1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Dutch Natural Gas Industry
Doreen Wunderlich

2. Emissions from the Dutch Industry1
Motivation 2
Emissions from the Dutch Industry 3
Methane and CO2-equivalent emissions 4
Conclusions

3. Motivation

4. 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%

5. 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

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

7. 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

8. Emissions from
the Dutch Industry

9. 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

10. Exploration/Production/Processing:
e-MJV

11. Exploration/Production/Processing:

12. Exploration/Production/Processing:

13. Exploration/Production/Processing:

14. Transmission and Storage:
CO2 emissions:

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

16. Methane and
CO2-equivalent
emissions

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

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

19. Carbon footprint

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

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

22. Conclusions

23. 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 ?

24. 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)

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

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

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

28. 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

29. ? 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

30. What is needed:
completeness
transparency
independent auditing