Subject: National Oil and Gas Committee Conference Call on Thursday, March 9, 2017

Meeting Minutes

Subject: National Oil and Gas Committee Conference Call on Thursday, March 9, 2017

Meeting time:March9,2:00-3:30 Eastern Standard Time

Call-in number:(866) 299-3188

Confirmation number:919 541 5455

Agenda

Welcome and roll call – Kathy Pendleton, TCEQ

Regions:

R1

R2 – NY (Ona)

R3 – WV (Dave)

R4 – NC (Andy Bohlman)

R5 – MI (Dennis McGeen?), OH (Tom Velalis another)

R6 – Diana Lundelius(EPA R6), Kathy Pendleton (TX), OK

R7 – KS (Lynn Deahl)

R8 – CO (Dale Wells), NM (Mark Jones)

MJOs:

WESTAR WRAP (Tom Moore)

WESTAR WRAP (Mary Uhl)

CENSARA (Theresa Pella)

MARAMA (Julie McDill)

EPA:

Jennifer Snyder

David Cozzie

Cindy Beeler

Brian Keaveny

Other:

ERG – Mike PringRegiOommen

Ramboll – John Graham & Amnon Bar-Ilan

Aether– Mark Gibbs

• New note taker is Ona Papageorgiou. We are looking for a backup note taker for those times when Ona will not be available.

• All Members: Please take a moment to review the notes since Ona is a new note taker and may miss items, especially for the first few months.

Withdrawal of the ICR - David Cozzie, EPA

• Effective 3/2/2017 – both part 1 operator and part 2 of the oil and gas ICR have been withdrawn. Facilities are no longer required to respond to the survey.
• Theresa – Has EPA received data to date? What would happen to that data? EPA responded by saying that they are looking at it and are researching how they must treat that data. Prior to 3/2/2017EPA received several FOIA requests and they are researching what they need to do.
• Mark Gibbs – Is there any info on how EPA Administrator Pruitt is planning on proceeding with data collection? Is there a docket available that state agency personnel could access to review data already collected? David Cozzie does not have insight into that.
• Ona asked how States may comment on the importance of this data. David responded that the ICR mailbox is still open if you want to comment.
• Theresa – does EPA have a deadline on response to FOIA requests? DavidCozzie said that they need to look into that.

Anyone looking to comment on the oil and gas methodologies and/or data in EPA’s draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015, comment period ends March 17th

Jennifer – updates were made to production and processing. Additional information available through the memos online. Final GHG inventory will be available 4/15. Comments due 3/17.

EI Conference - Jennifer Snyder, EPA

Extended deadline for abstracts to March 31st. Only received a dozen abstracts and hope to have a panel. Ona mentioned the ECOS group project that may be of interest to the group and that they will be submitting an abstract. EPA is still working on getting people from industry.

Discussionof 2014 V2 Oil and Gas Update –Jennifer Snyder, EPA

Tool posted on 2/17 – found issues with well counts for some States – they did find an error. Correction 2.1 was made available 2/21. If you haven’t downloaded the tool yet, the password is now Pi14Day. EPA uploaded documentation today to the same ftp site.

Classification of oil and gas wells. In 2011 EPA allocated wells based on one methodology – then in 2014 they changed to 100k standard cubic feet(scf) gas to barrel of oil ratio to match the definitions used by the GHGRP. As a result, more wells were designated as oil wells in the 2014 tool. OK put together an analysis. There is a chance that VOC and/or NOx may be underestimated due to the change in classification method. One suggestion was to go back to 2011 methodology. EPA is seeking input from Committee members.

Adam Eisele from EPA’s GHGRP group stated that GHGRP uses GORto determineapplicability of a number of regulatory requirements – a long history as to why they chose that. KS stated that different states have used different definitions for deciding whether a well is oil or gas. Jennifer (EPA) responded that it’s OK for states to define oil and gas as they see fit, as long as the EF follows accordingly. TX stated that GOR was used in the first iteration of OOOO rules.

Tom (OK) asked Amnon Bar-Ilan (Ramboll-Environ) about the process they used to develop basin factors and other input data for the CenSARA project. When they surveyed industry personnel, did they ask respondents to provide information based on the well classification method used in the state (basin) where the respondent operated? Did they link emission factors and basin factors to the well classification method used in 2011 tool? Answer: when they were building the tool they used IHS database – but he believes they were also using GOR. John said that they relied on the state definitions, but they may have also looked at other factors (e.g., API gravity of liquids). Regi – the backbone activity data was based on 2012 HPDI data pullforthe 2011 tool.

Mark Gibbs asked if it really matters if a well is defined as oil or gas. With more horizontal wells drilled into tight oil or shale gas formations, would it be better to develop average emission factors for the entire suite of wells by county or basin? Would that better reflect current industry practices instead of the artificial distinction that we are currently using? Michael Ege (TX) said process characterization is based on oil or gas. Diana (R6)responded saying that surveys indicate that wet gas vs dry gas will have different condensate production.

Julie (MARAMA) suggested that States have the ability to input the amount of oil produced and amount of gas produced rather than defining a well as oil or gas. It was suggested that we would need Stage 2 ICR information to follow through with Julie’s request. While EIA has different API gravities and HPDI tells you gas, liquid, and waterproduction this warrants more investigation. There was a question as to how we could define oil or gas specific operations if we utilized a throughput based system – like where do we apply artificial lifts? A fraction of an artificial lift? Equipment could be based on throughput rather than the numbers and types of wells.

WV – some data which has been reviewed in the HPDI data is incorrect – the reason is because the producers have historically submitted condensate as oil.

Mark – need to be aware of the granularity that is out there. And think about how we are capturing that.

Deadline for resubmission is May 31st.

BrainstormingOil and Gas 2017 Tool – Kathy Pendleton (TEQ)

Kathy sent out a table of recommendations for improvements in the oil & gas emissions inventory tool. The recommendations were broken out into high, med and low priority. It’s a combo of several documents so that we can keepbetter track of our priorities. Some came from the Ramboll report – those items have had a once over and are in regular font. The items which we have not gone over as a group are in red italic. Regardless of future EPA budget, we can still prioritize these items from our perspective.

Comparison using the 2014 tool with 2011 well, gas, and liquids classification methodology – are states interested in this? If yes, then EPA can make an effort to do this? Only for activity data. Are there downsides to using the 2011 methodology? State level comparison of emissions? Or oil vs gas production difference? Is there interest in a more detailed presentation onhow the activity data were assembled?

Changes were made in the well, gas, and liquids classification methodology from the 2011 tool to the 2014 tool. Have any states updated emission factors (e.g., the lb VOC per barrel of condensate or crude oil emission factor for storage tanks) to reflect the change in classification method? Mike Pring(ERG) did a quick check of the tool and he did not see any changes to those factors. Jennifer asked if conventional vs unconventional well splits are a high priority? For emissions from crude oil tanks, there are only 2 EFs. Jennifer noted that the tool was already divided into two components (exploration and production). If we add another well type for the unconventional wells, it would further complicate the tool.

Julie (MARAMA) and Tom (OH) - For states that have unconventional and conventional wells – they are forced to run the tool twice.

Abandoned wells analysis does not fit into this tool.

Fat tails could fit into this tool. – may not be as hard as indicated. Could we incorporate the effects of the fat tales by adjusting rule effectiveness? Data on leaks that remain unattended – times that thief hatch is left open? Cindy Beeler has research papers regarding fat tails – Also, David Lyon of EDF is doing his PhD on this topic - cannot speak on how that overlays to this tool. Could we try to account for it at some level of granularity? Theresa mentioned that we could have a call specifically focused on fat tails so that we can all discuss and assess. Tom Moore stated that one of the questionsthat needs to be addressed is how generalizableare these methods for estimating additional emissions associated with fat tails? How do we use data collected by researchers to inform the emission inventories developed by state air programs? How do we incorporate the data into the tool? Small air programs are struggling to adjust basin level factors. The MJO sponsored studies –which may have suggestions on how to incorporate fat tails with emission factors – are most likely due out early summer.

Tom Richardson (OK)–Are we trying to do too much? Perhaps we have received so much data from so many different sources that we are getting overwhelmed by the amount of information we could potentially incorporate into the tool. Should we focus on one or two key EFs for the 2017 inventory? If we focus on factors that have the highest potential impacts, we could leverage our resources to make incremental improvements.

Training & users guide – are the instructions adequate? States to look at them and give feedback.

Discussion of Priorities

Forecast year inventories. Is there somewhere where emission controls are being captured in the tool? States have ability to add emission controls. Several places are available. Regiwill email. Tom Moore reaffirmed that there is a place for this information. However, there is a question as to how many States actually use it. Perhaps an effort going forward will be to improve control info on certain processes so it’s in the tool and the resulting data gets incorporated into the NEI. Theresa asked whether States are entering their level of control. Julie said that PA collects actual emissions for unconventional methods and they include those data in their inventory submissions. For smaller wells (e.g., traditional vertical wells), they have a general permit which requires certain things to be in place, but the owner/operator is not required to report emissions from those wells. For the traditional wells, Pennsylvania used emission factors rather than facility-submitted emissions data.

There is a concern that, going forward, the tool may have a difficult time keeping up with new regulations and changing industry practices. Two general trends were discussed:

• Broad fleet controls and emission limits which may be applied to newer stationary engines
• State rules affecting various sources

Regi said they account for engine fleet turnover (for drilling rigs and hydraulic pump engines) using the nonroad model – this does not address the stationary source part of production which may also have broad fleet controls. No resolution now, but this is an important topic – we will revisit.

Summary of latest content added to the Oil & Gas Emissions Information Repository - Rodger Ames, CIRA ()

Action Items and next call,Thursday, April 13, 2017, 2:00-3:30 Eastern Standard Time; same call in number and confirmation number –Kathy Pendleton

Action item: Look at training and users guide and note any changes needed.