) allow each Experimental Design Point to operate for an extended duration, typically hours, and (2) assess performance across a wide range of meteorological conditions.Item Open Access METEC controlled test protocol: survey emission detection and quantification(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2022-04-26) Bell, Clay, author; Zimmerle, Daniel, authorThis testing will assess the performance of survey methods which perform leak detection and quantification (LDAQ) under single-blind controlled release testing over a range of environmental conditions and emission rates. Testing will evaluate system-level performance measures including Probability of Detection and Detection Time. Additional metrics including accuracy and precision of localization and quantification estimates will be evaluated if applicable.Item Open Access Methane emissions from gathering and boosting compressor stations in the U.S. Supporting volume 1: Multi-day measurements of pneumatic controller emissions(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2019) Luck, Benjamin, author; Zimmerle, Daniel, author; Vaughn, Timothy, author; Lauderdale, Terri, author; Keen, Kindal, author; Harrison, Matthew, author; Marchese, Anthony, author; Williams, Laurie, author; Allen, Dave, authorThis study was part of a larger study (the Gathering Emission Factor, or "GEF") study [1] to develop activity and methane emission factors for EPA's Greenhouse Gas Inventory (EPA GHGI) using direct emission measurements at the device level on all classes of equipment found on gathering compressor stations. To accomplish this, Colorado State University (CSU) partnered with the engineering firm AECOM to assist with planning, logistics, field work and analysis. Nine midstream natural gas companies – Anadarko Petroleum, Equinor, DCP Midstream, Kinder Morgan, MarkWest Energy Partners, Pioneer Natural Resources, Southwestern Energy, Williams Companies Inc., and XTO Energy Inc. – acted as partners in the study, provided site access for measurements, and provided representatives to advisory committees. At all times, and with the encouragement of industry partners, CSU maintained control the sampling plan, analysis and reporting. This study documents one part of the larger study - emissions from pneumatic actuated valve controllers (PC).Item Open Access Methane emissions from gathering and boosting compressor stations in the U.S. Supporting volume 2: Compressor engine exhaust measurements(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2019) Vaughn, Timothy, author; Luck, Benjamin, author; Zimmerle, Daniel, author; Marchese, Anthony, author; Williams, Laurie, author; Keen, Kindal, author; Lauderdale, Terri, author; Harrison, Matthew, author; Allen, David, authorThe in-stack tracer method was used during the field campaign to measure unburned methane entrained in the exhaust of natural gas compressor engines ("combustion slip"). Combustion slip was estimated by injecting a tracer gas into the exhaust stream at a known flow-rate and measuring concentrations of both the tracer gas and methane at the exhaust stack exit. The total exhaust flow was estimated from the diluted tracer gas concentration measured at the exhaust stack exit.Item Open Access Methane emissions from gathering and boosting compressor stations in the U.S. Supporting volume 3: Emission factors, station estimates, and national emissions(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2019) Zimmerle, Daniel, author; Vaughn, Timothy, author; Luck, Benjamin, author; Lauderdale, Terri, author; Keen, Kindal, author; Harrison, Matthew, author; Marchese, Anthony, author; Williams, Laurie, author; Allen, David, authorThis section provides an overview of the field campaign for the entire project and the data collected in the field campaign data and during the analysis phase of the project.Item Open Access Open-source high flow sampler for natural gas leak quantification(Colorado State University. Libraries, 2022-04-14) Zimmerle, Daniel, author; Vaughn, Timothy, author; Bennett, Kristine, author; Ross, Cody, author; Harrison, Matthew, author; Wilson, Aaron, author; Johnson, Chris, author