Not logged in - Login
< back

Oil and Gas Projections Task Force

Contents [hide]

2022 Emissions Modeling Platform Wiki Main Page

Projections page

Oil and Gas Projections Task Force

Co-leads: Jeff Vukovich, Tom Richardson

Resources

Meetings

  • The National Oil and Gas Emissions Committee (NOGEC) is a standing work group that meets monthly.
  • The Oil and Gas Projections Task Force is a small group focused on developing default and alternative projections approaches. The Task Force reports its findings to the larger National Oil and Gas Emissions Committee during the monthly NOGEC calls.

Oil and Gas Projections Task Force Meeting 9/10/2024

Oil and Gas Projections Task Force Meeting 8/20/2024

  • Exploration emissions
    • Review historic activity data
    • Projections data
      • Link to directory with projections workbooks: https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/emismod/2022/v1/2022emissions/oilgas/Projections_data/
      • Three alternatives reviewed: FUTURE1, FUTURE2, and FUTURE3
        • FUTURE1 is an average of exploration data (activity data, e.g., feet drilled) from the following years: 2018, 2019, and 2022. Both 2020 and 2021 were omitted due to Covid (2020) and the Covid rebound effect (2021).
        • FUTURE1 is the default approach.
        • FUTURE2 is the average of exploration data using the years 2018-2022 (inclusive).
        • FUTURE3 is the average activity for the years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2022.
      • Jeff shared NOx emissions calculated using the tool for the different approaches. (FUTURE1A was used due to some differences in the approach used by Pennsylvania for conventional vs. unconventional wells. Colorado submitted their own emissions and those emissions are also shown in FUTURE1A summaries. FUTURE1A is, otherwise, the same as FUTURE1 discussed above.)
      • Jeff also shared VOC emissions for the three alternative projection approaches.
      • States are asked to select their preferred alternative by August 30, 2024.

  • Control factors
    • Jeff reached out to EPA staff with expertise on the effects of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) on future year (analytic year) emissions.
    • in addition to NSPS rules for the oil and gas sector, they will evaluate effects of the NSPS and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) on emissions from engines in the oil and gas sector.

  • Production emissions and projections
    • Jeff shared crude oil production forecasts from the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) .
    • Looked at AEO forecasts retrospectively, focusing on the projections used for 2016 oil and gas emissions (from the 2016 EMP). Compared actual crude oil production in 2023 with the forecasts for various cases and regions.
      • The Reference Case was used in the 2016 EMP to project analytic year emissions.
      • For the lower 48 states, crude oil production in 2023 was underestimated in the AEO Reference Case by 10.7%.
      • The High Economic Growth Case was closer, underestimating production by 10.5%.
      • For some regions, the Reference Case projection was closer, for other regions less close.
      • Note: For the entire lower 48 states (considered together) maintaining flat (unchanged) activity (2016 baseline production) would have underestimated 2023 crude oil production by a larger factor. The AEO Reference Case projection was closer.
      • For different regions, other cases (rather than the Reference Case) were preferable.
      • For some regions, maintaining flat (unchanged) activity from an intermediate year (e.g., 2018) would have yielded a more accurate projection.
    • Discussion regarding possible approaches and alternatives. Considering the difficulty forecasting many years into the future, projecting activity to 2026 might make sense, but that activity should be held constant into 2032 and 2038.
    • Alternatively, to be conservative, project activity to 2026 and then hold emissions constant (at the 2026 level) into 2032 and 2038.
    • Additional discussion regarding increasing electrification of various sectors (e.g., more electric vehicles) and the likely impacts on fossil fuel (especially crude oil) demand.
    • Jeff showed a workbook with the default projections approach, based on the approach discussed (which was used for the 2016v3 EMP for the oil and gas sector).
      • Some regions show decreasing production in 2026 (compared to the 2022 baseline), a slight rebound in 2032, and a slightly larger rebound in 2038. This was notable for the states in the Midcontinent Region.
      • Texas counties fall into three different regions: Gulf Coast, Midcontinent, and Southwest.
      • Some states with relatively low (or steady) oil and gas activity are included in regions with high-activity states. For the low-to-steady activity states, it makes more sense to hold activity constant.
    • States are encouraged to share their preferred approach with Jeff Vukovich by the August 30 deadline. States should provide some justification (an explanation) if they prefer a different approach than the default.

  • Test cases and case studies
    • Jeff is asking for suggestions. Focus on a limited number of counties or a particular basin.
    • Describe the alternative approach that would be examined.
    • There will be additional opportunities to discuss test cases during future meetings.
    • Tom Moore and John Grant discussed a trends analysis approach that has provided useful forecasts for work done in the WESTAR/WRAP states. Rather than a formal linear regression, important data elements are plotted and professional judgement is used to fit a trend line to the data.
    • Forrest Cook provided additional background on the approach used by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). They were able to model a number of different scenarios (typically three scenarios) and update their models over the years as additional data become available. They track model inputs and check that the modeling projections (made previously) fall within reasonable bounds for the different scenarios modeled. This buys more "shelf life" for the studies performed by BLM.
    • Important consideration: with regard to overall trends, some models are integrated into general (global) energy demand forecasts. Most forecasts show global fossil fuel demand increasing over the near term and that is likely to affect domestic markets to some degree.

  • Next Task Force meeting: September 10.

NOGEC Meeting 8/8/2024

  • 2022 Emissions Modeling Platform (EMP) update – Jeff Vukovich (EPA)
    • An updated version of the EPA Nonpoint Oil and Gas Emissions Estimation Tool has been posted and is available for review.
    • Ancillary data (used in the platform) are available for review:
      • Temporal profiles by month
      • A hierarchy showing how spatial surrogates are applied for each Source Classification Code (SCC) is available.
      • Chemical speciation data are available
    • Trends for point vs. nonpoint emissions:
      • Point source NOx emissions: 30% of total
      • Nonpoint VOC emissions: 85% of total
      • Summaries of emissions provided in Jeff's slide deck
      • EPA emissions modeling platform (and related information) ftp site: https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/emismod/2022/v1/
    • Possible oil and gas updates for Version 2 of the 2022 EMP (2022v2 EMP):
      • Colorado emissions update
      • Kentucky production activity update
      • Ammonia from engines update
      • Updates informed by submissions to the 2023 National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
      • Possible Updates based on feedback from the 12 km air quality modeling runs
    • Timeline (dates subject to revision):
      • Analytic Year (2026, 2032, 2038) oil and gas inventories available for review: mid-September 2024
      • 30-day review period: mid-September to mid-October 2024
      • EPA reviews comments and makes revisions to the analytic year inventories: mid-October to the end of December 2024
      • EPA releases 2022 v1 oil and gas inventories: End of December 2024 or January 2025

  • 2022 EMP Oil and Gas Projections Task Force Update – Jeff Vukovich (EPA) and Tom Richardson (Oklahoma DEQ)
    • Additional task force meetings held:
      • 2nd meeting on July 23
      • 3rd meeting on August 6
    • See notes (below) for a summary of topics discussed
    • Next meeting on August 20

  • Information and action items – Michael Ege (Texas CEQ)
    • Summary of new items added to the Oil & Gas Emissions Information Repository
    • For future meetings, there is an opportunity for presentations from state, local, and tribal (SLT) agencies who wish to discuss the impacts of the recently adopted federal rules on SLT programs. Please contact Michael Ege or Jeff Vukovich.
    • Action items

Oil and Gas Projections Task Force Meeting 8/6/2024

  • Exploration emissions
    • Jeff Vukovich (EPA) shared average activity data based on averaging activity for 2018, 2019, and 2022; 2020 (Covid year) and 2021 (rebound year) would be eliminated as uncharacteristic
    • Looked at NOx emissions computed by the Tool for this 3-year average
      • Base year (2022v1 EMP) NOx emissions: 135,243 tons
      • Analytic year NOx emissions: 123,031 tons
      • Some missing emissions (primarily from PA) should bring the analytic year emissions closer to the base year emissions when those are recompiled.
    • Compared the three year averages to five year averages; activity data were close for most states
    • Discussed state preferences
    • Jeff asked state representatives to email him with their preferred approach
    • Question about 2023 data - not yet available, but hope to have data in September

  • Production emissions
    • The workbook shared during the last task force meeting (July 23) has not been updated.
      • Due to time constraints, this will likely be the default approach for Version 1 of the 2022 EMP for oil and gas production emissions.
      • Odd future year trends from the EIA forecast for the Midcontinent Region; reduction in intermediate years, but increases in the more distant future
      • Requesting feedback from states: does this look reasonable? Is there a better approach that states prefer?
    • For Version 2, Jeff would like to perform some case studies to investigate some of the alternative approaches discussed previously (basin or county trend projections, the BLM decline curve and future year drilling approach, etc.)
    • Task force members encouraged to suggest possible focused areas (individual basins or a small number of counties) to be used for case studies
    • Forrest Cook (BLM) shared a workbook that summarized the decline curve approach he discussed during the July 23 Task Force meeting.
    • Additional discussion regarding the use of characteristic decline curves to project the fraction of future wells which would have tanks (and other equipment) subject to New Source Performance Standards.
    • Looked at different trendline modeling approaches (linear, polynomial, exponential, etc.)
    • Possible action items for future calls:
      • Check on the other two cases for exploration activity averaging. Share emissions at the county level for each approach. Ask states to share their preference.
      • Dump all the activity out the tool going back to 2002. (Note: there will be some gaps in years.) Share the year-by-year activity data with the group.
      • Ask Quinton Hett (Kansas) and others to share their thoughts and approaches (investigating modeling).
      • Request contractor assistance. Look at Forrest Cook’s (BLM) approach.
      • Jeff Vukovich and Tom Richardson will discuss a possible average decline curve approach, looking at equipment turnover. Share our thoughts with the group at a future meeting.

Oil and Gas Projections Task Force Meeting 7/23/2024

  • Exploration Emissions
    • Jeff Vukovich (EPA) shared average activity data for different periods.
    • Focused on activity for key Source Classification Codes (SCCs):
      • Mud degassing: spud counts
      • Hydraulic fracturing pumps: horizontal spud counts
      • Drill rigs: feet drilled
      • Well completions: number of completions
    • Different approaches (for projecting activity for the analytic years) discussed:
      • Choosing representative years and computing an average activity
      • Fitting a line (or curve) to a number of years and projecting to a near-term future year (2026); then hold emissions constant for analytic years farther in the future (2032 and 2038)
      • Basin-specific approaches
      • County-specific approaches
      • Include multiple years in a series or exclude 2020 (Covid year) and 2021 (rebound year) as unrepresentative?
      • Forrest Cook (U.S. Bureau of Land Management) discussed an approach that takes decline curves into consideration and projects future needs for new wells (new spuds) based on the need to maintain projected levels of production.

  • Point source emissions
    • Jeff provided a workbook for review; the workbook was used for the 2016v3 EMP
    • For points sources, specific combinations of National American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and SCCs would be projected into the future using characteristic projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administrations (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)

  • Controls for analytic years
    • Still working on approaches
    • Will solicit feedback from rule writers and will request contractor support
    • Discussed EPA's Control Strategy Tool (CoST)

  • Timeline (goals):
    • Begin review of analytic year emissions by mid-September
    • Conclude review by mid-October
    • EPA will take four to six weeks to evaluate comments and make necessary changes to the analytic year inventories
    • Analytic year inventories could be ready by some time in December (2024)

NOGEC Meeting 7/11/2024

  • Colorado State University Study on Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Wells in Colorado – Stuart Riddick (Colorado State University)
    • Investigators measured methane emissions from 108 plugged wells and 226 unplugged, abandoned wells in 17 counties in Colorado
    • No emissions detected from plugged wells
    • For unplugged wells, the wells with the highest emissions were newer, recently abandoned wells; these wells were shut-in, but had not yet been plugged.
    • Three super-emitting orphaned wells were identified in Adams County
    • Results of the study are being used by Colorado to help prioritize which wells to plug first
    • Summary of conclusions:
      • Plugging methods in Colorado are effective
      • For unplugged wells, the average emission rate was 70 times the previously reported national average
      • Unplugged well study average emission rate: 534 g methane per hour
      • Unplugged well U.S. average rate: 7.5 g methane per hour
      • Not all abandoned wells are equal emitters; it is important to properly characterize types of abandoned wells
      • Larger studies needed to characterize the long tail of the super-emitter distribution
    • The study is available at: https://energy.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2024/03/Methane-emissions-from-abandoned-oil-and-gas-wells-in-Colorado_STE.pdf

  • 2022 Emissions Modeling Platform Update - Jeff Vukovich (EPA)
    • Summary of the final 2022 Version 1 Emissions Modeling Platform (EMP) emissions from the oil and gas sector
      • Non-point sources
      • Point sources
      • A number of states requested state-specific approaches:
        • OK and WY projected data from the 2020 NEI
        • PA submitted unconventional well emissions
        • TX submitted compressor engine emissions
        • CO submitted state-specific emissions
      • Outside the tool (non-point) and facility emissions (point), EPA and contractors developed approaches for:
        • Abandoned wells
        • Blowdowns and pigging emissions
    • Timeline for future years (analytic years)
    • Discussion of options for exploration projecting activity for analytic years
      • Activity data available for 2014-2022
      • Currently planning on using the average of some number of representative years
      • Activity projections approaches could vary by basin
    • Discussed possible updates that could be incorporated into Version 2 (2022v2 EMP)

  • General information and action items - Michael Ege (Texas CEQ)

NOGEC Meeting 6/13/2024

  • 2022 EMP base year data update – Jeff Vukovich (EPA)
    • SLTs submitted comments on base year oil and gas emissions
    • EPA has resolved some comments and continuing to work on the remaining comments
      • Colorado shared a possible point and nonpoint source reconciliation issue
      • Washington, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota raised questions about emissions from abandoned wells
      • Wyoming provided point source corrections
      • Texas submitted tool edits and an alternative approach for calculating emissions from natural gas compressor engines

  • 2022 EMP analytic year (future year) update - Jeff Vukovich (EPA)

  • Additional Oil & Gas Projections Task Force Meeting Updates - Tom Richardson (Oklahoma DEQ)

Oil and Gas Projections Task Force Meeting 6/6/2024

  • Review the default approach used for the 2016v3 EMP.
    • Workbook (Excel spreadsheet) for nonpoint production SCCs and point source SCCs (primarily in the transmission segment)
    • Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) Reference Case and other cases/scenarios

  • Nonpoint exploration emissions
    • Reviewed historic time series, focusing on EIA data
    • Activity data (focusing on total well spuds and total feet drilled) for 2014 through 2022
    • 2023 activity data will be available later this year and could be used in the 2022v2 EMP
    • Action item: Please provide feedback to Jeff Vukovich on the preferred default exploration time series (e.g., 5 years: from 2018-2022 inclusive, 6 years: from 2017-2022 inclusive, or other alternative) by June 30, 2024

  • Control data for future years (analytic years)
    • The Oil and Gas Methane Rule finalized on March 8, 2024: New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Subpart OOOOb and Emission Guidelines (EG) Subpart OOOOc
    • The requirements associated with rules affecting engines (NSPS Subparts IIII and JJJJ; NESHAP Subpart ZZZZ) have already been incorporated into the EMP
    • Projections Outreach Call on June 18, 2024, will request additional information on new control requirements (affecting emissions from point and nonpoint sources), facility closures, fuel switches, and state rules affecting emissions from the sector.
    • If a state is not able to provide information in sufficient detail for use in Version 1 of the 2022 EMP, an optional narrative tab will allow states to share information on state requirements with the goal of incorporating those controls into Version 2 of the 2022 EMP.

  • Planning for future Task Force meetings:
    • The next meeting will discuss projection factors based on AEO + 2016EMP default approach
    • EIA historical data at state level will be from 2022 to 2023 to gauge one-year year change (2022-2023) + AEO projection to go from 2023 to FY

EIA Historical data:

NOGEC Meeting 5/9/2024

  • Colorado's Aerial Flyover & Intensity Verification Programs - Ben Hmiel (CDPHE/APCD)
    • Introduction to the ONGAEIR reporting system
    • Approaches used to increase accuracy in GHG reporting
    • Summary of past and present methane surveys
    • Charting a path forward toward reconciling state-level emissions
    • A "Find and Fix" approach using results from the survey program
    • Takeaway note: Inventories are always flawed but are always useful

  • 2022 Emissions Modeling Platform update – Jeff Vukovich (EPA)
    • EPA is accepting updates to 2022 base year emissions and to EPA tool inputs through May 17, 2024
    • Oil and gas emissions may be viewed using the EPA's 2022v1 EMP Data Retrieval Tool
    • The EPA Oil and Gas Emissions Estimation Tool, approaches used to estimate emissions from other sources (abandoned wells, blowdowns, pigging), memoranda, and other supporting information may be accessed using EPA's FTP site
      • Activity data
      • Emissions summaries
      • Monthly profiles by county-SCC
      • Speciation data
      • SMOKE-ready emissions files
    • Oil and Gas Projections Task Force (separate from the National Oil and Gas Emissions Committee (NOGEC)) will begin meeting later this month
      • If interested, please email Jeff Vukovich
      • Will refine default approaches for projecting 2022 base year oil and gas emissions to future years (analytic years)
      • Will discuss alternative approaches and how states can document their alternative approaches
      • Will continue reporting progress during the monthly NOGEC calls

  • State feedback on the 2022 base year oil and gas emissions generated from the EPA Tool - Michael Ege (TCEQ)
    • Some states have replaced the default approach used in the tool with a state-specific approach
      • Texas - different approach used to estimate emissions from engines driving compressors in natural gas gathering service
      • Texas - updates to the oil gas tool for crude oil loading operations, liquids unloading/blowdowns, and well completions
    • Other states have supplied alternative base year emissions

  • Information & Action Items – Michael Ege (TCEQ)

NOGEC Meeting 4/11/2024

Summary of Topics Discussed

  • 2022 EPA Oil and Gas tool updates – Regi Oommen (ERG) and Jeff Vukovich (EPA)
    • Discussion of the 2022 version of the tool that is being used for the 2022 Modeling Platform emissions
    • Tool will be released this week, and will be available to download
    • The tool uses 2022 activity data
    • EPA is asking for state feedback on updated default storage tank capture efficiencies incorporated into the tool
    • Additional Notes:
      • NOx and VOC emissions decreased by 11.2% and 8.8% compared to 2021
      • Decreases in emissions from emissions drilling and well completions mirrored changes in activity
      • Factors obtained from Subpart W reporting resulted in changes to emissions from all states

  • Additional sources in the oil and gas sector whose emissions are estimated outside of the EPA tool - Regi Oommen (ERG) and Jeff Vukovich (EPA)
    • Abandoned wells - approach developed in 2020 and updated for 2022
      • Approximately 3.9 million abandoned wells in the U.S.
      • Primary data sources for emissions estimates: Enverus (apprx. 2.8 million abandoned wells identified with location by county)
      • Historical USGS and state databases identify another apprx. 1.1 million abandoned wells
    • Blowdowns
    • Pigging emissions
    • Note that emissions from these sources will be included for evaluation in the 2022 EMP Data Retrieval Tool to help states review these emissions

  • Information & Action Items – Michael Ege (TCEQ)
    • Summary of latest content added to the Oil & Gas Emissions Information Repository, available at: http://vibe.cira.colostate.edu/ogec/home.htm
    • Request for state presentations on the impacts of the recently finalized Oil & Gas Methane Rule on state emissions and/or state work. Contact Jeff Vukovich or Michael Ege

NOGEC Meeting 3/14/2024

Summary of Topics Discussed

  • EDF’s study on Low-Producing Oil and Gas Wells – Jon Goldstein and Mark Omara (EDF)
    • Low-producing wells (less than 15 barrels of oil equivalent per day) account for 6% of the nation’s oil and gas production.
    • However, they are responsible for about half of the methane emitted from all wells sites.
    • These wells emit methane at a rate 6-12 times the national average.
    • Approximately 10% of the gas leaks directly to the atmosphere.
    • Study published in Nature Communications, and is available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29709-3

  • Reviewing the 2022 point source oil and gas emissions – Jeff Vukovich (EPA)
    • Summary of the draft 2022 inventory for oil and gas point sources.
    • Comparison of the 2022 point inventory with oil and gas point sources in the 2020 NEI.
    • Discussion of plans for future year (analytic year) projections and possible approaches for oil and gas point sources.
    • Discussion of the April 2024 review period.
    • Update on oil and gas sector work for the 2022 EMP.

  • Information & Action Items – Michael Ege (TCEQ)

NOGEC Meeting 2/8/2024

Summary of Topics Discussed

NOGEC Meeting 1/11/2024

Summary of Topics Discussed

  • Obtaining 2022 oil and gas activity data – Regi Oommen
  • Update on Modeling Platform work – Jeff Vukovich (EPA)
  • Information & Action Items – Michael Ege (TCEQ)

NOGEC Meeting 12/19/2023

Meeting Agenda
Meeting Recording

Summary of Topics Discussed