Layer | Fill | Outline |
---|
Map layers
Theme | Visible | Selectable | Appearance | Zoom Range (now: 0) |
---|
Fill | Stroke |
---|---|
Collaborating Authors
Results
Abstract The effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory and other policy approaches intended to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels can hinge on the fuel life-cycle analysis (LCA). Emerging regulation has raised urgent questions about both definition and evaluation of life-cycle emissions, and the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of regulatory approaches which use such analyses. This paper focuses on the LCA for transportation fuels from unconventional hydrocarbon sources and associated regulatory issues and implications, and examines these in the context of experience gained in the study of conventional hydrocarbon sources, biofuels, electric vehicles, and other alternatives. Critical issues arise in the regulatory use of life-cycle emissions analysis when comparing different types of fuels, for different types of vehicles, including:Uncertainty in life-cycle emissions - Differences in estimates of the life-cycle emissions for one fuel can exceed the differences in estimates for different fuels; boundaries, accounting, aggregation and accuracy of LCA are each critical and determining issues in its application in regulations. Flexible pathways - In order to incentivize innovation in fuel production, many pathways (with the ability to be altered) are needed to map production from each individual agent, who will each have their own process. Energy security - Regulation to lower the life-cycle emissions is often also intended to improve energy security (e.g. by increasing supplies of indigenous biofuels); however, in the case of unconventional sources of oil such regulations may aggravate energy security. For complex policies, such as those involving LCA - especially where there are international ramifications - much broader dialogue is needed to improve the policy's effectiveness, efficiency and ultimately credibility. INTRODUCTION Emerging regulation of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions for transportation fuels has raised urgent questions about both definition and evaluation of life cycle emissions, and the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of regulatory approaches which use such analyses. The net emissions from a transportation fuel system depend on the definition of system boundaries, which should be appropriate for its use whether that be to provide insight or for a specific regulatory application. For example, inclusion of emissions from the production of vehicles would add to the system--or life-cycle - greenhouse gas emissions of a transportation fuel. For petroleum-based transportation fuels, the use of the fuel results in about five times the greenhouse gas emissions as in its production (EU JRC 2011, NETL 2008). Consistent application of aggregation, accuracy, and transparency of data are also important when making a comparison between any two production pathways. Critical issues arise in the regulatory use of life-cycle emissions when comparing different types of fuels, for different types of vehicles. It is important to note that a life-cycle assessment tool is not needed for regulatory use if there is a comprehensive policy on emissions across all regions and sectors of society - the cost of emissions would be accounted for where they occur. However, in the absence of a comprehensive policy, accurate and consistent life-cycle assessment can have a useful role when accounting for emissions from the life cycle of a fuel.
Revised Petroleum Industry Guidelines for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Oil and Gas Industry
Siveter, Robert (IPIECA) | Ritter, Karin (API) | Clowers, Michael (Hess Corp.) | Lee, Arthur (Chevron Corp.) | Juez, Jaime Martin (Repsol YPF) | Poot, Brigitte (Total) | Killian, Terry (Marathon Oil) | Cass, Michael (Shell) | Chaves Cardoso de Oliveira, Rodrigo (Petrobras) | Loreti, Christopher (Loreti Group) | Romero-Giron Gracia, Eva (Repsol YPF) | Stileman, Tim (BP)
Abstract Recognizing the need to update the original version of the Petroleum Industry Guidelines for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions (the Guidelines) to reflect changing practices, IPIECA and API jointly developed their second edition in 2011. First published in 2003, the petroleum industry has recognized the need for GHG accounting and reporting guidance that is focused specifically on its operations for over a decade. The Guidelines continue to promote credible, consistent, and reliable greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting and reporting practices from oil and gas operations. The new edition holds significantly revised chapters on setting boundaries (including discussion of financial control and clearer reference to Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions) and the evaluation of industry GHG emissions, including uncertainty. There are also revisions to discussions around reporting emissions over time, de minimis emissions, and normalization. The WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol was, as with the original edition, carefully considered for consistency. The revised Guidelines have also aimed to achieve consistency with the approaches described in the IPIECA publication Oil and Gas Industry Guidance on Voluntary Sustainability Reporting revised in 2010. INTRODUCTION For over a decade the petroleum industry has recognized the need for greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting and reporting guidance that is focused specifically on its operations. The American Petroleum Institute (API) first published the Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation Methodologies for the Oil and Gas Industry in April 2001, with a third edition released in August 2009 (API 2009) (referred to as the Compendium). The original edition of the Petroleum Industry Guidelines for Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions, (referred to as the Guidelines) was issued in December 2003 to fulfil the need for industry guidance focused specifically on the accounting and reporting of GHG emissions at the facility through to the corporate level. Since the original version of the Guidelines was published, GHG emission reporting has become much more widespread. Mandatory reporting of GHG emissions has increased and for companies that are not required to report emissions, or are required to report only for some of their operations, voluntary corporate reporting has also increased. The second edition of the Guidelines (IPIECA 2011) was developed to reflect changing practices, and to continue to promote credible, consistent, and reliable GHG accounting and reporting practices. The development of these Guidelines proceeded in recognition of the large number of existing GHG accounting and reporting approaches. The World Resources Institute (WRI)/World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) GHG Protocol (WRI/WBCSD 2004), and the International Standards Organisation ISO 14064–1(ISO 2006) standard were carefully considered for the revised Guidelines. The Guidelines have been developed as a complement to the API Compendium of Emissions Methodologies and the IPIECA Sustainability Reporting Guidance (IPIECA 2010). While the Compendium focuses on GHG emissions estimation methodologies for industry sources (how to calculate emissions), the Guidelines primarily address GHG accounting and reporting for the GHG indicators identified in the Sustainability Guidance. Together, these three publications provide a comprehensive set of guidance for the estimation, accounting and reporting of petroleum industry GHG emissions.