Measure methane emissions to gain trust - an interview with Cindy Verhoeven

In her office in Kassel, Germany, Cindy Verhoeven demonstrates a handheld device to measure methane emissions. When using it at a site, a technician points the device’s nozzle to potential leak locations. The device sucks in gas, burns it internally and then analyses its gas content.

As an expert in measuring methane emissions, the Dutch mechanical engineer is familiar with operations’ most minor details. Verhoeven has a long history of making extensive, company-level plans for emission measurements and implementing them on-site. Currently, her job includes teaching methane measurement in and outside of Europe.

“I have worked my whole career in the oil and gas business and seen the change happening when the Paris climate agreement was made in 2015. Now the industry sees methane emission reductions becoming part of our licence to operate”, Verhoeven says.

“Before, methane emissions were not documented. Even today, when most people think they are measuring methane, they mostly estimate it. Now, we want to understand if those estimates are correct. That is why new and improved measurement methods are needed.”

Measurements for a licence to operate

Speaking of the reasons to measure methane emissions, Verhoeven says, “There can be savings on the rare occasion you find a huge emission you learned about. But to be honest, the cost is not the main argument. In most cases, the measurements cost more than what they save in molecules. However, the measurements bring other advantages that are difficult to express in monetary value. With emission mitigation, you demonstrate that you are operating safely and responsibly, which gains the trust of stakeholders and helps the environment while transitioning to cleaner alternatives. And with a growing regulatory landscape, these measurements are becoming part of daily life and licence to operate”.

“I see here in Germany that companies have now invited both non-governmental organisations and authorities to follow how measurements are done. That has a positive effect leading to more positive publications and helping the community understand what the industry is already doing to minimise environmental impact.”

Ambitious regulations for global use

“Even if companies start with lower-level technologies, where the regulation allows it, the trend that I see is that companies are developing corporate global standards to tackle methane. Companies also want to reduce emissions because they see the intrinsic need. The world is not accepting anything else, so they must do it right”, Verhoeven says.

“If you choose now, for example, to say we have used some satellite data, and we didn’t see anything, it might be acceptable now, but in a few years, this won’t fly anymore. Technologies are evolving rapidly and regulatory frameworks embed the use of the best available technologies at all times. This not only pushes boundaries for technological progress but also motivates companies to use those new or improved solutions. Accurate quantification and structural reduction of methane emissions is here to stay, and requirements are becoming stricter worldwide.”

Measuring methods must be combined

Verhoeven sees combining results from different measurement methods as essential.

“Because methane emissions come from a wide variety of sources, such as fugitives, venting, combustion and flaring of gas, different tools and methods are needed for measurement. Each technology allows you to discover new sources and complete the total emission picture. You can discuss the sensitivity of different measurements and the ideal measurement frequency. However, a mix of these measurement technologies is necessary to accurately quantify all emission types and understand emission behaviour in various circumstances.”

When using the traditional methods alone, errors can manifest as both over- and underestimates.

“Emissions are often overreported because general factors and estimations are being used, and they tend to overestimate the actual figures. At the same time, emissions are underreported because not all sources are included in the estimation.”

Verhoeven highlights the distinction between emission detection and quantification.

“Some technologies are very good at detecting leaks but not so good at telling you how much it is. You must carefully pick your mix of technologies to detect all emissions and be able to calculate a valid number that makes sense. There is not one technology that can do both very well in all circumstances.”

“One determining factor, which is often overlooked, is the dedication and skill of people. Even if regulations and the technologies are the best, it is not enough unless you have highly motivated people to go out and fix the leaks or make efforts to prevent emissions.”

Choose the harder way for reconciliation

Level 5 Reconciliation is a process required for members of the Oil & Gas Methane Partnership 2.0 (OGMP 2.0). It means comparing source-level inventories and measurements (Level 4) with site-level measurements to produce reconciled asset emission numbers (Level 5). Reconciliation is achieved when both bottom-up and top-down emission numbers match. While this exercise is more challenging than is often first assumed, companies invest a lot in developing and finding the right mix of technologies to achieve Level 5 Reconciliation.

“The original thought was that we need a bottom-up source-level approach for companies to find each individually emitting component. The idea of Level 5 was to give both companies and authorities a chance to validate the quality of source-level data with top-down measurements.”

“There are two approaches here. In the first approach, let’s say you have source-based data with a high uncertainty and apply a site-level quantification with a high uncertainty. For example, satellites provide limited information if you have low emissions. According to the OGMP technical guideline, reconciliation is achieved if bottom-up and top-down results fall within each other’s uncertainty interval. In the case of wide uncertainty intervals, reconciliation could be achieved, even though the absolute emission values from both data sets are miles apart. Within the OGMP guideline, there are commitments to improve, so ultimately, it would mean further research to explain the deviations and perform better measurements in the future. In the second reconciliation approach, you choose the best and most accurate way possible from the start. This might mean more effort initially, but it pays off further down the road. Successful reconciliation requires a deep understanding of all emission sources and behaviour of your facilities at the time of measurement. Having a complete and accurate emission picture and knowing all production or facility parameters not only makes reconciliation more feasible from the start, but it also allows further research in case of deviations. Explaining deviations leads to a better understanding of emission sources, allowing for emission reduction. This is our goal in the end.”

Emission costs will be rising

Verhoeven also sees the cost of emitting methane driving companies to invest more in measuring those emissions. The cost per tonne of methane emission will increase in the future.

At the same time, Verhoeven believes that regulations spur innovations that make technologies better and more affordable.

Different oil and gas companies, different needs

In the oil and gas value chain, there are many different types of companies, including production, transport, storage and distribution, and they all have different support needs when it comes to complying with modern standards.

“Oil and gas majors like Shell, BP and Total have strong innovation capabilities, funds and the means to research and deploy equal technology everywhere. But many smaller producers do not have similar means to dig into each new technology.”

Verhoeven increasingly sees service providers adapting to stringent regulations and more complex industry standards and taking on a consulting role to help their clients navigate the energy transition. Instead of providing a single commodity service, they now support their clients with a complete package for complying with applicable regulatory and industry-driven frameworks.

Verhoeven explains, “Many oil and gas companies have a huge information need. What do upcoming regulations and industry guidelines actually mean for my operations? How to choose the right technologies for an effective measurement programme? Where to start? Companies like Aeromon, who have a lot of in-house knowledge, can help fulfil this role and be much more than a measurement service provider”.

“Of course, it also means service providers should get out of their comfort zone. They need to collaborate with other companies to provide a wider scheme of measurements. They need to work together to achieve reconciliation of bottom-up and top-down results. It’s not just drone-based measurements, or it’s not just cameras, or it’s not just satellites. It’s a mix of several methods in the end bringing together all results. If you can deliver that smartly, you truly add value for companies.”

Service providers also need to improve

Verhoeven points out that it is wise for service providers to understand the developments in the industry.

“Our industry is not the same as 30 years ago. Not even as 5 years ago. Our industry unrightfully has a reputation of being conservative and unwilling to change. Oil and gas companies were never asked to change so rapidly before. Companies today are faced with many challenges at the same time. The costs for the industry are rising due to stricter environmental rules globally. Fewer investors are investing in fossil fuels, and the renewable portfolio needs to expand, which requires a lot of investment in new infrastructures that do not exist yet. At the same time, global demand for oil and gas is becoming more difficult to predict, yet production companies need to make choices now, based on predictions for the coming 30 years.”

Verhoeven adds, “Service providers should be aware that their service must be of a high-quality level but also a reasonable price. It becomes impossible to roll out cutting-edge technology on a large scale if the costs are too high, so creative thinking is needed”.

Dedicate a team for big data

Automation can contribute to cost management as well as to data quality. Handling large datasets is one of the main challenges. Verhoeven points again to the handheld measuring device in the room and says that it automatically transfers its measurements to an emission management database. A single company can easily have more than 500,000 touchpoints to measure, and measurements must be repeated multiple times throughout the year. Leaks must be followed up on and checked again. Automation makes this process manageable.

Verhoeven advises companies to “have a dedicated team for emission data management. Make sure there are in-house technicians who understand both the measurement programme and process installations. These technicians give necessary process information to service providers, such as Aeromon, to help interpret the measured values and bring reports to the required level of quality and accuracy. Service providers sometimes struggle to achieve this deeper cooperation with companies because it asks for longer-term commitments. Implementation and improvement of any emission management programme takes dedication, integration and time.”

Software must be developed further

“For processing data, you need specialised software. This [pointing to the PHX 42 FID device on the table] is only one measurement device that measures in a certain way. If you have different measurement technologies, emission calculation is different. In the case of an OGI camera, you visualise a leak – but how do you quantify the emission? By using Leak/No-Leak factors, or by using a quantification tool for direct measurement? And how about uncertainty for each applied technology? The limits of Excel are easily reached when you are thinking about different methods, thousands of sources, different gas compositions in processes and varying active hours, which all need to be taken into consideration when calculating the total emission over a time period. I think software development and data management are underestimated more than anything else in the measurement processes.”

Developing improved models and software is essential for improving accuracy in emissions data as companies work towards their reduction targets.

“Practically, you measure methane concentrations in parts per billion or parts per million, but you still have to do some magic to convert concentrations into grammes per hour or kilogrammes per year. Globally accepted conversion factors were originally not developed for methane, yet they are used because there is no alternative. This leads to large deviations, and therefore, the method needs to be improved. To make top-down emissions numbers more accurate, precise weather and wind data are key; Aeromon is implementing that very well already. Understanding all these varying circumstances at the time of measurement and improving different methods will be a significant development for which we all need to work together to reach our emission reduction commitments.”