Final Report

For Determining Bleed Rates for Pneumatic Devices in British 

Columbia

December 18, 2013
i | P a g e

Executive Summary

Regulations in BC stipulate that all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from pneumatic instruments and pumps must be 

tracked for reporting and compliance purposes. In order to help industry quantify these emissions more efficiently and 

cost effectively, the BC Climate Action Secretariat (CAS), Ministry of Natural Gas Development and Canadian Association 

of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) engaged The Prasino Group (Prasino) to determine bleed rates for a suite of common 

pneumatic controllers and pumps. This survey is the first of its kind and was funded by the Science and Community 

Knowledge (SCEK) Fund.

Pneumatic controllers and pumps use pressurized fuel gas to perform operations such as pressure control, temperature 

control, liquid level controller and chemical injection. This fuel gas is subsequently released to the atmosphere after the 

operation is performed. The bleed rate of a pneumatic device is defined as the amount of fuel gas released to the 

atmosphere per hour. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector in BC with a detailed 

breakdown of the sources of vented methane. The high bleed pneumatic controllers and pumps, which are the subject 

of this study, contribute 436,000 tCO2e of the 1,723,000 tCO2e from vented methane. The amount of contribution from 

pneumatic devices and pumps is expected to change as a result of this study.

Figure 1: Detailed Breakdown of vented and fugitive methane sources in the BC oil and gas sector (source BC CAS 2013).

The purpose of the survey was to determine the average bleed rate of pneumatic controllers and pumps when operating 

under field conditions in BC. Bleed rates were sampled from pneumatic devices using a positive displacement bellows 

meter at upstream oil and gas facilities across a variety of producing fields in the Fort St. John, BC and surrounding, areas. 

Descriptive statistics, general linear models and regression analysis was performed on the data to investigate the bleed 

rates and draw robust, relevant conclusions.

All outcomes were achieved. The results of the analysis led to the development of three generic bleed rates and twenty 

specific bleed rates for common pneumatic controllers and pumps for BC’s oil and gas industry. These bleed rates can be 

used in the development of emission factors for GHG reporting and potentially offset purposes.
ii | P a g e

Table 1: Summary of Findings

Pneumatic Device Average Bleed 

Rate (m3/hr)

Coefficients1(supply pressure, 

injection pressure, strokes per min) Equivalent Device

Generic High Bleed Controller 0.2605 0.0012 -

Generic High Bleed 

Intermittent Controller 0.2476 0.0012 -

Pressure Controllers

Fisher 4150 0.4209 0.0019 4150K, 4150R, 4160, CVS 4150

Fisher C1 0.0649 0.0003 -

Fisher 4660 0.0151 - 4660A

Level Controllers

Fisher 2500 0.3967 0.0011 2500S, 2503, L3

Fisher 2680 0.2679 0.0014 2680A

Fisher 2900 0.1447 - 2900A, 2901, 2901A

Fisher L2 0.2641 0.0012 -

Murphy L1200 0.2619 0.0012 L1100, L1200N, L1200DVO

Norriseal 1001 0.1868 - 1001A, 1001XL

SOR 1530 0.0531 - -

Positioners

Fisher Fieldvue DVC6000 0.2649 0.0011 6030, 6020, 6010

Temperature Controllers

Kimray HT-12 0.0351 - -

Transducers

Fairchild TXI7800 0.1543 0.0009 TXI7850

Fisher 546 0.3547 0.0017 546S

Fisher i2P-100 0.2157 0.0009 -

Pumps

Generic Piston Pump 0.5917 0.00202, 0.000059, 0.0167 -

Generic Diaphragm Pump 1.0542 0.0005, 0.000027, 0.0091 -

Morgan HD312 1.1292 0.00418, 0.000034, 0.0073 HD312-3K, HD312-5K

Texsteam 5100 0.9670 0.0003,0.000034, 0.0207 5100LP, 5100H

Williams P125 0.4098 0.00019, 0.000024, 0.0076 -

Williams P250 0.8022 0.00096, 0.000042, 0.0079 -

Williams P500 0.6969 0.00224, -0.000031, 0.0046 -

 

1 Controllers that do not have a coefficient should use the mean bleed rate instead of the bleed rate equation.
iii | P a g e

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................i

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................................... iii

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Sampling Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Pneumatic Controllers.................................................................................................................................................2

2.2 Pneumatic Pumps........................................................................................................................................................4

2.3 Sampling Approach......................................................................................................................................................4

2.3.1 Bleed Rate Metering ............................................................................................................................................5

2.3.2 Sample Size...........................................................................................................................................................7

2.3.3 Data Collection and Transfer................................................................................................................................7

2.3.4 Errors, Uncertainty and Biases.............................................................................................................................8

3. Sample Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................ 11

3.1 Pneumatic Controllers...............................................................................................................................................11

3.2 Pneumatic Pumps......................................................................................................................................................12

3.3 Producers...................................................................................................................................................................12

3.4 District and Sub-District.............................................................................................................................................12

4. Analysis............................................................................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Analysis for Determining a Generic Bleed Rate.........................................................................................................15

4.2 Bleed Rate Equations.................................................................................................................................................16

5. Comparison of Bleed Rates.................................................................................................................................. 18

6. Discussion............................................................................................................................................................ 19

6.1 Outliers......................................................................................................................................................................19

6.2 Throttling vs. Snap-Acting Controllers.......................................................................................................................19

6.3 Manufacturer Specification .......................................................................................................................................20

6.4 Gas vs. Air vs. Propane ..............................................................................................................................................20

6.5 Calscan Vent Gas Meter ............................................................................................................................................21

6.6 Producer and Sub-District..........................................................................................................................................21

6.7 Adding a Device Model to the Survey .......................................................................................................................21

6.8 Mean vs. Median .......................................................................................................................................................21

6.9 General Linear Model ................................................................................................................................................22

6.10 Summer vs. Winter Sampling ..................................................................................................................................22

7. Applications of the Analysis................................................................................................................................. 22

8. Observations....................................................................................................................................................... 23

9. Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................... 24

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

Appendix A: Compilation of All Known Pneumatic Controllers .................................................................................... 27

Appendix B: Initial List of Pneumatic Devices Included in the Sample .......................................................................... 32

Appendix C: Field Sampling Guide................................................................................................................................ 34

Appendix D: Box Plot Distributions.............................................................................................................................. 35

Appendix E: Bleed Rate Equation Coefficients ............................................................................................................. 37
1 | P a g e

1. Introduction

This report outlines the methodology and analytical methods used to develop bleed rates for reporting GHG emissions 

from pneumatic controllers and pumps (collectively referred to as ‘devices’) in British Columbia (BC). The development 

of emissions factors may allow for an alternative method of monitoring and reporting GHGs from pneumatic devices, as 

per an agreement between the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) and the B.C. Ministry of 

Environment’s Climate Action Secretariat (CAS). The Prasino Group (Prasino) has been engaged by the Science and 

Community Environmental Knowledge Fund (SCEK) in order to develop these bleed rates based on quantitative sampling 

of pneumatic devices in BC. This document is the final project report and builds off the subsequent three reports (Sampling 

Methodology, First Round Sampling Report and Final Sampling Report) that were submitted to SCEK. This document is 

meant to be a standalone report and describes:

 The sampling methodology used to obtain the field bleed rate samples;

 The characteristics of the samples;

 The statistical analysis performed on the field bleed rate samples as well as a discussion of the results; and

 The recommended bleed rates for each pneumatic device included in the survey. 

2. Sampling Methodology

Pneumatic devices used in B.C.’s oil and gas sector fall into two categories:

1. Pneumatic chemical injection pumps (typically injecting methanol into a pipeline); and,

2. Pneumatic controllers, which regulate pressure, temperature, fluid level, or some other process variable. 

There are dozens of manufacturers of the types of pneumatic devices listed above. Even though the device types perform 

similar functions, they have inherently different bleed rates. Due to constraints, it was necessary to narrow sampling to 

the most common or representative devices. A “Device Selection Approach” was used to narrow the sample and 

determine the most common devices in the field.

Figure 2 below outlines the steps that were followed to develop the initial list of devices for sampling. Further detail will 

be provided in the next section. The following section describes the process that was used for selecting which devices to 

include in the sampling regime.
2 | P a g e

Figure 2: Device Selection Approach2

2.1 Pneumatic Controllers

In order to determine which pneumatic controllers to include in our sample, multiple steps were undertaken asillustrated 

in

Figure 2. Through this process, 15 controllers were identified as common. For the rare devices that are not within the 

scope of this project, a generic high-bleed rate has been developed for all high-bleed controllers. This ensures that any 

pneumatic controller can apply a bleed rate that is representative of field conditions. 

Step 1: Compile All Known Controllers

Prasino initially developed a complete list of all known pneumatic low and high-bleed controllers that were anticipated 

to be used in the upstream oil and gas industry in BC. Using one or more of the sources listed below, the make, model, 

and manufacturers’ stated bleed rate of each controller was determined:

 Canadian Environmental Technology Advancement Corporation-West (CETAC): Efficient Use of Fuel Gas in 

Chemical Injection Pumps. Fuel Gas Best Management Practices. The BMP lists manufacturer bleed rates of 

controllers in m3/hr of natural gas.

 Pacific Carbon Trust (PCT): High-Bleed to Low-Bleed Conversion for Pneumatic Controllers. Meta-Protocol for Oil 

and Gas Emission Reductions Projects. In the protocol, the bleed rates were stated in standard cubic feet per 

hour (scfh) of air, based on manufacturer stated specifications. The volume of air bled was converted to natural 

gas by multiplying by 1.33. When a range of bleed rates was listed, the highest value was taken to be conservative.

 Environmental Protection Agency: Gas STAR – Options for Reducing Methane Emissions from Pneumatic Devices 

in the Natural Gas Industry. This document stated the bleed rates of high- and low-bleed controllers in scfh of 

air. These values were converted to m3/hr of natural gas. 

 Western Climate Initiative (WCI): Final Essential Requirements of Mandatory Reporting. This report references 

the BMP, PCT Protocol and EPA Gas STAR for the pneumatic controller list and bleed rates. The manufacturer 

bleed rates in this document are in m3/hr.

 Manufacturer websites were referenced to determine the steady state air consumption for pneumatic 

controllers. The highest steady state air consumption was recorded. The bleed rates were stated in m3/hr and 

scfh. 

 Cap-Op Energy samples from the DEEPP database were used to look at controllers and pumps that are already 

in the field and have been sampled previously by GreenPath Energy Ltd4. 

Step 2: Equivalent Devices

Controllers may have different makes and models but serve the same function. Controllers are considered equivalent 

devices if they have interchangeable parts. A list of equivalent devices was compiled using information from device 

vendors and subject matter experts, and is presented in Appendix A (J. Anhalt, personal communication, July 2013; B. Van 

Vliet, personal communication, July 2013).

 

2 “Cap-Op’s Database” refers to Cap-Op Energy’s Distributed Energy Efficiency Project Platform (DEEPP), which was queried for 

historical pneumatic controller information. Cap-Op Energy is a sub-contractor to Prasino.

3 The value 1.3 is based on the density and molar mass of air and natural gas in ideal gas conditions. This manner of conversion is an

industry standard.

4 GreenPath Energy Ltd. is the contractor who was responsible for completing the field sampling protocol.
3 | P a g e

Step 3: Ensure Manufacturer Bleed Rates are Greater than 0.119 m3/hr

Manufacturer bleed rates were used to determine which controllers are considered high bleed and therefore relevant for 

sampling. However, these manufacturer bleed rates are based on manufacturer lab testing and may not reflect actual

field conditions. The steady state bleed rates reported are static bleed rates of controllers that are not actuating and thus 

dynamic bleeding is not captured. Therefore, the manufacturer bleed rates may not accurately express the actual vented 

natural gas through these controllers because the steady state does not include dynamic bleeding. The relationship 

between the bleed rates of controllers that are running on dirty/wet natural gas compared to air is unknown. It is likely 

that controllers operating in the field bleed more than controllers tested in a laboratory using air. 

The current definition whether a controller is a high or low bleed controller is based on the WCI Reporting Regulation 

definition: “high-bleed devices are defined as all natural gas powered devices which continuously bleed at a rate greater 

than 0.17 m3/hr.”

Many controllers have manufacturer bleed rates just below 0.17 m3/hr, and thus appear to be a low-bleed controller. 

Since manufacturers do not consider the dynamic bleed rate in their stated bleed rate, many low-bleed controllers in fact 

bleed more than 0.17 m3/hr on a regular basis. To ensure all relevant controllers that bleed more than 0.17 m3/hr 

(including static and dynamic bleeding) are included within the sample, the manufacturer bleed rates were compared to 

a limit of 0.119 m3/hr (CAS, 2013). In many cases, the manufacturer states a range of bleed rates that are dependent on 

other operating parameters of the controller (i.e. 1.4 scfh at 20 psi vs. 3 scfh at 30 psi). In this case, the highest bleed rate 

was recorded to ensure that all controllers with the potential to bleed higher than 0.17 m3/hr were included. Refer to 

Appendix A for highest manufacturer bleed rates. Controllers that have been excluded from sampling as a result of this 

step are represented at the bottom of the table in Appendix A. 

Step 4: Query Subject Matter Experts

Subject matter experts were queried as per the request of CAS to determine if the list of pneumatic devices was inclusive

and representative. Several low-bleed controllers below the limit of 0.119 m3/hr have been included based on these 

discussionsto investigate if controllers that are labelled according to manufacturer specification actually perform as a low 

bleed device in the field. Four low-bleed controllers were included in the survey: Fisher C1, Fisher 4660, SOR 1530 and 

Kimray HT-12. The results of the query are represented in Appendix A. 

Step 5: Determine the Frequency of Occurrence of Controllers

Using Cap-Op’s DEEPP database, the eligible list of all pneumatic controllers was filtered down to focus sampling on 

devices that are considered common. Cap-Op Energy has an extensive +2000 sample database from previous work on 

pneumatic devices from the upstream oil and gas industry in Alberta and BC. This database was used as a proxy for 

determining which controllers are common among producers in the Canadian oil and gas industry. The samples could not 

however be included in the survey because they were taken using the Bacharach High-Flow Sampler and this survey is 

using the Calscan vent gas bellows meter for reasons presented in Section 2.4.3. These eligible controllers were compared 

with the extensive field samples database from Cap-Op Energy’s DEEPP to examine the frequency of eligible controllers 

previously surveyed in the field. The results are depicted in Figure 3 below.

Step 6: Develop Initial List

The common list of pneumatic controllers used to guide first round sampling can be found in Appendix B. The results 

include:

 The top 10 controllers represent 89% of the surveyed controllers in the Cap-Op database. 

 The top 15 controllers represent 97% of the surveyed controllers in the Cap-Op database.

 Rare devices are those that comprise the remaining 3% of the surveyed controllers in the Cap-Op database. 
4 | P a g e

This initial list was used to guide first round of sampling because the selected devices were anticipated to be frequent 

enough to produce statistically valid emissions factors.

Step 7: Validate list

Upon completion of the first round of sampling the original list was compared with what was observed in the field to 

determine if the anticipated list of 15 devices was the most common. Based on survey data collected in the field, two 

devices were found to be common and added to the sample: Fairchild TXI7800; and Murphy L1200. Two devices were 

found to be rarer than initially thought and thus have been removed from the sample population: Fisher 2660 (no devices 

found in the field); and Dyna-Flo 4000 (two devices found in the field).

Figure 3: Frequency of pneumatic controllers found in the Cap-Op database

2.2 Pneumatic Pumps

The methodology used for determining the list of pneumatic pumps does not mirror the methodology used for pneumatic 

controllers because the Cap-Op database does not contain sufficient pump field samples to draw similar conclusions. The 

list of pneumatic pumps was compiled from the CAPP (2008), PCT (2011) and the Cap-Op DEEPP database. These sources 

were cross-referenced with manufacturer websites and subject matter experts to make a comprehensive initial list,

presented in Appendix B. This initial list was used to guide first round of sampling; however, all pumps were sampled in 

the first round to determine which types were common among the producers sampled. Five common pumps were 

identified after the first round of sampling and were targeted during the second round of sampling: Texsteam 5100; 

Morgan HD 312; Williams P125; Williams P250; Williams P500.

2.3 Sampling Approach

The following section provides detail on how the field samples were collected as well as justification for which companies 

and geographic areas were selected for sampling.

The analysis and discussions in this report distinguish the ‘sample set’ or ‘sample’ from the ‘population’. In general, this 

analysis operates under the assumptions that the true number and state of the population (i.e. all pneumatic devices in 

BC) is unknown. Determining whether the sample is representative of the population, and to what extent is a major 

Fisher 4150

26%

Fisher i2P-100

12%

Norriseal 1001

12%

Fisher 

2900

11%

Fisher 546

7%

Fisher L2

6%

Fisher 2680

5%

Fisher 4660

5%

Fisher Fieldvue 

DVC6000

3%

Kimray HT-12

2%

Fisher 2660

2%

Fisher 

2500

2%

SOR 1530

2%

Fisher C1

1%

Norriseal 1001XL

1%

Other (56 

controllers)

3%
5 | P a g e

component of this report and helps to characterize the validity of the results. Statistical analyses and conclusions are 

contingent on the assumption of an unknown population. 

2.3.1 Bleed Rate Metering

The metering requirements for this project are unique and as such there are few options for determining gas vent rates 

from devices in a cost effective manner. 

The desired meter must have the following characteristics: 

 Mobility – the meter will have to be mobile such that the sampling teams can apply the meter to pneumatic 

devices in-service at various facilities throughout BC. This requires a relatively simple installation and removal 

procedure, with a low weight and portability such that it can be moved by one or two people to within a few feet

of an existing pneumatic device as it is installed on-site. Breaking, cutting or dissembling process pipes, flanges 

or joints is not acceptable, however vent tubing may be intercepted for measurement. 

 Range – the meter must be designed to accommodate the measurement of flow rates between zero and 

approximately 1m3/h of gas at pressures ranging from atmospheric to a few feet of water column with minimal 

back pressure. 

 Explosive Environment – All electronic devices intended for use within CSA classified zones require intrinsically 

safe electronic enclosures such that potentially arcing /sparking ignition sources are completely isolated from 

potentially explosive atmospheres that occur in oil and gas facilities. This is a minimum safety requirement for 

all sampling team and on-site personnel. 

The desired meter should have the following characteristics: 

 Time series data to distinguish static and dynamic operation on pneumatic devices. 

 Minimal to no back pressure

 High precision, 2% or less uncertainty on reported values

 High accuracy, with correction for variable parameters such as gas composition, temperature, barometric 

pressure, humidity, etc. 
6 | P a g e

Based on an extensive review of meters available in the industry, two options which 

were found to be best candidates included the Bacharach High Flow Sampler and the 

Calscan Hawk 9000 Vent Gas Meter. The Bacharach High Flow Sampler is designed to 

measure the rate of gas leakage around various processes in natural gas transmission, 

storage and compressor facilities. This is accomplished by sampling at a very large flow 

rate (8 to 10 scfh) to completely capture any gas leaking from the component. By 

accurately measuring the flow rate of the sampling stream and the natural gas 

concentration, it is possible to calculate the rate of gas leak.

Prasino elected to use the Hawk 9000 vent gas meter (supplied by Calscan Energy) to 

measure and digitally log flow vent gas over time (which will vary based on the device 

sampled). This allowed for both the static and dynamic bleed rates for pneumatic 

controllers, as well as the dump cycles for pneumatic pumps and level controllers, to 

be captured. A drawback of the Bacharach High Flow Sampler is that it captures a 

snapshot in time; rather than a time series measurement. The Bacharach High Flow 

Sampler can fail to capture the dynamic bleeding events. The Hawk 9000 meter uses 

a positive displacement diaphragm meter that detects flow rates down to zero, and 

can also effectively measure any type of vent gas (methane, air, or propane). In 

addition, the Hawk uses a precision pressure sensor, an external temperature probe 

and industry standard gas flow measurement algorithms to accurately measure the 

gas rates and correct for pressure and temperature differences. As a result, flow 

measurement accuracies within ±2%5. A picture of the Calscan Hawk 9000 is presented 

in Figure 3 and an example output chart is provided in Figure 5 below. 

 

5

The meter is calibrated from -40°C to +60°C and uses “Gas Rate Algorithm AGA7” and “Equation of State AGA8”.

Figure 4: Calscan Hawk 9000 Meter
7 | P a g e

Figure 5: Example of Calscan Output Graph

2.3.2 Sample Size

The sampling program aimed to collect thirty samples of each device type identified as common according to Section 2.0

Sampling Methodology. Thirty was chosen as a minimum sample size in order to allow for statistical inferences to be 

drawn. When the sample size is sufficiently large (conventionally, 30 or larger), the standard error can be used to calculate 

a one-tail 95% confidence interval. As the sample population increases, the confidence interval should get smaller due to 

a decreased standard error (McClave and Sincich, 2003). In general, when calculating confidence interval, larger sample 

sizes and narrow confidence intervals must be balanced against the cost of additional sampling and the diminishing 

returns of incrementally smaller improvements to confidence intervals with each additional sample. Thirty samples for 

each common device type allows for the quantification of bleed rates with confidence intervals within a realistic budget 

and time frame. 

2.3.3 Data Collection and Transfer

To manage the large amount of data that was collected during this sampling program, Cap-Op designed a software 

application (app) to be used in the field in order to increase data quality and tracking, and eliminate manual data 

recording. A field sampling guide was followed by the Greenpath sampling team and is provided in Appendix C. 

All parameters were inputted into the app at the sampling location. Where appropriate, the app has dropdown menus 

to increase efficiency in compiling data. Numeric input fields have expected ranges of values and options for the units,

so that if a value is entered outside of the range a message appears for the user to ensure the input is correct.

When the user has access to internet, the app will sync with Cap-Op Energy’s DEEPP. The DEEPP will provide various 

functionalities for managing the data collected in the field including data storage and organizing the data into the desired 

output format of a download-able Excelfiles. 
8 | P a g e

Figure 6: Screen Shot of Cap-Op Energy's Data Collection App

2.3.4 Errors, Uncertainty and Biases

Errors, uncertainty and biases are part of every analysis and are discussed here for transparency and clarity. Overall, 

through critical review of the potential errors, uncertainties and biases inherent to this study, robust and reliable results 

can be attained. 

An error is an unsupported result or conclusion that arose through improper application of methods, calculations, or data 

management. Every effort has been made to eliminate errors from the analysis and a system of checks has been employed 

to eliminate error from the analysis. Error can be eliminated from analysis, while bias and uncertainty cannot be. 

Uncertainty, as it pertains to measurement of physical states or processes, describes the precision (or lack thereof) at 

which a characteristic or parameter can be defined. The precision associated with the measurement of bleed rates from 

a pneumatic device can be characterized through review of the techniques used to measure the parameters in question. 
9 | P a g e

The meter chosen for this project (see Section 2.3.1) uses self-actuating, reciprocating bellows to discretely count fixed 

volumes of gas being vented from the device in five second intervals. The limitations associated with this type of 

measurement, and the uncertainties imposed, include: 

 Volumes of gas vented lower than the fixed volume of one inflated bellow in a five second interval cannot be 

resolved. The uncertainty of any values of bleed rate reported by the meter under this value is large. This effect 

is typically characterized as the ‘turn-down ratio’ of a meter and every meter will have limits, turn-down or some 

range beyond which its reported values are unreliable. The Hawk 9000 meter has the range of flows that is 

appropriate for the intent of this study and thus mitigates this form of uncertainty to the extent possible.

 Pressures of vented gas lower than the back pressure imposed by the meter will significantly alter the value of 

gas being vented by the device. Back-pressure is a significant concern when measuring pneumatic control devices 

since the performance and bleed rate of the device may be inherently dependent on the back pressure of vented 

gas. This uncertainty impacts all ranges of gas flow, but in general will impose large uncertainty on high flows of 

gas since back pressure increases with flow. Devices which reported a zero bleed rate may actually have simply 

been ‘plugged’ by the internal actuating mechanisms of the meter. In general, it is impossible to measure the 

state of a system without disturbing the system, and this effect is unavoidable regardless of the type or extent 

of metering equipment chosen. It is anticipated that while the metering system chosen does impose a back 

pressure which may be more significant than other metering systems, the benefits of this metering system (time 

series bleed rate values and temperature pressure compensation) outweigh the detrimental effects of back 

pressure on the validity of results. 

 Gas compositions vary from location to location and from moment to moment and the estimation of gas 

composition at each measurement point is a source of uncertainty. It is prohibitively expensive to have real-time 

gas composition parameters available to the measurement devices such that the uncertainty associated with gas 

composition could be further reduced. The estimations and assumptions made on gas composition for 

temperature and pressure correction of measured volumes is considered appropriate for the scope of this 

project. 

 Digitization of data imposes uncertainty to values recorded during measurement through the limitation of 

significant digits (decimal places). The uncertainty imposed through the significant digits carried by data 

management systems in this project is considered to have contributed a negligible degree of uncertainty to the

overall result. 

In general, a statistic is biased if it is determined by an approach or method which systematically gives rise to differences 

between sample data and population data. Every effort was made in this sampling approach to avoid or minimize the 

effects of biases, nevertheless biases exist and are discussed below: 

 Opportunistic Sampling Approach - The sampling approach used is a non-probability technique called 

opportunistic sampling, where sampling locations were chosen purposefully. The locations were chosen based 

on the following criteria:

o The proximity to Fort St. John. Fort St. John is arguably a hub of oil and gas production within BC, with 

a majority of activity found within 500 km. In order to determine device bleed rates in an efficient and 

cost-effective manner, sampling was focused in this area. Sampling did not occur in the Fort Nelson 

region because many sites in Northern BC are winter access only or only accessible by helicopter.

o The accessibility due to seasonality. Field locations with winter access only were excluded from the 

survey due to logistics and cost.

o Producer identified device “hot spots”. Areas with a high concentration of devices were identified by 

cross-referencing producer’s inventories with the list of common devices.
10 | P a g e

o Sweet natural gas well-sites were preferred, followed by compressor stations and batteries, then sour 

gas well sites. Sweet sites were preferred over sour sites because they are typically run off compressed 

natural gas, whereas sour sites are typically run off propane or air. Well-sites were preferred over larger 

facilities because they typically house the common pneumatic controllers and pumps. 

Opportunistic sampling has known limitations, including the sampling error6 which cannot be estimated, and that 

exclusion bias may arise from the non-random choice of sampling locations. However, random sampling was

logistically impractical in this scenario and all efforts to minimize exclusion bias were made, by choosing sampling 

locations that were representative of a multitude of producers operating in BC, and production fields and subdistricts.

The effect of this exclusion bias is that the statistics describing the sample, may not accurately reflect the 

population statistics, and the extent to which this occurs cannot be determined. The likelihood and impact of 

this bias has been minimized by ensuring a sufficiently large sample size (the greater the sample size, the less 

selection biases will impact a result). 

 Producer Influence – The sampling approach described above inherently allows for a set of biases which are the 

possibility for intentional and unintentional skewed sampling. Since permission was required from producers to 

access sites, and moreover, recommendations on which sites to visit were solicited from producers, it must be 

acknowledged that the producers may have unintentionally directed sampling to areas with more or less 

bleeding devices. 

 Location – Pneumatic devices in the province of BC are limited to operation in the northern boreal shield or 

boreal plains climates at altitudes approximately centered around 690m above sea level. Oil and gas reserves are 

limited to those found in the western Canadian sedimentary basin and are not representative of global 

conditions. Biases arise from these geographic limitations and apply should the results of this study be implicated 

in jurisdictions outside of BC, however are irrelevant within the context of BC pneumatic device emissions. 

 

6

Sampling error is an estimation of the difference between the true population mean and the sample mean, usually 

expressed in terms of standard error. Standard error cannot be reliably calculated using non-probability sampling 

techniques, although a mean, standard deviation, and confidence interval can be calculated with large (>30) sample 

numbers. 
11 | P a g e

3. Sample Characteristics

In order to calculate a statistically significant bleed rate, with 95% confidence, a minimum of 30 samples was required per 

device. A total of 765 samples were taken across 28 producing fields in BC and 2 producing fields in Alberta. 

Table 2. Number of Samples by Device Type

Device Type Number of Samples

Pneumatic Controllers Level Controller 254

Positioner 43

Pressure Controller 142

Temperature Controller 41

Transducer 101

Pneumatic Pumps Chemical Injection 184

3.1 Pneumatic Controllers

Table 3 (below) summarises the number of samples by controller device. Devices in the “other” category were used to 

develop a generic emissions factor for pneumatic devices not specifically listed here.

Table 3. Pneumatic Controllers Sampled

Pneumatic Controllers First Round Samples Second Round Samples Total

Pressure Controllers

Fisher 4150 35 11 46

Fisher C1 27 3 30

Fisher 4660 29 1 30

Level Controllers

Fisher L2 37 11 48

Murphy L1200 27 4 31

Norriseal 1001 47 10 57

SOR 1530 28 3 31

Fisher 2900 22 8 30

Fisher 2680 22 10 32

Fisher 2500 8 4 12

Positioner

Fisher Fieldvue (DVC) 20 12 32

Temperature Controller

Kimray HT-12 36 0 36

Transducer

Fisher i2P-100 37 0 37

Fisher 546 27 3 30

Fairchild TXI7800 36 1 37

Other 53 7 64

Total 491 90 581
12 | P a g e

3.2 Pneumatic Pumps

The sampling results for pump devices are summarised in Table 4 (below).

Table 4. Pneumatic Pumps Sampled

Pneumatic Pumps First Round Samples Second Round Samples Total

Morgan HD312 3 32 35

Texsteam 5100 47 0 47

Williams P125 50 0 50

Williams P250 28 0 28

Williams P500 12 0 12

Other 9 3 12

Total 149 35 184

3.3 Producers

To reduce sampling bias, a cross-section of oil and gas producing companies were included in the survey to ensure 

sampling was representative and spread across producers as well as producing fields. Figure 3 (below) shows the 

breakdown of sampling across the eight producers.

Figure 7: Breakdown of Samples by Producer

3.4 District and Sub-District

Table 5 outlines the number of samples per district as well as a breakdown of samples by producing field. Samples were 

collected from areas in northeastern BC; in the Fort St John, Brooks, Dawson Creek, Grand Prairie and Hanna districts

(Figure 8). In total samples were taken from 30 different producing fields, with 756 samples coming from BC and 9 from 

Alberta. 
13 | P a g e

Figure 8: Sampling Location

Table 5. Number of Samples by District and Sub-District

Producing Field Number of Samples

Dawson Creek 254

Bissette 111

Brassey 7

Half Moon 7

Redwillow River 41

Sundown 25

Swan Lake 63

Fort St. John 394

Beaverdam 5

Blueberry 42

Buick Creek 29

Bullmoose 4

Bulrush 11

Burnt River 42

Cecil Lake 27

Eagle 36

Farrell 9

Farrell Creek West 43

Ladyfern 14

Monais 4

Muskrat 33

Nancy 26

North Cache 7
14 | P a g e

Producing Field Number of Samples

North Pine 5

Owl 1

Septimus 16

Stoddart 29

Sukunka 11

Grand Prairie7 108

Hiding Creek 45

Noel 63

Hanna (AB) 7

Leo 7

Brooks (AB) 2

Verger 2

Total 765

4. Analysis

The analytical approach began by determining the mean sample bleed rate for each pneumatic controller and pump 

included in the survey. Table 6 below show the mean bleed rates, the 95% confidence interval (CI) and the standard 

deviation for the 20 common devices included in the survey. These bleeds rates are corrected for temperature, pressure 

and gas type.

Table 6: Results of Analysis by Device Model

Pneumatic Device Number of 

Samples

Average Bleed Rate 

(m3/hr)

95% Confidence Interval 

(m3/hr)

Standard Deviation 

(m3/hr)

Pressure Controllers

Fisher 4150 46 0.4209 0.5322 0.4593

Fisher C1 30 0.0649 0.0981 0.1106

Fisher 4660 30 0.0151 0.0329 0.0592

Level Controllers

Fisher 2500 12 0.3967 0.5559 0.3353

Fisher 2680 32 0.2679 0.3782 0.3793

Fisher 2900 30 0.1447 0.2496 0.3490

Fisher L2 48 0.2641 0.3538 0.3779

Murphy L1200 31 0.2619 0.3618 0.3383

Norriseal 1001 57 0.1868 0.2670 0.3679

SOR 1530 31 0.0531 0.0841 0.1049

Positioners

Fisher Fieldvue DVC6000 32 0.2649 0.3633 0.3386

Temperature Controllers

 

7

Samples labelled Grand Prairie were taken from producing fields in BC.
15 | P a g e

Pneumatic Device Number of 

Samples

Average Bleed Rate 

(m3/hr)

95% Confidence Interval 

(m3/hr)

Standard Deviation 

(m3/hr)

Kimray HT-12 36 0.0351 0.0621 0.0987

Transducers

Fairchild TXI7800 37 0.1543 0.1877 0.1234

Fisher 546 30 0.3547 0.4279 0.2436

Fisher i2P-100 37 0.2157 0.2602 0.1646

Pumps

Morgan HD312 35 1.1292 1.3592 0.8271

Texsteam 5100 47 0.9670 1.1467 0.7490

Williams P125 50 0.4098 0.5092 0.4272

Williams P250 28 0.8022 1.0156 0.6863

Williams P500 12 0.6969 0.9741 0.5836

4.1 Analysis for Determining a Generic Bleed Rate

The next step of the analysis was to determine if a generic bleed rate could be generated for high-bleed controllers and 

pumps. Devices that were determined to be high bleeding (i.e. bleed rate>0.17m3/hr) were grouped together in the 

analysis. If the calculated mean bleed rate was larger than the threshold, the device was included in the analysis, and if 

the calculated mean bleed rate was smaller than the threshold, the device was excluded from the analysis for determining 

a generic bleed rate. Certain controllers that are considered low-bleeding according to WCI or manufacturer specifications 

actually bled above the low bleed threshold and were therefore included in the analysis. Using Minitab, a statistical 

analysis software, a general linear model (GLM) was performed on the data to determine if there was a significant 

difference between the mean bleed rates of controllers and pumps. The results are presented in Table 7. 

Table 7: Results of the Overview Analysis

Pneumatic Device Number of 

Samples

Average Bleed Rate 

(m3/hr)

95% Confidence Interval 

(m3/hr)

Standard Deviation 

(m3/hr) P-Value

High Bleed 

Controllers 406 0.2605 0.2880 0.3371 0.129

High Bleed 

Intermittent 195 0.2476 .2893 0.3537 0.738

Piston Pumps 96 0.5917 0.6926 0.6007 0.060

Diaphragm Pumps 85 1.0542 1.1948 0.7878 0.362

For high bleed controllers, a p-value>0.05 was calculated, meaning that there was no significant differences between the 

mean bleed rates. The mean bleed rate is representative of the population and can therefore be applied to any high bleed 

controller model. For intermittent high bleed controller, a p-value>0.05 was calculated, meaning that there was no 

significant differences between the mean bleed rates. The mean bleed rate is representative of the population and can 

therefore be applied to any intermittent high bleed controller model. For all pumps, a p-value<0.05 was calculated, 

meaning that there is a significant difference between all pump models and a generic bleed rate may not be 

representative of the entire population. Due to the large variance in bleed rates across all pumps, the pumps were 

grouped into two categories: diaphragm pumps and piston pumps. A p-value>0.05 was calculated for both types of

pumps, meaning that the mean bleed rate is representative of the entire population. 

Box plot distributions of all field samples are presented in Appendix D.
16 | P a g e

4.2 Bleed Rate Equations

The most accurate bleed rate would take into account quantitative variables. A regression analysis was performed to 

investigate which quantitative variables affected the bleed rate. A regression analysis showed that there was a positive 

correlation between certain pneumatic controller bleed rates and supply pressure. A regression analysis showed that 

there was a positive correlation between pneumatic pump bleed rates, supply pressure, injection pressure and strokes 

per minute. 

Controller Bleed Rate Equation Bleed Ratej = m ∗ SPj

Where:

m = the supply pressure coefficient (see Appendix E)

SPj = the supply pressure of controller j

Pump Bleed Rate Equation8 Bleed Ratej = (g ∗ SPj) + (n ∗ DPj) + (p ∗ SPMj)

Where:

g = the supply pressure coefficient (see Appendix E)

SPj = the supply pressure of pump j, (kPa)

n = the discharge pressure coefficient, (see Appendix E)

DPj = the discharge pressure of pump j, (kPa)

p = the strokes per minute coefficient (see Appendix E)

SPMj = the strokes per minute of pump j

For producers who know the operating conditions of their devices, they should use the following bleed rate equations. It 

should be noted that this method will only provide a more accurate bleed rate compared to the average bleed rate shown 

in Table 7 and Table 8 if the producer is certain of the operating conditions. Adding complexity may increase the overall 

error in bleed rates if operating conditions are estimated. Figure 9 provides an overview of the approach used to analyze 

the data. 

 

8

It should be noted that if the pump is operating at less than five strokes per minute, the emissions equation is not 

applicable and the mean bleed rate should be used.
17 | P a g e

Figure 9: Diagram Illustrating the Quantitative Analysis
18 | P a g e

5. Comparison of Bleed Rates

Table 8 and Table 9 compare the average bleed rate to the manufacturer’s specification as well as previously published 

bleed rates. A discussion on variability between the mean bleed rate and the manufacturer specification is provided in 

Section 6 below. A discussion on variability between the mean bleed rate and the EPA default is provided below. Overall, 

the average bleed rate for high bleed and intermittent controllers were lower than the EPA default; however, the average 

bleed rate for low bleed controllers and pumps were both higher than the EPA default. These findings align with a similar 

study that was performed in the United States by the University of Texas (Allen et al. 2013).

Table 8: Comparison of Pneumatic Controller Bleed Rates

Pneumatic Controllers Average Bleed Rate

(m3/hr)

Manufacturer Specification

(m3/hr) WCI (m3/hr) CAPP (m3/hr) EPA (m3/hr)

Pressure Controllers

Fisher 4150 0.421 0.691 0.736 0.680-1.841 0.071-0.821

Fisher C19

0.065 0.097 0.147 - -

Fisher 4660 0.015 0.174 0.142 - 0.142

Level Controllers

Fisher L29 0.264 0.032 0.043 - -

Fisher 2500 0.397 1.100 1.189 1.189 0.283-2.03

Fisher 26809 0.268 0.040 0.028 <0.028 <0.028

Fisher 2900 0.145 0.453 0.651 0.510-3.60 -

Murphy L120010 0.262 - - - -

Norriseal 10019 0.187 0.057 0.057 0.006 0.006

SOR 15307 0.053 0.142 - - -

Positioners

Fisher DVC6000 0.265 0.38 0.396 0.400-1.39 0.396

Temperature Controller

Kimray HT-129 0.035 0.000 - - -

Transducer

Fairchild TXI7800 0.154 0.380 0.241 - -

Fisher 546 0.355 0.648 0.850 0.423-1.700 0.595

Fisher i2P-100 0.216 0.180 0.283 - -

 

9 Considered a low bleed controller according to manufacturer specification and WCI’s definition <0.17m3

/hr. 

10 This pneumatic device was not on the initial list for pneumatics but was included due to prominence in the field.
19 | P a g e

Table 9. Comparison of pneumatic pump bleed rates.

Pneumatic 

Pumps

Mean Bleed Rate

(m3/hr)

Max Air Consumption (Man 

Specification11 (m3/hr)

CAPP

(m3/hr)12 WCI (m3/hr)13 EPA (m3/hr)

Morgan HD312 1.1292 1.35 0.236 0.3945 0.3767

Texsteam 5100 0.9670 2.31 0.236 0.3945 0.3767

Williams P125 0.4098 0.21 0.236 0.3945 0.3767

Williams P250 0.8022 1.33 0.236 0.3945 0.3767

Williams P500 0.6969 2.46 0.236 0.3945 0.3767

6. Discussion

6.1 Outliers

Outliers were not excluded from the sample population because the purpose of the survey was to capture real field 

conditions and generate a bleed rate that is representative of all field conditions. Certain controllers can have abnormally 

high bleed rates due to operations and maintenance; however, these bleed rates are representative of real world 

conditions and therefore were included in the analysis.

6.2 Throttling vs. Snap-Acting Controllers

Two types of controllers were sampled in the field, throttling and snap-acting controllers. Throttling controllers bleed 

continuously as they constantly throttle between static and dynamic states. Actuating or intermittent bleed devices 

perform snap-acting control and release gas only when they stroke a valve open or closed. The static bleed rate is steadystate gas consumption. When a controller performs an action, the pressurized gas is subsequently vented through the 

controller to the atmosphere, also known as the dynamic bleed rate. 

The dynamic bleed rate can be much greater than the static bleed rate based on the operating conditions of the controller. 

The total bleed rate (static + dynamic) depends on the frequency the controller is performing an action. Snap-acting 

controllers typically have greater variability in dynamic and static action due to the intermittency of the actions. Snapacting controllers are predominantly in their static, inactive state until an action is required, which results in a short burst 

of dynamic bleeding.

Figure 10 shows an example of how the bleed rate varies over time for a snap-acting controller. The difference between 

the static rate and the amplitude of the dynamic event is the dynamic bleed rate. The most important variable that 

dictates the bleed rate however is the frequency of the dynamic events, which is dependent on a number of variables 

(dry/wet gas, tank size, etc.) Level controllers are a prime example of a snap-acting controller because they only 

dynamically bleed when they are prompted by an event, typically to empty a liquids tank. 

 

11 The stated manufacturer max air consumption value assumes a supply pressure of 690 kPa (100 psi), which is a max 

supply pressure.

12 http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=86223&DT=NTV

13 http://www.theclimateregistry.org/downloads/2010/04/Final-OGP-Protocol.pdf
20 | P a g e

Figure 10: Graph Showing the Dynamic and Static Action

Since the sampling methodology limited the sample time to 30 minutes, there was variability in the amount of static and 

dynamic action that was captured from a given controller. This variability was due to the frequency of dynamic events. 

Depending on operating conditions, certain controllers did not perform an action within the 30 minute timeframe, so only 

the static bleed rate was captured. For example, if a level controller dumps on average every four hours, the sampling 

team may or may not have caught the dynamic bleed rate of the controller. This created variability in the amount of 

dynamic versus static bleeds that were capture by an individual sample; however, due to our large sample sets, this 

variability is representative of how controllers are performing under real operating condition. 

This variance was mostly seen in level controllers because they are snap-acting and operate in an on or off type condition. 

The level controller samples showed a range of values depending on how many dynamic events occurred over a sampling 

period. This was an expected outcome because level controllers have primarily static bleed rates with variable dynamic 

events. Our analysis captured both static and dynamic events over the sampling time frame and are both accounted for 

when using the average as a representative bleed rate for the samples with skewed and bimodal distribution.

6.3 Manufacturer Specification

Differences are observed between the average bleed rate and the manufacturer specification. It should be noted that this 

variability was expected. The manufacturer specification measures the steady-state air consumption in a lab setting. The 

purpose of the survey is to determine the average bleed rate of pneumatic controllers and pumps when operating under 

real field conditions. The field bleed rates differed from manufacturer rates because they are operating under real world 

conditions with variability in dynamic and static action. For pumps, the field bleed rates are different than manufacturer 

rates because they are provided with a maximum air consumption using a maximum supply pressure.

6.4 Gas vs. Air vs. Propane

The majority of the field samples were taken at sweet well sites; however, as devices became harder to find, the sampling 

team targeted compressor stations and batteries as well as sour sites in order to reach the 30 sample threshold. A handful 

of air samples were obtained from larger facilities because typically, bigger facilities run compressed air instead of 

pressurized natural gas. A handful of propane samples were obtained from sour well sites because an alternative to 

process natural gas is required at sour sites, so pressurized propane is typically used. Air and propane samples were 

corrected using a density ratio in order to compare equivalent volumes of natural gas bled. 
21 | P a g e

6.5 Calscan Vent Gas Meter

When determining which metering device to use during sampling, the Calscan bellows meter was chosen over the 

Bacharach High-Flow Sampler because it has greater accuracy and has the ability to capture the static and dynamic bleed 

rates (see Section 2.3.1 for a complete discussion on the differences). A drawback exists; however, that should be 

discussed and may explain some of the variability in the data. It is well-known that metering a device can affect the 

operation of the device when hooked up due to back pressure. It is possible that certain controllers didn’t produce enough 

pressure when hooked up to overcome the back pressure, resulting in a zero reading.

6.6 Producer and Sub-District

A multitude of producers and sub districts within British Columbia were sampled; however, the purpose was not to 

determine differences between producers and sub-districts but determine generic BC wide bleed rates that reflect values 

from a variety of locations and producers. Since we have taken our samples from a variety of fields, the average bleed 

rate captures the variability between producers and sub-districts. The intent of the survey was not to determine whether 

producers and sub-districts were influencing variables; however, the methodology was designed to ensure that these 

variables were accounted. 

6.7 Adding a Device Model to the Survey

If a producer wishes to develop an average bleed rate for a controller or pump that was outside the scope of this survey, 

they can follow the sampling methodology outlined in Section 2. A minimum of 30 bleed rates per device model must be 

achieved using a mass flow meter from a variety of producing fields and producers. Please reference the Project

Methodology (July 29th 2013) report for the full protocol. 

6.8 Mean vs. Median

Many of the snap acting level controllers had skewed or bi-modal distribution. Typically the median is used to represent 

the value for central tendency in non-normal distributions; however, the goal for this project was to develop an average 

where all the samples are weighted equally. The mean is recommended because it weights all samples equally; whereas 

the median would neglect samples on the tail of the distribution. The median would not accurately reflect the combined 

static and dynamic bleed rate; whereas the mean places equal weight on each sample. Using the median as a measure of 

central tendency would ignore the data that represents the dynamic action over the course of sampling. Thus, when 

calculating the most accurate bleed rate, the mean is more representative than the median because of static and dynamic 

actions.

Figure 11: Non-Normal Distribution
22 | P a g e

6.9 General Linear Model

A general linear model is a statistical test that analyzes variance between sample populations. It was chosen to compare 

the samples because some populations showed a non-normal distribution and because the samples sizes differed. This 

statistical test incorporates different ANOVA tests and non-parametric tests to produce and accurate p-value. A general 

linear model is more robust when dealing with different normalities and variance in sample populations compared to a 

standard ANOVA and was therefore selected (Bolker et al. 2009).

6.10 Summer vs. Winter Sampling

The sampling was performed over the summer months of August and early September. The Calscan Hawk 9000 meter 

normalized all the samples for temperature and pressure differences in order to eliminate the different operating

variables. A known constraint of our sampling methodology was that not all chemical injection pumps operate in the 

summer months. To eliminate this issue, the sampling team would turn the pump on and perform samples at three normal 

operating speeds (high, medium and low strokes per minute). 

7. Applications of the Analysis

The mean bleed rates calculated in this survey are applicable for GHG reporting. A decision tree is provided in 

Figure 12 and Figure 13 below to aid producers in determining which bleed rate to apply.

Figure 12: Controller Decision Tree
23 | P a g e

Figure 13: Pump Decision Tree

8. Observations

This study involved comprehensive analysis of pneumatic devices and a significant fieldwork program. This, combined 

with the fact that this study was one of the first of its kind, resulted in the research team observing several instances 

where the general body of scientific knowledge in this area could be advanced. These are outlined below:

1. Dynamic vs. static bleed rates: By nature, controller devices have a baseline bleed rate with dynamic events where 

more gas may be vented. In this study, the maximum sampling time was set at 30 minutes for each device, which 

added variability to the amount static and dynamic action captured in the sampling of snap-acting controllers (see 

section 6.2 for further discussion). The time interval between dynamic events may be longer than a 30 minute cycle. 

Future surveys investigating intermittent bleeding controllers, if undertaken, may consider capturing two complete 

dynamic cycles if reasonably practicable.

2. Categorisation of ‘high’, ‘intermittent’, and ‘low bleed’: The survey was focused around high-bleed pneumatic 

controllers. It was observed that for some high bleed devices the calculated mean bleed rate fell below the 0.17m3/hr 

WCI high bleed threshold and some tested low bleed controllers were higher. As an analysis of the observed 

differences were not within the scope of the project no further work to assess possible cause was undertaken, at this 

time. It is observed that future studies may consider all types of pneumatic controllers so that categorisation can be 

more fully tested and to ensure that field tested emission factors are available for all emitting pneumatic devices. 
24 | P a g e

9. Conclusion

The purpose of the survey was to determine a representative average bleed rate for high bleed pneumatic controllers 

and pneumatic pumps when operating under field conditions. All outcomes were achieved. The results of the analysis led 

to the development of three generic bleed rates and twenty specific bleed rates for common pneumatic controllers and 

pumps for BC’s oil and gas industry. These bleed rates can be used in the development of emission factors for GHG 

reporting and potentially offset purposes. 

References

Allen et al. (2013). “Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States”. PNAS. 

Accessed: November 8th 2013.

BC Oil and Gas Commission (2013) Unpublished report.

Bolker et al. (2009). “Generalized Linear Mixed Models”. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24 (3): 127-135. Accessed: 

November 5th 2013.

CAPP. (2008). “Efficient Use of Fuel Gas in Chemical Injection Pumps. Fuel Gas Best Management Practices”. Accessed: 

July 9, 2013.

CAPP. (2008). “Efficient Use of Fuel Gas in Pneumatic Instruments”. Fuel Gas Best Management Practices. Accessed: July 

9, 2013.

CAS (2013). Draft Schedule A from BC Climate Action Secretariat for Pneumatics Emission Factor Determination. 

EPA 40 CFR 98: Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting. Subpart W: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems. Accessed: 

November 2013. http://cfr.regstoday.com/40cfr98.aspx#40_CFR_98pSUBPART_W

EPA. (2006). “Options for Reducing Methane Emissions from Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry”. EPA Gas 

STAR. Accessed July, 8 2013.

Fisher Controls. (2012). “Fisher 2500-249 Pneumatic Controllers and Transmitters” & “Fisher 4660 High-Low Pressure 

Pilot” & “4156K and 4166K Series Wizard II Temperature Controllers”. Product Bulletin. Accessed July 9, 2013.

McClave, J.T. and Sincich, T. (2003). “Statistics, Ninth Edition, Annotated Instructor’s Edition”. Prentice Hall, New 

Jersey: Upper Saddle River.

Pacific Carbon Trust. (2011). “High-Bleed to Low-Bleed Conversion for Pneumatic Controllers”. Meta-Protocol for Oil and 

Gas Emission Reductions Projects. Accessed: July 8, 2013.

Western Climate Initiative. (2011). Final Essential Requirements of Mandatory Reporting. Amended for Canadian 

Harmonization – Second Update. Accessed July 8, 2013. 
27 | P a g e

Appendix A: Compilation of All Known Pneumatic Controllers

Description Manufacturer Model

Manufacturer 

Rate (m3/h 

NG)

Source Equivalent Devices Sample? Justification

Pressure 

Controller

Ametek Series 40 0.22 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star Yes High-bleed

Positioner Becker HPP-5 0.18 WCI Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Bristol 

Babcock

Series 502 

A/D 0.22 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Dyna-Flo 4000 0.89 WCI Dyna-Flo 5000 Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Dyna-Flo 4000LB 0.13 Dyna-Flo Yes High-bleed

Transducer Fairchild TXI 7800 0.31 WCI Yes High-bleed

Transducer Fisher 546 1.10 WCI

Fisher 546S 

Fisher 546

Yes High-bleed

Transducer Fisher 646 0.29 WCI Yes High-bleed

Transducer Fisher 846 0.44 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star Fisher 846S Yes High-bleed

Level 

Controller

Fisher 2500 1.55 WCI Yes High-bleed

Level 

Controller

Fisher 2900 0.85 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star Fisher 2901

Fisher 2900A

Yes High-bleed

Positioner Fisher 3582 0.59 WCI Yes High-bleed

Positioner Fisher 3590 1.10 WCI Yes High-bleed

Positioner Fisher 3660 0.26 WCI Yes High-bleed

Positioner Fisher 3661 0.38 WCI Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Fisher 4100 1.83 WCI Fisher 4101 Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Fisher 4150 0.96 WCI

Fisher 4150K Fisher 

4160R CVS 4150 

Yes High-bleed
28 | P a g e

Description Manufacturer Model

Manufacturer 

Rate (m3/h 

NG)

Source Equivalent Devices Sample? Justification

Fisher 4150K Fisher 

4160

Temperature 

Controller

Fisher 4156

Fisher 4156

Fisher 4166

Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Fisher 4194 0.16 WCI Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Fisher 4195 0.16 WCI Yes High-bleed

High-Low 

Pressure Pilot

Fisher 4660 0.18 Gas STAR Fisher 4660A Yes High-bleed

Positioner Fisher

Fieldvue 

DVC5000

0.37 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star

FisherDVC5040 

FisherDVC5030 

FisherDVC5020 

FisherDVC5010

Yes High-bleed

Level 

Controller

Fisher 2900A Fisher 2901A Yes High-bleed

Positioner Fisher 3582i 0.76 WCI Yes High-bleed

Positioner Fisher 3620J 0.98 WCI Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Transmitter

Fisher C1 0.19 WCI Yes High-bleed

Positioner Fisher

Fieldvue 

DVC6000

0.52 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star

FisherDVC6030 

FisherDVC6020 

FisherDVC6010

Yes High-bleed

Transducer Fisher i2P-100 0.37 WCI

Fisher i2P-100, 4-

20mA

Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Foxboro 43AP 0.66 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star Yes High-bleed

Level 

Controller

Invalco AE-155 1.95 WCI Yes High-bleed
29 | P a g e

Description Manufacturer Model

Manufacturer 

Rate (m3/h 

NG)

Source Equivalent Devices Sample? Justification

Level 

Controller

Invalco CT Series 1.47 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star NATCO Flextube (CT 

Series)

Yes High-bleed

Positioner Invalco

Flextube (CT 

Series)

1.47 WCI

NATCO Flextube (CT 

Series)

Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

ITT Barton 338 0.22 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

ITT Barton 4195 0.13 Gas Star Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

ITT Barton 335P 0.22 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star Yes High-bleed

Level 

Controller

Kimray Gen2 0.54 Manufacturer’s website14 Yes High-bleed

Temperature 

Controller

Kimray HT-12 Yes High-bleed

Level 

Controller

Mallard 3201 Yes High-bleed

Positioner Masoneilan 4600B Series 0.88 WCI Yes High-bleed

Positioner Masoneilan 4700B Series 0.88 WCI Yes High-bleed

Positioner Masoneilan 7400 Series 1.36 WCI Yes High-bleed

Positioner

Moore 

Products

73N-B PtoP 1.33 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star Yes High-bleed

Positioner

Moore 

Products

750P 1.55 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star Yes High-bleed

Transducer

Moore 

Products

IPX2 Yes High-bleed

 

14 http://mobile.kimray.com/downloads/instruction/GENIIBACKmount.pdf
30 | P a g e

Description Manufacturer Model

Manufacturer 

Rate (m3/h 

NG)

Source Equivalent Devices Sample? Justification

Pressure 

Controller

Natco CT 1.55 WCI Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Norriseal 4900 Yes High-bleed

Level 

Controller

Norriseal 1005PI Yes High-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Time Mate 2000 Yes High-bleed

Level 

Controller

Wellmark 2001A 0.13 CAPP Yes High-bleed

Positioner YTC YT-2400 Yes High-bleed

Level 

Controller

Fisher 2660 0.04 CAPP BMP Fisher 2660A Yes PCT

Level 

Controller

Fisher 2680 0.04 CAPP BMP Fisher 2680A Yes PCT

Level 

Controller

Fisher L2 0.06 WCI Yes PCT

Level 

Controller

Norriseal 1001 0.07 WCI 1001A No PCT

Level 

Controller

Norriseal 1001XL 0.07 WCI No PCT

Positioner Becker ERP-2.0 0.00 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star No Low-bleed

Controller Becker VRP-SB 0.00 Gas Star No Low-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Bristol 

Babcock

358 0.07 Gas Star No Low-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Bristol 

Babcock

359 0.07 Gas Star No Low-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Bristol 

Babcock

5455 Model 

624-III

0.09 WCI No Low-bleed
31 | P a g e

Description Manufacturer Model

Manufacturer 

Rate (m3/h 

NG)

Source Equivalent Devices Sample? Justification

Pressure 

Controller

Bristol 

Babcock

Series 5453-

Model 624 -

II

0.11 Gas STAR No Low-bleed

Pressure 

Controller

Bristol 

Babcock

Series 5455 

Model-624 

10F

0.11 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star No Low-bleed

Pressure 

Transmitter

Bristol 

Babcock

Series 5457-

70F

0.11 Gas STAR No Low-bleed

Transducer

Bristol 

Babcock

Series 9110-

00A

0.02 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star No Low-bleed

Level 

Controller

Fisher 2100 0.04 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star No Low-bleed

Positioner Masoneilan SVI Digital 0.04 CAPP No Low-bleed

Positioner VRC VP700G 0.04 WCI/CAPP BMP/GAS Star No Low-bleed
32 | P a g e

Appendix B: Initial List of Pneumatic Devices Included in the Sample

Pneumatic Controller List

This list was developed by analyzing the frequency each controller make/model appeared in Cap-Op’s field sample 

database. These 15 controllers make up 97% of the database.

Description Manufacturer Model Equivalents Name Count Percentage

Pressure 

Controller

Fisher 4150

Fisher 4150K Fisher 

4160R CVS 4150 

Fisher 4150K Fisher 

4160

Fisher 4150 380 26.44%

Transducer Fisher i2P-100

Fisher i2P-100, 4-

20mA

Fisher i2P100

177 12.32%

Level 

Controller

Norriseal 1001 1001A

Norriseal 

1001

170 11.83%

Level 

Controller

Fisher 2900

Fisher 2901 Fisher 

2900A Fisher 2901A

Fisher 2900 163 11.34%

Transducer Fisher 546

Fisher 546S Fisher 

546

Fisher 546 94 6.54%

Level 

Controller

Fisher L2 Fisher L2 84 5.85%

Level 

Controller

Fisher 2680 Fisher 2680A Fisher 2680 78 5.43%

High-Low 

Pressure Pilot

Fisher 4660 Fisher 4660A Fisher 4660 73 5.08%

Positioner Fisher

Fieldvue 

DVC6000

FisherDVC6030 

FisherDVC6020 

FisherDVC6010

Fisher 

Fieldvue 

DVC6000

39 2.71%

Temperature 

Controller

Kimray HT-12 Kimray HT-12 27 1.88%

Level 

Controller

Fisher 2660 Fisher 2660A Fisher 2660 24 1.67%

Level 

Controller

Fisher 2500 Fisher 2506 Fisher 2500 23 1.60%

Level Switch SOR 1530 SOR 1530 23 1.60%

Pressure 

Transmitter

Fisher C1 Fisher C1 19 1.32%

Level 

Controller

Norriseal 1001XL

Norriseal 

1001XL

19 1.32%

Total 97%
33 | P a g e

Pneumatic Pump List

This is a comprehensive list of known pump models that exist in the field. The list was developed by 

surveying multiple sources (industry, manufacturers, etc.). First round sampling uncovered which 

pumps were common (see bolded below) in order to target were sampling.

Manufacturer Model

Arrow 548

Arrow 5100

Bruin 5000

Bruin BR113LP

Checkpoint 1250

COE 5100

CVS 5100

CVS C-252

Flowmore 5100

Graco 716

Ingersoll Rand -

Linc 84-T Series

Linc 282

Morgan 4500

Morgan HD312

Plainsman -

Texsteam 5100

Timberline 2500, 5000, 1560 Series

Western Chemical Pump ACE Series

Wilden 5000

Williams P125

Williams P250

Williams P500
34 | P a g e

Appendix C: Field Sampling Guide

The subsequent guidelines were taken from the full Sampling Methodology report and were followed by the GreenPath 

field sample team:

What to Sample On-Site

 Sample all pneumatic controllers (including their equivalents) from the list provided (found in Appendix B).

 Sample all pumps. If pumps are turned off and you have permission from the operator to turn it on, take 

separate samples of the pump at different operating speeds (high, medium and low strokes per minute). Limit 

different operating speeds to speeds that the pump would function under normal operating conditions.

Duration of Sampling

All samples need to:

 be taken for at least 30 min, or 

 until 2 ft3 of gas has been collected

Sampling Device

 Attach the Calscan Hawk 9000 positive displacement bellows meter to the pneumatic device according to 

manufacturer specification. 
35 | P a g e

Appendix D: Box Plot Distributions

A box plot distribution graph is a way to show the distribution of categorical samples. The black line represents the median 

value for a sample population. The grey box represents the first and third quartile or 50% of the data. The black lines show 

the range of observations. The median is represented by the horizontal line and the mean is the circle in the grey box.

Figure 14: Box Plot Distribution for High-Bleed Controllers

Figure 15: Box Plot Distribution for High Bleed Intermittent Controllers
36 | P a g e

Figure 16: Box Plot Distribution for Diaphragm Pumps

Figure 17: Box Plot Distribution for Piston Pumps
37 | P a g e

Appendix E: Bleed Rate Equation Coefficients

Pneumatic Controllers

A regression analysis showed that there was a positive correlation between certain pneumatic controller bleed rates and 

supply pressure.

Table 10: Controller Bleed Rate Equation Coefficients

Controller Mean Bleed Rate (m3/hr) Coefficient15 R2 Correlation16

High Bleed Pneumatic Controllers 0.2605 0.0012 0.41 Positive

High Bleed Intermittent Controllers 0.2476 0.0012 0.35 Positive

Pressure Controller

Fisher 4150 0.4209 0.0019 0.46 Positive

Fisher C1 0.0649 0.0003 0.25 Positive

Fisher 4660 0.0151 - 0.05 Weak

Level Controller

Fisher 2500 0.3967 0.0011 0.73 Strong

Fisher 2680 0.2679 0.0014 0.39 Positive

Fisher 2900 0.1447 - 0.13 Weak

Fisher L2 0.2641 0.0012 0.33 Positive

Murphy L1200 0.2619 0.0012 0.38 Positive

Norriseal 1001 0.1868 - 0.23 Weak

SOR 1530 0.0531 - 0.21 Weak

Positioners

Fisher DVC 6000 0.2649 0.0011 0.75 Strong

Temperature Controller

Kimray HT-12 0.0351 - 0.06 Weak

Transducer

Fairchild TXI7800 0.1543 0.0009 0.60 Positive

Fisher 546 0.3547 0.0017 0.77 Strong

Fisher i2P-100 0.2157 0.0009 0.65 Strong

 

15 Controllers showing a weak correlation to supply pressure do not have a representative bleed rate equation and 

should therefore use the mean bleed rate instead of the emission equation. 

16 Strong correlation indicates R2>0.64

Positive correlation indicates 0.25<R2<0.64

Weak correlation indicates R2<0.25
38 | P a g e

Pneumatic Pumps

A regression analysis showed that there was a positive correlation between pneumatic pump bleed rates, supply pressure, 

injection pressure and strokes per minute. The most accurate bleed rate would take into account these 3 operating 

variables when calculating the bleed rate for a pneumatic pump. 

Table 11: Pump Bleed Rate Equation Coefficients

Pneumatic 

Pump

Mean Bleed 

Rate (m3/hr)

Supply Pressure 

Coefficient (g)17

Injection Pressure 

Coefficient (n)17

Strokes Per Minute 

Coefficient (p)17 R

2 Correlation18

Diaphragm 1.0542 0.00202 0.000059 0.0167 0.68 Strong

Piston 0.5917 0.00050 0.000027 0.0091 0.49 Positive

Morgan HD312 1.1292 0.00418 0.000034 0.0073 0.66 Strong

Texsteam 5100 0.9670 0.00030 0.000034 0.0207 0.74 Strong

Williams P125 0.4098 0.00019 0.000024 0.0076 0.53 Positive

Williams P250 0.8022 0.00096 0.000042 0.0079 0.53 Positive

Williams P500 0.6969 0.00224 -0.000031 0.0046 0.74 Strong

 

17 The coefficients are to be used in the pump bleed rate equation: 

Bleed Rate = m * (Supply Pressure in kPa) + n * (Injection Pressure in kPa) + p * (Strokes per Min)

18 Strong correlation indicates R2>0.64

Positive correlation indicates 0.25<R2<0.64

Weak correlation indicates R2<0.25