1. Area Oil & Gas Tool: Comparison Analysis Oklahoma DEQ Thursday, January 14, 2016

2. Topics Compared in this Presentation Production  Total Liquids  Total Gas Emissions (Exploration + Production)  Total VOC  Total Nox Statewide Emissions Estimates for 2011, 2014, and 2014 with Subpart W data 2

3. Comparison Analysis: Production For this topic: 3 Dataset Label Description 2011 HPDI 2013 activity data from the November 2014 version of the 2011 NEI Tool 2014 HPDI 2015 activity data from the December 2015 version of the 2014 NEI Tool 2014W Activity data from the Subpart W spreadsheets ONLY

4. Comparison Analysis: Production Data for 2011 & 2014 was taken from the tool inputs activity tables.  Input data is not affected by Subpart W data Data for 2014W was taken from the Subpart W spreadsheets (sent out by Jennifer Snyder in early December 2015)  For Liquids: Condensate Tanks Excel file  For Gas: NO PRODUCTION DATA, only activity factors (well counts, # of wells venting/flaring, etc.) 4

5. Total Liquids Production

6. Total Liquids Production (TLP) “Total” liquids production includes:  Oil  Condensate  Condensate CBM Units of BBL (1 barrel of oil = 42 gallons) 6

7. Total Liquids Production (TLP) (2014 – 2011) = 52,453,278 BBL (2014W – 2014) = -36,058,487 BBL  This makes sense because Subpart W is a subset of the HPDI data, and there are less counties 7 DatasetStatewide TLP (BBL)# of Counties 201164,866,38767 2014117,319,66567 2014W81,261,17840

8. Total Liquids Production (TLP) Difference in TLP from 2011 to 2014 Top Ten Counties (absolute difference): County Difference: 2014 – 2011 (BBL) ALFALFA13,202,6371148% WOODS6,599,861279% GARFIELD4,966,399871% GRADY4,077,307161% ROGER MILLS4,066,547334% KINGFISHER3,225,486311% STEPHENS3,013,66471% CANADIAN2,708,802146% GRANT2,342,830301% PAYNE2,222,651343% 8

9. 2011 to 2014 Difference: Total Liquids Production (Million BBL) 9 Top ten Differences

10. Total Liquids Production (TLP) Difference in TLP from 2014 to 2014W Top Ten Counties (absolute difference): County Difference: 2014W – 2014 (BBL) WOODS3,342,956 137% LOGAN-1,384,403 50% KAY-1,537,109 3% CADDO-1,556,710 8% OKLAHOMA-1,796,372 6% KINGFISHER-2,159,590 49% OSAGE-2,241,754 21% GARVIN-3,308,346 17% STEPHENS-4,558,046 37% CARTER-4,853,325 36% 10

11. 2014 to 2014W Difference: Total Liquids Production (Million BBL) 11 Top ten Differences Positive Differences

12. Total Liquids Production (TLP) Discrepancy: 8 counties have higher Subpart W TLP than 2014 TLP CountyDifference: 2014W – 2014 (BBL) WOODS3,342,956 ALFALFA1,299,874 CANADIAN1,259,948 ELLIS1,151,996 BEAVER1,141,731 PAYNE522,855 ROGER MILLS89,802 JOHNSTON43,773 12

13. Total Liquids Production (TLP) Key points: 1.Discrepancy: Eight counties have higher Subpart-W TLP than 2014 TLP 2.2011 to 2014 production increase is centered in eastern & northern Anadarko Basin (along the eastern part of the Woodford Shale) 13

14. Total Gas Production

15. “Total” gas production includes:  Casinghead (Associated Gas)  Gas Well gas  CBM Units of MCF (thousand cubic feet) No gas production data in Subpart W, ONLY activity factors (well counts, # of wells venting/flaring, etc.)  Comparison is between 2011 & 2014 tool inputs only 15

16. Total Gas Production (2014 – 2011) = 296,517,919 MCF 16 Dataset Statewide Gas Production (MCF) # of Counties 20111,865,669,77568 20142,162,187,69474

17. Total Gas Production Difference in gas production from 2011 to 2014 Top Ten Counties (absolute difference): County Difference: 2014 – 2011 (MCF) Canadian114,824,856115% Alfalfa80,081,730246% Grady59,110,22789% Stephens57,417,825186% Roger Mills31,305,89131% Carter29,636,575112% Marshall26,742,129252% Latimer-33,523,619-37% Washita-40,390,959-34% Pittsburg-47,829,129-22% 17

18. 2011 to 2014 Difference: Total Gas Production (Million MCF) 18 Top ten Differences

19. Total Gas Production Key Points: 1.Overall increase in gas production from 2011 to 2014 2.2011 to 2014 gas production increase in northern Cherokee Platform, Southern Oklahoma, and eastern Anadarko basins 3.2011 to 2014 gas production decrease in Arkoma basin 19

20. Comparison Analysis: Emissions

21. For this topic: 21 DatasetDescription 2011 Emissions data from the EIS Staging Tables populated by the November 2014 version of the 2011 NEI Tool 2014 Emissions data from the EIS Staging Tables populated by the December 2015 version of the 2014 NEI Tool Includes effects of adding Subpart W data

22. Comparison Analysis: Emissions 2011 Tool is built with Exploration & Production, while 2014 has separate Tools for Exploration & Production FOR THIS ANALYSIS, the Exploration & Production for 2014 have been combined (so a direct comparison can be made between 2011 & 2014) 22

23. Total VOC Emissions

24. Looked at total VOC by county (includes all SCCs) Units of TPY (tons per year) Compared 2011 (November 2014 version) to 2014 (December 2015 version with E&P combined) 24 DatasetVOC Statewide Total (TPY)# of Counties 2011231,25072 2014 Production: 147,984 Exploration: 21,705 TOTAL: 169,689 75

25. Total VOC Emissions Difference in VOC Emissions from 2011 to 2014 Top Ten Counties (absolute difference): 25 County Difference: 2014 – 2011 (TPY) ALFALFA3701115% PONTOTOC339069% STEPHENS337837% CUSTER-2900-54% OSAGE-2925-50% WASHITA-3429-58% WOODWARD-3724-53% TEXAS-4818-46% BEAVER-4899-46% MAJOR-6047-63%

26. 2011 to 2014 Difference: Total VOC (TPY) 26 Top ten Differences

27. Total VOC Emissions Key Points:  Statewide decrease in VOC emissions  Decreases in VOC emissions in Anadarko Basin  Increases in VOC emissions in the Southern Oklahoma Basin 27

28. Total NOx Emissions

29. Looked at total NOx by county (includes all SCCs) Units of TPY (tons per year) Compared 2011 to 2014 29 DatasetNOx Statewide Total (TPY)# of Counties 201166,43672 2014 Production: 42,166 Exploration: 21,469 TOTAL: 63,635 75

30. Total NOx Emissions Difference in NOx emissions from 2011 to 2014 Top Ten Counties (absolute difference): 30 County Difference: 2014 – 2011 (TPY) ALFALFA2572375% GARFIELD1506147% WOODS139875% ROGER MILLS120548% GRADY103956% CANADIAN90045% GRANT-651112% WOODWARD-651-33% OSAGE-1023-59% MAJOR-1317-51% PITTSBURG-1326-38%

31. 2011 to 2014 Difference: Total Nox (TPY) 31 Top ten Differences

32. Total NOx Emissions Key Points:  Statewide decrease (slight) in NOx emissions  Increase in NOx emissions in the Anadarko Basin  Decrease in NOx emissions in the Arkoma & Cherokee Platform basins 32

33. Comparison Analysis: Subpart W Emissions For this topic: NOTE: All of the emissions data in this analysis came from Subpart W spreadsheets (sent out by Jennifer Snyder in early December 2015) 33 DatasetDescription 2011 Data from the 2011 NEI 2014 Data from the 2014 version 1 NEI Tool without Subpart W data 2014W Data from the 2014 version 1 NEI Tool with Subpart W data

34. Subpart W: Total VOC Emissions 34 Key Points:  2014W, largest emitter: crude oil tanks  Greatest absolute change: pneumatic devices – gas

35. Subpart W: Total NOx Emissions 35 Key Points:  2014W, largest emitter: heaters – gas  Greatest absolute change: heaters – gas

36. Thank You Questions? 36