1. Oil and Gas Sector E&P Reporting Protocol
For
Western Regional Air Partnership
May 4, 2009
Presented by: Science Applications International Corporation and Environ International Corporation

2. Task 2: Significant Sources
Technical team tasked to develop a list of significant source categories by basin for the 6 member states/provinces in the WCI
Includes New Mexico, California, Utah, Montana, British Columbia and Manitoba
Significance was defined as those sources contributing to the top 95% of GHG emissions in a basin
Basins were defined using accepted USGS basin boundary definitions (consistent with past western states inventory efforts)
Screening-level inventories vs. reporting
Screening-level inventories developed at the basin level where possible, to attempt to account for regional variations in the significant sources
This is only for purposes of determining significant sources – reporting regulations are considering field/operational control as the reporting basis

3. Task 2: Significant Sources
Procedure for determining significant source categories
Activity and equipment information obtained from a variety of sources including past inventory development efforts (e.g. WRAP, California districts) and survey data received from companies through API coordination
Data represents the aggregate of quantitative information on equipment, processes, activity, configurations from dozens of individual companies operating across the western U.S.
Aggregate data was used to develop screening-level inventories for each basin for which this data was available and presented as an estimate of the percentage contribution of source categories to total GHG emissions

4. Task 2: Significant Sources
Limitations of the screening-level inventories
Activity and equipment information could not be obtained for all basins – for this reason screening-level inventories were created for generic production types using available data
Activity and equipment information could not be obtained for all source categories – where a source category was considered by the technical team to be potentially significant but for which no data was available, this was discussed
Data was aggregated from many sources, including data collected confidentially through various prior WRAP inventory efforts for this sector – this limited the nature of the data that could be presented in the Task 2 report

5. Task 2: Significant Sources
List of Significant Combustion Sources by Region (w/percent contribution representing 95% of all GHG sources)
San Juan (South Basin)1
Uinta Basin2
Permitted Compressor Engines (24.5%)
Heaters/Boilers (21.9%)
Permitted Heaters/Boilers (13.9%)
Unpermitted Compressor Engines (6.3%)
Unpermitted Compressor Engines (13.0%)
Permitted Compressor Engines (5.9%)
Permitted NG Turbines (7.4%)
Artificial Lift Engines (5.6%)
Unpermitted Heaters/Boilers (6.8%)
Drill Rigs (3.8%)
Workover Rigs (1.6%)
Artificial Lift Engines (1.2%)
1 Note: The San Juan (South) Basin in northwestern New Mexico has a combination of tight sands gas,
CBM gas and some oil production.
2 Note: The Uinta Basin in northeastern Utah has a combination of tight sands gas, CBM gas and
conventional oil production.

6. Task 2: Significant Sources
List of Significant Venting/Fugitive Sources by Region (w/percent contribution representing 95% of all GHG sources)
San Juan (South Basin)1
Uinta Basin2
Well Completion Venting (17.8%)
Pneumatic Devices (32.2%)
Well Blowdowns (7.2%)
Pneumatic Pumps (15.6%)
Flaring (1.2%)
Wellhead Fugitives (4.1%)
Wellhead Fugitives (1.1%)
1 Note: The San Juan (South) Basin in northwestern New Mexico has a combination of tight sands gas,
CBM gas and some oil production.
2 Note: The Uinta Basin in northeastern Utah has a combination of tight sands gas, CBM gas and
conventional oil production.

7. Task 2: Significant Sources
List of Significant Combustion Sources by Production Type (w/percent contribution representing 95% of all GHG sources)
California Offshore
Tight Sands Gas
CBM Gas
Gas Turbines (57.7%)
Compressor Engines (33.0%)
Compressor Engines (46.0%)
Supply Boats (2.2%)
Heaters/Boilers (17.5%)
Heaters/Boilers (25.4%)
Drill Rigs (3.9%)
Workover Rigs (1.8%)
Turbines (1.6%)

8. Task 2: Significant Sources
List of Significant Venting/Fugitive Sources by Production Type (w/percent contribution representing 95% of all GHG sources)
California Offshore
Tight Sands Gas Production
CBM Gas Production
Flaring (20.1%)
Pneumatic Devices (14.3%)
Well Blowdowns (15.3%)
Fugitives (16.1%)
Fugitives (10.9%)
Fugitives (4.7%)
Flaring (7.6%)
Pneumatic Devices (3.5%)
Condensate Tanks (2.7%)
Flaring (2.6%)
Well Blowdowns (2.2%)

9. Task 2: Significant Sources
List of Significant Combustion Sources by Production Type (w/percent contribution representing 95% of all GHG sources)
Conventional Oil Production
Conventional Gas Production
Heaters/Boilers (26.6)%
Compressor Engines (52.2%)
Drill Rigs (6.0%)
Heater/Boilers (11.26%)
Drill Rigs (7.36%)

10. Task 2: Significant Sources
List of Significant Venting/Fugitive Sources by Production Type (w/percent contribution representing 95% of all GHG sources)
Conventional Oil Production
Conventional Gas Production
Artificial Lift Engines (18.9%)
Pneumatic Devices (11.5%)
Pneumatic Devices (15.5%)
Fugitives (8.2%)
Oil Tanks (12.0%)
Well Blowdowns (1.7%)
Pneumatic Pumps (10.0%)
Dehydrators (1.7%)
Fugitives (6.7%)

11. Task 2: Significant Sources
Comments received on significant source categories lists
List of significant sources useful in a qualitative manner (for inventory purposes), however since lists represent blended contributions they might skew data when assessing relevance to methodology development
Data uncertainties and variability across and within production basins obscure how methodology used could help identify sources that contribute less than 5% of the inventory
Examples from comments:
Offshore sources developed using 2 typical platforms (one for shore-based power and one for on-board power) – Many platforms converting to shore-based power
Relative ranking for CBM well blow-down seems very high
Relative rankings of modeling software for E&P tanks and process simulation needs to be revisited and confirmed
Fugitive emission contributions seem high from offshore platforms
For conventional oil, compressors seem to comprise too small a percentage
Footnote should be added to each table to discuss uncertainty associated with the rankings