# PARTNER
UPDATE
S pring 

# 2009 

# Prospective
Projects
Spotlight Potential
New
Opportunity:
Seal
Oil Degassing
Vent
Recovery
and
Use 

# O lder centrifugal compressor designs that use “wet” seals with seal oil are still used prevalently and can release a large quantity of methane to the atmosphere from their seal oil systems. Though cost­effective solutions currently exist, such as retrofitting to dry seals, a significant capital investment is typically required. The Natural Gas STAR Program recently learned of a The
Partner
Update
typically
addresses
project ideas
that
have
been
reported
to
the
Natural Gas
STAR
Program.
Occasionally
the
Program hears
about
methane
emissions
reduction activities
that
are
technically
feasible
but
have not
yet
been
reported.
This
new
column
high

lights
these
opportunities
and
seeks
feedback from
Partners
on
this
and
other
potential
ideas.



### new project idea with strong potential to reduce emissions from this significant Continued on page 5 

### H H H



## In
This
Issue:

New
Projects
Spotlight................................1

Partner
Profile.............................................1
Annual
Reporting
........................................2
University
of
Texas
Leading
Study
..............3
Climate
Policy
Update.................................4

In
the
News
................................................8

New
Partners..............................................8

Calendar.....................................................9 

# Partner
Profile Methane
to
Markets
Project
Network Member
Eni
Shares
Experiences
and Goals
in
Reducing
Methane
Emissions 

# As a project network member, Eni demonstrates its com

mitment to the Methane to Markets Partnership (M2M) by actively supporting the goal of reducing meth

ane emissions through cost­effective, near­term methane recovery and use.
Eni
is
an
integrated
energy
company
with assets
in
oil
and
natural
gas
market
segments that
include
exploration,
production,
transporta

tion,
and
distribution.
Eni
is
based
in
Italy,
is active
in
70
countries,
and
has
been
participat

ing
in
Methane
to
Markets
since
2005
in
the
oil and
gas
subcommittee. 

### Last Spring the Italy­based energy company shared information on several methane emission reduction projects underway during the M2M Oil & Gas Subcommittee Meeting in Rome, Italy. In this way, Eni is one entity contribut

ing to the Methane to Markets project network. The project network facilitates the involvement of key non­governmen

tal organizations, such as the private sector and development banks, to par

ticipate in M2M meetings and engage in project development in coordination with Partner countries. Continued on page 6 

### H H H Natural Gas STAR Partner Update 

### H Spring 2009 1

### practices for implementation. Annual report content is also a factor for the achievement awards given in the fourth quarter of each year at the annual implementation workshop. Reporting Templates

epa.gov/gasstar/tools/program-forms.html **Gathering and Processing Sector An**  **nual Report** OM B Control No

. 2060-032 8 Ex pires 07/31/2011 **BM P 1: Convert Gas Pneumatics to Instrument A**  **ir Sy stems**  **Current Year Acti vi**  **ties**

**A. F**  **aci li**  **ty /location identifier information:** 

s ys te ms devices **B. Faci li**  **ty summ**  **ar y:**  Num ber of instru ment air system s in sta lled:

To tal num ber of high-bleed devices in system s converted to instrum ent air, if k nown: d evices To tal nu mb er of lo w- bleed devices in system s converted to instru me nt air, if k nown:
Percen ta ge of fa cilities using in stru me nt air: **% C. Cost summ**  **ar y:**  Es ti ma ted cost of converting to instru me nt ai r (including equipm ent and la bo r): $ /replacem ent **D. Me** **thane emissions reduction:** Mcf **E. Ar**  **e thes e em**  **is sion**  **s re ductions a one-**  **year redu**  **ction or a multi-year reduction?**  **One-year Mu**  **lti-y ear** 
**If Mu**  **lti- ye**  **ar :** 

Partner w ill re port this activi ty once a nd let EP A auto ma tically ca lc ul at e fu ture em is si on reductions ba sed on sunset date durati on (B MP 1 has a su nset period of 10 ye ars).

Partner w ill re port this activi ty an nu al ly up to allo wed sunset date. Plea se id

entify the ba sis for the emi ssions reducti on estimate, using the space provided to show any ca lcul ations
Direct m easurement Total volume of gas used pe r year prior to co nv

erti ng to

instrument ai r: Standard calculat io n
Methane em issions r eduction = [A ver age high-bleed devic e annual emissions (Mcf/y r) x Number of high-bleed devic es conv erted to inst

rument air] + [A ver age lo wbleed device annual emission s (M cf /yr) x Number of lo wbleed devices co nv erted to instrument air] Pl ea se specif y your data source: o Field m easur em ent o Manuf acturer sp ecif ic atio ns Other (please sp ecif y) :

For assistance quan tify ing the methane emissi

on re ductions achieved by BMP 1, ple as e re fer to the Gas STAR Emission Reduction Quantification Refere nce Guid e, available on th e Gas STAR Web site at: epa. go v/

gasstar/

document

s/ xl s/quantify

ing_ ngs_me th ane_red uc tions. xl

s.

**F. To**  **tal value of gas saved:**
Total value of ga s save d = Methan e emissions reduction (i

n Mc f) x Gas va lue (in $/ Mc f) [If not know

n, us e de fault of $7 .00/ Mcf] $ **G. Ho w**  **many inst**  **rument air**  **repl ac**  **ements are planned for next**  **ye ar?**  in stal la tion s **Previous Years' Ac**  **tivities**

Use the table below to report any past activiti es impl

emented, but not previo usly reported to th e Na tural Ga s STAR Progra m

**BMP 1 Comments:** Plea se use the ba ck of the page for additi on al space if ne eded. *If annual emissions are not know

n, us e de fault values of 138 Mcf/ yr fo r high-bleed device emissions and 14 Mc f/ yr for lo wbleed device emissions 

# Reporting
Resources

Technical Documents


### Lessons Learned

From Natural Gas STAR Partners

DIRECTED INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE AT GAS PROCESSING PLANTS AND BOOSTER STATIONS Executive Summary
Natural gas processing plants and their associated compressor booster stations emit an estimated 36 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of methane annuall y. More than 24 Bcf of tota l methane losses from gas plants are fugitive emissions from leaking compressors and other equipment components such as valves, connectors, s eals, and open

ended lines. Implementing a directed inspection and maintenance (DI&M) program is a proven, cost­effective way to detect, measure, prioritize, and re pair equipment leaks to reduce methane emissions.
A DI&M program begins with a baseline survey to identify and quantify leaks. R epairs are then made to o nly the leaking components that are cost­effective to fix, based on criteria such as r epair cost, expected life of the r epair

, and payback period. Subsequent surveys are designed based on data from previous s urveys, allowing operators to concentrate on the components that are most likely to leak and are profitable to repair. Baseline s urveys of Natural Gas STAR partners' gas processing facilities found that the majority of fugitive methane emissions ar e from a relatively small number of leaking components. V alves are the largest source (30 percent), followed by connectors (24 percent), and compressor seals (23 percent). The remaining 23 percent of methane losses are primarily from open­ended lines, crankcase vents, pressu re relief devices, and pump seals.
Natural Gas STAR processing partners have reported significant savings and methane emissions r eductions by implementing DI&M. A four­plant pilot study conducted by EPA and the Gas T echnology Institute (GTI) d emon

strated that instituting a DI&M program at gas processing facilities could reduce methane emissions by up to 96 percent and save up to $164,000 per plant.

This is of series of Lessons Learned Summaries developed by EPA in cooperation with the natural gas industr superior applications of Natural Gas STAR Program Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Partner Reported Opportunities (PROs). epa.gov/gasstar/tools/recommended.html 

# Taking
Credit
for
Your
Accomplishments:
Annual Reporting
Key
Dates
and
Resources 

# T he 2009 annual reporting cycle for Natural Gas STAR Partners is underway, and Implementation Managers can take advantage of Program resources to streamline the process. The annual report is the capstone of each year’s Natural Gas STAR participation, pro

viding a permanent record of the voluntary efforts undertaken by each Partner and informing EPA of new methane emission reduction technolo

gies and practices. Annual reporting is a major driver for Natural Gas STAR to support Partners. It is the source of new project ideas and the way the Program communi

cates the collective success of Partner companies. Reporting is an essential activity for each Partner because it documents emission reduction achieve

ments, demonstrates to company staff the value of participation over the last year, and brings new ideas to the tech

nology transfer process. Annual reports require a signature this year. 

# Support
Natural
Gas

STAR
activities
by submitting
new
and innovative
ideas
within

or
in
addition
to
your annual
reports

H Do
you
have
an
idea
for
a
new
methane
emissions
reduction
method? 

### H Can
you
share
your
new
ideas
or
past experiences
at
an
upcoming workshop?Partner
companies
are
our
biggest
advocates.
By
sharing
thoughts
and
ideas, companies
can
help
Natural
Gas
STAR
to diversify
Program
support
products,
reach new,
existing
and
potential
Partners,
and strengthen
the
overall
Program. 

# Submittal
Options

H **Online** db2.erg.com/gasstar/login.asp 

### H **Email or hard copy** Find
your
designated
EPA
Program
Manger Click
their
name
for
contact
info
at
epa.gov/gasstar/partners/index.htm l 

### Timeline In early 2009, Partners begin organiz

ing methane emission reduction data for the 2008 calendar year—identifying locations with voluntary project work and listing specific projects undertaken. Partners are free to use any convenient reporting format including hardcopy annual reporting forms available for download from the Natural Gas STAR web site, online annual reporting forms, worksheets, or text documents. If you do choose to submit your data in a custom format, please ensure that it includes all of the data that is requested in our standard forms.
In late­March, Partners receive an annual reporting package in the mail which provides detailed reporting instructions. Reports are due to Natural Gas STAR by April 30, 2009, and can be sent via email, fax, standard mail, or using the secure, password­protected online annual reporting forms.
Natural Gas STAR reviews each annual report after it is submitted and makes a record of methane emissions reduc

tions for each Partner. In the fall, Partners who submitted annual reports on time will receive a Natural Gas STAR summary report. This report is based on the Partner’s annual report data throughout participation in Natural Gas STAR and is designed to help Partners assess their accomplishments and explore additional technologies and **Year # Units**  **Re placed**  **To tal Cost of Replacemen**  **ts (incl. equipment and labor) ($)**  **Estimated Reductions (M**  **cf/y r)**  **Valu e of Ga**  **s Sa**  **ve d ($)** 

Leak Source Fugitive Methane Emissions Method for Reducing

Loss Methane Potential Emissions Reduction T ypical Implementation

Cost T ypical Partner Savings (at $3/Mcf)

Fugitive Methane Emissions from Gas Processing Plants and Booster Stations 45,000 to 128,000 Mcf/yr per gas plant Directed Inspection & Maintenance Up to 96 percent; average 77 percent $14,000 to $50,000 for leak screening and measurement; $39,000 to $78,000 for repairs $58,000 to $164,000/yr per gas plant

Continued on page 3 H H H

Natural Gas STAR Partner Update 

### H Spring 2009 2

# Annual
Reporting

Continued from page 2 

### H H H

Resources Partners can take advantage of a suite of Program resources to expedite annual reporting. Reporting templates provide an existing format and default values for different project types. The emission reduction quantification reference guide provides a compre

hensive list of recommended reduction methods and different approaches for calculating methane savings from each project type. Natural Gas STAR techni

cal documents describe specific reduc

tion methods in detail, including meth

ods for estimating costs, cost savings, and methane savings. 

### Reporting Tips Partners have developed several strate

gies for gaining the most benefit from the annual reporting process. Some Quantification Guide

epa.gov/gasstar/documents/xls/quantifying_ ngs_methane_reductions.xl s 

# Reporting
Resources

Partner Challenge service for the upcoming reporting year

epa.gov/gasstar/tools/partner-challenge.html



### Partners use custom reporting formats such as spreadsheets that complement the format of other internal data sys

tems such as greenhouse gas invento

ries. Partners have used annual report data as a centerpiece to publicize, either internally or externally, company efforts to reduce methane emissions. The annual report has also served as a rally point and roadmap from which Partners begin to plan reduction proj

ects for the upcoming year. Finally, Partners have taken advantage of Program services to organize the annual reporting process. For example, the Partner Challenge service offered by the Program helps companies to inventory methane emissions reduc

tions, identify previously implemented projects to include in annual reports, and study the feasibility of selected new project types.



# University
of
Texas
Leading
Study to
Update
Selected
Natural
Gas Emission
Factors

In 2008, EPA awarded a $500,000 cooperative agreement to the University of Texas at Austin (UT) for the project “GHG Emission Factor Development Project for Selected Sources in the Natural Gas Industry.” The awarding of this cooperative agreement was the result of a multi­year collaborative pro

cess between the EPA, the American Petroleum Institute, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the American Gas Association, to iden

tify existing methane emission factors that were high priorities for future study and revision. The sources under study were selected due to such factors as their relative size in the U.S. inventory of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, the uncertainty bounds of existing emission factors, and known changes in common practice in the natural gas industry. Table 1 lists the factors under study. The project team at UT, working with URS Corporation, initiated the work by completing a literature review of exist

ing emission factors, with the goal of identifying any new data sources and Table 1. Priority List of Emission Sources for the Development of Default Methane Emission Factors

**Industry Emissions Sources**  **Segment** Production Well Clean Ups Completion Flaring Well Workovers Pipeline Leaks Processing Reciprocating Compressors (fugitive) Centrifugal Compressors (fugitive) Transmission Reciprocating Compressors and Storage (fugitive) Pneumatic Devices (vent) Centrifugal Compressors – Transmission (fugitive) Centrifugal Compressors – Storage (fugitive) Distribution Meter and Regulating Stations Residential Customer Meters Mains – Plastic Services – Plastic

Continued on page 4 H H H Natural Gas STAR Partner Update 

### H Spring 2009 3

# Climate
Policy
Update

EPA
Proposes
First
National
Reporting
on
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions

On March 10, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first comprehensive national system for reporting emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) pro

duced by major sources in the United States. The proposed rule (40 CFR 98) would apply to suppliers of fossil fuel and industrial chemicals, manufactur

ers of motor vehicles and engines, as well as large direct emitters of green

house gases with emissions equal to or greater than a threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equiva

lent per year. This threshold is roughly equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from just over 4,500 passenger vehicles. The vast majority of small businesses would not be required to report their emissions because their emissions fall well below the thresh

old. Approximately 13,000 facilities,



# University
of
Texas

Continued from page 3 

### H H H

studies that had been developed since the publication of a comprehensive set of factors for natural gas industry equipment and operations in 1996 by EPA and the Gas Research Institute (GRI, now the Gas Technology Institute, GTI). The literature review found that, in many cases, the GRI study is still the primary source for emission factors. The full review is posted on the project Natural Gas STAR Partner Update 

### H Spring 2009 

### accounting for about 85 percent to 90 percent of greenhouse gases emitted in the United States, would be covered under the proposal. For more information on how the pro

posed rulemaking affects the oil and natural gas industry, please visit EPA’s web site at epa.gov/climatechange/ emissions/ghgrulemaking.htm l . The fol

lowing information is available on the web site:
H Preamble and Proposed Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule text;
H Information sheets for each of the source categories covered in the proposed rule;
H Frequently Asked Questions;
H Information on the public comment period including direction for submit

web site, utexas.edu/research/ceer/GHG.
Based on this review, the team devel

oped a plan for the first round of new data acquisition, which will seek to study emissions from reciprocating compressors in the processing sector. UT is working collaboratively with industry on this effort and in January held several conference calls to review findings of the literature study and solicit feedback on the initial data gathering plan. The next steps in this work will be to test the preliminary sampling plan for ting written comments as well as location, dates, and registration for two upcoming hearings. 

### Public Comment Period The public comment period is open for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register . There are instructions on the web site for how to submit writ

ten comments. There will also be two public hearings for the proposed rule:
H April 6 and 7, 2009, at EPA Potomac Yard Conference Center, Arlington, VA;
H April 16, 2009, at Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento, CA. EPA encourages those who wish to attend or give public comments, to visit the web site and register on­line in advance of the hearing.

compressors with a field trial, and to assemble equipment population data to develop sampling plans that will lead to representative field measurements. To enhance this work, UT welcomes industry input on this process. In partic

ular, anyone with specific information on equipment populations for processing sector reciprocating compressors (or other selected sources under study) or oil and gas companies that are willing to offer their sites for participation in sam

pling are encouraged to contact David Allen of UT at allen@che.utexas.edu.

4

# New
Projects
Spotlight

Continued from page 1 

### H H H

source through a basic design change with low capital costs. This project type could turn large releases of methane into an energy supply for fueling onsite heaters and boilers. This article describes the potential new method to capture emissions from wet seal compressors and seeks feedback from Partners on the fea

sibility of implementing this type of project. It is estimated that recovery, treatment, and use of these emissions in low pressure fuel systems could pay back the investment within one month by displacing fuel gas. 

### Background: Methane Emissions from Wet Seal Centrifugal Compressors Figure 1 shows methane emissions from a typical centrifugal compressor using seal oil. These wet seal centrifugal compressors circulate oil under high pressure between three rings around the compressor shaft, forming a barrier against the compressed gas to prevent its escape to the atmosphere. The cen

ter ring is attached to the rotating shaft, while the two rings on each side are stationary in the seal housing, pressed against a thin film of oil flowing between the rings to both lubricate and act as a leak barrier. Very little gas escapes through the oil barrier, but a significant amount of gas is absorbed by the oil on the compressor side of the seal at the oil interface with high pressure gas, thus contaminating the seal oil. Seal oil must be purged of the absorbed gas to maintain viscosity and lubric

ity when recirculated. This is done in a flash drum or oil sump. The methane degassed from the seal oil is typically emitted to the atmosphere through an open ended line. Methane emissions from seal oil degas

sing of one typical centrifugal compres

sor range from 40 to 200 standard cubic feet (scf) methane per minute. Given an average methane emissions of 120 scf per minute, the volume of methane lost represents $442,000 per year at an average gas value of $7 per 

# Previously
Reported Reduction
Method: Replace
Wet
Seals
with Dry
Seals

One
existing
mitigation
option
reported by
many
Natural
Gas
STAR
Partners
is
to retrofit
a
compressor
with
dry
seals,
whichreplaces
the
wet
seal
system
with
springloaded,
grooved
seals
that
create
hydrodynamic
gas
pressure
as
a
barrier
to
prevent gas
leaks
along
the
shaft.
Depending
on the
size
and
pressure
of
the
compressor, dry
seals
typically
leak
at
a
rate
of
0.5
to3
scf
per
minute,
resulting
in
a
substantial
reduction
in
methane
emissions
as compared
to
wet
seal
configurations.
This substantial
methane
savings
technology requires
a
high
initial
capital
investment
but has
a
lower
operating
cost
than
wet
seals and
pays
back
within
8
to
24
months.
Dry seal
retrofits
might
not
be
possible
on
somecompressors
due
to
compressor
housing
design
or
operational
requirements.Companies
can
evaluate
whether
retrofitting
centrifugal
compressors
makes
sense based
on
individual
operating
conditionsand
corporate
resources.
For
more
information,
visit
epa.gov/gasstar/documents/ ll_wetseals.pdf.


### thousand scf (Mcf). 

### New Opportunity: Seal Oil Degassing Vent Recovery and Use A new, less capital intensive solution could be to reduce emissions from seal oil degassing through capture and use of the methane. A diagram illustrating this new method is shown in Figure 2. Seal oil contaminated with gas that is typically sent to the atmospheric degas

sing drum is instead degassed at a new drum operating at fuel pressure. Continued on page 7 

### H H H

Gas vent to atmosphere Seal oil degassing drum New fuel pressure seal oil degassing Less gas vented to atmosphere Seal oil degassing drum Low pressure fuel gas Boiler

Seal oil circulation pump drum and demister

Seal oil circulation pump Note: New equipment in red

Figure 1. Wet Seal Centrifugal Compressor Figure 2. Centrifugal Compressor Seal Oil Flash Gas Recovery and Use

Natural Gas STAR Partner Update 

### H Spring 2009 5

# Partner
Profile

Continued from page 1 

### H H H

Managing Fugitive Emissions from Transmission and Distribution Systems A focus of Eni’s methane emissions reduction program is fugitive monitor

ing and repair. Eni began this effort by identifying emissions sources and esti

mating fugitive emissions at selected compressor stations. The next step was the development of a tool to pri

oritize and plan work and maintenance activities for significant emissions sources. The results from monitoring three compressor stations were gener

ally consistent, showing instrumentation and flanges as having the highest emis

sions of the four categories of sources monitored, accounting for 80 percent of total emissions. Eni also studied its natural gas distribu

tion system and determined that meth

ane leaks primarily occur at pipe joints Currently,
Eni
is
using
FT-IR
at
its
offshore 

# Utilizing
Leak
Detection and
onshore
facilities
worldwide
to
estimate 

# Technologies the
effectiveness
of
emission
reduction activities. Eni
uses
the
Sherlock®
infrared
leak
imaging The
FT-IR
remote
sensing
system
can
be camera
to
remotely
monitor
emissions.
Leak used
in
either
a
passive
or
active
mode
to imaging
has
been
a
means
for
Eni
to
identify detect
criteria
pollutants
and
greenhouse and
locate
leaks,
to
prioritize
maintenance gases.
It
works
on
the
principle
of
absorp- and
repair
work,
and
for
demonstrating
the tion
of
infrared
radiation
to
measure
the effectiveness
of
methane
emission
reduction concentration
of
gas
pollutants.
The
system activities.
Additionally,
video
imaging
has uses
algorithms
to
account
for
background given
Eni
the
ability
to
detect
emissions
in (meteorological
and
atmospheric)
conditions areas
that
are
not
easily
accessible. and
other
factors
(geometric
parameters)
that Eni
estimates
its
greenhouse
gas
emissions influence
the
results.
Through
all
these
activi- following
an
international
monitoring
and ties,
Eni
has
noted
an
element
of
uncertainty reporting
protocol 1 and
simultaneously
carries associated
with
emissions
measurements out
several
field
measurement
campaigns
to and
has
recognized
the
need
for
protocols evaluate
and
control
the
estimation
uncer- and
validation
to
reduce
this
uncertainty. tainty
level.
To
do
this,
Eni
uses
the
Fourier The
Methane
Emissions
Leaks
Detection Transform
Infrared
Spectroscopy
(FT-IR) and
Recovery
program
is
supported
by
a remote
sensing.
FT-IR
is
a
way
to
character- experts
group
of
the
Eni
Research
Center
for ize
point
source
emissions
without
an
actual Environmental
Technologies. sampling
port
(chimney,
stack
or
flare).



### as a result of traffic stress and third party damage. To address this, Eni identified the main ways it could reduce leaks, specifically through:
H replacement of aged in­service pipe with steel or plastic pipe;
H “conditioning” of aged in­service lead / yarn jointed pipes that have become unsealed by adding water vapor or monoethylene glycol into the pipe;
H prevention of third party damage through outreach and education. Through these measures, Eni hopes to reduce emissions from Italgas—Eni’s distribution system for Rome—by approximately 60 percent from1990 levels by the year 2014. 

### 2007 Results and Plans for the Future Although Eni reported a 10 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions in 2007 (including methane) largely due to the acquisitions of new assets (e.g. in Congo and Russia), over the last five years emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 

### e) in exploration and production, refining and marketing and gas and power business units have reg

istered substantial emissions reductions. In addition to ongoing fugitive methaneemissions reduction activities, longterm flaring projects are expected to Continued on page 10 

### H H H Natural Gas STAR Partner Update 

### H Spring 2009 6

# New
Projects
Spotlight

Continued from page 5 

### H H H

The absorbed methane vaporizes out of solution in the intermediate pressure drum and is used in a facility’s fuel gas system. The seal oil then flows to the final degassing stage where a minimal volume of methane is degassed to the atmosphere and the regenerated seal oil is recirculated to the compressor. Seal oil exits a compressor at a typi

cal pressure of 400 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). Operating the degas

sing drum at 50 psig results in nearly all of the seal oil degassing emissions to be recovered to fuel gas. At an aver

age seal emissions rate of 120 scf per minute this steady supply of gas is suffi

cient to meet the fuel requirements of a boiler or other equipment with an input heat duty of about 7 million British ther

mal units (Btu) per hour assuming a gas heat content of 1,000 Btu per scf. Sites must meet several operating requirements to implement this recov

ery and use of seal oil flash gas. On­site equipment or a low pressure fuel gas system must be nearby that can accept and use the low pressure gas stream. The flash gas stream will entrain small amounts of seal oil, requiring a demis

ter/filter or fuel gas knock­out vessel to remove this entrained oil and yield an acceptable fuel gas specification. 

### Example Implementation and Economics The investment to recover seal oil degassing emissions in this way would include the cost of the inter

mediate pressure degassing drum, new piping, gas demister/filter, and possibly a pressure regulator for the fuel gas line. Using Guthrie’s modular method of equipment cost estima

tion 1 

### , and assuming a typical seal oil flow rate of 3.75 gallons per minute, the installed cost of equipment would be about $22,000 if suitable combus

tion equipment is already in place. Operating and maintenance costs are expected to be minimal. Operating cost savings for capturing seal oil degassing emissions are real

ized by reducing consumption of site fuel gas. For one wet seal compressor, potential savings can be estimated at 63 MMcf methane per year, displacing this same volume in fuel gas. At $7 per Mcf, savings from reduced site fuel gas consumption will approach 100 percent of the seal oil emissions or $442,000. Example project economics are shown in the project summary box showing an estimated payback period of 1 month. 

### Conclusion Capture and use of seal oil degassing emissions is a project option less capi

tal intensive than the alternative of retro

fitting centrifugal compressors with dry seals. Routing seal oil methane emis

sions to fuel gas is an opportunity to convert a potential climate change liabil

ity into a site efficiency improvement as well as a project with positive cash flow after the first month. We would like to hear from you on the feasibility of implementing this type of project. Or if your company has already implemented this practice and is will

ing to share your experiences with the Natural Gas STAR Program, please contact Suzie Waltzer, EPA [ Waltzer.Suzanne@epamail.epa.gov or (202) 343­9544].

**PROJECT SUMMARY: CAPTURE AND USE OF SEAL OIL DEGASSING EMISSIONS**  Operating Requirements • Centrifugal compressor with seal oil system • Nearby use for low pressure

fuel gas • New intermediate pressure

flash drum, fuel filter, pressure regulator

Capital & Installation Costs $22,000

Annual Labor & Maintenance Costs Minimal

Methane saved 63 MMcf per year Gas Price per Mcf $3 $7 $10 Value of Gas Saved $189,000 $442,000 $631,000

Payback Period in Months 2 1 0.5

1 Biegler, et al. “4.3.1 Guthrie’s Modular Method.” Systematic Methods of Chemical Process Design

. Ed. Neal R. Amundson. Saddlewood: Pearson, 1997. pages 133 to 135 Natural Gas STAR Partner Update 

### H Spring 2009 7

# In
the
News

Satellite
Launched
to
Observe
Methane
from
Oil
and
Gas

EPA
is
excited
to
announce
the addition
of
several
new
Partners
to the
Natural
Gas
STAR
Program.

**INTERNATIONAL PARTNER**
**GAZ SYSTEM S.A.**

GAZ-SYSTEM
S.A.,
headquartered
in Warsaw,
is
a
state
company
that
operates Poland’s
domestic
gas
transmission
pipe lines.
Established
in
2004,
the
company transports
natural
gas
through
networks with
973
exit
points.
As
of
January
2009, GAZ
 SYSTEM
operated
a
9,803
 kilometer transmission
network
transporting
14.7
bil lion
cubic
meters
(519
billion
cubic
feet)
of gas
annually.
The
company
has
an
agree ment
for
use
of
1.66
billion
cubic
meters (58.6
billion
cubic
feet)
of
gas
storage capacity
for
peak
shaving
and
other
pur poses.
GAZ
 SYSTEM
S.A.
joins
nine
other Natural
Gas
STAR
International
Partners
inthe
effort
to
identify
and
implement
costeffective
methane
emission
reduction
proj ects
in
the
oil
and
natural
gas
industry.
For further
information
on
the
company,
visit www.gaz-system.p l **DOMESTIC PARTNERS HighMount Exploration & Production LLC** 

HighMount
Exploration
&
Production, headquartered
in
Houston,
Texas,
is
a subsidiary
of
Loews
Corporation
and
one of
the
20
largest
holders
of
domestic natural
gas
reserves.
With
assets
located in
the
Permian
Basin
in
Texas,
the
Antrim Shale
of
the
Michigan
Basin,
and
the
Black Warrior
Basin
in
Alabama,
HighMount has
4.7
trillion
cubic
feet
equivalent
of proved,
probable,
and
possible
natural
gas reserves.
HighMount’s
645
employees
are focused
on
the
development
and
production of
natural
gas.
For
further
information
on the
Partner,
please
visit
highmountep.com. **Prism Gas Systems I, LP**

Prism
Gas
Systems
I,
LP
and
its
subsidiar ies
provide
midstream
natural
gas
services, including
gathering,
processing,
and
treating of
natural
gas,
as
well
as
treating,
fraction ation,
and
stabilization
of
natural
gas
liquids. Headquartered
in
Bedford,
Texas,
Prism has
ownership
interests
in
approximately 659
miles
of
gathering
and
transmission pipelines
located
in
the
natural
gas
pro ducing
regions
of
Central
and
East
Texas, Northwest
Louisiana,
and
the
Texas
Gulf Coast
and
operates
a
265
million
cubic
feet per
day
natural
gas
processing
plant
in
East Texas.
For
more
information,
please
visit
the Partner’s
Web
site
at
prismgas.com. 

# Systems

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) launched the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT), on January 23, 2009. GOSAT is dedicated to detecting greenhouse gases from space. It collects data on the presence of greenhouse gases within an observation area by detect

ing the infrared radiation absorbed by both methane and carbon dioxide. For the oil and natural gas industry, GOSAT can periodically monitor emissions from infrastructure such as pipelines, com

pressor stations, and other facilities. According to JAXA, the GOSAT satellite will be the first dedicated observation station capable of monitoring green

house gases, and it will monitor 56,000 observation points over the entire globe from a polar orbit with a three day repeat. The system can observe meth

ane and carbon dioxide releases with a spatial resolution of ten kilometers compared with widely used technolo

gies today that have a spatial resolution of about 100 kilometers. Data from GOSAT will be made accessible to the public free of charge through a dedicat

ed web site starting around September 2009. For more information about the GOSAT program, visit jaxa.jp/countdown/f15/index_e.htm l.

Natural Gas STAR Partner Update 

### H Spring 2009 8

# In
the
News



# Report
Discusses Emissions and
Control Technologies
for Barnett
Shale Production

In January, the Environmental Defense Fund released a report quantifying emissions from the Barnett Shale pro

duction area and summarizing emis

sions control measures. The report entitled, “Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the BarnettShale Area and Opportunities for CostEffective Improvements” quantifies both greenhouse gas emissions and criteria pollutants for 2007 and for 2009 in the 21­county Barnett Shale area. The study constructed emissions estimates using data from the Texas Railroad Commission, Texas Commissions on Environmental Quality, EPA AP­42, the API Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies for the Oil and Gas Industry, the 1996 EPA/GRI report Methane Emissions from the Natural Gas Industry, and Natural Gas STAR Program technical documents. The report discusses several Barnett Shale emissions reduction opportunities based on established types of reduc

tion technologies. The report is available at edf.org/documents/9235_Barnett_ Shale_Report.pd f. 

# Calendar

2009 Upcoming Events Below
are
scheduled
Natural
Gas
STAR
Program events.
For
updates
and
further
information,
visit epa.gov/gasstar/workshop s or
contact
Suzie Waltzer
at
Waltzer.Suzanne@epa.go v or (202)
343-9544.
Additionally,
are
you
a
Natural Gas
STAR
endorser
and
have
an
event
you
would like
listed
here?
Please
notify
Natural
Gas
STAR.

**Oil and Gas Subcommittee Meeting**  Banff,
Alberta,
Canada 14
to
17
Sept,
2009

**Production** Oklahoma
City,
OK May
14,
2009

**Annual Implementation Workshop**  San
Antonio,
TX Oct
19
to
21,
2009 **Production and Processing**  Billings,
MT Aug
31,
2009

**M2M presentation at ARPEL Conference**  Punta
del
Este,
Uruguay 23
to
24
April,
2009 

### For more information, visit epa.gov/gasstar/workshops

Natural Gas STAR Partner Update 

### H Spring 2009 9

# Partner
Profile

Continued from page 6 

### H H H

result in a 60 percent emissions reduc

tion by 2011 compared to 2007 levels. The reduction of emissions from natural gas flaring is particularly difficult in areas where there is an absence of adequate infrastructure, posing barriers to use of the natural gas produced from oil extraction. Eni promotes the continu

ous reduction of flaring and venting by means of developing natural gas pipelines and LNG terminals and using the associated natural gas for generat

ing electricity to satisfy local demand. Over the next few years, Eni hopes to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from flaring in several regions including the Congo, Nigeria, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria. Moreover Eni promotes company knowledge management through a virtual Community of Practice on “Air Emissions” with the following main objectives: share experiences and col

laborate in the development of new initiatives, support these activities with new tools and the application of best available technologies. To view Eni’s presentations from the Methane to Markets Oil and Gas Subcommittee Meeting in Rome, Italy, please visit: methanetomarkets.org/ events/2008/oilgas/oilgas­20may08.htm

1 American Petroleum Institute (API), The API Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation Methodologies for the Oil and Gas Industry ; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reference Manual: IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventorie
E&P Forum. Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Emissions from E&P Operations ; GRI, GRI-GHGCalc TM ; US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors ; US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission Estimate – TANKS ; Others similar protocol references 

# Natural
Gas
STAR Contacts Program
Managers
**Jerome Blackman** H (202)
343-9630 blackman.jerome@epa.gov **Carey Bylin** H (202)
343-9669 bylin.carey@epa.gov **Roger Fernandez** H (202)
343-9386 fernandez.roger@epa.gov
**Suzie Waltzer** H (202)
343-9544 waltzer.suzanne@epa.gov

Natural
Gas
STAR
Program U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency 1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW
(6207J) Washington,
DC
20460
For
additional
information on
topics
in
this Update, please
contact
Suzie
Waltzer.

10 Natural Gas STAR Partner Update 

### H Spring 2009