1 DOE Office of Natural Gas and Petroleum Technology Overview of Environmental Program Retroactive Metrics Analysis July 2000.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Committee and Research – Where are we and where might we be going?
Advertisements

Update on NRC Low-Level Waste Program – Major Activities Large Scale blending of LLRW -Issued guidance to agreement states for reviewing proposals for.
Natural Gas Extraction: Issues and Policy Options Presented by Shannon L. Ferrell Larry Sanders Oklahoma State University February 27,
1 CPUC Avoided Cost Workshop Environmental Externality Avoided Cost.
DEQ Mission By the end of the decade, Virginians will enjoy cleaner water available for all uses, improved air quality that supports communities and ecosystems,
“Sustainable Water Management in the Oil and Gas Industry” John Tintera PG #325 Blythe Lyons Katie Carmichael Texas Alliance of Energy Producers.
OHIO ENERGY POLICY PROGRESS & REVIEW UCEAO 6 th Annual Conference Securing Ohio’s Energy and Economic Future THE BEST OF TIMES, THE WORST OF TIMES: ADVANCED.
Clean Water Act Integrated Planning Framework Sewer Smart Summit October 23, 2012.
Yuji MIZUNO Institute for Global Environmental Strategies Baseline for Waste Management Project Regional Workshop in Asia on Capacity Development for the.
Cost Benefit Analysis of proposed reforms to water access for Petroleum & Gas Projects Qwater Conference 7-8 November 2014.
1 Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Processes in Louisiana James H. Welsh Commissioner of Conservation.
Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP DGSLAW.COM Dave Neslin Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP Former Director of the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Environmental.
EPAs Proposed Ground Water Protection Standards 40 CFR 192 an Industry Perspective Peter Luthiger Mesteña Uranium LLC.
BASELINE POLICY FRAMEWORK Dina Mackin, CPUC Workshop on Energy Efficiency Baselines April 28, 2015 California Public Utilities Commission1.
SB4 Implementation & Kern County Oil and Gas EIR Update Air and Waste Management Association – Golden Empire Chapter Western States Petroleum Association.
Injection of Gas and Improved Oil Recovery - the Norwegian Experience By Steinar Njå, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.
NPDES Compliance. NPDES Water Quality Issues for the Precast Concrete Industry.
Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13 August 26, 2009 SCAQMD Diamond Bar, California.
STRONGER State Review Process Presentation to the EPA May 2005 Lori Wrotenbery.
Developing a Waste Water Discharge Fee Programme in Sri Lanka Kolitha Himal Muthukuda Arachchi Deputy Director General, Pollution Control Central Environmental.
Staying on Top of Permits & Public Comments Public Comments Policy Track: Sunday, February 28, :30 pm.
Is Natural Gas the Answer for Electricity Generation? Issues and Considerations October 14, 2011 Bruce Baizel Staff Attorney Earthworks Durango, Colorado.
Proposed Regulated Waste Framework Julian Chan - EHP.
OnLocation, Inc., Energy Systems Consulting Estimating Benefits of Publicly Funded Energy Technology Research: U.S. GPRA Benefits Analysis Brian Unruh,
Methodology for Energy Savings claim for Incentive Programs and Codes & Standards(C&S) accounting Presented by: Armen Saiyan P.E. For the California Technical.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Roger Seitz Addressing Future Human Actions for Safety Assessment Summary from CSM on Human Action And Intrusion.
California Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands (CRAM) Project and Ambient Assessments.
Opting for “Long Term Operations” Technical, economic and regulatory considerations MARC Conference June 8, 2010 Sean Bushart, EPRI Sr. Program Manager.
The STRONGER State Review Process -Draft Air Quality Guideline ● Martz Summer Conference June 6, 2014 Bruce Baizel Chair, STRONGER Board
BART Control Analysis WESTAR August 31, 2005 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Todd Hawes
Preparation of Control Strategies October 18, 2007 NAAQS RIA Workshop Darryl Weatherhead, Kevin Culligan, Serpil Kayin, David Misenheimer, Larry Sorrels.
Horizontal Natural Gas Fracking Nicki Neu CBE 555 – Fall 2012.
Stationary and Area Source Committee Update OTC Committee Meeting September 13, 2012 Washington, D.C. Hall of the States 1.
OVERVIEW OF OIL & GAS EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT and STATE REGULATION OVERVIEW OF OIL & GAS EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT and STATE REGULATION February 18, 2012.
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES.
Presumptive MACT For Municipal Solid Waste Landfills July 1999 Emission Standards Division US Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA Chesapeake Bay Trading and Offsets Workplan June 1, 2012.
Pilot Projects on Strengthening Inventory Development and Risk Management-Decision Making for Mercury: A Contribution to the Global Mercury Partnership.
New Brunswick Energy Policy Overview June 23, 2015.
1 WRAP Oil & Gas Phase II Work Plan: 2002 and 2018 Area Source Inventory Improvements and Area Source Controls Evaluation WRAP Stationary Sources Forum.
Oregon Department of Transportation Stormwater Management Initiative: Meeting New Challenges Presented by: William Fletcher, ODOT February 5, 2008.
Background very brief summing up of the NSS conclusions Background very brief summing up of the NSS conclusions Dr. Elewa.
CALIFORNIA’S AIR TOXICS PROGRAM: IMPROVEMENTS TO ASSESS HEALTH RISK Update to the Air Resources Board July 24, 2014 California Environmental Protection.
Discussion And Request For Direction Relative To Strategic Directive 8.3 Regulation Reviews For Alternative Daily Cover And Food/Green Waste Composting.
CEQA and Climate Change Evaluating & Addressing GHG Emissions from Projects Barbara Lee, CAPCOA.
Impacts of Environmental Regulations in the ERCOT Region Dana Lazarus Planning Analyst, ERCOT January 26, 2016.
Preparation Plan. Objectives Describe the role and importance of a preparation plan. Describe the key contents of a preparation plan. Identify and discuss.
Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships… “Pathways to Sustainable Use of Fossil Energy”
Draft Seventh Power Plan Meets RTF. Key Finding: Least Cost Resource Strategies Rely on Conservation and Demand Response to Meet Nearly All Forecast Growth.
Water Quality Rulemaking in Response to S.L
Garry Kaufman Air Pollution Control Division.  Background on Oil and Gas Air Regulation in Colorado  Basis for Additional Air Quality Requirements for.
Environment Mick Borwell Environmental Issues Director.
Reaching New Heights Tools and Data for air quality planning in the Intermountain West Intermountain West Data Warehouse Presenter: Agency: Contact Information:
Unconventional Hydrocarbon Exploration Planning Workshop Date: 26 th January
1 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Water Use Efficiency Master Plan Elizabeth Lovsted, PE Senior Civil Engineer January 16, 2016.
Results of the Review of MSW Landfill Regulations from Selected States and Countries Landfill Facility Compliance Study presented to California Integrated.
Shale Oil Exploration Planning Workshop Date: 16 th January
Improving Oil & Gas Emissions Tool Inputs Using Industry Surveys and Permit Data Mark Gibbs Environmental Programs Manager Emissions Inventory Section.
Bureau of Land Management Federal Coal Leasing Program Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Meeting Supporting Text.
Environmental Management Division 1 NASA Headquarters Environmental Management System (EMS) Michael J. Green, PE NASA EMS Lead NASA Headquarters Washington,
Natural Gas Extraction: Issues and Policy Options
Oil & Gas Growth Projections, Decline Curves, and Emissions Estimates
Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
10 CFR Part 61 Low Level Waste Disposal Rulemaking Update
Impact Evaluation Terms Of Reference
Indepth assessment economic analysis progress report SCG meeting May 2008 Maria Brättemark, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European Commission.
Ruth E. McBurney, CHP CRCPD NCRP
Major New Source Review (NSR) Part 2
Addressing Future Human Actions for Safety Assessment
Status of Preliminary Reasonable Progress Analysis
Presentation transcript:

1 DOE Office of Natural Gas and Petroleum Technology Overview of Environmental Program Retroactive Metrics Analysis July 2000

2 Background Forward Environmental Metrics Analyses Capture the Projected Future Benefit of Current ONGPT Environmental Program Activities 3 Previous Environmental Metrics Analyses –1996 –1998 –2000

3 Background How can ONGPT Capture the Current and Past Benefit of Environmental Program Activities? Was the ONGPT Environmental Program as Effective as Predicted in the Forward Environmental Metrics Analyses?

4 Retroactive Environmental Metrics -Objectives Estimate the Actual Impact of ONGPT Environmental Program Activities for Extend the Estimated Impact of ONGPT Environmental Program Activities to the Near Term, : –to capture Environmental Program Benefits up to the point at which the 2000 Forward Metrics begins.

5 Retroactive Environmental Metrics - Objectives, (cont.) Compare Retroactive Metrics Analyses with Projections from the 1996, 1998, & 2000 Environmental Metrics Analyses Did the ONGPT Environmental Program Actually have the Impact on –Production, –Environmental Compliance Costs –Revenues and Royalties, – Employment, etc. Predicted by Previous Forward Environmental Metrics?

6 Review of Technical Approach for Forward Environmental Metrics Analyses

7 Forward Environmental Metrics Review 6 Categories of Environmental Issues that Affect Oil and Gas E&P –Drilling –Produced Water Management –Production Waste (Associated) Management –Remediation –Air Emissions –Other: Spills, Underground Injection, Regulatory Streamlining

8 Forward Environmental Metrics Review Identify Individual Environmental Issues Develop alternative future regulatory or compliance technology scenarios for each environmental issue. Estimate relative impact/influence of ONGPT Environmental Program activities for each environmental issue

9 Forward Environmental Metrics Review Estimate unit incremental compliance cost ($/well) for future environmental requirements –Probabilistic, “expected value” methodology –Reservoir level costs applied through Oil and Gas Environmental Model Three Cases Distinguished by Magnitude of Incremental Environmental Costs: –With DOE (DOE + Industry) –Without DOE (Industry Only) –Stringent

10 Forward Environmental Metrics Review Incremental Environmental Costs to Oil System Analysis & Gas System Analysis Models (OSAM) (GSAM) Estimated Future ONGPT Environmental Program Benefit is Difference between With DOE Case & Without DOE Case –(With DOE Case) - (Without DOE Case) = Estimated ONGPT Environmental Program Benefit

11 Forward Environmental Metrics - Regulatory Issues $ Incremental Environmental Compliance Cost $0 Stringent Case Industry Only Case (Without DOE ) With DOE Case ONGPT Environmental Program Benefit

12 Forward Environmental Metrics - Technology Issues $ Incremental Environmental Compliance Cost $0 Stringent Case Industry Only Case With DOE Case ONGPT Environmental Program Benefit +$ -$

13 Retroactive Environmental Metrics Based on Technical Approach Developed for Forward Environmental Metrics Evaluates Actual ONGPT Environmental Program Involvement For Each Environmental Issue Considered in the 1996, 1998 & 2000 Analyses Reservoir Level Incremental Environmental Compliance Costs Developed for 3 Cases: –With DOE Case (Baseline Case) –Industry Only Case (Without DOE Case) –Stringent Regulation or Limited Technology R&D Case

14 Retroactive Environmental Metrics $ Incremental Environmental Compliance Cost $0 Stringent Case Industry Only Case With DOE Case = Baseline ONGPT Environmental Program Benefit

15 Retroactive Environmental Metrics- Environmental Issues Regulatory Issues 31 Issues –23 Onshore, 8 Offshore & Coastal General Selected Issues: –Onshore Drilling Waste Management –Offshore Synthetic Drilling fluid –Offshore Drilling Waste Management –Drilling in Wetlands Onshore Produced Water Disposal –Offshore Produced Water Disposal –Offshore Air emissions Control –Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Issues Issues –10 Onshore, 2 Offshore Selected Issues: –Regulatory Streamlining –Onshore Drilling - Waste Volume Reduction –Onshore Wetland Mitigation –Onshore Produce Water Technology - Water Treatment –NPDES Stormwater Permitting –Salt Cavern Disposal E&P Waste

16 Retroactive Environmental Metrics - Incremental Cost Cases With DOE Case (DOE + Industry) –Represents the Current Scenario: Actual Compliance Costs with Existing Technology –Baseline Environmental Compliance Cost –$ 0 Incremental Environmental Compliance Cost

17 Retroactive Environmental Metrics - Incremental Cost Cases Stringent Regulation/ Limited Technology R&D Case –Regulatory Issues: Represents the Most Stringent Feasible Outcome of Pending Regulatory Requirements ( “the worst that could have occurred”) –Technology Issues: Represents What Incremental Environmental Compliance Costs “Might have Been” –Technology: Estimates Increased Costs Due to Limited Technology R&D and Less Technology Penetration.

18 Retroactive Environmental Metrics - Incremental Cost Cases Industry Only Case (Without DOE) –Represents the Incremental Environmental Cost Outcome that Might have Occurred without DOE Environmental Program Participation –Estimates the Past Level of DOE Environmental Program Activity (DOE Program “Weighting Factor”) –DOE Program “Weighting Factor” Establishes the Industry Only Case Incremental Environmental Costs

19 Retroactive Environmental Metrics - Incremental Cost Cases Industry Only Case, Incremental Environmental Compliance Cost Example: Industry Only Incremental Cost = ( Stringent Case Cost - With DOE Incremental Cost) x (Estimated DOE Program Weighting Factor) Industry Only Incremental Cost = ($1000/well - $0/well) x (0.40) = $ 400/well

20 Retroactive Environmental Metrics $ Incremental Environmental Compliance Cost $0 Stringent Case Industry Only Case With DOE Case = Baseline ONGPT Environmental Program Benefit

21 Retroactive Environmental Metrics - Incremental Cost Cases DOE Program Weighting Factor Represents the Estimated Level of ONGPT Environmental Program Involvement or Participation in each Environmental Issue Considered in the Retroactive Metrics Analysis This Estimate is Critical to Defining the Industry Only Case and thus the Total Environmental Program Benefit

22 DOE Environmental Program Weighting Factors - Regulatory Issues Regulatory Weight 1.- Passive comments on rulemaking Written comments Active comments on rulemaking Fund analysis that provides basis for comments Facilitate dialogue between Industry and Government Collect data on industry practices Baseline practices for rulemaking process Active data collection for rulemaking process that involves new research Enforcement action avoidance: Operator compliance, workshops, guidance documents, general permits, Risk Based Data Management

23 DOE Environmental Program Weighting Factors - Technology Issues Technology Weight 1.- Provide some project funding with resulting “report on shelf” Cooperative research agreements such us Petroleum Environmental Research Forum 0.15 – Fund research in initial development stage, pilot projects, seed money, etc Collect data on industry practices Baseline practices for rulemaking process Active data collection for rulemaking process that involves new research Enforcement action avoidance: Operator compliance, workshops, guidance documents, general permits, Risk Based Data Management

24 Retroactive Environmental Metrics - Modeling Considerations Oil and Gas Environmental Cost Model –Model generates reservoir-level incremental environmental costs (as opposed to state-level environmental costs) on issue by issue basis. –Model allows random assignment of full incremental compliance cost to an appropriate percentage of potentially affected reservoirs For example: Scenario ‘A’ assigns $1000/well to 20% of reservoirs in State ‘B’. Twenty percent of reservoirs are selected & receive full $1000/well. Previously, all wells in State ‘B’ would have received $200/well.

25 Retroactive Environmental Metrics - Modeling Considerations Oil and Gas Environmental Cost Model, cont. To avoid double counting of DOE Environmental Program Benefits claimed in 2000 Metrics: Benefits Claimed for Retroactive Environmental Metrics start during and end during , depending upon when each issue starts in the 2000 Forward Environmental Metrics Exercise.

26 Retroactive Environmental Metrics - Modeling Considerations, cont. $ Incremental Environmental Compliance Cost $0 Stringent Case Industry Only Case With DOE Case = Baseline Retroactive Environmental Program Benefit Forward metrics issue starts in Projected to Stringent Without DOE With DOE Future DOE Program Benefit EXAMPLE Retroactive Metrics Issue: Program Benefit Claimed for

27 Retroactive Environmental Metrics - Modeling Considerations OSAM & GSAM –Baseline environmental costs have been reviewed & updated to incorporate new data/analyses. –OSAM & GSAM to be calibrated to match actual production & price tracks for –Models will be run for

28 Retroactive Environmental Metrics - Baseline Environmental Costs Data Sources: –Assessing the Cost of Environmental Compliance. IOGCC, December –Basic Petroleum Data Book. API, July –1997 Baseline costs Updated for 1998 Metrics. ICF, 1998 –Petroleum Industry Environmental Performance. API, May 1998

29 Retroactive Environmental Metrics - Average Baseline Compliance Costs (for ; all regions, depths, resource types)