L.. 

·-

ro 

c.. Vl 

........, 

OJ 

-

:J tl:: Vl 

Q) 

~ .,._. -c a: 

c E 0 

~ ro N ro N ~ 

~ c b.O 0 0 0 ~ ~ 

·- c.. 

~ ......, 

u ,._ 

> 

QJ 0 

......, +-' 6 Q) ro -::J ~ 0 b.O 

3 ~ QJ 

=o---, a:: ro s:" 

~~ QJ 

~ --1 
Company Programs 

• While we do have non-regulatory programs, t

only covers regulatory programs 

- Generally, non-regulatory programs use Optical 

Imaging (OGI), sites and frequency determined 

of likelihood of emissions 

• Company programs for camera operators, in

written guidance and a continuous learning g

• We are testing newer technologies with the p

to survey wide areas at a lower cost 

- Aim of new technologies is to reduce surveying 

surveying wider areas or automating survey pro
Chevron Program Costs Exceed 

Estimates 

• Leak rates( percentage of components 

is below 0.10%. (highest basin was 0.3

lowest was 0.04%) 

• Cost per ton of CH4 ranges from $1 m

$30 million (or $500,000 to $13 million 

MCF methane) 

• (NOTE- higher costs for implementati

phase) 
Key Learnings 

• OGI is generally less costly to operate 

Method 21 (capital costs are higher fo

• Administrative burden (recordkeeping

QA/QC) can drastically impact cost of 

program 

• Most leaks detected are from compres

very small percentage at the wellhead 

• Regulatory programs have a higher rec

keeping cost 
Appendix 

• Methodology 

• IR Camera Guide 

• State Regulatory Programs at a Glance 
Methodology 

• Leak Rate= number of components leaking/t

number of components 

- Component count either actual or based on est

(count at a sample of sites, or GHGRP compone

estimate) 

• Cost per ton =cost per ton/volume of leaks 

- Started with GHGRP Leak Total with no LDAR pr

- Leak rate is multiplied by GHGRP leak total whic

total volume emitted. 

- Cost is either contractor or internal cost. 

• Cost estimates are at a minimum IR camera surveyor 

some cases~ we are able to make costs more accurate 

recordkeepingl vehicle miles traveled and IT costs. 
IR Camera Guide 

• Written guidance, and quarterly update 

for all company camera operators 

• Guidance covers: 

- Case Studies 

-Training Requirements 

- Maintenance and Baselining 

- Safety Considerations 

- Equipment Checklist 

-Temperature/Wind 

- Various Applications 
Colorado 

NOTEimplementation 

began in 2015 

Pennsylvania 

Method 

AVO and Method 

21 or IR camera 

Sources· Covered 

New and existing 

AVO and IR camera·- Compressor 

stations, processing 

facilities {gas) · 

Rang

time 

base

. 

emts

Quar

com

statio

proc

Annu

initia

days 
California- San 

Joaquin Valley 

Method 21 and 

AVO 

Method 21 

San Joaquin Valley 

Air Pollution 

Control District, 

heavy and light oil 

production {ozone 

nonattainment) 

Steam drive crude 

Initia

days

first 

perio

less t

comp

Wee

AVO

heav

instr

quar

oil in

Year

for c

with 

{inclu

perio

man

valve
Colorado Frequency Char

Well Produdicft fadities wilhaul: storage Tanks~ Wei 

Prod.ucti 

Facilitie£ 

Wfn-tOUT 

Sta'age Tanks 

(tpy) 

O<x<6 

6 <X< 12 

12 <X< 20 x~20 AI JAM Inspection Freauency One time Annually Qwarterty Mm1hly AVI lnspec1inf1 freauenc.Y 

WeU Prod' ~ Wei 

Production 

Facilities 

WI TI-l 

Stcwage Tanks 

(tpy) 

{)<X< 6 

6 <X< 12 

12 <X< 50 

X> 50 

-

with Sroraa

AIMM A

Inspection 

Frequency f

One-time 

Annually M

Quarterly M

Moo1Miy 

---- ----- -