How can you compare GHG emissions across oil and gas companies and regions?

To compare GHG emissions across oil and gas companies and regions: 1. **Operational Boundaries:** Define whether you're focusing on direct (Scope 1), indirect (Scope 2), or broader value chain emissions (Scope 3). 2. **Geographic Coverage:** Specify the regions or countries included, considering regulatory, energy source, and industrial practice differences. 3. **Emission Sources:** Identify specific sources like production, flaring, venting, and transportation for each company to pinpoint improvement areas. 4. **Time Period:** Standardize data collection/reporting timeframes (e.g., yearly) for consistency. 5. **Normalization:** Normalize emissions based on metrics like production output to account for company size differences.

Look at total emissions data that companies report publicly. Compare overall emissions and emissions intensity. Use emission factors to estimate and compare emissions across various activities and geographical locations. Review company emission reduction targets and progress on meeting them. Use third-party datasets that compile emissions data across companies. Compare methane leakage rates from operations using satellite data and leak monitoring. Consider Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions for a comprehensive view across the value chain. Use consistent methodologies and data sources for objective benchmarking. Also, consider company ambition and transparency.

Green House Gases (GHG) are basically Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and Nitrous oxide (N2O) that absorb and trap heat leading to gradual temperature increase in the atmosphere. In Sub-Saharan Africa where Flaring still happen in the Upstream Oil & Gas, it makes up 90 - 98% of GHG emission though the Federal Government have started coming up with policies on penalties / fines on flaring, programmes such as NGFCP - Nigeria Gas Flare Commercialization Programme and the Regulators manadating Upstream operators to submit their GHG and fugitive emission quarterly data & management plan. All these strategies will drastically reduce the GHG emission in this region in no time so that compliance to the Paris Climate treaty can be achieved.

The scope one emission can be reduced by decreasing flaring of low pressure gas .This can be achieved by installation of micro turbines or Diesel engines fitted with Dynamic gas blending kits. Solar panels can be installed onshore and open center turbines using sea waves and current and wind mills can be installed offshore.

While this is a great place to start, it is worth adding one additional consideration. What are the scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions per bbl. Understanding the emissions per unit of production should help correct for company size discrepancies.

Scope of Emissions: Use consistent scopes as defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Scope 1 covers direct emissions from owned or controlled sources, Scope 2 includes indirect emissions from purchased energy, and Scope 3 involves indirect emissions from the value chain. Emission Factors: Employ consistent emission factors for calculating GHG emissions. These factors are specific to the type of activity or energy source and help standardize. By using these metrics and considering these factors, you can conduct a more meaningful and standardized comparison of GHG emissions across oil and gas companies and regions. Keep in mind that context, transparency, and a comprehensive understanding of the data are crucial for accurate assessments.

En la empresa en que laboro, se hizo el cálculo de huella de carbono en toneladas equivalentes de CO2 utilizando factores de emisión y datos reales de acuerdo con nuestras actividades operativas.

Fields emissions (broken down in various processes upstream, midstream and downstream) in tCo2e/day and Carbon intensity (kgCO2e/BOE or MWH)

One important indicator for establishing comparisons parameters is is to determine the potential GHG sources in O&G industry where mostly is methane. A good example is Venezuela Orinoco belt where extra heavy oil is associated to methane in a parameter called GOR (gas oil ratio), former Sincor oilfield started with 250scfm/barrel and consequently became higher with reservoir depleted. And good GHG reduction policy involves to uses this gas, for not flaring but use it for electrical generation, GLP plants etc. local laws must force the company to not vent or flare the associated gas. Plant design must involve using VRU compressor units, but unfortunately this units are not operating or are missed. Orinoco belt is a huge source of GHG.

It's important to review current and proposed government policies on GHG emissions and understand their structure. It's likely that the company already reported data in a similar format or metrics. Also, It is important to select a metric that is relevant to the study objectives and target audience.

Según mi experiencia en este tipo de medición de GEI, la mejor recopilación de datos es donde se desarrollan las actividades operativas con datos reales de producción, consumos de energía, consumos de combustible, etc

Third party data published by polluting companies is totally unreliable for obvious reasons. In lobbying government, I only use government data so I can say "if you have a problem with the data, you have a problem with your people ... fix that problem."

If transparency is a requirement for products or reporting note that you may need to capture batch based metrics. This would allow for life cycle analysis data to be quite specific based on time and space (where and when it was created). It is likely this is where the market is going. If you are trying to do Sustainability mass balancing this looks like a must for a consistent view of the products LCA disclosure.

La revisión del informe final es muy importante y debe hacerse detalladamente para poder asegurar que la medición haya sido representativa. En mi empresa el resultado final se comparó con el Registro Nacional de Emisiones México, (en Colombia aún no hay registro oficial de emisiones), correspondiendo a un rango bajo de emisión.

This does not mean that you have to manage the data centrally but allow for API's to use the data from as close to where it is mastered. This will reduce the possible duplication or incorrectness of the data. Also build out applications and services to use the same data, this can lead to some very useful hindsight that you may not have been looking for. There are many different tools out there for the calculation so pick wisely (excel might not be good enough depending the amount of calculations and sharing). Important note is to choose a tool that can do allot the requirements for now and the future.

Should organization be forced to communicate their emission data, approaches, methodologies, etc? Discuss There is a risk that is currently creating data sharing delays, this is that if true data is shared you could loose competitive advantage against your competitors. If you all follow the same approach and share data then you could work out the volumes of products that each is making.

Comparing GHG emissions across oil and gas companies and regions requires a multi-faceted approach that considers emissions data, industry benchmarks, technological advancements, and the context of regional regulations and practices.

In my opinion a mix of quantitative and qualitative approach would work: 1) Standardised Metrics:Use consistent metrics like emissions per unit of production. 2)Transparency:Evaluate companies' transparency in reporting emissions data. 3) Regulatory Compliance:Consider adherence to regional and international emission regulations. 4)Technology Adoption:Assess the use of cleaner technologies and innovative practices. 5) Carbon Intensity:Examine emissions produced per unit of energy or hydrocarbons extracted. 6) Industry References:Compare companies to recognised standards within the oil and gas sector (S&P, ESG , FT index, Paris agreement etc) 7)Transition Plans: Favour companies with robust plans for transitioning to cleaner energy.

Enviros for years have become experts at developing accounting systems to tell us how badly we are doing. Not one of these systems that I have seen uses any of the data to propose ways if doing it better. What's the point of measuring emissions if the data is not going to be used to improve any thing? Eg: I questioned an EP developed by my staff that accounted for the diesel usage of a fleet of quad trucks carting 800000 tonnes of rock on a round trip of 500 km for 8 months. No suggestions for reducing the amount of diesel were.offered in the EP? So what is the point of measuring it?

To set a Net-Zero Standard and align with the Paris Agreement, companies must focus on reducing their carbon emissions to zero, while also taking steps to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This requires a commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, investing in renewable energy, and transitioning to a more sustainable business model. Measuring their carbon footprint: This involves calculating the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by a company's operations and supply chain. Carbon offsetting: Companies can purchase carbon offsets to compensate for their remaining carbon emissions. This involves investing in projects that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, such as carbon capture and storage.

It’s better to consider end to end green house impact, from source to sink and all the components impact to green house emissions in between. That’s only way one can avoid greenwashing.