Techno-economic-environmental optimisation of natural gas supply chain GHG emissions mitigation

While the natural gas (NG) suppliers are under unprecedented pressure to reduce their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) footprint, various emissions reduction technologies have become available. Comparing their GHG mitigation performance and cost effectiveness has thus become increasingly relevant. This research developed a novel and accurate set of tools for GHG emissions estimation and for the cost assessment of emissions mitigation options for NG chains. These were combined in a first time proposed techno-economic and environmental optimisation framework to identify effective and cost efficient GHG emissions reduction options for NG operations in a regional context. The Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology was used to develop inventory models for: offshore production and pre-processing, onshore processing and liquefaction, offshore pipeline transport and offshore Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) transport. The modular life cycle inventory models developed provide significant advances compared to previously developed models: (i) they capture the impact of different operational practices, technologies and climatic conditions on the emissions, (ii) emission estimations are made for the whole life of facilities, historically and with future projections, using a combination of material balance and engineering calculations; these are configured to the specifics of facilities analysed increasing substantially estimation accuracy, (iii) they enable the assessment of uncertainty for emission estimations. The models were validated using industry data for five NG chains with operations in Norway (2), UK, Australia and Bolivia. A methodology to compare the cost effectiveness of different emissions reduction technologies through Marginal Abatement Cost Curves was also developed for a large range of CO2 and CH4 emissions mitigation options. The cost models developed account for capital and operational expenditure, as well as effects on revenues and tax liabilities. The approach was validated using three of the NG operations studied, located in Norway (2) and Australia. Finally, a mixed-integer multi-objective optimisation model was developed to identify regional opportunities for GHG emissions reduction and cost minimisation in offshore upstream NG value chains through (i) joint power generation and (ii) connection with offshore wind farms. This model was tested for a set of 12 offshore platforms located in the UK Southern North Sea obtaining a 25% reduction of the network’s cumulative CO2 emissions over a ten year future period. This research has proven for the first time that there can be significant difference in GHG performance between neighbouring NG facilities, or within the same facility in consecutive years, found to be up to 54 and 44%, respectively. Moreover, it has shown that the embodied GHG footprint of NG product delivered at different markets will vary significantly even when it is originating from a single source. Thus, generic or regional averages, often employed by LCA practitioners, are not reliable for the industry’s own reporting and for regulatory purposes. In this context, policy makers should consider that imported NG may arrive with embodied GHG footprints varying by more than 50%. Moreover, to effectively identify which NG value chains or regions offer comparatively lower GHG footprints, it is necessary to perform value chain specific LCA studies, using real operational data at a unit process granularity. Regarding emissions reduction options and cost considerations, while integration with renewables and efficiency improvements could perform well for conventional offshore operations, in unconventional onshore operations, targeting well completions, casing and tank vents were shown to have a higher GHG reduction potential. The offshore Norwegian, onshore Norwegian and onshore Australian industry facilities studied were found to have added individual mitigation potential of 2,522, 346 and 13,947 ktonnes CO2 equivalent over investment horizons of 5, 15 and 10 years respectively. All the sites studied were also found to have abatement options with negative implementation costs. The industry and policy makers should, thus, consider that abatement potentials and costs vary significantly by facility depending on its characteristics and context.The implementation of the novel life cycle assessment and cost assessment tools developed in this research and the multi-objective techno-economic and emissions reduction optimisation framework enable for the first time GHG reporting of substantially increased accuracy and unique evidence in support of the efforts industry aims to employ to reduce their effects on the climate.Open Acces