# Characterizing Pivotal

Sources of Methane

Emissions from Natural

Gas Production

Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses

Terri Shires and Miriam Lev

- On URS Corporation and The LEVON Group



## FINAL REPORT (Updated September, 2012) September 21 , 2012Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) i



### Table of Contents

1. Overview

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1

1.1 Context

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 1

1.2 Introduction to the API/ANGA Survey

................................ ................................ ...... 3

2. Well Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 4

2.1 National Gas Well Counts

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

2.2 Gas Well Completio ns

................................ ................................ ............................... 6

2.3 Data Limitations Concerning Wells

................................ ................................ ........... 9

3. Gas Well Liquids Unloading

................................ ................................ ........................... 11

4. Hydraulic Fracturing and Re

- fracturing (W orkovers)

................................ ...................... 17

4.1 API/ANGA Survey

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 17

4.2 WRAP Survey

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 19

4.3 Impact of Completions and Re

- fracture Rate Assumptions

................................ ...... 21

4.4 Completion and Re

- fracture Emission Factor

................................ ........................... 23

4.5 Data Limitations for Completion and Re

- fracture Emissions

................................ .... 23

5. Other Surveyed Information

................................ ................................ ........................... 25

5.1 Centrifugal Compressors

................................ ................................ ......................... 25

5.2 Pneumatic Controllers

................................ ................................ ............................. 26

6. Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 28

7. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 30

Appendix A. API/ANGA Survey Forms

................................ ................................ ..................... 32

Appendix B. ANGA

/API Well Survey Information

................................ ................................ ..... 37

Appendix C. Emission Estimates for Gas Well Liquids Unloading

................................ ............ 41Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) ii



### Tables

ES

- 1. Emission Comparison between EPA a nd Industry Data

................................ ....... iv

1. API/ANGA Survey

– Summary of Gas Well Counts by Type and NEMS Region

..... 5

2. API/ANGA Survey

– Additional Details on Gas Well Counts

................................ .. 7

3. API/ANGA Survey

– Summ ary of Liquids Unloading Data

................................ ..... 8

4. API/ANGA Survey

– Liquids U nloading Em issions Comparison

.............................. 8

5. API/ANGA Survey

– Summary o f Gas Well Workovers w ith Hydraulic Fracturing in

2010 a nd First Half o f 2011 b y N EMS Region And Well Type (First Survey Data Request Phase)

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1 2

6. API/ANGA Survey

– Summary o f 2010 Gas Well Workovers o n Unconventional

Wells b y A APG Basin a nd N EMS Region (Second Survey Data Request Phase)

..... 1 3

7. WRAP Survey

– Summary of Gas Well Workovers by AAPG Basin for the Rocky Mountain Region, 2006 Data

................................ ................................ ................. 1 6

8. API/ANGA Survey

– Gas Well Workover Emissions Comparison

........................... 1 8

9. WRAP Survey

– Summary of Completion Emissions for the Roc ky Mountain Region, 2006 Data

................................ ................................ ................................ 19

1 0. A NGA Survey

– Summary o f Completion Emissions

................................ ............. 2 1

11. API/ANGA Survey

– Pneumatic Controller Counts

................................ ................. 22

12. Pneumatic Controller Emission Compa rison

– Producti on Operations

..................... 2 4

13. Pneumatic Controller Emission Comparison

– Production Operations

..................... 25

14. Emission Comparison b etween E PA a nd Industry Data

................................ .......... 26

B

- 1. ANGA/API Survey

– Summary o f Gas Well Counts by Type and NEMS Region

.. 36

B

- 2 . ANGA/API Survey

– Additio nal Details o n Gas Well Counts

............................... 3 7

C

- 1. Liquids Unloading f or Conventional Gas Wells w ithout Plunger Lifts

.................. 40

C

- 2. Liquids Unloading for Conventional Gas Wells w ith Plunger Lifts

....................... 41

C

- 3. Liquids Unloading f or Unconventional Gas Wells w ithout Plunger Lift s

............... 42

C

- 4. Liquids Unloading for Unconventional Gas Wells w ith Plunger Lifts

.................... 45



### Figures

1. Comparison of EPA to API/ANGA Gas Well Count Data by AAPG B asin

............. 29

A.1 Survey Instructions

................................ ................................ ............................... 30

A.2 Gas Well Survey Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 31

A.3 Gas Well Workover Survey Data

................................ ................................ ........... 32

A.4 Gas Well Liquids Unloading Survey Data

................................ .............................. 33

A.5 Other Survey Data

................................ ................................ ................................ 34Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) iii



### Executive Summary

This document presents the updated results from a collaborative effort among members of the American Petroleum Institute (API) and America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) to gather data on key natural gas production activities and equipment emission sources that are

essential to developing estimates of methane emissions from upstream natural gas production.

**API and ANGA members undertook this effort as part of an overall pri ority to**  **develop new and better data about natural gas production**  **and make this information available to the**  **public.** This information acquired added importance in 2011, when the EPA released an inventory of U.S. greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions that subst antially increased estimates of methane emissions from Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems. Public comments submitted by

both trade associations reflected a number of concerns

– most notably that EPA’s estimates were

based on a small set of data submitted b y a limited number of companies in a different context (i.e., data not developed for the purpose of estimating nationwide emissions).

**The API/ANGA data set (also referred to as ANGA/API)**  **provides data on 91,000 wells distributed over a broad geographic a**  **rea and operated by over 20 companies.** This represents nearly one

- fifth (18.8%) of the estimated number of total wells used in EPA’s 2010 emissions inventory. 1 The ANGA/API data set is also more than 10 times larger than the set of wells in

one of EPA’s key data sources taken from an older Natural Gas Star sample that was never intended for developing nationwide emissions estimates. **Although more and better data efforts will still be needed, API/ANGA members believe this current collaborative effort is t**  **he most comprehensive data set compiled for natural gas operations.** 

**As Table ES**

**- 1 demonstrates, survey results in two source**  **categories**

**– liquids**  **unloading and unconventional gas well re** 

**- fracture rates** 

**- substantially lower EPA’s estimated**  **emissions from natural gas production** 

**.** The right

- hand column of this table shows the impact of

ANGA/API data on the estimated emissions for each source category. Gas well l iquids unloading and the rate at which unconventional gas well s are re

- fracture d are key contribu tors to
the overall GHG emissions estimated by EPA in the national emissions inventory

. For example, methane emissions from liquids unloading and unconventional well re

- fracturing accounted for

59% of EPA’s estimate for overall natural gas production sect or methane emissions. Overall, API/ANGA activity data f o r these two source categories indicate that EPA estimates of potential

emissions from the production sector of “N atural G as S ystems ” would be 53 % lower if EPA

were to use ANGA

/API ’s larger and more r ecent survey results

.

1 EPA’s 2010 national inventory indicates a total of 484,795 gas wells (EPA, 2012).Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) iv **T ABLE**  **ES**

**- 1.**  **E MISSION**  **C OMPARISON BETWEEN**  **EPA AND**  **I NDUSTRY**  **D ATA** 

**Source Category**  **EPA API/ANGA**  **Impact on Source Category** 

**Emissions**

**Metric tons of CH4 % of EPA** 

**Emissions**

**Total Metric tons of CH4**  **% of**

**Revised**

**Emissions**

**Total % Diff** 

**erence in** 

**Emissions**

Gas Wells Liquids Unloading 4,501,465 * 51% 319,664 8 %

- 93

%

Unconventional

Well Re

- fracture

Rates 712,605 * 8% 197,311 5 %

- 72%

Other Production

Sector Emissions ** 3,585,600 41% 3,585,600 87 %

Total Production

Sector Emissions 8,799, 670 4, 102,575

- 53 %

* EPA’s estimates are adjusted to industry standard conditions of 60 degrees F and 14.7 psia for compa rison

to the ANGA/API emission estimates.

** The “Other Production Sector Emissions” are comprised of over 30 different source categ ories detailed in

Table A

- 129 in the Annex of the EPA’s 2012 national inventory. The “Other Production Sector

Emissions” are the same value s for this comparison between the EPA national inventory and the API/ANGA survey to focus the comparison on quantifi ed differences in emission estimates for gas well liquids unloading and unconventional well re

- fracture rates.

As mentioned above, the differences between EPA and ANGA /API estimates hinge on the following key differences in activity data and thus consider ably impact overall emissions

from Natural G as S ystems:

 **Liquids unloading and venting.** API/ANGA data showed lower average vent times

, a significantly lower percentage of wells venting for liquids unloading, and a higher number of vents per vented well than EPA assumed in their inventory calculation. The API/ANGA survey also found a slightly larger percentage of wells with plunger lifts than

EPA assumed

, but a significant percentage of wells with artificial lift which EPA had not

considered

. Th ese findings are particularly significant because liquids unloading

accounted for 5 1 % of EPA’s total “N atural G as Systems” methane emissions in the 2010 inventory . Applying emission factors based on ANGA/API data reduces the calculated emissions for this source by 93 % (from 4, 501,465 metric tons of CH 4 to 319,664 metric

tons of CH 4 when compared on an equivalent basis) from EPA’s 2010 national GHG inventory.

 **Re**

**- fracture rates for unconventional wells** 

. API/ANGA members collected data on re

fracture rates for unconvent ional wells in two phases. The first phase collected data for all well types (conventional and unconventional), while the second phase targeted unconventional gas wells. Both phases of the survey data show significantly lower rates

of well re

- fracturing than the 10% assumption used by EPA. As discussed in detail in **API & ANGA**

**- EPA** 

**EPA**Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) v

this report, the re

- fracture rate varied from 0.7% to 2.3%. The second phase of the survey gathered data from only unconventional well activity and using the re

- fracture rate data

from this s econd phase of the ANGA /API survey reduces the national emission estimate for this source category by 72%,

- from 712,605 metric tons of CH 4 to 197,311 metric

tons of CH 4 when compared on an equivalent basis.

This report also discusses an important related concern that the government lacks a single coordinated and cohesive estimate of well completions and well counts. Although t he 2010 national GHG inventory appears to under

- represent the number of well completions according to the numbers reported through both the API /ANGA data and IHS CERA, differences in national well data reporting systems make it difficult to accurately investigate well completion differences with any certainty. The EPA inventory , which us es data from the Energy

Information Administra tion , various state governments and privately sourced data , such as
HPDI, do es not consistently distinguish between conventional and unconventional wells.

**The concept of conventional and unconventional wells is used differently by** 

**different stakeholders** 
**, is**  **not particularly helpful from an emissions standpoint**

**, and should**  **be abandoned in favor of classifications more relevant to the emission source categories being evaluated.**  For instance, the scale of emissions from well completion s is primarily

associa ted with whether the wells are hydraulically fracture stimulated, the size/stages of the hydraulic fracture stimulation, and practices for handling the well clean

- up/flow

- back post

fracture stimulation.

Without a consistent measure for the quantity and t ype of wells, it is difficult to be confident of the accuracy of the number of wells that are completed annually, let alone the

amount of emissions from them. Natural gas producers strongly believe that the effects of any possible under

- representation of well completions will be offset by a more realistic emission factor for the rate of emissions per well. Analysis of the data reported under Subpart W of the GHG reporting rule should be used to inform a more realistic emission factor for well completions.

This survey also collected data on centrifugal compressors and pneumatic controllers. While the sample sizes are too small to make strong conclusions, the results discussed in the body of the report indicate that further research is necessary to accurat ely account for the different types of equipment in this area (e.g., wet vs. dry seal centrifugal compressors and “high bleed,” “low bleed,” and “intermitte nt bleed” pneumatic controllers).

As government and industry move forward in addressing emissions from unconventional gas operations, three key points are worth noting:

 **In addition to the voluntary measures un dertaken by industry, more data**  **will become**  **available in the future**

**.** Emission reporting requirements under Subpart W of the

national Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program ( GHGRP ) went into effect January 1, 2011 with the first reporting due in the fall of 2012. As implementation of the GHGRP

progresses from year to year, the natural gas industry will report more complete and more

accurate data. If EP A makes use of the data submitted and transparently communicates their analyses, ANGA

/API members believe this will increase public confidence in the

emissions estimated for key emission source categories of the N atural G as S ystem s

sector

.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) vi

 **Industry has a continuous commitment to**  **improvement.** It is clear that companies are not waiting for regulator y mandates or incentives to upgrade equipment, or to alter practices like venting and flaring in favor of capturing methane where practical. Instead,
operator s are seizing opportunities to reduce the potential environmental impacts of their operations. Industry is therefore confident that additional, systematic collection of production sector activity data will not only help target areas for future reductions but also demonstrate significant voluntary progress toward continually ‘greener’ operations.

 **Members of industry participating in this survey are committed to providing information about the new and fast** 

**- changing area of unconventional oil and gas** 

**operat ions. API and ANGA members look forward to working with the EPA to revise**  **current assessment methodologies as well as promote the accurate and defensible uses of existing data sources.** Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 1



### 1. **Overview**

The accuracy of GHG emission estimates from natural gas pr oduction has become a matter of increasing public debate due in part to limited data

, variability in the complex calculation methodologies , and assumptions used to approximate emissions where measurements in large part are sparse to date. Virtually all op erators have comprehensive methane mitigation strategies; however, beyond the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mandatory Reporting Rule or incentives of programs like the EPA’s Natural Gas Star program, data is often not gathered in a unified way that facilitates comparison among companies.

In an attempt to provide additional data and identify uncertainty in existing data sets, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and America ’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) began a joint study on methane (CH 4 ) emissions from natural gas production operations in July 2011. The first part of this section offers context to the decision to conduct this survey, while the second offers a brief introduction to the survey itself.



### 1.1 **Context**

Onshore gas resou rces, including shale, will undoubtedly play a key role in America’s energy future

, and additional information must be collected to better quantify the methane

emissions from natural gas production. Meaningful, publicly available data is a priority,

espec ially in light of EPA’s 2011 revision of its calculation methodology for N atural G as S ystems in the 2009 national inventory (EPA, 2011 c ) . (EPA added two new source s for

unconventional gas well completions and workovers, and also significantly revised its estimates for liquids unloading and made adjustments to other source categories

. ) Th ese change s substantially increased EPA’s estimated GHG emissions for the production sector of the N atural

G as S ystems by 204%

. Equally problematic is the methodology use d by EPA to credit voluntary and regulatory reductions from the emissions reported in Table A

- 12 8 in the 2010 inventory. These reductions are taken as a “lump sum” reduction at the segment (e.g. production) level with no transparency of what source catego ries the reductions are applied towards. Presentation of the pre

- reduction values in Table A

- 129 (over a 300% increase) coupled with lack of source specific transparency has led many stakeholders to use the emissions in Table A

- 129 directly in

their vario us advocacy actions. API recommends that the EPA change their methodology of crediting reductions to be transparent down to the source type/category and that the post

reduction emissions be reported in the future analogues to Table A

- 129.

Industry was alarmed by the upward adjustment, especially since previous EPA estimates had been based on a 1996 report prepared by the EPA and GRI

– and did not take into account the considerable improvements in equipment and industry practice that have occurred in the fifteen years between 1996 and 2011 (GRI, 1996).

An EPA technical note to the 2009 inventory attributed the changes to adjustments in calculation methods for existing sources, including gas well liquids unloading, condensate storage tanks, and centrifugal compressor seals. EPA also added two new sources not previously included in its inventories, namely unconventional gas well completions and workovers (re

completions) (EPA, 2011 f ).Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 2

Industry did not have an adequate opportunity to examine EPA’s rational e for the new emissions factor prior to its initial release due to the structure of the inventory process and the lack of formal opportunity for meaningful input

. Unlike changes in regulatory requirements, EPA is not required to initiate a formal comment process for changes in methodologies like emission factors and calculations methods in the national GHG inventory . As such, EPA is not compelled to incorporate or consider input provided by stakeholders and experts. Indeed, changes to methodologies are o ften made without the benefit of dialogue or expert review. Although EPA further acknowledged in the 2010 inventory (released in 2012), that their natural gas calculations needed work, their pr actice is to continue us ing the same numbers until adjusted

es timates have been made. It is important to note that EPA has indicated a willingness to engage

and discuss this matter with some members of industry . API and ANGA look forward to working collaboratively with EPA to improve the national GHG inventory

. Under the best of circumstances, EPA had remarkably little information to draw on in determining their new emission estimates . Input from industry on this topic was not directly

solicited , s pecific guidance or information did not exist on the internationa l level, nor was it available from other national regulators. A review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other inventories submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFC C C) indicate that the U.S. is currently the only country to date to differentiate between conventional and unconventional natural gas production. As discussed above, the distinction between conventional and unconventional natural gas production is not particularly useful from an emiss ion estimation standpoint and should be abandoned. Regulators, academics, and environmentalists around the world therefore considered the new estimated emission factor as an unprecedented development in a controversial issue.

Widespread criticism of the figures and analysis of the assumptions and methodologies revealed problematic methodology and less justification for the underlying numbers than originally anticipated. In a paper entitled Mismeasuring Methane , the well

- respected energy consultancy IHS CERA succinctly detailed several concerns about the revisions

– most notably that EPA’s new estimate was based on only four (4) data points that natural gas well operators had submitted voluntarily under the Natural Gas Star Program, which highlights emiss ions

reductions. Together, the four data points cover approximately 8, 880 wells

– or roughly 2% of those wells covered in the EPA’s national greenhouse gas inventory. Those numbers, which were submitted in the context of showcasing achieved emissions red uctions and not to estimate

emissions , were then extrapolated to over 488,000 wells in the 2009 emissions inventory (IHS

CERA , 2011).

With an emerging topic like shale energy development, however, the impact of EPA’s

revised estimates was , and continues to be, enormous. Emission estimates from production using EPA’s figures were used to question the overall environmental benefits of natural gas and have led to speculation of the role natural gas can play in a clean energy future. . They were cited widely by unconventional gas opp onents

- many of whom used the new figures selectively

, inappropriately us ing the pre

- reduction (voluntary and regulatory) figures, and without caveats like “estimated” to argue against further development of shale energy resource s. For example, an article published by ProPublica cited the revised EPA emission factors as “new research” which “casts doubt” on whether natural gas contributes lower GHG emissions than other fossil

fuels (Lustgarten, 2011). Many of these studies

– e.g ., the work of Howarth et al. were widelySummary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 3

reported in the popular press (Zellers, 2011) with little attention to the quality of analysis behin d

their conclusions.

Notably, other authors using more robust and defensible scientific methodologies argued

that

- even with undoubtedly high emissions estimates

- natural gas still possessed a lifecycle advantage when its comparative efficiency in electricity generation was taken into account. For example, a study by Argonne National Laboratory utilizing the same E PA data sources concluded that taking into account power plant e fficiencies, electricity from natural gas shows significant life

- cycle GHG benefits over coal power plants (Burnham, 2011). Unfortunately, the complex technical arguments in these studies gen erated considerably less media and public

attention.

It is important to understand that the ongoing debate about the accuracy of EPA’s adjusted emission factor as contained in the 2009 inventory did not keep these numbers from being used in a series of rul es that have wide ranging ramifications on national natural gas policies both in the United States and globally. Many countries considering shale energy development remain bound by the emissions reduction targets in the Kyoto Protocol and their regulatory discussions reflect greenhouse gas concerns. In addition to the very real risk that other countries could adopt the emission factor before the EPA can refine its calculations, the possibility of higher emissions (even if only on paper) might deter other nations from developing their own unconventional energy resources.

By the summer of 2011, it was clear to ANGA /API members (also referred to as API/ANGA members) that gathering additional data about actual emissions and points of uncertainty during unconve ntional gas production was essential to improve GHG life cycle analysis (LCA) of natural gas for the following reasons: 1) to focus the discussion of emissions from natural gas production around real data; 2) to promote future measurement and mitigation

of emissions from natural gas production; and 3) to contribute to improving the emission estimation methods used by EPA for the natural gas sector in their annual national GHG inventory and its use globally

.



### 1.2 **Introduction to the API/ANGA Survey**

API and ANGA members uniformly believed that EPA’s current GHG emissions estimates for the natural gas production sector were overstated due to erroneous activity data in several key areas

- including liquids unloading, well re

- fracturing, centrifugal compressors, and pneumatic controllers. Members worked cooperatively to gather information through two data requests tailored to focus on these areas and collect reasonably accessible information about industry activities and practices. Specifically, information was re quested on gas well types, gas well venting/flaring from completions, workovers, and liquids unloading, and the use of centrifugal compressor and pneumatic controllers

. The actual data requests sent to members can be found in Appendix A , and Appendix B

p rovides more detailed data from the ANGA/API well survey information

**.** Survey results and summaries of observations, including comparisons to EPA’s emission estimation methods, are provided in the following sections.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 4



### 2. **Well Data**

This section examines well data gathered by API and ANGA members. Overall, ANGA/API’s survey effort gathered activity data from over 20 companies covering nearly 91,000 wells and 19 of the 21 American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) basins 2
containing over 1% of the tota l well count in EPA’s database of gas wells. Members believe that the API/ANGA survey represents the most comprehensive data set compiled for natural gas operations and, as such, provides a much more accurate picture of operations and emissions than

the i nformation EPA has relied on for its emission estimates

. Information to characterize natural gas producing wells was collected by survey in two
parts:

 The first part of the survey requested high

- level information on the total number

of operating gas wells , the number of gas well completions, and the number of gas well workovers with hydraulic fracturing. Data on over 91,000 wells was collected primarily for 2010, with some information provided for the first half of

2011.

 The second part of the survey re quested more detailed well information about key

activities. The well information collected through the two surveys is provided in Appendix B.

Section 2.1 looks at overall natural gas well counts, Section 2.2 examines completion

data from ANGA

/API members , and Section 2.3 briefly identifies several unresolved issues concerning well counts and classifications that could benefit from future analysis for

examination. For the purposes of this report, unconventional wells are considered to be shale gas wells, coal bed wells, and tight sand wells which must be fractured to produce economically.



### 2.1 **National Gas Well Counts**

T o provide context for the information collected by API and ANGA, comparisons were made to information about national gas wells from EPA and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Unfortunately, the government lacks a single coordinated and cohesive set of estimates for gas wells.

Industry grew concerned when it became apparent that significant discrepancies existed among diff

er ent sources of national gas well data

. The EPA inventory, the EIA, and IHS data EPA published in conjunction with the GHGR P all reported different well counts that do not consistently distinguish between key areas used by the inventory like conventional a nd unconventional wells. Furthermore, t here does not appear to be a single technical description for classifying wells that is widely accepted. Without consistent measures and definitions for the

2 Basins are defined by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAP G) AAPG

– CSD Geologic Provinces Code Map: AAPG Bulletin, Prepared by Richard F. Meyer, Laure G. Wallace, and Fred J. Wagne r, Jr., Volume 75, Number 10 (October 1 991) and the Alaska Geological Province Boundary Map, Compiled by the

American Association of Pe troleum Geologists Committee on Statistics of Drilling in Cooper ation with the USGS,

1978

.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 5

quantity and type of wells, it is difficult to reach agree ment on the number of hydraulically fractured and unfractured natural gas wells completed annually

- let alone the ir emissions.

Both the EIA data and the EPA data accompanying the national GHG inventory lack

sufficient detail for well classifications to provide a basis for helpful comparison with the survey data reported here. Instead, national well data developed as part of mandatory emissions reporting is used for comparison because it has the most appropriate level of detail in well categories (EPA, 2 011 e )

. In EPA’s database gas well count (EPA, 2011 e ), 21 of the AAPG basins each h ave more than 1% of the total well count. The API/ANGA survey has wells from 19 of those 21 basins. In terms of wells represented by these basins, 92% of the total EPA da tabase well count is accounted for by wells in those 21 basins, while 95% of the ANGA/API surveyed gas wells are accounted for by those 21 basins. These results are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1. This indicates that the API/ANGA surve y results have good representation for the basins with the largest numbers of wells nationally.

**T ABLE**  **1**

**. C**  **OMPARISON OF G**  **AS W**  **ELL C**  **OUNT D**  **ATA BY AAPG**  **B ASIN**  **: S**  **UMMARY S**  **TATISTICS**

**EPA Database** 

**Gas Well**

**Count** ***** **API/ANGA Survey**

**Data ANGA/API as a** 

**% of EPA**

Total number of U.S. gas wells 355,082 gas wells 91,028 gas wells 26%

Number of significant AAPG

basins * * 21 basins Data on wells in 19 of

those 21 basins 90%

Number of wells in significant AAPG

basins 325,338 wells 86,759 wells 2 7 %

% of total wells in sig nificant AAPG

basins 92% 95%

* EPA’s database gas well count (EPA, 2011 e ) differs from the well count provided in EPA’s 2010 national inventory, but provides more detail on the type s of well s . Additional details are provided in Appendix B.

* * Significan t basins are defined as basins with more than 1% of the total national gas wells

. As shown in Figure 1, the API/ANGA survey results more heavily represent gas wells in specific AAPG basins when compared to EPA’s basin

- level well counts (EPA, 2011 d ). Unli ke the EPA data, the ANGA/API data is more heavily influenced by AAPG 160 and 160A . AAPG basins 360, 230, and 580 are important for both data sets.

Th e smaller data set provided by EPA (2011 e ) may not include all of the Marcellus shale wells (particularly in Pennsylvania) , and the well classification system used in this smaller data

set could probably be made more rigorous. Although this comparison may not show a perfect distributional match for the basin by basin distribution of the API/ANGA survey data presented here, it does not change the fundamental conclusion that the ANGA /API survey information is the largest and most representative data set yet collected for onshore U

. S

. gas production

, since

this data set does cover 90% of the basins and 27% of th e national gas well count for the significant basins as reported by EPA (EPA, 2011 e ) . The data discussed in this report provides

substantial new information for understanding the emissions from N atural G as S ystems and offers a compelling justification for re

- examining the current emission estimates for unconventional gas wells.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 6

Appendix B contains more detail about the industry well data sample compared to the overall data maintained by the government. Unless otherwise noted, further statistical compari sons of well data throughout this paper are done with reference to the EPA data furnished with the Subpart W sub

- basin categorization because it was the only one which effectively parsed the data by well type (EPA, 2011 e ).

**F IGURE**  **1. C**  **OMPARISON OF EPA**  **TO API/ANGA**  **G AS**  **W ELL**  **C OUNT**  **D ATA BY**  **AAPG**

**B ASIN** 



### 2.2 **Gas Well Completions**

Acknowledging the somewhat different time periods covered, the API/ANGA survey data represents 57.5% of the national data for tight gas well completions and 44.5% of shale gas well complet ions, but only 7.5% of the national conventional well completions and 1.5% of coal

bed methane well completions. About one

- third of the surveyed well completions (2,205) were

not classified into the well types requested (i.e., tight, shale, or coal

- bed m ethane) by the respondents

. The survey results for well completions are provided in Table 2 and compared to national data provided to ANGA by IHS. 3

3 Data provided in e

- mail from Mary Barcella (IHS) to Sara Banaszak (ANGA) on August 29,2011. Data were pulled from current IHS well database and represent calendar year 20 10

.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 7

EPA's 20 10 inventory showed 4,169 gas well completions with hydraulic fracturing (EPA, 2012, Table A

- 122); however, EPA does not provide a breakout of completions by well type (shale gas, tight gas or coal

- bed methane). In comparing the EPA 2010 count of gas well completions with hydraulic fracturing (4,169 completions) to both the survey results and data

pro vided by IHS, it seems that EPA’s national GHG inventory underestimates the number of well completions. Even accounting for the difference in time periods (2010 for EPA compared to 2010/2011 data from the ANGA/API survey), the national inventory appears t o under

represent the number of well completions.

**T ABLE**  **2**

**. API/ANGA**  **S URVEY** 

**– S**  **UMMARY OF G**  **AS W**  **ELL C**  **OMPLETIONS BY NEMS** 

**R EGION AND**  **W ELL**  **T YPE**  ***** **(F IRST**  **S URVEY**  **D ATA**  **R EQUEST**  **P HASE**  **)**

**NEMS Region Conventional** 

**Wells Shale**  **Coal**

**- bed** 

**Methane Tight**  **Unspecified Regiona**  **l**

**Total**

API/ANGA Survey Data Gas Well Completions

Northeast 2 29 1 3 67 126 489

Gulf Coast 81 588

- 763 374 1,806

Mid

- Continent 22 734

- 375 270 1,401

Southwest 425 442

- 346 310 1,523
Rocky Mountain 10 30 977 1,017
Unspecified

- - - - 1,125 1,12 5
Survey TOTAL 540 2,0 55 33 2,528 2,205 7,361

% of S urvey T otal 7.3

% 27.9

% 0. 4

% 34.3

% 30.0

%

2010 IHS Gas Well Completions IHS Total

2010 National Well Completions (from IHS) 1 7,178 4,620 2,254 4,400 18,452

38.9% 25.0% 12.2% 23.8%

API/ANGA as % of

IHS National Well

Counts 7.5 % 44.5% 1.5% 57. 5 %

* ANGA/API survey data represents well counts current for calendar year 2010 or the first

half of 2011.

** EPA’s national GHG inventory does not designate gas wells by classifications of “shale”,

“coal bed methane” or “tight”

. As shown in Table 3, the ANGA/API survey noted 7,361 gas well completions for 2010 and the first half of 2011. This is equivalent to approximately 40% of the gas well completions reported by IHS for 2010. Although EPA’s 2010 nati onal GHG inventory appears to under

represent the number of gas well completions according to the numbers reported through both

the API /ANGA data and the IHS , differences in national well data reporting systems make it difficult to accurately investigate w ell completion differences with certainty. Data used in t he EPA inventory , which includes information from the Energy Information Administration

, various state governments

, and privately sourced data , such as HPDI, do es not consistently distinguish betwee n conventional and unconventional wells. Without a consistent measure for the quantity and type of wells, it is difficult to be confident of the accuracy of how many wellsSummary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 8

are completed annually, let alone to estimate their emissions. Industry strongly b elieve s that the effects of any current under

- representation of well completions will be offset by a more realistic emission factor for the rate of emissions per well.

**T ABLE**  **3**

**. S**  **UMMARY OF G**  **AS W**  **ELL C**  **OMPLETIONS D**  **ATA (F**  **IRST S**  **URVEY D**  **ATA R**  **EQUEST P**  **HASE )** 

**# Com pletions** 

**for Gas Wells**

**with out**  **hydraulic fracturing**  **# Completions**

**for Gas Wells with hydraulic**  **fracturing Total** 

**Completions** 2010 National Well Completions (from EPA; EPA 2012) 702 4,169 4,871

% of National Total 14% 86% API/ANGA Survey Well Completions 540 6,821 7,361

% of Survey Total 7% 93% Well Completions from IHS 7,178 11,274 18,452

% of National Total 39% 61%

Table 4 provides detailed data for well completions from the ANGA /API survey. From the survey, 94% of gas well completions in 2010 a nd the first half of 2011 , were conducted on wells with hydraulic fracturing. About one

- half of all gas well completions for this time period were for tight wells, and about one

- half of all gas well completions were for vertical wells with hydraulic fract uring. Any differences in totals between Tables 2, 3 and 4 are because these tables were derived from the two different data requests sent to member companie s as described previously in the introduction to Section 2.

**T ABLE**  **4**

**. API/ANGA**  **S URVEY** 

**– A**  **DDITIONA L**  **D ETAILS ON**  **G AS**  **W ELL**  **C OMPLETIONS** 

**(S ECOND**  **S URVEY**  **D ATA**  **R EQUEST**  **P HASE**  **)**

**# Completions for Gas Wells with hydraulic**

**fracturing (HF)**  **Gas Wells without hydraulic fracturing** **Total Completions** 

**# Vertical**

**wells completions**  **# Horizontal**

**well completions**  **Total**

**Wel ls** 

**with HF % of** 

**Wells**

**with**

**HF #**  **Completions % of** 

**Wells**

**without**

**HF**
TOTAL

Conventional 315 57 372 69% 164 31% 536

TOTAL Shale 317 1,8 63 2,18

0 99% 30 1% 2,21 0 TOTAL Tight 2,054 368 2,422 96% 106 4% 2,528

TOTAL C oal B ed

M ethane 27 3 30 91% 3 9% 33

**TOTAL OVERALL**  **2,713 2,291**  **5,004 94%**  **303 6%**  **5,307**Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 9

The following points summarize survey information provided in Tables 2, 3 and 4 . These tables represent a snapshot of well activity data during this time.

 Overall, the survey showed 94 % of the 5

, 307 wells repo rted in the API/ANGA data set as completed in 2010 and the first half of 2011 used hydraulic fracturing.

 536 conventional g as wells were completed in 2010 and the first half 2011.

◦ 59 % were vertical wells with hydraulic fracturing

,

◦ 11 % were horizontal we lls with hydraulic fracturing , and

◦ 31 % were wells without hydraulic fracturing

.

 2,21 0 shale g as wells were completed in 2010 and the first half 2011.

◦ 14 % were vertical wells with hydraulic fracturing

,

◦ 84 % were horizontal wells with hydraulic fracturing

, and

◦ 1 % w ere wells without hydraulic fracturing

.

 2,528 tight g as wells were completed in 2010 and the first half 2011.

◦ 81 % were vertical wells with hydraulic fracturing

,

◦ 15 % were horizontal wells with hydraulic fracturing , and

◦ 4 % were wells without hydrau lic fracturing

.

 33 coal

- bed methane wells were completed in 2010 and the first half 2011

.

◦ 82% were vertical wells with hydraulic fracturing,

◦ 9% were horizontal wells with hydraulic fracturing, and

◦ 9% were wells without hydraulic fracturing.



### 2.3 **Data Limit ations Concerning Wells** 

In response to follow

- up questions on well data, EPA indicated that they classified gas well formations into four types (conventional, tight, shale, and coal

- bed) (EPA, 2011 e ). When developing the gas well classifications, EPA appl ied their judgment where data were not

available in the database. ANGA and API are interested in using the well database compiled by

IHS or a similar database, to more completely classify gas wells at some point in the future

. The

API /ANGA survey did not specifically define conventional wells for collecting the well data presented in this section, leaving the respondents to determine the classification of wells based on their knowledge of the well characteristics or state classifications. As such, this w ell classification may vary somewhat according to the respondent’s classification of wells.

It should be noted that there is not a generally accepted definition for “gas wells.” Producers might be producing from several zones in the same formation, and di fferent states define “gas” or “oil” wells differently due to the historical structure of royalties and revenues. There is also no commonly used definition of “conventional” gas wells. Thus, differentSummary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 10

definitions of these terms may have produced inconsis tency in the classification of wells between gas and oil, and conventional and unconventional for the surveyed results, as well as for the EPA

and EIA national data. For the purposes of this report, unconventional wells are considered to be shale gas well s, coal bed wells, and tight sand wells which must be fractured to produce economically. Given the counts of wells in the 2010 inventory versus the API/ANGA survey it

is clear that the definition of conventional v ersus unconventional wells is not uniform and that

the definition used by the individual companies responding to the survey likely differs from

whatever distinction EPA uses.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 11



### 3. **Gas Well Liquids Unloading**

Gas well clean ups

, also known as liquids unloading

, account for 51% of total CH 4 emissions fr om the natural gas production sector in EPA’s national GHG inventory (EPA, 2012). 4 Methane emissions from well venting for liquids unloading in the 2010 inventory represent a dramatic increase from the 6% of CH 4 emissions that liquids unloading represente d in the 2008 inventory. The magnitude of the increase, the accuracy of the underlying assumptions

, and the methodology used in estimatin g emissions from well venting for liquids unloading became major concern s to API/ANGA members.

As the name indicate s, ‘Venting Wells for Liquids Unloading’ is a technique to remove water and other liquids from wellbores to improve the flow of natural gas in gas wells.

In EPA’s national inventory, emissions from gas well liquids unloading are based on the following as sumptions ( EPA, 2011 a and Hanle, 2011 ) :

 41.3% of conventional wells require liquids unloading.

 150,000 plunger lifts are in service, which equates to 3 1 % of the gas wells in the national inventory

.

 The average gas well is blown down to the atmosphere 38.73 times per year.

 The average casing diameter is 5 inches.

 A gas well is vented to the atmosphere for 3 hours

.
Due to the dramatic increase in EPA’s estimated emissions from this source and ANGA/API’s concern, a survey of member companies was conducted to g ather data on current operating practices from a large and broad cross

- section of the industry regarding well venting for liquids unloading. The survey was structured to gather activity information along with data required for estimating emissions using t he methodologies from the GHGRP Subpart W. Sixty

one data sets with information relevant to liquids unloading covering 59,880 wells and 18 AAPG

basins were received.

The following information was requested:

 Geographic area represented by the information provided;

 Time period

– data were annualized to 12 months if the information was provided for a partial year;

 Number of operated gas wells represented by the information provided;

 Number of gas wells with plunger lift installed;

 Number of gas wells with o ther artificial lift (beam pump; ESP; etc.);

 Total number of gas well vents;

 Number of wells with and without plunger lifts that vent to the atmosphere;

4 See EPA Table A

- 129, of Annex 3 of the 2010 inventory report.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 12

 Total count of gas well vents for time period with and without plunger lifts;

 Average venting time for wells with and without plunger lifts;

 Average daily production of venting gas wells (Mcf/day);

 Average depth of venting wells (feet);

 Average casing diameter of venting gas wells (inches);

 Average tubing diameter of venting gas wells with plunger lift (inc hes); and

 Average surface pressure of venting gas wells (psig).

Not all respondents reported information for each parameter requested in the survey

. H ence
, t he subsequent analysis determining the sample size and other factors used the well

counts and oth er information from only those data sets which included information for the parameter being determined or analyzed. As a result, the analysis of the survey data reflects

three levels of information:

1. High

- level data were used to relate the survey informati on to national well counts. This survey data set provided the broadest representation of wells, totaling 59,880 total gas wells in the liquids unloading data sets.

2. Mid

- level data consisted of survey information used to determine the fraction of both plung er equipped and non

- plunger equipped gas wells that vent gas due to liquids unloading. The mid

- level survey data represented a total of 49,124 wells.

3. Detailed survey data were used to calculate emissions using the methodologies in the

GHGR P Subpart W and to compare the survey data to assumptions EPA used in deriving the emissions for the 2010 national inventory. Detailed survey information was provided for a total of 42,681 wells.

Although the survey was split into “conventional” and “ un conventional” c ategories , this specific distinction was not carried forward into the liquids unloading analysis. Liquid loading

of well

- bores is a function of the physics of flow up the well

- bore and the fluid s’ properties ; the type of producing formation is not relevan t when the conditions for liquid loading occur.

Table 5 summarizes the high

- level results from the API/ANGA survey and characterizes the national well population in EPA’s 2010 inventory using the survey derived information. Based on the survey result s, 36% of gas wells are equipped with plunger lift. Applying this percentage

to the national g as well count results in 174,743 wells nationally with plunger lift.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 13

**T ABLE**  **5. L**  **IQUIDS U**  **NLOADING H**  **IGH L**  **EVEL D**  **ATA S**  **UMMARY**

**High Level Survey Data**

Gas wells w

ith plunger lifts (59,648 in sample) 21,500 wells (36.0%) Gas wells with artificial lift (54,660 in sample) 7,329 wells (13.4%) Gas Wells Vented to the atmosphere for Liquids Unloading (49,124 in sample) 6,462 wells (13.2%)

# Vents per vented well 145. 1 vents/vented well
Total gas well vents represented by the data sets 937,663 vents

**National Well Characterization**

National # of wells from 2010 Inventory 484,795 w ells Calculated national # wells with plunger lift 174,743 w ells

Calculated national # wells without plunger lift 310,052 w ells

Calculated national # wells with artificial lift (subset of wells without plunger lift 65,003 w ells

Methane mole percentage from EPA 2010 national inventory 78.8%

The survey also collected information on ga s wells with artificial lift. A key distinction is that wells with artificial lift do not build up liquid columns in the well bore and hence are not vented for liquids unloading. The ANGA/API survey results indicated that 13.4% of wells use

artificial li ft which yields approximately 65,000 wells with artificial lift when extrapolated on a national basis. EPA has acknowledged that their current emission estimation method for liquids unloading does not account for activities used to reduce CH 4 emissions by many different artificial lift methods used in industry.

Table 6 summarizes the mid

- level API/ANGA survey results, which characterizes the

national **venting** well population, and applies the survey derived annual emissions per venting

well to calculate na tional emissions. Based on the mid

- level survey data, 21.1% of plunger equipped wells vent gas for liquids unloading, and 9.3% of wells without plunger lift vent gas for liquids unloading. These percentages were applied to the calculated national gas wel l count s with and without plunger lift (shown in Table 5) and are used to estimate the number of wells with and without plunger lift that vent for liquids unloading (36,806 and 28,863 wells, respectively, shown in Table 6).

Emissions were calculated for the survey data by applying Equation W

- 8 or W

- 9 from the EPA GHG reporting rule in 40 CFR 98 Subpart W, where Equation W

- 8 applies to gas wells without plunger lifts, and Equation W

- 9 applies to gas wells with plunger lifts. Appendix C

summarizes the surv ey data used to e stimate the emissions shown in Table 6

. The total volume of gas emitted based on the survey data was converted to methane emissions by applying the methane content used in the national inventory (78.8%). When the total volume is divided by the number of venting wells represented by the survey data, it results in an emission factor of approximately 254 Mscfy CH 4 /well.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 14

**T ABLE**  **6. L**  **IQUIDS U**  **NLOADING E**  **MISSION E**  **STIMATION B**  **ASED ON S**  **URVEY D**  **ATA**

**Mid**

**- Level Survey Data** 

Total number of wells with plunger lift (42,681 in sample) 11,518 wells Total number of wells without plunger lift (42,681 in sample) 31,163 wells Number of plunger equipped wells that vent (42,681 in sample) 2,426 wells (21.1%)

Number of non

- plunger equipped wells that vent (42 ,681 in sample) 2,901 wells (9.3% )

Total annual volume gas vented for venting wells 1,719,843,596 scf gas/year

Calculated volume vented gas per venting well 322,854 scfy gas/well
Calculated methane volume vented per venting well **254,409** scfy ch4/well

**C alculated National Well Data** 

Calculated national # wells with plunger lift that vent for unloading 36,806 wells Calculated national # wells without plunger lift that vent for unloading 28,863 wells

**National Emission Calculations**

Total gas venting f

or liquids unloading volume (scaled for national wells) 21,201,410,618 scf gas /yr

Total methane venting for liquids unloading

(scaled for national wells) 16,706,711,567 scf CH 4 /yr

Total liquid unloading vented methane

(scaled for national wells) 319 ,664 metric ton s CH 4

/yr

**Comparison to 2010 National Inventory Liquids Unloading** 
2010 National Inventory CH 4 emissions from Liquids Unloading 4,501,465 metric ton s CH 4 /yr
% difference between survey and national data

- 92.9%

For comparison to EPA’s estimated emissions from liquids unloading, the survey calculated emission factor was applied to the calculated national number of gas wells with and without plunger lift. When extrapolated to a national basis, as shown above, the survey data

estimates th at 319,664 tonnes of CH 4 are emitted from liquids unloading, compared to EPA’s

national emissions of 4,501,465 tonnes CH 4 (based on industry standard conditions of 60 °F and 14.7 psia)

– for the same activities. Hence, the results of the ANGA /API survey w ould predict

emissions that are a factor of 14 times l ower than the emissions reported in the 2010 national GHG inventory for liquids unloading.

Table 7 summarizes the detailed API/ANGA survey results for relevant individual parameters used in the emission calculation. These are compared to EPA’s assumptions to demonstrate why the survey results produce a much lower emission s than EPA’s assumptions. It should be noted, the ANGA /API parameters from each data set were weighted by the number of

vents in that particular data set, where appropriate.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 15

**T ABLE**  **7. D**  **ETAILED S**  **URVEY D**  **ATA C**  **OMPARED TO EPA**  **A SSUMPTIONS** 

**Detailed Survey Data**  **Survey Data EPA Assumptions** 

Total national number of wells that vent for liquids unloading 65,669 wells 179,391 wells

Average num ber of vents per venting plunger well 343.72 vents/well 38.7 vents/well per venting non

- plunger well 32.57 vents/well

Average time per vent plunger equipped wells 0.11 hour 3 Hours

non

- plunger equipped wells 1.90 hours

Average depth plunger equ ipped wells 4,370 feet 6,000 Feet

non

- plunger equipped wells 5,433 feet
Average tubing diameter

- plunger equipped wells 2.15 inches 2 inches
Average casing diameter

- non

- plunger equipped wells 4.57 inches 5 inches

Average production rate plunger e quipped wells 104.3 Mcfd gas

non

- plunger equipped wells 45.9 Mcfd gas

Average pressure plunger equipped wells 91.0 psig 100 psig sales line

pressure (200

- 1000 psig

shut

- in pressure) non

- plunger equipped wells 110.8 psig

Calculated methane volume venting per venting wells 254,409 scf CH 4/well 1,316,750 scf CH 4/well

As noted previously, the data sets used to derive the liquids unloading emission estimates are summarized in Appendix C. When examining Appendix C, it is important to note the

presen ce of several data responses that can be viewed as outliers. Two data responses for operations with conventional wells reported very high frequencies of vents to the atmosphere. These data sets represent 174 gas well s with plunger lifts that vent to the atmosphere and are

located in the Mid

- Continent region (out of a total 1,1 40 conventional gas wells represented by the two data sets). The wells represented by these data points have plunger lifts that vent to the atmosphere for each plunger cycle. The i nformation was confirmed by the two data respondents and is an artifact of the plunger control for these wells which results in very short venting durations (between 4 and 5 minutes) for each plunger cycle, which is not the operating practice assumed by th e EPA in the equations that are used to estimate emissions associated with liquids unloading. Accounting for the high frequency of plunger lift cycles for these wells results in a high average vent frequency, but still leads to the derivation of a lower e mission factor than the one derived by EPA in accordance with their assumptions about liquids unloading operations.

The survey derived factor is likely somewhat high due to the calculation assumption that the entire tubing string is de

- pressured in each v enting event which is not likely for the two “outlier”

data sets discussed above.

These variances among operators in the ANGA/API data demonstrate the challenge of applying national emissions estimat es to conditions in which there can be considerable var iation in wells and operating techniques, among and even within various regions. As member companies have noted in various comments to regulators, oil and natural gas production operations vary considerably according to factors such as local geology, hydr ology, and state

law.

As production companies continue to collect and report information for EPA’s mandatory GHG reporting program, better information on liquids unloading frequency and emissions will

be available. One area that would benefit from additio nal information is an investigation ofSummary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 16

regional differences, or plunger lift control practices, in view of the high frequency of vents observed for two data sets containing conventional gas wells with plunger lifts in the Mid

Continent region.

**Key findings of the API** 

**/ANGA survey on liquids unloading are:** 

 **Overall, the change in emission factors based on data collected from the ANGA/API survey reduces estimated**  **methane emissions for this source by**  **93 % from the**  **methane emissions reported in EPA’s 2010 national**  **GHG inventory. This is a factor of 14 times**  **lower than EPA’s reported methane**  **emissions.**

 **When compared to EPA’s assumptions used to derive the national GHG emission estimates for liquids unloading, the API/ANGA survey data indicated a lower percent of** 

**ga s wells that vent for liquids unloading and a much shorter vent duration. The**  **difference in these two parameters from EPA’s assumptions more than offset the higher number of vents observed from the survey data.** Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 17



### 4. **Hydraulic Fracturing and Re** 

**- fracturing**  **(W orkovers)** 

A well workover refers to remedial operations on producing natural gas wells to try to increase production . Starting with the 2009 inventory, EPA split the estimation of emissions from producing gas wells into conventional (i.e., without hydraul ic fracturing) and unconventional (i.e., with hydraulic fracturing). For workovers of wells without hydraulic fracturing, the 2009 and 2010 national inventories used emission factors of the same order of magnitude as the 2008 inventory ( 2,454 s cf of CH 4 /w orkover ). In contrast, the unconventional (with hydraulic fracturing) well workover emission factor increased by a factor of three thousand (3,000).

EPA did acknowledge that the new emission factor for well workovers was based on limited information (EP A, 2011 b ). Moreover, several publications including Mismeasuring

Methane by IHS CERA underscored the perils of extrapolating estimates using only four (4) data points representing approximately two percent (2%) of wells

– particularly when the data was

su bmitted in the context of the Natural Gas Star program, which was designed to highlight emissions reduction options (IHS CERA, 2011). Unfortunately, even if the EPA’s workover factor is high, it must be used in estimated emissions calculations until it is officially changed.

EPA’s new emission factor is 9.175 MMscf of natural gas per re

- fracture (equivalent to

7.623 MMscf CH 4 /re

- fracture). Additionally, EPA use d this new emission factor in conjunction

with an assum ed re

- fracture rate of 10% for unconven tional gas well workovers each year to
arrive at their GHG emission estimate for this particular category.



### 4.1 **API/ANGA Survey**

The ANGA/API survey requested counts for gas well workovers or re

- fractures in two separate phases of the survey, covering 91,028 t otal gas wells (Table 8 covering 2010 and first half of 2011 data) and 69,034 unconventional gas wells (Table 9 , 2010 data only), respectively.

The first phase of the survey was part of the general well data request. Counts of workovers by well type ( conventional, tight, shale, and coal bed methane) and by AAPG basin were requested. The frequency of workovers was calculated by dividing the reported workover rates by the reported total number of each type of gas well. These results are summarized in

T able 8 , which includes a comparison to national workover data from EPA’s annual GHG inventory. The high number of workovers in the Rocky Mountain region is discussed further

below.

Table 8 indicates that even for the high workover rates associated with un conventional tight gas wells in the Rocky Mountain region , the workover rate is much less than EPA’s assumed 10% of gas wells re

- fractured each year. Based on this first phase of the survey,

 The overall workover rate involving hydraulic fracturing was 1.6 %.

 However, many of these workovers were in a single area, AAPG

- 540, where workovers are known to be conducted more routinely than in the rest of the country (as described in

more detail below Table 9 ). Excluding AAPG 540, the overall workover rate invo lving hydraulic fracturing was 0.7% which is a more likely range for a national re

- fracture rate.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 18

 For shale, coal

- bed methane, and tight formation wells in Table 8 , the overall workover rate involving hydraulic fracturing was 2.2%. Excluding AAPG 540, the overall workover rate involving hydraulic fracturing was 0. 5 %.

**T ABLE**  **8**

**. API/ANGA**  **S URVEY** 

**– S**  **UMMARY OF G**  **AS W**  **ELL W**  **ORKOVERS WITH**  **H YDRAULIC** 
**F RACTURING IN**  **2010 AND FIRST HALF OF**  **2011 BY**  **NEMS R**  **EGION AND W**  **ELL T**  **YPE (F**  **IRST P**  **HASE D**  **ATA S**  **URVEY )** 

**NEMS Region Conventi**  **onal**

**Wells Unconventional Wells** 

**Shale Coal** 

**- bed** 

**Methane Tight**  **Unspecified**

Northeast

- - - - - Gulf Coast

- 5

- 38 73

Mid

- Continent 8 1

- 73 33

Southwest 60 25

- 8 7 Rocky Mountain 4

- 25 901

- West Coast

- - - - - Unspecified

- - - - 200

Survey TOTAL 72 31 25 1,020 313 1,076

% of national 0.3% 21.3% Overall Survey Total

% of national 1,461

5.6%

National Workover Counts (from EPA’s 20

10 national inventory) Conventional

Wells Unconventional Wells

21, 088 5,044

80.7 % 19.3 %

26, 132

**Conventional**

**Wells Unconventional Wells** 

**Shale Coal** 

**- bed** 

**Methane Tight**  **Unspecified**
% Workover Rate with Hydraulic Fracturing (from ANGA /API Survey) 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 3.0% 2.4% Tight w/out AAPG 540 0.5%

Unconventional Wells 2.2%

W/out AAPG 540 0.5%

All Wells 1.6%

All Wells w/out AAPG

540 0.7%Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 19

A second phase of the survey was conducted which targeted c ollect ing gas well re

fracture information for 2010 to provide a compa rator for EPA's assum ption that 10% of wells

are re

- f ractured each year. This portion of the ANGA/API survey requested information just for “unconventional” gas wells (i.e., those located on shale, coal

- bed m ethane, and t ight formation

reservoirs ), where the formations require fracture stimulation to econom ically produce gas

. A

re

- frac ture or workover was defined for this second phase of the survey as a re

- completion to a different zone in an existing well or a re

- stimulation of the same zone in an existing well. These

results are summarized in Table 9

.
Wh ile there likely is significant overlap of unconventional well data reported in the first and second phases of the survey ( which covered over 62,500 unconventional wells and 69,000

unc onventional wells respectively), combined these data indicate an unconve ntional well re

fracture rate of 1.6% to 2.3% including AAPG 540 and 0.7% to 1.15% excluding AAPG 540.

AAPG Basin 540 (i.e. DJ Basin) which is part of the Rocky Mountain Region stands out

in Tables 8 and 9

. After four (4) to eight (8) years of normal prod uction decline, the gas wells in

this basin can be re

- fractured in the same formation and return ed to near original production.

Success of the re

- fract ure program in the DJ Basin is uniquely related to the geology of the formation, fracture reorientation, fracture extension and the ability to increase fracture complexity. Also, most DJ Basin gas wells are vertical or directional

, which facilitates the ability to execute re

- frac ture operations successfully and economically. These characteristics

result in a high re

- fracture or workover rate specific to this basin/ formation.

ANGA and API believe the high re

- fracture rate observed in the DJ Basin is unique and not replicated in other parts of the country. This was a limited program that was occurring during the data survey activities and has currently stopped. The re may be a few other formations in the world that have similar performance, but the success ful re

- frac ture rate in the DJ Basin is not going to be applicable to every asset/formation and there is no evidence of the high re

fracture rate in any of the other 22 AAPGs covered in the API/ANGA survey. It is highly dependent on the type of rock, depositional systems, permeability, etc. For these reasons, re

fracture rates for tight gas wells and all ga s wells with and without AAPG Basin 540 are

summarized in Table s 8 and 9

.



### 4.2 **WRAP Survey**

Other information on re

- fracture rates is available in a survey conducted by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP). WRAP conducted a survey of production operators in the Rocky Mountain Region (Henderer, 2011) as part of the initiative to develop GHG reporting guidelines for a regional GHG cap and trade program.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 20

**T ABLE**  **9**

**. API/ANGA**  **S URVEY** 

**– S**  **UMMARY OF 2010**  **G AS**  **W ELL**  **W ORKOVERS**  **ON**
**U NCONVENTIONAL**  **W ELLS**  **BY AAPG**  **B ASIN**  **AND NEMS**  **R EGION** 

**(S ECOND**  **P HASE**  **S URVEY**  **D ATA**  **)**

**NEMS Region**  **AAPG**

**Basin Number of** 

**Unconventional Operating Gas** 

**Wells Number of** 

**Hydraulic**

**Fracture**

**Workovers on**  **Previously**

**Fracture**

**Stimulated Wells % Wells re** 

****

**fractured**

**per year Regional**  **%**

**Wells re**

  ** fractured**

**per y ear** 

Northeast 160 1,976 0 0.00% 0%

160A 760 0 0.00%

Gulf Coast 200 2 0 0.00%

0.91%

220 649 2 0.31%

222 629 3 0.48%

230 820 4 0.49%

250 13 0 0.00%

260 2,830 36 1.27%

Mid

Continent 345 3,296 11 0.33%

0.95%

350 213 3 1.41%

355 282 8 2.84%

360 7,870 89 1.13%

375 12 0 0.00%

385 1 0 0.00%

400 64 0 0.00%

Southwest 415 1

, 834 0 0.00%

1.04%

420 838 8 0.95%

430 1,548 36 2.33%

435 2 0 0.00%

Rocky

Mountain 515 1 0 0.00%

4.7%

540 5,950 866 14.55%

580 8,197 8 0.10%

595 5,222 32 0.61% Not specified 26,025 487 1.87% 1.87%

**Unconventional TOTAL**  **(all wells) 69,034**  **1,593 2.31%** 

Unconventional Median 790 3 Rocky Mountain Region

Unconventional Total 19,370 906 4. 68 %

Unconventional TOTAL (Without AAPG 540) 63,084 727 1.15%Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 21

Within each basin in this region, the top oil and gas producers were identified and invited to participate in the survey. The goal was to have operator participation that represented 80% of the production for the region. The spreadsheet sur vey requested information on the completions, workovers, and emissions associated with these activities. An emission factor and frequency of

re

- fracturing was developed for each basin as a weighted average of the operator responses.

The re

- fracture rate s from the WRAP survey are shown in Table 10 (Henderer, 2011)

.

**T ABLE**  **10**

**. WRAP**  **S URVEY** 

**– S**  **UMMARY OF G**  **AS W**  **ELL W**  **ORKOVERS BY AAPG**  **B ASIN FOR** 

**THE R**  **OCKY M**  **OUNTAIN R**  **EGION ,**  **2006 D**  **ATA**

**AAPG Basin # Wells** 

**represented by survey**  **# Wells**

**Recompleted %** 

**Recompleted**

515 4,484 121 2.70%

530 731 5 0.68%

535 4

, 982 201 4.03%

540 8

, 247 636 7.71%

580 3,475 14 0.40%

595 4,733 275 5.81%

Total 26,652 1,252 Weighted average 4.70%

AAPG Basin 540 results in the highest re

- fracture rate for this data set, consistent with

th e ANGA/API survey as noted above. It is noteworthy that, while there are differences among individual AAPG Basin results, the weighted average re

- fracture rate from the WRAP survey in 2006 is the same as the Rocky Mountain regional 4.7% re

- fracture rate f rom the API/ANGA survey shown in Table 9

.



### 4.3 **Impact of Completions and Re**

**- fracture Rate Assumptions** 

Table 1 1 compares the considerable reduction in the national GHG inventory that would result from applying a lower re

- fracture rate.

EPA indicated that the n ational inventory assumes 10% of unconventional gas wells are

re

- fractured each year. Table 1 1 replaces this value with results from the ANGA/API survey. A

re

- fracture rate of 1.15% is applied to unconventional gas wells in the Mid

- Continent and

Southwes t regions (No unconventional gas wells were assigned to the Northeast and Gulf Coast regions. The West Coast region is not shown since the API/ANGA survey did not include any responses for gas well operations in this region.) A re

- fracture rate of 4.7% i s applied to unconventional gas wells in the Rocky Mountain region.

**With these adjustments to the re**

**- fracture rate for unconventional gas wells, the**  **national emission estimate is reduced by 7 2**  **% for this emission source category, from 712,605** 

**metric tons o**

**f CH 4**  **to 197,311**  **metric tons of CH 4**  **when compared on a consistent basis**

**.**Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 22 **T ABLE**  **1 1** 

**. API**  **/ANGA S**  **URVEY**

**– G**  **AS W**  **ELL W**  **ORKOVER E**  **MISSIONS C**  **OMPARISON**

**NEMS Region Well type**  **20 10**  **EPA**

**National Inventory** 

**#**

**workover Adjusted #** 

**workovers (based on** 

**API/ANGA survey)**  **20 10**  **EPA National**

**Inventory Revised** 

**Emissions,**

**tonnes**
**CH 4**  **(based on**

**ANGA/API survey)**  **Emission Factor, scf** 

**CH 4**  **/workover Estimated** 

**Emissions,**

**tonnes**
**CH 4**  ***** **% Difference**

Northeast Wells without Hydraulic

Fracturing 8,208 8,208 2,607 409 409

Wells with Hydraulic Fracturing 0 0 7,694,435 0 0

Mid Continent Wells without Hydraulic

Fracturing 3,888 3, 888 2,574 191 191

Wells with Hydraulic Fracturing 1, 328 153 7,672,247 194,950 22,462**

- 89%

Rocky

Mountain Wells without Hydraulic

Fracturing 3,822 3,822 2,373 174 174

Wells with Hydraulic Fracturing 2,342 1,100 7,194,624 322,402 151,432**

- 53%

Southwest Wells without Hydraulic

Fracturing 1,803 1,803 2,508 87 87

Wells with Hydraulic Fracturing 1,374 158 7,387,499 194,217 22,3 82**

- 89%

Gulf Coast Wel ls without Hydraulic

Fracturing 3,300 3, 300 2,755 174 174

Wells with Hydraulic Fracturing 0 0 8,127,942 0 0

TOTAL 712,605 197,311

- 7 2 %

* EPA Estimated emissions = 2010 # Workovers x EPA 2010 Emission Factor , converted to mass emissions based on 60° F and 14.7 psia.

** Revised emissions = Adjusted # Workovers x Emission Factor , converted to mass emissions based on 60°F and 14.7 psia. **API & ANGA**

**- EPA** 

**EPA**Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 23



### 4.4 **Completion and Re**

**- fracture Emission Factor** 

In the 2009 GHG national inventory, EPA applies an emission factor of 2 ,454 s cf

CH 4 / event for conventional gas well workovers, while the emission factor for unconventional gas well completions and workovers was increased to 7,623,000 scf CH 4 /event (EPA, 2011c). Similarly, for the 2010 national GHG inventory, EPA maintained t he emission factor of 2,454

s cf CH 4 / event for gas well workovers without hydraulic fracturing, but applied an average emission factor of 7,372,914 to gas well workovers with hydraulic fracturing (EPA, 2012). (EPA applies slightly different emission factor s for each NEMS region based on differing gas compositions.)

The ANGA/API survey focused on activity data and did not collect data to revise the emission factor for unconventional gas well completions and workovers.

**Emissions Data from WRAP Study**

The WRA P study discussed in Section 4.2 also gathered data on emissions from completions. This information supports a revised emission factor but was reported by sources outside the ANGA/API data survey. The results are summarized in Table 1 2 . The WRAP

emissio n factor is 78% lower than EPA’s emission factor (9.175 MMscf gas/event). The WRAP survey did not provide a methodology for determining emissions data

.

**T ABLE**  **1 2** 

**. WRAP**  **S URVEY** 

**– S**  **UMMARY OF C**  **OMPLETION E**  **MISSIONS FOR THE**  **R OCKY** 
**M OUNTAIN**  **R EGION**  **, 2006**  **D ATA** 

**AAPG Basin**  **Weighted average gas**

**emissions from completion, Mcf**  **gas/well #** 

**completions represented** 

515 167 207

530 268 54

535 76 642

540 59 608

580 6,559 283

595 4,053 819

Total 2,613
Weighted average 2,032 Mcf/well



### 4.5 **Data Limitations for Completion a nd Re** 

**- fracture Emissions** 

Although the data sets are limited, it appears that EPA’s assumed re

- fracture rate of 10%

is a significant overestimate. Information from the API/ANGA survey indicates that even including what appears to be unique activity in AAPG

- 540, the re

- fracture rate is much less frequent, ranging from 1.6% to 2.3% based on two sets of survey information (Tables 8 and 9

, respectively). The re

- fracture rate for AAPG Basin 540 appears to be higher than other areas in

t he U.S. due to unique geo logic characteristics in that region (4.7% based on a weighted averageSummary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 24

of data reported for that region). Without AAPG Basin 540, the national rate of re

- fracturing is between 0.7% and 1.15% of all gas wells annually.

Additionally , limited information on the emissions from completions and workovers with hydraulic fracturing indicate that EPA’s GHG emission factor for these activities is significantly

overestimated. It is expected that b etter emissions data will develop as companies begin to

collect infor mation for EPA’s mandatory GHG reporting program (EPA, 2011 d ).Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 25



### 5. **Other Surveyed Information**

EPA had indicated that activity data for centrifugal compressor wet seals and pneumatic devices used in the national inventory is lacking. Note that the need for be tter equipment data persists throughout the majority of the U.S. inventory and is not unique to the oil and natural gas industry. The ANGA/API survey requested the following information related to centrifugal compressors and pneumatic devices:

 The number of centrifugal compressors, reported separately for production/gathering versus processing;

 The number of centrifugal compressors with wet versus dry seals, reported separately for production/gathering versus processing;

 The number of pneumatic controllers , classified as “high

- bleed,” “low

- bleed,” and “intermittent,” reported separately for well sites, gathering/compressor sites, and gas processing plants; and

 The corresponding number of well sites, gathering/compressor sites, and gas processing plants, ass ociated with the pneumatic controller count.



### 5.1 **Centrifugal Compressors**

**Processing Facilities**

The API /ANGA survey collected the equivalent of 5% of the national centrifugal compressor count for gas processing operations (38 centrifugal compressors from the s urvey, compared to 811 from EPA’s 2010 national GHG inventory). For the gas processing centrifugal compressors reported through the survey, 79% were dry seal compressors and 21% were wet seals. EPA’s 2010 national inventory reported 20% of centrifugal co mpressors at gas processing plants were dry seal, and 80% were wet seal. EPA’s emission factor for wet seals (51,370 scfd

CH 4 /compressor) is higher than the emission factor for dry seals (25,189 scfd CH 4 /compressor). 5

Based on the ANGA

/API survey, EPA a ppears to be overestimating emissions from centrifugal compressors. If the small sample size from the API /ANGA survey is representative,

non

- combustion emissions from centrifugal compressors would be 173,887 metric tons of methane compared to 261,334 metr ic tons of methane from the 2010 national inventory (when applying industry standard conditions of 60 °F and 14.7 psia to convert volumetric emissions to mass emissions). Although based on very limited data, if the ANGA /API survey results reflect the popu lation of wet seal versus dry seal centrifugal compressors, the emissions from this source would be reduced by 34% from EPA’s emission estimate in the national inventory. Better data on the number of centrifugal compressors and seal types will be availabl e from companies reporting to EPA under the mandatory GHG reporting program.

5 EPA Table A

- 123, of Annex 3 of the 2010 inventory report.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 26

**Production and Gathering Facilities**

Very few of the data sets reported through the API/ANGA survey indicate counts of centrifugal compressors associated with production/gathering operations

- only 550 centrifugal compressors from 21 participating companies. EPA’s 2010 GHG inventory did not include centrifugal compressors in production/gathering operations. On a well basis, the survey responses equate to 0.07 centrifugal compresso rs per gas well, with 81% dry seal centrifugal compressors and the remaining wet seal compressors. Information reported through EPA’s mandatory GHG reporting program will provide additional information to account for GHG emissions from centrifugal compres sors in production operations.



### 5.2 **Pneumatic Controllers**

Table 1 3 summarizes the survey responses for pneumatic controllers. For each type of

location

– gas well sites, gathering compressor sites, and gas processing plants

– the count of the

number of sites r epresented by the survey data is shown. Table 1 3 also shows the percent of each pneumatic controller type for each type of location.

**T ABLE**  **1 3** 

**. ANGA**  **/API S**  **URVEY**

**– P**  **NEUMATIC C**  **ONTROLLER C**  **OUNTS**

**Gas Well Sites Gathering/** 

**Compressor**

**Sites Gas** 

**Processing**

**Plants** # wells, sites or plants 48,046 wells 1,988 sites 21 plants
# controllers/well, site or plant 0.99 per well 8.6 per site 7.8 per plant

# Low Bleed Controllers 12,850 27% 5

, 596 33% 117 71% # High Bleed Controllers 11,188 24% 1

, 183 7% 47 29%

# Intermit

tent Controllers 23,501 49% 10

, 368 60% 0 0%

The survey requested that the responses designate pneumatic controllers as either “high

bleed”

, “ low bleed ” , or “ intermittent ” following the approach each company is using for Subpart W reporting . For example, Subpart W defines h igh

- bleed pneumatic devices as automated, continuous bleed flow control devices powered by pressurized natural gas where p art of the gas power stream that is regulated by the process condition flows to a valve actuator controller where it vents continuously (bleeds) to the atmosphere at a rate in excess of 6 standard cubic feet per

hour (EPA, 2011 d )

. EPA does not currently track pneumatic controllers by controller type in the national inventory. This information will be collected unde r 40 CFR 98 Subpart W starting in September 2012. From the API/ANGA survey, intermittent bleed controllers are the more prevalent type at gas well sites and gathering/compressor sites, while gas plants predominately use low

- bleed

controllers. No intermit tent controllers were reported for gas plants by the survey respondents.

Table 1 4 compares emission results based on applying the emission factors from the EPA’s GHG reporting rule to emissions presented in the 2010 national GHG inventory, using the

counts of pneumatic controller from the ANGA/API survey for production operations.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 27

For production, the EPA national inventory combines pneumatic controller counts associated with large compressor stations with pneumatic controllers in production. An emission factor for each NEMS region is applied to the count of total controllers in each NEMS region. For this comparison, a weighted average emission factor of 359 scfd CH 4 /device was applied to the count of pneumatic controllers located at well sites and gather ing/compressor sites.

Under the EPA mandatory reporting rule (40 CFR 98 Subpart W), separate emission factors are applied to pneumatic controllers based on the controller type and whether the controller is located in the Eastern or Western region of the United States, as specified in the rule (EPA, 2011 d ). For this comparison, an average of the eastern and western emission factors is applied to each device type in computing the emission estimates resulting from the EPA GHG reporting rule.

**T ABLE**  **1 4** 

**. P**  **NE UMATIC**  **C ONTROLLER**  **E MISSION**  **C OMPARISON** 

**– P**  **RODUCTION**
**O PERATIONS** 

**API/ANGA Survey**

**Count of Controllers EPA GHG**  **Reporting**
**Rule (Subpart W)**  **2010 National GHG**  **Inventory**

**Gas**

**Well**

**Sites Gathering/**  **Compressor**

**Sites Total**  **Emission**

**Factor,** *****

**scfh**

**CH 4**  **/device Emissi**  **ons,**

**tonnes**
**CH 4**  **/yr Emission** 

**Factor,**

**scfd**

**CH 4**  **/device Emissions,** 

**tonnes**
**CH 4**  **/yr**

# Low Bleed

Controllers 12,850 5

, 596 18,446 1.58 4,885

359 46, 286

# High Bleed

Controllers 11,188 1

, 183 12,371 42.35 87,814 31, 042

#

Intermittent

Controllers 23,501 10

, 368 33

,869 15.3 86,856 84,987

Total 64,686 179,556 162, 315 * Emission factors shown are the average of the eastern and western emission factors from Table W

1A (EPA, 2011 d ).

Based on the types of pneumatic controllers reported in the ANGA /API survey, EP A’s mandatory GHG reporting rule could increase CH 4 emissions 11% over the pneumatic controller portion of the 2010 national GHG inventory. To put this in context, in EPA’s inventory report for 2010, emissions from pneumatic controllers accounted for appr oximately 13% of CH 4 emissions from the natural gas field production stage. Any increase from that initially reported data, however, will likely represent a worst case scenario. It is important to remember that pneumatic controllers operate only intermit tently, so variability such as the frequency and duration of the activations will be important information to consider when defining an accurate and effective reporting regime for these sources.

EPA’s mandatory GHG reporting rule does not require reporti ng emissions from pneumatic controllers at gas processing plants, so no emission factors are specified. The GHG national inventory applies an emission factor of 164,721 scfy CH 4 per gas plant for pneumatic controllers. For the national inventory, this re sults in 1,856 tonnes CH 4 emissions

- a very small

contribution to CH 4 emissions from onshore oil and gas operations.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 28



### 6. **Conclusions**

API and ANGA members believe this to be the most comprehensive set of natural gas data to date and are pleased to share these results with both regulators and the public.

Based on the information gathered from member companies during this project, it appears that EPA has overstated several aspects of GHG emissions from unconventional natural gas production. As summarized in T able 1 5 , the ANGA/API survey data results in significantly lower emission estimates for liquids unloading and unconventional gas well refracturing when compared to EPA’s emission estimates in the national inventory. Using t he combined emission

estimates f

rom the survey for these two key emission sources would indicate a 53 % reduction in calculated natural gas production sector emissions compared to EPA’s estimates.

**T ABLE**  **1 5** 

**. E**  **MISSION C**  **OMPARISON BETWEEN EPA**  **AND I**  **NDUSTRY D**  **ATA**

**Source Category**  **EPA National Inventory**  **API/ANGA Survey Impact on Source**  **Category**

**Emissions**

Metric tons of CH4 % of EPA

Production

Total Metric tons of CH4 % of

Revised

Production

Total % Difference in

Emissions

Liquids Unloading 4,501,465 * 51% 319,664 8 %

- 93

%

Unconventional

W ell Re

- fracture

Rates 712,605 * 8% 197,311 5 %

- 72%

Other Production

Sector Emissions ** 3,585,600 41% 3,585,600 87 %

Total Production

Sector Emissions 8,799,670 4, 102,575

- 53 %

* EPA’s estimates are adjusted to industry standard conditions of 60 degree s F and 14.7 psia for comparison

to the ANGA/API emission estimates.

** The “Other Production Sector Emissions” are comprised of over 30 different source categories detailed in

Table A

- 129 in the Annex of the EPA’s 2012 national inventory. The “Other Produ ction Sector Emissions” are the same values for this comparison between the EPA national inventory and the API/ANGA survey to focus the comparison on quantified differences in emission estimates for gas well liquids unloading and unconventional well re

- fra cture rates.

This project was directed toward gathering more robust information on workovers, completions, liquids unloading, centrifugal compressors, and pneumatic controllers with the intent of supporting revisions to the activity factors used in EPA’s national inventory and cited by many media publications. Although limited information was collected on centrifugal compressors and pneumatic controllers, the survey results indicated potential additional

differences , which are not included in the Table 1 5 comparison, when comparing total emission s API & ANGA

- EPA

EPASummary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 29

from all sources to the national inventory. Additional future data collection efforts, including more detailed reporting under Subpart W of the GHGRP will likely resolve these differences and

continue to inform the overall natural gas emissions data

.

W hile API and ANGA recognize that t he data collected for this report represents a sample of the universe of natural gas wells operating in the U.S., we believe that the conclusions

drawn from the data analysis are r elevant and representative of natural gas production as whole

. In EPA’s gas well count, 21 of the AAPG basins each have more that 1% of the total well count.

The ANGA

/API survey has wells from 19 of those 21 basins. In terms of wells represented by

thes e basins, 92% of the total EPA well count is accounted for by wells in those 21 basins, while

9 5% of the API/ANGA surveyed gas wells are accounted for by those 21 basins. This indicates

that the ANGA

/API survey results have good representation for the bas ins with the largest numbers of wells nationally.

Moreover, the API/ANGA survey results are based on a large number of wells

- at least an order of magnitude or more

- higher than the number of wells used by EPA to develop their

revised emission factors t hat purport to be representative of U

. S

. industry operations nationwide. Such a richer data set allows for improved granularity of emission characteristics for various operations. A case in point is the information on liquids unloading where the ANGA /API s urvey results were obtained from over 59 ,000 gas wells and which indicate that 21 % of wells equipped with plunger lift and 9.3% of wells without plunger lift vent for liquids unloading

. In comparison, EPA’s approach is based on the assumption that the su rvey of 25 well sites conducted by GRI (1996) for the base year 1992 continues to provide representative data for the fraction of conventional wells requiring unloading , which EPA set at 41.3%

. Industry also

believe s that the systematic approach in which the API/ANGA data were collected and vetted by natural gas experts is a n improvement over the ad hoc way in which EPA collected some of their data. This study indicates that EPA should reconsider their inventory methodologies for natural gas production pa rticularly in light of more comprehensive and emerging data from the industry

. ANGA and API members look forward to working with the agency to continue to educate and

evaluate t he latest data as it develops about the new and fast

- changing area of unconven tional well operations.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 30



### 7. **References**

Energy Information Administration (EIA). "Number of Producing Gas Wells”, U.S. and State level data, annual, 2010 Data, Released February 29, 2012. http:// www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_wells_s1_a.htm

Hanle, Lisa ( U.S. National GHG Inventory, Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Chapter Coordinator, U.S. EPA ) . “ Background Information to Support 1990

- 2009 GHG Inventory Estimates for Petroleum and Natural Gas Sys tems ”, Memorandum to Karin Ritter ( Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs, American Petroleum Institute ) , April 15, 2011.

Henderer, Douglas. Personal communications on the survey instrument utilized for the WRAP III inventory. KleinFelder, Littleton , Colorado, dhenderer@kleinfelder.com , October, 2011. http://www.wrapair2.org/PhaseIII.aspx

IHS CERA , “Mismeasuring Methane,” 2011. http://www.ihs.com/info/en/a/mis

- measuring

methane

- report.aspx

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Lessons Learned: Installing Plunger Lift Systems In Gas Wells, 2006. http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/ll_plungerlift.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry, Background Technical Support Document,” U.S.

En vironmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Division, Washington DC, November, 2010.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “EPA U.S. Oil and Gas GHG Inventory, July 14, 2011 Webcast, Review Inventory Method, Emission Reductions of Gas We ll Liquids Unloading by Plunger Lifts ,” Distributed for discussion purposes only. Final Draft, July 15, 2011( a ).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “EPA U.S. Oil and Gas GHG Inventory, July 14, 2011 Webcast, Review Inventory Method, Pot ential Inventory Improvement on Well Completions and Workovers,” Distributed for discussion purposes only. Final Draft, July 15, 2011( b ).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

and Sinks: 1990

- 2009 , Wash ington DC, April, 2011(b)Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 31

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads11/US

- GHG

- Inventory

- 2011

- Complete_Report.pdf

United States Envir onmental Protection Agency (EPA). Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

and Sinks: 1990

- 2010 , Washington DC, April

, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventory report.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Technical Revisions to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule”, Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 76 , No. 247, December 23, 2011( d ).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Supplement to Appendix D of the Revisions to Subpart I and Subpart W Technical Support Document

– Listing of Well Count by Group Type 2010: Well Counts by Group.pdf”. Supporting information provided by EPA with the pre

- Federal Register version of amendments to Subpart W. August 22, 2011( e ). http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/documents/pdf/2011/documents/Well

- Counts

- by

- Group.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency , Technical Note on the 1990 to 2009 Inventory

Estimates for Natural Ga s Systems, Washington DC, 2011( f ). http://www.epa.gov/outreach/downloads/TechNote_Natural%20gas_4

- 15

- 11.pdf

Zeller, Tom Jr. “Studies Say Natural Gas Has Its Own Environmental Problems,” New York Times, April 11, 2011.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 32



### Appendix A. API/ANGA Survey Forms

The following provides the survey forms used to gather data presented in this report.

**F IGURE**  **A**

**- 1.**  **S URVEY**  **I NSTRUCTIONS** Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 33 **F IGURE**  **A**

**- 2.**  **G AS**  **W ELL**  **S URVEY**  **D ATA** Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 34 **F IGURE**  **A**

**- 3** 

**. G**  **AS W**  **ELL W**  **ORKOVER S**  **URVEY D**  **ATA**Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 35 **F IGURE**  **A**

**- 4** 

**. G**  **AS W**  **ELL L**  **IQUIDS U**  **NLOADING S**  **URVEY D**  **ATA**Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 36 **F IGURE**  **A**

**- 5** 

**. O**  **THER S**  **URVEY D**  **ATA**Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 37



### Appendix **B. ANGA /API**  **Well Survey Information**

Res ponses from the second part of the API/ANGA survey , which focused on m ore detailed well information, covered more than 60,000 wells and provided data on:

 # of gas w ells w ith out hydraulic fracturing (anytime in their history)

 # of gas w ells with hydraulic f racturing (any time in their history) ;

◦ # of v ertical gas wells with hydraulic fracturing (anytime in their history) ;

◦ # of h orizontal gas wells with hydraulic fracturing (anytime in their history) ;

 # of completions for v ertical gas wells with hydraulic frac turing ;

 # of c ompletions for h orizontal gas wells with hydraulic fracturing ;

 # of c ompletions for gas wells without hydraulic fracturing ;

 # of workovers for v ertical wells with hydraulic fracturing ;

 # of w orkovers for h orizontal wells with hydraulic fractu ring ; and

 # of w orkovers for wells without hydraulic fracturing

.

Table B

- 1 summarizes the well data collected by the ANGA/API survey and presents its distribution by formation type and region. The regional distribution follows the National Energy

Modelin g System (NEMS) regions defined by the EIA. The data are compared to EPA’s national well counts classified by type as provided in the August 2011 database file (EPA,

2011 d ).Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 38

**T ABLE**  **B**

**- 1.**  **API /ANGA**  **S URVEY** 

**– S**  **UMMARY OF G**  **AS W**  **ELL C**  **OUNTS BY T**  **YPE AND NEMS**  **R EGI**  **ON** *****

**NEMS Region Conventional** 

**Wells Shale**  **Coal**

**- bed** 

**Methane Tight**  **Unspecified**

Northeast 12,144 3,541 9 3,874 2,563

Gulf Coast 2,870 1,990

- 7,968 1,521

Mid

- C ontinent 9,081 2,333

- 3,747 5,579

Southwest 646 1,208

- 726 2,326

Rocky Mountain 3,707 366 5,45 8 18,053 11

West Coast

- - - - -

Unspecified 1,307

Survey TOTAL 28,448 9,438 5,467 34,368 13,307

% of EPA 2010 Well Counts (from database file) 14.2% 30.1% 11.5% 45.6%

Overall Survey Total 91,028

**EPA Well Counts**  **(2010, from database file)**  200,92 1 31,381 47,371 75,409

56.6% 8.8% 13.3% 21.2%

355,082

**EPA National Inventory (2010)**  484,795

**EIA National Well**

**Count (2010)**  487,627

* ANGA/API survey data represents well counts current for calendar year 2010 or the first

half of 2011.

As shown i n Table B

- 1, data from the API /ANGA survey represent approximately 26% of the national gas wells reported by EPA’s database (or 18.7% of the EIA well count data). This includes almost 46% of all tight gas wells and 30% of shale gas wells. This may indica te
that the ANGA

/API information has an uneven representation of unconventional gas wells, and in particular shale and tight gas wells, but it also appears that EPA’s data may mis

- categorize these types of wells. For example, the EPA/HPDI data set contain s few wells from Pennsylvania and West Virginia while the API /ANGA survey includes 9,422 wells from that area (AAPG 160A).Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 39

Table B

- 2 summarizes additional details on the natural gas wells information collected through the second data collection effort by the ANGA/API survey which covered 60,710 wells.

**T ABLE**  **B**

**- 2** 

**. ANGA**  **/API S**  **URVEY**

**– A**  **DDITIONAL D**  **ETAILS ON G**  **AS W**  **ELL C**  **OUNTS** *****

**# Wells w/out hydraulic**  **fracturing (anytime in**  **their history) # Wells with hydraulic fracturing**  **(any time in their history)**

**Total #**  **Vertical wells # Horizontal** 

**wells**

TOTAL Conventional 1,498 16, 678 14,844 1,834

TOTAL C oal B ed

M ethane 42 3,475 3,424 42

TOTAL Shale 1,931 9,0 84 2,012 7,072 TOTAL Tight 122 27,8 80 24,04 5 3,835

**TOTAL OVERALL 3,593**  **57,117 44,325**  **12,783**

* API /ANGA surve y data represents well counts current for calendar year 2010 or the first half of 2011.

Additional information on natural gas wells with and without hydraulic fracturing was provided for approximately two

- thirds (60,710 natural gas wells) of the total we ll data collected by the ANGA

/API survey. For this subset of the well data, 94% of the gas wells have been hydraulically fractured at some point in their operating history, including almost 92% of the

conventional wells. EPA’s 2010 national inventory rep orted 50,434 gas wells with hydraulic fracturing. This is very similar to the number of unconventional gas wells that EPA reported in the 2009 national inventory. **Based on the API /ANGA**  **survey results, it appears that EPA has underestimated the number of**  **gas wells with hydraulic fracturing.**

Of the ANGA

/API survey responses for wells that have been hydraulically fractured, most (77.6%) are vertical wells. Vertical wells are predominately conventional gas wells, coal

bed methane and tight gas wells; while t he majority of shale gas wells are horizontal. EPA does not currently distinguish between vertical and horizontal gas wells.

**A Short Note About EPA and EIA’s Well Counts**

There is a discrepancy of over 132,000 natural gas wells between the EPA database

in formation (EPA, 2011 d ) and the EIA national gas well counts (EIA, 2012) , and a difference of almost 130,000 gas wells between the two EPA data sources (EPA, 2011 d and EPA, 2012) . This difference needs to be understood since ultimately both the IHS (EIA) a nd HPDI (EPA) data originate from the same state

- level sources of information.

The EIA provides a gas well count of 487,627 for 2010 based on Form EIA

- 895A 6 , the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (formerly the Minerals

6 Form EIA

- 895, Annual Quantity And Value Of Natural Gas Production Report ; http://www.eia.gov/survey/form/eia_895/form.pdfSummary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 40

Managem ent Service) data, and World Oil Magazine (EIA, 2010). However, the EIA does not classify gas wells by conventional and unconventional, or by formation types, precluding more detailed comparison against the EIA data. For some parameters the classificatio ns were based on qualitative descriptions of the formations’ physical properties (e.g. permeability) rather than on actual measurements (i.e. permeability data in mi l lidarc y readings). 7

EPA provides a similar well count in the 2010 national inventory: 43 4,361 non

associated gas wells + 50,434 gas wells with hydraulic fracturing, resulting in a total of 484,795 gas wells (EPA, 2012). Further classification of gas wells or description on what constitutes a

“non

- associated” gas well versus a “gas well with hydraulic fracturing” is not provided in EPA’s national inventory.

Small differences in the HPDI and IHS original data may arise from definitional differences as HPDI and IHS compile the raw data. In addition, each state may have a different interpretat ion of well definitions of gas versus oil wells that introduces differences among states for the wells reported. EPA had indicated in discussions with the API/ANGA group th at their database well count information may not include all of the wells in the Ma rcellus basin. EIA

indicates 44

, 500 gas wells in Pennsylvania in 20 10

. However, e ven in accounting for these

wells , there is still a large difference (almost 8 8 ,000 wells) between EPA’s total gas well number

from their database source and EIA’s well data

. Nevertheless, these discrepancies among the well counts need to be understood since these data all originate from the same state

- level sources of information. Differences could arise, for example, from different interpretations of well definitions.

S ince the EIA data is the de facto benchmark in the energy industry, the difference

between the EIA and E PA well count data needs to be understood before any meaningful

conclusions can be made from the EPA data.

Since EPA’s well count from HPDI was much low er than the EIA, this report does not attempt to come up with a national gas well count but chose to use the 35 5,082 number from the EPA HPDI database because it was the only available database which parsed the wells into

conventional and unconventional ca tegories (EPA, 2011 d )

.

7 Information provided by Don Robinson of ICF (EPA’s contractor ).Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 41



### Appendix **C**

**. Emission Estimates for Gas Well Liquids Unloading**

Tables C

- 1 through C

- 4 summarize the liquids unloading emissions data collected through the API /ANGA survey and the resulting

emission estimates. The emission factors reported in Table 4 are based on a regional weighted average of the conventional and unconventional gas wells, with and without plunger lifts. This provided a consistent comparison aga inst the EPA emission fac tors which are reported only on a regional bas is and do not differentiate between conventional and unconventional wells or wells with and without plunger lifts.

**T ABLE**  **C**

**- 1.**  **L IQUIDS UNLOADING FOR**  **C ONVENTIONAL**  **GAS WELLS WITHOUT PL UNGER LIFTS** 

**NEMS Region Northeast**  **Gulf Coast Mid** 

**- Continent**  **Southwest**

# ve nting gas wells 190 916 12 6 1 38 220

Total # gas well vents 4,335 39,668 144 60 1 2,444 880

Average casing diameter, inches 5 4.5 5.5 3.65 4.83 4 5.5

Average well depth, feet 3,375 3,448 10,000 19,334 7,033 4,269 8,000

Average surface pressure, psig ( for venting wells) 85 50 ( Weighted

average

a pplied ) 65

.2 224 25.5 60.8 100

Average venting time, hours 1 2 1 2.5 .25 4.95 1

Average daily production rate, Mscfd 12.83 7.21 300 664 58.43 84 100

Total emissions, scf gas/yr 13,492,728 78,217,933 1,287,7 82 3,854,938 2,440 38,451,629 9,037,809

Emissions per well, scfy gas/well 71,014 85,391 107,315 642,490 2,440 1,011,885 41,081Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 42 **T ABLE**  **C**

**- 2** 

**. L**  **IQUIDS UNLOADING FOR C**  **ONVENTIONAL GAS WELLS WITH PLUNG**  **ER LIFTS**

**NEMS Region Northeast**  **Mid**

**- Continent** 

# venting gas wells 33 109 164 2 10

Total # gas well vents 1,272 4,217 489,912 23 7,300

Average tubing diameter, inches 2 2.375 1.995 2 2.375

Average well depth, feet 3,375 3,448 4,269 7,033 9,500

Average surface pressure, psig (for venting wells) 85 50 60.8 25.5 500

Average venting time, hours 1 0.3 0.067 0.75 0.08

Average daily production rate, Mscfd 12.83 7.21 84 58.43 30

Total emissions, scf gas/yr 973,442 1,963,379 232,529,848 23,623 74,495,422

Emissions per well, scfy gas/well 29,498 1 8,013 1,417,865 11,811 7,449,542Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 43 **T ABLE**  **C**

**- 3** 

**. L**  **IQUIDS UNLOADING FOR U**  **NCONVENTIONAL GAS WELLS WITHOUT PL**  **UNGER LIFTS**

**NEMS Region Northeast**  **Gulf Coast**

# venting gas wells 337 6 8 27 11 15

Total # gas well vents 27,720 6 104 207 572 15

Average casing diameter,

inches 4.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 5.5 10.75

Average well depth, feet 4,845 6,000 11,000 9,000 13,752 16,000

Average surface pressure, psig (for venting wells) 121.6 400 200 50 450 540

Average venting time, hours 1.36 3 1 5.3 2 2

Average daily production rate,

Mscfd 26 200 25 130 353 8,500

Total emissions, scf gas/yr 148,079,273 267,095 2,749,066
5,736,344 49,326,199 11,004,804

Emissions per well, scfy gas/well 439,404 44,516 343,633 212,457 4,484,200 733,654Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 44

**T ABLE**  **C**

**- 3** 

**. L**  **IQUIDS UNLOADI NG FOR**  **U NCONVENTIONAL**  **GAS WELLS WITHOUT PL UNGER LIFTS**  **, CONTINUED** 

**NEMS Region Gulf Coast**  **Mid**

**- Continent** 

# venting gas wells 146 2 10 40 177 3 136 215

Total # gas well vents 146 12 120 40 400 7.2 391.2 2,580

Average casing diameter,

inches 4.5 5.5 5.5 8.62 5 5.5 4.92 5.02 5.5

Average well depth, feet 8,500 11,647 11,000 12,500 3,911 10,293 7,888 11,000

Average surface pressure, psig (for venting wells) 15 25 94 530 80 90.04 98.75 200

Average venting time, hours 0.6875 1.5 4 1 2.5 1.58 1.925 0.5

Average d aily production
rate, Mscfd 99 83 92 6,500 250 727 875 100

Total emissions, scf gas/yr 276,156 82,853 2,985,945 7,496,306 7,908,154 196,019
16,457,032 68,197,984

Emissions per well, scfy gas/well 1,891 41,427 298,594 187,408 44,679 65,340 121,008 317,200Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 45

**T ABLE**  **C**

**- 3** 

**. L**  **IQUIDS UNLOADING FOR U**  **NCONVENTIONAL GAS WELLS WITHOUT PL**  **UNGER LIFTS ,**  **CONTINUED**

**NEMS Region Southwest**  **Rocky Mountain**

# venting gas wells 228 6 3 5 113 2 28

Total # gas well vents 221 6 1 1800 2,004 4 10,584

Average casin g diameter,

inches 9.625 5.5 5 2.375 4.038 4.7 4.5

Average well depth, feet 8,725 8,000 15,000 11,597 11,149 11,056 10,844

Average surface pressure, psig (for venting wells) 516 50 200 476 250 250 198

Average venting time, hours 1 0.5 6.67 0.77 1.616 0. 75 3.18

Average daily production rate,

Mscfd 1,500 12 150 41.54 127 433 83

Total emissions, scf gas/yr 35,075,995 34,759 65,227 76,746,923 42,212,132 95,677 262,702,911

Emissions per well, scfy gas/well 153,842 5,793 21,742 15,349,385 373,559 47,839 9,382,247Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 46 **T ABLE**  **C**

**- 4** 

**. L**  **IQUIDS UNLOADING FOR U**  **NCONVENTIONAL GAS WELLS WITH PLUNG**  **ER LIFTS**

**NEMS Region Northeast**  **Gulf Coast**

# venting gas wells 308 103 5 3 2 22 59 5

Total # gas well vents 63,840 75,190 194 156 2 22 354 5

Average tubing diame ter,

inches 2.375 2.375 2.375 2.375 2.375 2.375 2.375 2.375

Average well depth, feet 4,845 2,500 7,000 13,752 16,000 8,500 11,647 12,500

Average surface pressure, psig (for venting wells) 121.6 200 130 450 540 15 25 530

Average venting time,

hours 0.22 1 0.05 0.1 2 1 0.875 0.3 0.5

Average daily production
rate, Mscfd 26 15 628 353 8,500 99 83 6,500

Total emissions, scf gas/yr 87,985,573 84,228,892 410,107 5,522,367 391,212 45,622 341,615 71,050

Emissions per well, scfy gas/well 285,667 817,75 6 82,021
1,840,789 195,606 2,074 5,790 14,210Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 47 **T ABLE**  **C**

**- 4** 

**. L**  **IQUIDS UNLOADING FOR U**  **NCONVENTIONAL GAS WELLS WITH PLUNG**  **ER LIFTS ,**  **CONTINUED**

**NEMS Region Mid** 

**- Continent**  **Southwest**

# venting gas wells 48 4 64 29 18 60

Total # gas well vents 155,742 9.6 1 70.4 348 25 60

Average tubing diameter, inches 2.375 3.88 4.11 2.4 1.995 2.375

Average well depth, feet 3,911 10,293 7,888 ( Average A pplied )

7 ,888 8,725 6,800

Average surface pressure, psig (for venting wells) 80 90.04 98.75 74.69 516 110

Average venti ng time, hours 0.0833 2.99 2.6 0.5425 0.5 0.2

Average daily production rate,

Mscfd 250 727 875 ( Weighted average

A pplied ) 371 1500 25

Total emissions, scf gas/yr
120,385,033 781,741
13,999,323 751,651 170,468 106,183

Emissions per well, scfy gas/we ll 2,508,022 195,435 218,739 25,919 9,470 1,770Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses (Updated September, 2012) 48 **T ABLE**  **C**

**- 4** 

**. L**  **IQUIDS UNLOADING FOR U**  **NCONVENTIONAL GAS WELLS WITH PLUNG**  **ER LIFTS ,**  **CONTINUED**

**NEMS Region Rocky Mountain** 

# venting gas wells 247 23 296 19 793

Total # gas well vents 1,476 51.43 2,080 21 ,888 9,516

Average tubing diameter, inches 1.997 1.92 2.375 2.375 2.375

Average well depth, feet 11,149 11,164 11,056 10,844 7,400

Average surface pressure, psig (for venting wells) 250 290 250 198 150

Average venting time, hours 0.407 1.12 2.1 0.455 0 .67

Average daily production rate, Mscfd 127 454 433 83 46

Total emissions, scf gas/yr 6,427,381 841,788 72,746,777 105,363,947 27,245,035

Emissions per well, scfy gas/well 26,022 36,599 245,766 5,545,47 1 34,357Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses 49

The calculated emissions sho wn in Tables C

- 1 through C

- 4 are based on applying Equation W

- 8

from 40 CFR 98 Subpart W to gas well liquid unloading without plunger lifts and Equation W

- 9 to gas well liquid unloading with plunger lifts. The equations and the terms are provided below.

98.233(f) (2) Calculation Methodology 2. Calculate the total emissions for well venting for liquids unloading using Equation W

– 8 of this section.

Where:

E s,n = Annual natural gas emissions at standard conditions, in cubic feet/year.

W = Total number o f wells with well venting for liquids unloading for each sub

- basin.
0.37×10 −3
= {3.14 (pi)/4}/{14.7*144} (psia converted to pounds per square feet).
CD p = Casing internal diameter for each well, p, in inches.

WD p = Well depth from either the top of the wel l or the lowest packer to the bottom of the

well, for each well, p, in feet.
SP p = Shut

- in pressure or surface pressure for wells with tubing production and no packers

or casing pressure for each well, p, in pounds per square inch absolute (psia) or casing

- to

- tubing pressure of one well from the same sub

- basin multiplied by the tubing pressure of each well, p, in the sub

- basin, in pounds per square inch absolute (psia).

V p = Number of vents per year per well, p.
SFR p = Average flow

- line rate of gas for well , p, at standard conditions in cubic feet per hour.

Use Equation W

– 33 to calculate the average flow

- line rate at standard conditions.

HR p,q = Hours that each well, p, was left open to the atmosphere during unloading, q.

1.0 = Hours for average well to blo wdown casing volume at shut

- in pressure.

Z p,q = If HR p,q is less than 1.0 then Z p,q is equal to 0. If HR p,q is greater than or equal to 1.0

then Z p,q is equal to 1.

98.233(f) (3) Calculation Methodology 3. Calculate emissions from each well venting to the atmosphere for liquids unloading with plunger lift assist using Equation W

– 9 of this section.

Where:
E s,n = Annual natural gas emissions at standard conditions, in cubic feet/year.

W = Total number of wells with well venting for liquids unloading for each sub

- basin.

0.37×10 −3
= {3.14 (pi)/4}/{14.7*144} (psia converted to pounds per square feet).

TD p = Tubing internal diameter for each well, p, in inches.

WD p = Tubing depth to plunger bumper for each well, p, in feet.
SP p = Flow

- line pressure for each well, p, in pounds per s quare inch absolute (psia), using

engineering estimate based on best available data.

V p = Number of vents per year for each well, p.
SFR p = Average flow

- line rate of gas for well, p, at standard conditions in cubic feet per hour.

Use Equation W

– 33 to calcu late the average flow

- line rate at standard conditions.

HR p,q = Hours that each well, p, was left open to the atmosphere during each unloading, q.

0.5 = Hours for average well to blowdown tubing volume at flow

- line pressure.Summary and Analysis of API and ANGA Survey Responses 50 Z p,q = If HR p,q is less than 0 .5 then Z p,q is equal to 0. If HR p,q is greater than or equal to 0.5

then Z p,q is equal to 1.