Fugitive Emission Management Program Effectiveness Assessment

Project Title: Fugitive Emission Management Program Effectiveness Assessment
Project Lead: Ms. Lindsay Jackiw Email: [email protected]

Project Lead Organization / Company Information:
Organization: Saskatchewan Research Council

1. Statement of Capabilities of Project Team:

1.0 Statement of Capabilities of Project Team
In response to the Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada Methane Research Planning Committee (herein referred to as ‘MRPC’) request for proposal (RFP) titled “Fugitive Emission Management Program Effectiveness Assessment”, the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) is proud to present the following proposal. The assembled Project Team (herein referred to as ‘SRC’) includes scientific and engineering experts from SRC’s Energy and Environment Divisions and has approximately 55 years of combined experience directly related to the goal and scope of the Project. SRC is a provider of independent and reliable third-party assessments and specializes in developing and implementing customized, unique, and scientifically sound solutions. As such, SRC has the depth and breadth of experience required for successful completion of this Project (as defined in the associated MRPC RFP) without any conflicts of interests associated with provision of services in fugitive emissions management within the oil and gas industry in Alberta. The assembled Project Team offers demonstrated experience and extensive knowledge in Upstream Oil & Gas (UOG) operations including working with facilities on greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation and permitting and implementation of best available technologies, flaring and incineration requirements, conservation directives, and technology research and development in the areas of heavy oil upgrading, oil refining, and emissions reduction.

1.1 Company Profile
SRC is Saskatchewan’s leading provider of applied R&D and technology commercialization and is one of Canada’s leading research and technology organizations. For 70 years, SRC has worked with industries, government, and communities to develop practical, sustainable science-based solutions. Today, the company has evolved to become a market-driven corporation, selling services and products to companies around the world. The corporation has more than 350 staff serving about 1,500 clients each year in 20 countries around the world. Annual revenues are approximately $70 million and growing.

1.2 Project Team
Resumes for all team members are provided in Annex A of the attached document titled “Supporting Information and Annex A”.

1.2.1 Lindsay Jackiw, P.Eng – Project Manager/Project Direction/Field Support Lead
Lindsay Jackiw is an Engineer for Air and Climate, Environment Division, at SRC. She is currently Project Manager for two AUPRF projects focusing on methane emission detection and quantification for the oil and gas industry. Lindsay has previously served as a Petroleum and Environmental Engineer for the Government of Saskatchewan’s Ministry of the Economy. In addition to policy, program, and regulation development, she has knowledge and direct experience in the application of regulatory requirements to industry operations, as outlined in the Saskatchewan Oil and Gas Conservation Act and Regulations. Specifically, she has six years of experience in working with oil and gas facilities on GHG mitigation and permitting and implementation of best available technologies.

1.2.2 Darren Anweiler, P.Eng – Financial Mgmt./Technical Support
Darren Anweiler has over 25 years of experience in technology development, implementation, and technology management gained at DuPont, Invista Canada, and SRC. Darren has special skills in the design and implementation of scientifically credible studies for optimizing delivery of programs, commercial process technology, and process integration and intensification as applied to the manufacturing, petroleum, agricultural and forestry industries. Darren has designed and managed some of SRC’s most significant projects including due diligence assessment of >$1,000,000 portfolio of forestry technologies, >$2,000,000 biomass to ethanol technology development, and independent third-party assessment of technologies across various industrial sectors. Darren manages the Process Development Business Unit of the Energy Division, which has almost 50 years of experience completing technology research and development in the areas of industrial chemicals, combined heat and power, heavy oil upgrading, oil refining, produced fluid (emulsion) separations, renewable fuels (biodiesel, ethanol, and synthetic natural gas), fugitive and GHG emission reduction, and wastewater and solid waste management.

1.2.3 Erin Powell, PhD, P.Eng – Field and Technical Support
Erin Powell is a Research Engineer in the Process Development Business Unit, Energy Division, at SRC. Erin holds a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from the University of Saskatchewan and currently serves as an adjunct professor there. She received numerous scholarships and awards, including NSERC scholarships for both her Ph.D. and M.Sc. work and the award for most distinguished undergraduate in her engineering discipline. Erin has led multiple agricultural biomass to energy projects and energy and water integration studies for bioethanol fermentation facilities that involved detailed field audits and extensive data extraction of overall plant and unit process operating data including cross-validation. Erin will apply this knowledge in support of the site visits, and auditing and verification processes.

1.2.4 Susan MacWilliam, BSc, LCACP – Literature Review/Data Analysis Lead
Susan MacWilliam is a Sustainability and Compliance Specialist in the Environmental Performance and Forestry Business Unit, Environment Division, at SRC. Susan works closely with clients from industry, organizations, as well as government departments to identify and meet their environmental research needs. Susan has been responsible for leading, managing, and conducting research projects at SRC for the past nine years. She specializes in high-quality research and development using LCA- and environmental footprinting-based tools and methodologies to estimate the life cycle (i.e. raw material acquisition, manufacturing, distribution and transportation, use, and end-of-life) environmental impacts of products, processes, and systems. Susan is a Life Cycle Assessment Certified Professional, an approved greenhouse gas validator for the Alberta Renewable Fuels Standard, and is trained in RABSQ lead auditing, project management, and various international emissions standards.

1.2.5 SRC Business Intelligence – Literature Review Support
SRC’s Business Intelligence (BI) team is an enabling business partner in supporting strategic and sound business decisions at various stages of the project life cycle. The BI team provides research, insights, intelligence and analytics on a wide variety of topics, industries and markets to our clients and is well positioned to support the team with appropriate research capabilities for this project. Specifically, the BI team will assist in the identification and analysis of national and international programs.

1.2.6 Contingency Personnel
Personnel changes are not expected to occur prior to Project initiation or over the duration of the Project. However, SRC houses a number of highly qualified scientists and engineers from which to draw upon in the case that the team members identified in this proposal become unavailable to conduct the work. Any changes to personnel will be approved by MRPC prior to being implemented. Depending on the needs of the field study, SRC may subcontract, with approval from MRPC, certain field tests/measurements to local experts to minimize travel costs and maximize efficiencies. The need for subcontracting will be examined as part of the field study design stage of the Project.

1.3 Project Team Citations List
Table 1 of the attached document titled “Supporting Information and Annex A” provides a list of citations for selected Team Members as well as information on the relevance of the citations to the current scope of work.

1.4 Project Team Relevant Past Project List
Table 2 of the attached document titled “Supporting Information and Annex A” provides examples of relevant past project work conducted by the proposed Project Team and includes descriptions of each project duration, sector, cost, objectives, and Team Member roles.

2. Project management and control information:

2.0 Project Management and Control Information

Table 3 provides the Team Member roles, firm hourly rates as well as the number of work hours dedicated to the Project by each member. For ease of read, Table 3 is also provided in the attached document titled “Supporting Information and Annex A”.

Table 3 Professional fees and time dedicated to the Project for each Team Member.

Team member Role Hourly rate (CAD)* Number of work hours dedicated to Project
Lindsay Jackiw Project Manager/Project Direction/Field Support Lead $150.00 432
Darren Anweiler Financial Mgmt./Data Analysis/Technical Support $256.25 114
Erin Powell Field and Technical Support $212.50 300
Susan MacWilliam Literature Review/Data Analysis Lead $115.00 396
Business Intelligence Literature Review Support $150.00 20

*Includes overhead and profit.
**The field work will be charged based on time and materials in lieu of unit rates. This approach will better reflect the efficiencies that will be gained in field work execution over the duration of the project.

3. Project Plan (Scope & Deliverables):

3.0 Project Plan
MRPC has identified the need for an independent assessment of the effectiveness of fugitive emission management programs in a way that best management practices may be developed. This need will be met by conducting a global literature review on programs to manage fugitive emissions to better understand what factors influence the effectiveness of these programs, an analysis of research gaps within these programs, and a field study to gather information to close the identified research gaps and improve the effectiveness of the programs.

In response, SRC proposes the following work plan (Section 3.1), management of critical success factors (Section 3.2), and project management approach (Section 3.3) for achieving the Project goal and objectives.

3.1 Work Plan
The timing and format of suggested Project deliverables are presented with the Project budget in Table 5, Section 4: Budget and Payment Schedule. All draft reports will be submitted as both Word and PDF documents, meeting notes will be circulated via email, presentations will be developed using PowerPoint, and final reports will be provided in PDF. SRC will accommodate alternative formats at the request of MRPC.

3.1.1 Phase 1: Literature Review, Data Analysis and Field Study Design Recommendations Scope
The Project will begin with a kick-off meeting (teleconference) between SRC and MRPC to confirm the proposed Project scope, work plan, and timing and format of deliverables. The format and frequency of communication between SRC and MRPC will also be defined during the initial Project meeting. The kick-off meeting will be held at MRPC’s convenience within one week of signing the Project agreement.
After confirmation of the Project scope and work plan, SRC will conduct a global literature review of programs to manage fugitive emissions. This review will be a comprehensive examination of the factors within each stage (i.e. design, construction, operation, maintenance, and repair) of UOG activities that influence the effectiveness of these programs. SRC will review the information sources recommended in the RFP, as well as additional sources identified by the Project Team based on their experience and knowledge. SRC will focus the review on best available and currently implemented technologies. The sources of information include, at a minimum:

• US EPA NSPS Technical Support Documents or other regulatory support documents;
• Data from UOG operations, including relevant supporting data from the US, Canada, Eastern Europe and other jurisdictions as identified as pertinent during the review;
• Peer-reviewed studies such as those conducted by Environmental Defense Fund, Carbon Limits, and PTAC;
• Clearstone Inventory and Emission Factor reports;
• Industry Associations and Regulatory Agencies across multiple jurisdictions;
• Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) engineering standards for leak detection and repair; and
• Best management practices for leak detection and repair for other utilities such as compressed air and steam.

Once the literature review findings have been complied, gaps within the research will be identified for consideration in the development of a field study designed to gather improved data. All areas of interest identified in the RFP for inclusion in the summary of the literature review will be included; namely leak contribution factors and information on leak size, existing quantification methodologies used to develop emission factors, the methane emission reduction potential of management programs, applicability to Canadian operations, and relevant knowledge from industries other than UOG. SRC recommends a draft report be submitted to MRPC for review at this stage to collect and incorporate feedback prior to developing recommendations for the field study design.

After incorporating MRPC feedback on the draft report, SRC will develop recommendations for the design of a scientifically rigorous field study. These recommendations will include detailed and scientifically valid approaches to data collection (including data requirements, data quality requirements, sample size and representativeness, and collection methods), data assessment (including quality, uncertainty, representativeness, and comprehensiveness), as well as clear definitions of the roles and responsibilities of all individuals participating in the field study. The design of the field study will be heavily influenced by the findings of the literature review and ongoing discussions with MRPC. The draft report describing the findings of the literature review will be updated to include SRC’s recommendations for the design of the field study. The field study will be designed to be conducted in the UOG industry in Alberta and will describe in detail the proposed resources, equipment, measurements, frequency, site requirements, and suggested sample sizes, as informed by the results literature review. The updated report will be provided to MRPC for review.

Phase 1 will be completed on or before May 31, 2018. Deliverables in Phase 1 include meeting notes (emailed within one week of kick-off meeting), a draft literature review and gap analysis (March 2, 2018), and a draft design for the field study to be conducted in Phase 2 (May 18, 2018).

3.1.2 Phase 2: Initial Field Study, Data Analysis and Preliminary Reporting Scope
Once MRPC has reviewed the draft field study design and provided feedback to SRC, a teleconference will be held between the Project Team and MRPC to identify and discuss the tasks required to finalize the field study design. Preliminary agenda items for discussion include:

• Identification of sites employing detection and mitigation approaches that could serve as a baseline, as well as sites employing alternative approaches such as best management practices in order to allow for a comparative analysis;
• Requirements and logistics of audio, visual, olfactory (AVO) inspections;
• Design and deployment of surveys to pre-determined UOG operators for collecting information on leaks to support and inform root cause analysis, examination of seasonal variations, and identification of trends; and
• Review and confirmation that proposed field study design optimally manages key factors influencing quality of audits

After the conference call, SRC will work closely with MRPC to finalize the design of the field study. As a result of past project experience, SRC recognizes the value of collecting detailed information on sites and operations of interest in order to develop targeted and effective surveys. In addition, SRC will work with MRPC and Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to finalize site selections and other pertinent arrangements for conducting the field study. SRC will also work with MRPC and AER to ensure participating UOG operators are sufficiently prepared for the field study to minimize their efforts and maximize the effectiveness of the information collected.

SRC anticipates approximately three rounds of site visits between spring and winter will be required for conducting the field study; however, these details are subject to change based on the development of the Project. As shown in Table 5, Section 4: Budget and Payment Schedule, SRC has allocated a portion of the Project funds to cover field equipment, testing, and measurement requirements. These requirements may be fulfilled by SRC, or may be subcontracted to local experts, depending on the results of the literature review and discussions with MRPC.

The field study will be conducted between June 1, 2018 and December 7, 2018, with subsequent data analysis and preparation of a draft report summarizing the findings being completed by Feb 15, 2019. The subsequent data analysis will include all areas identified in the RFP such as a comprehensive examination of the effectiveness of AVO inspections, surveying, and repairs on fugitive emissions management. In addition, the data analysis will include an assessment of the rate of occurrence for each cause of leaks, a concise but thorough comparison of the findings of the field study to the literature review, and an accounting of the limitations of the overall study.

SRC will provide the draft report to MRPC for review and incorporate feedback prior to finalizing the report on or before March 1, 2019. SRC will deliver, prior to the end of Phase 2 (i.e. March 29, 2019) a presentation to the PTAC Air Research Forum and to MRPC describing project progress and findings from both Phase 1 and 2.

3.1.3 Phase 3 (potential): Subsequent Field Study, Data Analysis, Peer Review and Final Report Scope
In the case that additional field measurements are required after the completion of Phase 2, SRC will, at the request of MRPC, conduct a follow-up field study. The scope and timelines for Phase 3 are to be determined based on Project need and in association with MRPC.

3.2 Critical Success Factors and Key Strengths of the Project Team
SRC has identified the following as the critical success factors for this work:

• Regular and effective communication between Project stakeholders including scheduled project updates and feedback periods;
• Experience in designing and conducting scientifically valid field studies with appropriate sample sizes to ensure findings support the goal of the Project; and
• An understanding of Project data requirements, quality, uncertainty, representativeness, and the effects and limitations of these factors on Project findings.

In addition to the relevant expertise and knowledge offered by SRC, the Project Team has additional strengths that will ensure the critical success factors of the Project are appropriately addressed and the Project meets the needs of MRPC. SRC has a proven track record of achieving and maintaining high client satisfaction, in part due to the effective communication plans employed. All members of the Project Team are well accomplished in using scientifically valid methods and in understanding the data needs and limitations of a project.

3.3 Project Management Approach
3.3.1 Quality Control and Assurance
Rigorous and proven project management principles will be applied by the Project Manager to ensure that the Project meets MRPC’s needs within the time frame and budget specified in this proposal. In the case that concerns or projected deviations from the work plan or budget arise, SRC will notify MRPC by email or phone in a timely manner.

3.3.2 Communication Plan
To ensure SRC and MRPC are in regular communication, monthly progress reports will be provided to MRPC. Progress reports may be in the form of email or Word and PDF document and will summarize work to-date and any deviations from the agreed upon Project plan including timelines and budget.

3.3.3 Risk Management Approaches
Table 4 of the attached document titled “Supporting Information and Annex A” shows the potential Project risks and proposed risk management approaches.

4. Budget & Payment Schedule:

4.0 Budget and Payment Schedule
Table 5 of the attached document titled “Supporting Information and Annex A” provides a breakdown of the proposed Project budget; including Project tasks for each Phase of work, scheduled deliverables, due dates, work hours and cost per task, and a suggested payment schedule. Below is a summary of the Project budget (in CAD).

Phase 1: $74,000
Phase 2: $216,800
Phase 3: TBD
Total of Phase 1 and 2: $290,800

5. References:

5.0 References

Doug MacKnight
Assistant Deputy Minister
Petroleum and Natural Gas
Saskatchewan Ministry of the Economy
Ph: (306)787-2082
Doug.[email protected]

Reynald Lemke
Research Scientist
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Saskatoon, SK
Ph: (306)385-9444
[email protected]

Tom Lakusta
Manager, Forest Resources
Government of the NWT
Hay River, NT
Ph: (867)874-8232
[email protected]


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%)