Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Dutch Natural Gas Industry Doreen Wunderlich

Emissions from the Dutch Industry 1 Motivation 2 Emissions from the Dutch Industry 3 Methane and CO2-equivalent emissions 4 Conclusions

Motivation

Natural gas burns“cleaner”than coal -> bridge fuel life-cycle assessment: all greenhouse gases across fuel´s supply chain CH4 emissions can offset benefits of lower combustion emissions -> methane loss rate: CH4 emissions in % of extracted CH4 Hayhoe et al. (2002), Wigley (2011): 2.0% Mommers (2016): 3-8%

TNO, 1995: Methane emissions due to oil and natural gas operations in The Netherlands CH4 emissions for the supply chain exploration production procecssing transmission storage distribution end use comparison of bottom-up and top-down approach

Imperial College London, 2015: indication of emission estimates found in 240 papers GHG emissions in gCO2eq/MJ Methane loss rate

Imperial College London, 2015: Key findings: vast range of GHG emissions across the supply chain incomplete and under-represented data no data about the Netherlands

Emissions from the Dutch Industry

Structure in the Netherlands KIWA: Keurings Instituut voor Waterleiding Artikelen NAM: Nederlandse Aardolie Matschapij EBN: Energie Beheer Nederland NOGEPA: Netherlands Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Association

Exploration/Production/Processing: e-MJV

Exploration/Production/Processing:

Exploration/Production/Processing:

Exploration/Production/Processing:

Transmission and Storage: 2013 2014 2015 2016 CO2 emissions:

Distribution: from NIR reports: 0.18 ktonne in 2013-2015 CH4 emissions: CO2 emissions: from NIR reports: 0.18 ktonne in 2013-2015

Methane and CO2-equivalent emissions

Carbon footprint GHG emissions across the entire supply chain 2.0 gCO2eq/MJ 1.4 gCO2eq/MJ = 86 = 86 = 34 = 34

Carbon footprint Comparison to Balcombe et al. 42 gCO2eq/MJ (HHV)

Carbon footprint

Methane only emissions TNO, 1995: 148 (98) ktonne > 70% reduction

Methane loss rate 10 % Hayhoe et al. Balcombe et al. 0.2 %

Conclusions

HOW ? REASONS ? Key emission sources: key segments across supply chain: production and processing CO2 from energy generation CH4 from venting and fugitive emissions Comparison with TNO-study, 1995: - mitigation measures - country-specific emission factors > 70% reduction in absolute amount of CH4 emissions > 2/3 reduction of methane loss rate HOW ? Comparison with literature (Balcombe et al.): methane loss rate lower than any indication from literature CO2-equivalent / MJ lower than any indication from literature REASONS ?

Explanation of the “good”results: abandonment of unconventional gas fields strict regulations, dense population -> requires low-emitting technology reporting system -> country-specific emission factors -> intensive measurements (Gasunie)

BUT . . . emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear

BUT . . . emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear exact emission sources

BUT . . . emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear which emission sources neglecting insignificant sources by DSO (and other companies ?)

BUT . . . emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear which emission sources neglecting insignificant sources by DSO (and other companies ?) low transparency of emissions reported in NIR

? intransparent - incomplete - incorrect reliability BUT . . . emission sources reported by production companies partly unclear which emission sources neglecting insignificant sources by DSO (and other companies ?) low transparency of emissions reported in NIR partly incorrect in reporting tools intransparent - incomplete - incorrect ? reliability

What is needed: completeness transparency independent auditing