A Case for Implementing New Workflows With Continuous Monitoring Systems
Author: Kathy Jenkins, Customer Success Manager
Continuous Monitoring and New Workflows
Continuous monitoring (CM) systems enable oil and gas operators to continually monitor for methane emissions. But data and alarms alone will not stem an emissions event; dedicated operations and maintenance workflows are necessary to achieve positive outcomes from a CM system. The following use-case illustrates how new workflows can leverage CM data for better, faster emissions reduction outcomes.
The Case for New Workflows
A privately held Permian-basin operator deployed CM devices to a subset of the company’s facilities. Prior to deploying a CM system the operator’s emissions workflow consisted primarily of responding to semi-annual OGI inspections, tank pressure alarms, or field observations during normal rounds.
Once the CM system was implemented the operator had actionable data about the initial emission, the location of the probable source, and the volume of the emission at the time of the alarm. A new find-and-fix workflow was then implemented to effectuate the data:
When an emission is detected, the operator checks to see if equipment is functioning properly at the probable location of the emission. If the alarm can be verified and the equipment is functioning properly, the operator can clear the alarm and no further action is required.
If not, an operator or LDAR technician goes out to the field to investigate the leak by performing an AVO or OGI inspection. If additional maintenance is required it can be promptly scheduled. Finally, the alarm event response is recorded in the CM software or in the operator’s log and the alarm is cleared. Figure 1 illustrates the improved workflow.
Figure 1. Improved Workflow
The Results
The operator ultimately determined that most emissions were the direct result of field operation or equipment maintenance activities. Guided by lessons learned from actioning CM data, work practices that might create methane emissions were adjusted and unplanned fugitive leaks became rare. The operator was able to reduce the volume of monthly methane emissions by 79% year to year.
Figure 2. Monthly Methane Emissions
The operator was also able to respond to emissions much faster than when relying solely on information from semi-annual OGI inspections. The implementation of CM and new workflows decreased emissions in the project area by 74% from March 2022 to March 2023.
Figure 3. Daily Site Rate by Month
With new CM-informed workflows, the operator reduced find-and-fix times from an estimated 91 days to less than 24 hours - a 99% reduction.
Conclusion
The Permian Basin operator was able to reduce methane emissions because CM data can narrow down causes of an emission, target response resources, and verify that repairs or adjustments have fixed the problem. CM provides immediate feedback and the ability to track events in real-time because the system is measuring and reporting all the time.
But CM outputs alone do not fix leaks. The data must be acted on proactively and methodically to realize the benefits of real time emissions data. Efficient response protocols can be reproduced across facilities and teams for maximum benefit to an operator. Through the diligent application of best practices, effective repairs and adjustments, and new workflows that leverage CM data, operators can significantly reduce methane emissions over time and at scale.
This case study originally appeared in Reducing methane emissions: Implementing data science informed operation and maintenance work practices using continuous monitoring technology (Copyright 2023, Unconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTeC) DOI 10.15530/urtec-2023-3866061)
Download the full report here.