Fugitive Emission Management Program Effectiveness Assessment

Project Title: Fugitive Emission Management Program Effectiveness Assessment
Project Lead: Mr. Michael Beck Email: [email protected]

Project Lead Organization / Company Information:
Organization: Surface Solutions Incorporated

1. Statement of Capabilities of Project Team:

I entered the vent measurement / optimization industry in 1995. Founded my own company November 1999 focusing in, but not exclusively to, surface casing vent flow, gas migration, and stock tank gas metering. Part of these services dealt with project consultation satisfying AER, BCOGC and SMER requirements as I was asked to conduct testing across western Canada understanding specific reporting requirements. Since 1999 SSI has tested hundreds of emissions flow tests as mandated and as situations such as abandonment, CHOPS production, SAGD steam venting, etc. issues would arise. I would be asked to budget large projects (>200 well sites) and/or engineer proper testing procedures for special conditions while still maintaining testing compliance. SSI is an innovator not only in test design but also a leader in compiling reports and implementing state of the art technologies to measure venting/fugitive emissions. Please see attached CV’s of team.

2. Project management and control information:

Michael Beck B.ed; project manager / overall project direction, literature review
Mark Jickling; financial management, literature review
Skylar Carberry; field measurement, data analysis
Joshua Scott; field measurement, data analysis
Tyler Crain; field measurement, data analysis
Jeb Brown; field measurement, data analysis
Brandon Beck; reporting
Phase 1: $100/hour @ 80 – 120 hours per month
Phase 2: $120/hour labor; $1.50/km; $275/report; $325/ emissions test – $150 / additional day rental equipment if neccesary; $240/overnight subsistence; $30/day subsistence;

3. Project Plan (Scope & Deliverables):

Fugitive emissions will come from many sources. Once identified, a project scope and risk hazard assessment will be made for each test. A unique testing procedure (SOP) will be created as to not interfere with operations, yet safely test and meet our goals. SSI has been a leader in various testing apparatus – each meter will give inherently different readings at the low end of these flow rates. Consistency will be paramount across all testing surveys to make a cohesive study. Phase 1 will give SSI the time it needs to reference the best tool(s) to achieve consistent, reliable results. My team has knowledge in many different venting sources, this must be taken in to a large component when considering safety. Hazardous locations along with remote access and difficult weather conditions all play a role in accurate results. SSI has demonstrated 18 years of logistics planning that makes efficient budgeting, safe operations, and successful results as we have not had 1 lost time accident, environmental spill / issue, and I have longstanding repeat clients that trust SSI can get projects completed professionally. As I mentioned at the onset, the challenges will be in the various leak / emissions locations – safety will be priority and SSI will follow OH&S, as well as specific producer safe work policies on each specific task to over come the challenges of this project.

4. Budget & Payment Schedule:

Phase 1 – SSI will invoice weekly for hourly and travel if required.
Phase 2 – SSI will invoice each specific test. This is encouraged to help analyze the cost of tracking different types of tests in different environments. Phase 3 may conclude that the risk assessment along with high costs will prioritize regulations / mandates going forward.
Each field ticket MUST be signed for approval within 1 week (7days) of receipt giving enough time to look over the report that will be sent with field ticket. Critique and recommendations of the results can be given on a go froward basis after each test result has been evaluated.

5. References:

Klay Sallis – Jupiter Resources
Brian Antonio – EnCana Corporation
Ryan Kathol – EnCana Corporation

Please see attached

Attachments: http://auprf.ptac.org/wp-content/uploads/formidable/37/Surface-solutions-attachment.pdf

FEMP Rating

Capability of the team in terms of relevance to this project – sections #1, #3, #5 of the proposal apply (35%)

Ability to produce a scientifically credible project design, which will ultimately provide meaningful data and will assist with the informed-decision making/policy framework development process. (45%)

Quality of the proposal (20%)