Maria Sicilia Enagas PDF

Gastech 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF NATURAL GAS:

Empirical Evidence and Innovative Solutions for Enhanced Efficiency
and Reduced Carbon Footprint in Gas Networks
ABSTRACT
Environmental sustainability is a key constraint for the future evolution of the energy mix in
most countries. To meet climate targets agreed at the Paris conference (COP21) in December
2015 as well as to address health risks derived from poor household and ambient air quality,
regulators have to develop more stringent policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and local
pollutant emissions. For these policies to help drive down global emissions further in an
effective and efficient way, they should be based on accurate data and empirical evidence about
the impacts and associated costs of different fuels.
Natural gas is less carbon intensive and its combustion clearly more efficient than competing
fuels. Thus, enhanced gas use and full utilization of available gas infrastructures worldwide is a
means to peak global emissions as soon as possible in a cost-effective way. Nevertheless, the
environmental impact of natural gas has not yet been accurately quantified along the entire
value chain, and at best this assessment is based on estimates, including methane emissions.
Enagás, the Technical Manager of the Spanish gas system and a leading natural gas
infrastructure company with more than 45 years’ experience, has recently completed a 3-year
campaign to measure and mitigate fugitive emissions, contributing to improve the quality and
accuracy of available data. Actual methane emissions in Enagás midstream infrastructure are
significantly lower than current estimations, highlighting the need for a harmonized
methodology and the accomplishment of on-site empirical assessments to reduce uncertainty
around emissions. In addition, the implementation of mitigation measures and best practices
are shown to reduce methane emissions drastically with negligible or even negative abatement
costs in most cases.
As part of its commitment to fight climate change, Enagás has developed its own optical gas
imaging infrared camera -“GSS Julieta”- and started its commercialization through its subsidiary
VIRA Gas Imaging. This new technical solution allows for the detection of fugitive emissions in
natural gas facilities at a fraction of the cost of other cameras available in the market.
In this paper we first put into context the debate about the climate impact of natural gas and
highlight the uncertainties surrounding the use of different metrics and estimations in existing
literature and in public policy; then we present the empirical evidence on actual methane
emissions in Enagás’ infrastructure; and finally we describe the innovative technology solution –
VIRA Gas Imaging/GSS Julieta- implemented and developed by Enagás to tackle fugitive
emissions.

Empirical Evidence and Innovative Solutions
For Enhanced Efficiency and Reduced Carbon Footprint in Gas Networks 1
Gastech 2017
1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF NATURAL GAS
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted by human activities and
therefore has focused the attention and mitigating efforts of regulators and policy makers in
recent years. But it is not the only pollutant capable of causing harm to people and the
environment. The impact of other GHG emissions like methane (CH 4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
also has to be accurately quantified. Furthermore, sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOX),
particulate matter and other local pollutants also represent a huge risk factor for human health
worldwide, as stated by the World Health Organization1, which needs to be equally considered.
Air Quality
In order to address those risks, natural gas presents clear advantages in terms of air quality,
compared to other fossil fuels, in a cost-effective way. Its environmental benefits vary
depending on the final consumption sector and existing technology alternatives in each of them,
but generally speaking, local pollution emissions per unit of energy consumed are significantly
lower than those form other fossil fuels. These emissions are negligible in the case of SO2 and
particulate matter, the latter being one of the most harmful pollutants for human health,
increasing the risk of developing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases as well as lung cancer.
In absolute terms, natural gas contribution to global emissions of major air pollutants is very
low and limited to a small share of NOX emissions according to the International Energy Agency,
as shown in Figure 1:
2
Figure 1: Global average emission factors and share of major pollutant emissions by fuel
1
World Health Organization: Household air pollution and health (Fact sheet N° 292); Ambient (outdoor) Air Quality and
health (Fact sheet N° 313).
2
International Energy Agency: World Energy Outlook Special Report. Energy and Air Pollution (2016).
Gastech 2017
Climate Change
The benefits of natural gas compared to other fossil fuels are not limited to air quality. Natural
gas combustion in power generation and transport produces significantly lower GHG emissions,
responsible for climate change:
3
Figure 2: Tank-to-Grid CO2 emissions in power generation
In power generation, besides emitting notably less CO2 than other fossil fuels (i.e. 44 % less
than lignite coal), it also provides the flexibility required in electric systems as a back-up
technology balancing the increasing share of intermittent renewables.
In road transport, Tank-to-Wheel GHG emissions from CNG fueled passenger cars can be up to
20% lower than those from cars with petrol engines. Regarding diesel fueled vehicles, both
engines have similar GHG emissions per kilometer but on air quality grounds there is a clear
advantage of methane-powered vehicles, making CNG a better option. CNG cars completely
eliminate SO2 emissions and reduce NOX emissions per kilometer by 8 % with respect to petrol
engines and by 73 % compared to diesel engines. Moreover, PM 2.5 emissions per kilometer
using CNG vehicles are 21 % lower, compared to petrol fueled cars and 93 % versus diesel
fueled cars4. (repetition is stronger than “ones” when making comparisons)
The use of CNG in road transport thus reduces significantly air pollutant emissions without
adding in the additional costs of diesel and petrol vehicles that need to incorporate filters,
catalysts and other post-combustion treatments to fulfill current and future emissions limits. In
the same way, LNG fueled heavy trucks present several environmental benefits compared to
diesel engines. For example, long distance dual fuel (diesel & LNG) heavy duty vehicles (HDV)
3
U.S. Energy Information Administration: How much carbon dioxide is produced per kilowatt-hour when generating
electricity with fossil fuels?
4
Gobierno de España: Marco de Acción Nacional de energías alternativas en el transporte.
Gastech 2017
have 6% lower Tank-to-Wheel GHG emissions compared to diesel HDV, while virtually
eliminating SO2 and PM emissions.
In maritime transport, natural gas use -and more specifically LNG fueled engines- present
between 17 % and 28 % less Tank-to-Propeller GHG emissions depending on the engine type.
Moreover, LNG use as bunker fuel eliminates SO2 emissions as mandated by the International
Maritime Organization.
Finally, if taken into account the environmental benefits of blending natural gas with
biomethane, for example, blending 80 % CNG with 20 % biomethane in passenger vehicles, the
reduction of Well-to-Wheel GHG emissions can be up to 19 % in addition to those of CNG.
All these climate benefits from natural gas combustion at final uses (Tank-to-X GHG emissions)
compared to other fossil fuels are widely accepted by the scientific community. However,
methane emissions along its entire value chain have been pointed out as a relevant issue that
could threaten this positive environmental cost-benefit balance. There is a wide range of
estimates and great uncertainty about the metrics (metrics is correct but obscure … “methods”
is the usual way to express the idea) to measure the impact of methane emissions, which we
address in the next section.
Current Assessment of Methane Emissions
Published methane emission assessments are so far estimations that in most cases lack any
connection with real data and lead to a vast range of different values. According to the
Sustainable Gas Institute5 the range of estimated methane-only emissions varies from 0.2% to
10% of produced methane, which is equivalent to 1 to 58 g CO 2 eq. / MJ HHV (assuming a
global warming potential of 34 for methane6). On the other hand, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report places industry-wide methane emission
rate across the entire gas supply chain in the United States at around 1.3%7.
The large spread on methane emission estimates leads to huge differences in the assessment of
GHG emissions across the natural gas supply chain as shown in Figure 3:
5
Sustainable Gas Institute, Imperial College London: Methane and CO2 Emissions from the Natural Gas Supply Chain. An
Evidence Assessment (2015).
6
While 28 is the most commonly used value for GWP100, 34 is used in the original bibliographic reference.
7
Data derived from U.S. EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, 2016.
Gastech 2017
5
Figure 3: Greenhouse gas emission estimates across the natural gas supply chain
In the absence of real data from on-site measurements, gas companies estimated their
emission levels extrapolating from a sample of their infrastructures. The widespread use by the
industry of poor emission estimations creates great uncertainty at the policy level about the real
environmental impact of natural gas. The lack of a harmonized methodology across the industry
about the methods and processes to be used in this regard compounds this uncertainty.
Climate Metrics
Even if accurate data on global methane emissions along the entire value chain were available,
there is still a lack of consensus about the real impact of methane emissions on climate change.
According to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) several metrics can be used to quantify and compare the climate impact of
different emissions. But there is no single metric that captures all the aspects contributing to
climate change i.e. while a metric can establish equivalence regarding one physical property, it
cannot guarantee equivalence with regard to other effects or time periods. Therefore, different

Gastech 2017
metrics have been defined and the choice of one or another hinges on a number of parameters.
According to the IPCC the most relevant ones are:
 Time frame: Effects can be considered at a particular point in time or through the
integration over time, up to a chosen time horizon.
 Type of effect or end-point: Among the many climate variables, the most frequently used
are radiative forcing, temperature change or sea level change.
 Spatial dimension for emission and response: Climate effects caused by the same
component may vary depending on the region of emission and the region of response
where those effects are quantified.
Since the publication of the First IPCC Assessment (Houghton et al., 1990), the so-called Global
Warming Potential (GWP) became the default metric to establish the equivalence of the climate
effect of different emissions to that of CO2 (CO2-eq). The GWP is defined as the ‘time-integrated
radiative forcing (RF) due to a pulse emission of a given component, relative to a pulse
emission of an equal mass of CO2’. Therefore, it measures the total energy added to a climate
system by a certain emission but does not capture the temperature change or equivalent
changes in other climate variables. Furthermore, it requires the definition of a specific time
horizon, e.g. GWP100 or GWP20, with the resulting conversion depending critically on this choice.
While GWP100 (100 years horizon) is the most frequent choice, there is no scientific argument
for selecting that time horizon.
Other relevant aspects that are important to evaluate climate impacts of different emissions are
the background atmosphere on which the GWP calculations are superimposed and the way
feedbacks and indirect effects are considered.
Besides the GWP, the Global Temperature change Potential (GTP) has recently gained relevance
as it goes one step further to consider the ‘change in global mean surface temperature at a
chosen point in time in response to an emission pulse – relative to that of CO2’. Therefore, while
GWP is integrated in time, GTP is an end-point metric/method. Moreover, GWP measures
radiative forcing (cumulative energy) while GTP quantifies temperature change.
While both are useful depending on the effect that wants to be captured, the choice of metric
leads to significant differences when converting other gases to CO2-eq. Figure 4 represents
global anthropogenic emissions as CO2-eq. using both GWP and GTP at different time horizons:

Gastech 2017
8
Figure 4: Global anthropogenic emissions weighted by GWP and GTP for chosen time horizons
It can be observed that for short-lived gases like methane, which has an estimated lifetime of
12.4 years8, GWP returns significantly higher CO2-eq. emissions than GTP in the long run. This
is because GWP100 for CH4 is 28 while GTP100 for CH4 is 48.
For example, in the case of road transport, the use of GTP instead of GWP could lead to a
reduction of up to 8% in Well-to-Wheel GHG emissions for CNG fueled passenger vehicles.
Taking this into account, the IPCC explicitly recommends the use of end-point metrics, such as
the GTP, as the most appropriate in target-based environmental policies similar to those of the
European Commission or under the UNFCCC.
Mitigation Measures and Best Practices
A proper assessment and quantification of methane emissions along the natural gas value chain
to determine its real environmental cost-benefit balance also requires considering the mitigation
measures readily available, that can be implemented by the industry, to reduce its carbon
footprint, with negative abatement cost in most cases, such as:
 Flaring instead of venting in LNG plants and UGS.

 LDAR (Leak Detection and Repair) of fugitive emissions.
 Replacing wet seals with dry seals, avoiding the presence of liquids (spilled oil) inside the
pipes.
 Hot taps instead of Tie-ins for in-service pipeline connections.
 Composite wrap for non-leaking pipeline defects (fitness for purposes).
 Electric motor starters in turbo-compressors.
8
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Fifth Assessment Report. Working Group I Report "Climate Change 2013:
The Physical Science Basis".
Gastech 2017
 Electrical driven chemical plants (odorizing).

 Converting gas pneumatic controls to instrument air.
 Optimising the operation and trying to align it with maintenance works in order to reduce
vents.
 Fast and dry couplings in truck loading.
 Pushing natural gas contained in the pipeline segment (during maintenance operations)
with nitrogen until the next regulating and metering station in order to avoid venting this
gas into the atmosphere.
Improvements in the efficiencies, technologies and the implementation of the best available
techniques along the gas chain, but in particular in the upstream, can led to a reduction of
around 20% in the GHG intensity (Well-to-Tank) of some of the streams of the NG and LNG.
To sum up, with the implementation of on-site measurement and mitigation actions and using a
common end-point metric to convert to CO2-eq across the industry, it is possible to have a clear
picture of the real environmental cost-benefit balance of gas compared to alternatives. Effective
environmental policies and regulations should be based on evidence, in order to avoid inefficient
energy investments from an environmental point of view.
2. ENAGÁS’ RECENT EXPERIENCE IN QUANTIFYING AND REDUCING METHANE

EMISSIONS
Company Profile
Enagás is an international standard bearer in the development and maintenance of gas

infrastructures and in the operation and management of complex gas networks. It is accredited
as an independent TSO by the European Union and carries out its activities in eight countries.
Enagás is Spain’s leading natural gas transmission company and Technical Manager of the
Spanish gas system. It has around 12,000 Km of gas pipelines, three underground storage
facilities in Serrablo (Huesca), Gaviota (Vizcaya) and Yela (Guadalajara) and four regasification
plants in Barcelona, Huelva, Cartagena and Gijón. It also owns 50% of the BBG regasification
plant in Bilbao and 72.5% of the Sagunto plant. In addition, Enagás holds the 100% of Gascan,
a company constructing two regasification plants in the Canary Islands.

Gastech 2017
Figure 5: Enagas’ assets in Spain
11,000 km of gas pipelines
6 LNG terminals (+2 in development)

3 underground storage facilities
19 compressor stations
6 international connections
Enagás is also present in Latin America (Mexico, Chile and Peru) and Europe (Sweden, Italy,
Greece and Albania).
In Mexico, the company holds a stake in the TLA Altamira regasification plant, is a member of
the consortium that built and now operates the Morelos gas pipeline and a member of the
consortium that developed the Soto La Marina compressor station, now in operation. It is also
the main shareholder of Quintero LNG terminal in Chile and holds stakes in Transportadora de
Gas del Perú (TgP) and Compañía Operadora de Gas del Amazonas (Coga) in Peru.
Enagás is also involved in the construction of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP), which will bring
gas to Europe from the Caspian Sea linking Greece, Albania and Italy, and holds a stake in
Swedegas, the operator of the Swedish gas system.
In August 2012, the European Commission certified Enagás as an independent Transmission

System Operator (TSO). This accreditation guarantees the independence of the Spanish gas
transmission network with respect to gas producers and distributors, and represents a
milestone in the company's history.
Enagás’ Carbon Footprint
As a result of its strong commitment to action against Climate Change and to continuously
improve its carbon footprint, Enagás has established ambitious internal targets to reduce its
GHG emissions9. Currently, the objective is to reduce our carbon footprint by 30 % within the
period 2016-2018 compared to 2013-2015, during which a comprehensive campaign for
quantifying and reducing methane emissions was implemented.
9
Including carbon footprint’s scope 1 (direct emissions) and scope 2 (indirect emissions from electricity consumption).
Gastech 2017
The company also calculates and publishes annually its carbon footprint, which is verified by an
independent third party in accordance with standard ISO 14064.
Today, approximately 2/3 of our total GHG emissions are CO2, while CH4 emissions account for
less than 1/3 of our carbon footprint. Of these, 2/3 of CH4 emissions are due to fugitive
methane emissions (22 %) and the rest are vents (10 %) from Operation & Maintenance and
security vents.
Figure 6: Enagás’ 2016 Carbon Footprint by GHG
Fugitive emissions are commonly defined as “uncontrolled or unintentional releases of VOC10 to

the atmosphere, very difficult to detect and quantify”. They must be distinguished from
emissions released through vents or flares.
The main sources of fugitive emissions in the gas industry are:
 Valves.
 Flanges.
 Pressure relief devices.
 Open-ended lines.
 Screwed fittings.
Methane Fugitive Emissions Campaign 2013-2015
As fugitive emissions represent an important share of our carbon footprint, Enagás decided to
carry out a LDAR campaign in the period 2013-2015 in order to reduce them to half of their
previous levels.
10
Volatile Organic Compounds.
Gastech 2017
Figure 7: Treatment of fugitive emissions during the campaign
The campaign covered the following aspects:
 Fugitive emissions in all LNG terminals, all underground storages and a representative
sample of the transmission gas infrastructure.
 Emissions detection by infrared cameras.
 Quantification of fugitive emissions. To this aim, two different technologies are
recognised and authorised by EN15446 and method 21 EPA:
o HFS (High Flow Sampler) provides a direct measure of mass flow in g/s.
o FID (Flame Ionization Detector) measures the concentration of the leak and
correlation factors between concentration and flow are needed in order to know
the mass flow released into the atmosphere.
Enagás decided to measure its fugitive emissions by means of the FID, as HFS is a time
consuming technique, which is very costly to perform.
 Repairing works to mitigate natural gas emissions were carried out during the 3 year
campaign, abating 941.5 tons of natural gas.
 Based on the results of the campaign, Enagás calculated its own emission factors for
different components.

Gastech 2017
Figure 8: Share of fugitive emissions detected by component
29% of total fugitive emission points were repaired in parallel to the detection campaign abating
252 tons of methane emissions. The rest of the repairs were planned for its later execution in
coordination with maintenance teams. In aggregate, the 3-year campaign allowed for the
abatement of 941.5 tons of methane.
Figure 9: Methane emissions abated during the campaign 2013 – 2015 (tons of CH4)
As a result of the campaign, methane emissions in transmission were reduced from 0.024 % of
total gas transported before repairing fugitive emissions to 0.008 % afterwards, which is a
reduction of 66 %.
Additionally, several components were also measured with the HFS with the aim of making our
own emission factors comparable with those from the literature. Based on our own experience,

Gastech 2017
cross-checked with other gas companies, we can conclude that the emission factors currently
used in the literature need to be updated 11.
The following table shows methane emission ratios provided by IPCC (TIER 1) compared to
Enagás’ factors based on our on-site measurements and own correlation factors (TIER 3).
Figure 10: Comparison TIER 1 (IPCC) vs. TIER 3 (Enagás data)
Enagás’ ratios (TIER 3) are in general much lower than the IPCC ratios (TIER 1) and in some
cases in line with the lowest range of the IPCC ratios.
It is important to highlight that Enagás ratios are calculated from real data gathered through
on-site measurements in all or in a significantly high proportion of our infrastructures; in the
latter case, an extrapolation can be done confidently for that entire infrastructure.
A key finding of the campaign is that the Enagás emission assessment from on-site measures is
far away from existing academic literature or other theoretical estimations; evidencing the need
for more investigation and analysis in order to develop better methodologies and common
procedures to reduce the uncertainty around fugitive emissions and improving data accuracy.
In addition, the cost-benefit analysis of the LDAR campaign was positive, with economic
benefits of methane emission reductions largely exceeding the implementation costs, even
when excluding the reputational benefits.
Building on the success of the 2013-2015 campaign, Enagás launched a new LDAR campaign, in
2017, based on innovative infrared camera technology developed internally for the detection of
leaks. This technology began its commercialisation through a new start-up company “VIRA Gas
Imaging” under the brand name “GSS Julieta”. The objective of the new campaign is to
measure fugitive emissions from 100 % of our infrastructure and if necessary update our
emissions factors.
Finally, Enagás is collaborating with relevant industry organisations to develop, improve and
agree on a common methodology in this regard.
11
It shall be taken into account that this is just a preliminary conclusion as our sample needs to be expanded.
Gastech 2017
3. VIRA GAS IMAGING
International boards advise to use infrared (IR) imaging cameras for LDAR activities, as the
best technical and cost-efficient option for methane emissions detection. Some of their multiple
advantages worth mentioning are:
 Quick detection (thermographic source).

 Image and sound frames.
 Event localization and ROI12 limits.
 Reduction of time in gas leak process.
With an innovative approach to this technology VIRA Gas Imaging (VIRA) has developed and
implemented its own infrared camera called “GSS Julieta”13.
VIRA is a new start-up company founded in July 2016 after more than 3 years of Research &
Development that brings together the know-how and experience of three big partners: Enagás,
Sensia14 and Universidad Carlos III (Madrid). As a result of this industrial, technological and
scientific partnership, VIRA Gas Imaging offers innovative technology solutions for gas detection
by means of its own OGI15 cameras and customized specific solutions.
To this aim, VIRA’s engineering team brings customised innovative products and solutions to
the market based on infrared imaging on-demand. Expertise knowledge of technology: optics,
detectors, electronics, software, processing techniques and algorithms, and the most qualified
engineering staff gives the client competitive and disruptive solutions, based on spectrally
adapted IR Gas Imager.
VIRA’s objective is to provide infrared gas imaging solutions (smart optical gas imaging, SOGI)
that can easily detect, identify and eventually quantify fugitive gas emissions in order to
improve the energy and overall efficiency of the chemical, oil & gas and utility industries.
12
Regions of Interest.
13
GSS JULIETA is a registered commercial brand. Patent number (PCT): ES2016/070769.
14
Sensia Solutions S.L. is an expert in infrared gas imaging, with the academic support of the Infrared Lab (LIR) of the
Universidad Carlos III (Madrid).
15
Optical Gas Imaging.
Gastech 2017
GSS Julieta
Gas Sensing System Julieta –“GSS Julieta” is a flexible OGI instrument for monitoring cost-
effectively fugitive emissions of natural gas and hydrocarbons, based on new spectrally adapted
high sensitivity uncooled infrared technology for gas leak.
Among infrared applications, GSS Julieta builds on the uncooled detector typology, based on a
bolometer sensor spectrally optimized under the TECLESS philosophy. Bolometers are small IR
sensors that do not require cooling. When infrared light enters a bolometer, the resistance of
the electronic circuit changes and heats up, causing a change in its resistance parameter. This
“delta resistance” is converted into voltage for readout. The readout circuit, which minimalizes
intrusion of external noise, is based on CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor)
processes.
The incident light level can be read out as a voltage signal by applying an electric current to the
bolometer resistance. As a bolometer resistance material, GSS Julieta uses a VOX (vanadium
oxide) base, in which resistance greatly varies with temperature, plus the aforementioned ROIC
circuit, fabricated on the substrate.
The basic scheme of a bolometer circuit can be seen in the following basic block sample:
Figure 11: Basic scheme of a bolometer circuit

Gastech 2017
The performance of a bolometer comes from several sources including thermal noise caused by
temperature fluctuations in its resistance, K coefficient (1/f) noise, quality of the materials,
conductivity contacts, membrane changes, photons in the atmosphere and other interference
from the amplifier, etc. but in the case of VIRA technology the thermal noise and 1/f noise are
predominant and subsequently are the ones that have been optimized.
Taking into account all the studies, test and performance approaches VIRA can show an
uncooled optimized sensor with a NETD (noise equivalent temperature difference) of 25mK @
30ºC.
The wavelength (λ) of a microbolometer is in the window of 7 to 9 μm, as we can see in the
following figure:
Figure 12: Wavelength sensitivity of different technologies
But the IR spectrum of methane (Natural Gas) peaks at 3,000 cm-1, as shown in the following
figure:
16
Figure 13: Infrared spectrum of different molecules
Methane Water
Transmittance
Transmittance
Wavenumber (cm-1) Wavenumber (cm-1)
The conversion of the operative wavelength of a bolometer (Mid-Long wave IR region) in a

useful region for detecting the natural gas molecules (that absorb energy in the band of 3,000)
16
NIST Chemistry WebBook (http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry)
Gastech 2017
together with a very low signal of noise and very low energy consumption (less than 1.1 w at 5
volts cc) in ambient conditions are key features of this technology.
Taking into account the complete package (IR imager) plus the HMI and SW processing tool,
GSS Julieta is much more than an “IR eye”: it is the perfect combination of an ergonomic IR
Gas imager, plus powerful “brain” for software applications.
The IR tool has been tested at Enagás´ Labs according to 40 CFR Part 60, subpart OOOOa,
according to EPA Method 21 final rule compliance, and EN 15.446 for LDAR campaigns. In
addition, an intercomparison performance test has been done recently, in real operational
conditions with the same philosophy implemented in the test done and collected in appendix K
of 40 CFR part 60 in August 2015, for validation of OGI technology for leak detection method
inside LDAR campaigns according to Method 21. Both documents (EPA Compliance according to
subpart OOOOa and intercomparison test) are available upon demand subject to confidentiality
clauses.
Julieta meets all the specifications of alternatives in the market while providing relevant
advantages in terms of portability, ease of use, maintenance and price. A brief summary of the
technical capabilities of GSS Julieta, in comparison with other commercial brands, is presented
below:
Figure 14: “Optical Gas Imager” technical benchmarking
The following table summarises the main characteristics of the complete system GSS Julieta:

Gastech 2017
Figure 15: GSS Julieta’s technical specifications
IMAGING AND OPTICAL DATA

IR Resolution 640 x 480 pixels
Thermal Sensitivity / NETD < 25mK @ 30ºC
Field of View (FOV) 12,5º x 9º
Focal Length 50 mm (1,96 in.)
Interchangeable lens (optional) Adapter for 30 mm included
Focus Manual
DETECTOR DATA
Sensor cooling TECLESS
Detects following gases Ethanol, Butane, Methane, Ethane, Propane
MEASUREMENT
Temperature range 0ºC to 40ºC (32ºF to 104ºF)
Accuracy ±1ºC (±1.8°F) from 0ºC to 100ºC (+32°F to +212°F)
Detection Threshold (CH4) EPA Compliance subpart OOOOa (in lab conditions)
MEASUREMENT ANALYSIS
Regions of Interest (ROI) 1 ROI (Max, min & average)
Calibration function 1-button
Emissivity correction Variable from 0.01 to 1.0
SET-UP
Menu commands Calibrate
Image mode
Emissivity
Palette
Start/stop recording
Screensave button
Colour Palettes Black-White, Minimalist Iron, Advanced Iron, Isothermal
INTEGRATED TABLET & HANDLING

Integrated system Tablet rugged (IP 6X & MIL STD 810G)
Display LED Screen 12” (1366 x 768)
OS Windows 10
CPU Intel Core M-5Y71
Storage 128 GB SSD (Solid State Drive)
Image storage mode IR images
GPS Location data automatically added from built-in GPS
Tablet size, including lens (W X D X H) 312 x 203 x 24 mm (12.3 x 8.0 x 0.96 in.)
Tablet weight 1,6 kg (3,52 lbs)
Harness Included
Ergonomic handler Included
PHYSICAL DATA
Camera weight 0,4 kg (0,88 lbs)
Camera size, including lens (W X D X H) 67 x 102 x 84 mm ( 2,63 x 4,01 x 3,30 in.)

Gastech 2017
VIDEO RECORDING
Video recording AVI files to SSD
Video streaming Full dynamic to PC using USB or WLAN
DATA COMMUNICATION INTERFACES

WLAN Wifi Ethernet, Peer to peer (ad-hoc), iOS or Android
USB 3.0 High Speed
Video out DVI, HDMI
POWER SYSTEM
Power supply USB 3,0 from the tablet to the camera, 5V cc, <1,1 W
Battery type Rechargeable 2-cell lithium-ion battery
Swap battery Up to 2 hot-swap batteries in the system
Battery voltage 7.4 VDC (nominal) and 8.7 VDC (maximum)
Battery operating time > 4,5 hours at 25°C (+68°F) and typical use
Charging system AC adapter
Start up time < 20 seconds @ 25°C (+77°F)
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Operating temperature range -29ºC to + 63ºC (-20,2ºF to + 145,4ºF)
Storage temperature range -40ºC a +71ºC (-40ºF to + 159,8ºF)
Humidity (operating and storage) Relative moisture IEC 68-2-30/24 H 95% in range +30ºC to +60ºC
CE marking CAMERA:
EMC UNE-EN 61326-1:2013
Other marking available under demand (optional)
Emission:
UNE-EN 55011:2011+A1:2011+A2:11
- Radiated emission
- Conducted emission
UNE-EN 61000-3-2:2014 (Harmonics)
UNE-EN 61000-3-3:2013 (Voltage fluctuations)
Immunity:
UNE-EN 61000-4-2:2010
UNE-EN 61000-4-3:2007+A1:2008+A2:2011
UNE-EN 61000-4-4:2013
UNE-EN 61000-4-5:2015
UNE-EN 61000-4-6:2014
UNE-EN 61000-4-8:2011
UNE-EN 61000-4-11:2005
Product safety UNE-EN 61010-1:2011
RoHS
TABLET:
MIL-STD-810G testing
IEC ingress testing
ANSI/ISA.12.12.01 and CAN/CSA C22.2 hazardous location testing
Class I, Div 2, Groups A,B,C,D
UL and CE safety testing / ESD, emissions, immunity testing
MIL-STD-461F electromagnetic interference testing
(For more detailed tablet certifications consult DELL manuals)
Enclosure degree protection Camera IP-54 / Tablet IP-65
*The camera is a passive element. Its power source comes from the tablet.
Spark free, flame free and limited hot spot due to the very low output (<1,1W // <1Js).

Gastech 2017
SOFTWARE INFRARED CAMERA

Spatial ROI
Temporal ROI
Temperature calibration
Isotherms
Image saving
Analysis of images on memory
Quick report gas*
Creating and editing video
2 Image processing mode's

* The report is generated along with the video to identify the leaks recorded
SHIPPING INFORMATION
End user's guide included (CD version)
Hard transport case
Infrared camera with lens
Battery charger
Calibration certificate
Printed intercomparison tests
EPA compliance
Lens cap
Printed user's guide
USB cable included
User documentation
Extra-cable connection (1,5m). Optional

Gastech 2017
CONCLUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To conclude, the real environmental impact of natural gas should be empirically assessed using
common methodologies by the industry, in order to inform evidence-based Air Quality and
Climate Change policies. Real data, from Enagás’ experience in recurring LDAR campaigns,
shows that current estimations widely used in academic literature need to be adjusted to reflect
significantly lower levels of fugitive emissions. Furthermore, the implementation of ambitious
mitigation measures using the most advanced detection technologies such as a GSS Julieta,
commercialised by VIRA Gas Imaging, can reduce dramatically the carbon footprint in gas
networks.
To reduce the uncertainty regarding methane emissions levels across the supply chain and
prove the environmental credentials of the industry, Enagás recommends gas companies take
action in the following areas:
 Raise awareness internally at all levels on the importance of actively contributing to fight
climate change, setting ambitious targets for emission reductions and linking its
accomplishment to the economic incentives of employees.
 Verify and publish GHG emissions, validated by a third party in accordance with
reference standards.
 Agree on a harmonized methodology for measuring the climate impact of methane

emissions.
 Implement regular LDAR campaigns and on-site measurements.
 Share and apply other `Best Practices´ to reduce methane emissions:
o Flaring instead of venting.
o Recompressing gas from the gas turbines in order to avoid vents.
o Injecting nitrogen into the pipelines for the maintenance of the infrastructure in
order to avoid vents.
o Electric actuators instead of gas valves.
 Cooperate with National Authorities to improve the quality of national emissions

inventories and to elaborate a `Best Available Techniques Reference Document´ (BREF)
as in the oil and refining sector.
 Invest in RDI.


Maria Sicilia Enagas PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Maria Sicilia Enagas PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Gastech 2017

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF NATURAL GAS:

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF NATURAL GAS:

1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF NATURAL GAS

Current Assessment of Methane Emissions

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF NATURAL GAS:

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF NATURAL GAS:

Mitigation Measures and Best Practices

 Flaring instead of venting in LNG plants and UGS.

 Electrical driven chemical plants (odorizing).

2. ENAGÁS’ RECENT EXPERIENCE IN QUANTIFYING AND REDUCING METHANE

Enagás is an international standard bearer in the development and maintenance of gas

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF NATURAL GAS:

Figure 5: Enagas’ assets in Spain

11,000 km of gas pipelines

6 LNG terminals (+2 in development)

In August 2012, the European Commission certified Enagás as an independent Transmission

Enagás’ Carbon Footprint

Figure 6: Enagás’ 2016 Carbon Footprint by GHG

Fugitive emissions are commonly defined as “uncontrolled or unintentional releases of VOC10 to

The main sources of fugitive emissions in the gas industry are:

 Pressure relief devices.

Methane Fugitive Emissions Campaign 2013-2015

Figure 7: Treatment of fugitive emissions during the campaign

The campaign covered the following aspects:

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF NATURAL GAS:

Figure 8: Share of fugitive emissions detected by component

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF NATURAL GAS:

Figure 10: Comparison TIER 1 (IPCC) vs. TIER 3 (Enagás data)

3. VIRA GAS IMAGING

 Quick detection (thermographic source).

Figure 11: Basic scheme of a bolometer circuit

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF NATURAL GAS:

Figure 12: Wavelength sensitivity of different technologies

Wavenumber (cm-1) Wavenumber (cm-1)

The conversion of the operative wavelength of a bolometer (Mid-Long wave IR region) in a

Figure 14: “Optical Gas Imager” technical benchmarking

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF NATURAL GAS:

Figure 15: GSS Julieta’s technical specifications

IMAGING AND OPTICAL DATA

Thermal Sensitivity / NETD < 25mK @ 30ºC

Field of View (FOV) 12,5º x 9º

Focal Length 50 mm (1,96 in.)

Interchangeable lens (optional) Adapter for 30 mm included

Detects following gases Ethanol, Butane, Methane, Ethane, Propane

Accuracy ±1ºC (±1.8°F) from 0ºC to 100ºC (+32°F to +212°F)

Calibration function 1-button

Emissivity correction Variable from 0.01 to 1.0

Colour Palettes Black-White, Minimalist Iron, Advanced Iron, Isothermal

INTEGRATED TABLET & HANDLING

Display LED Screen 12” (1366 x 768)

CPU Intel Core M-5Y71

Storage 128 GB SSD (Solid State Drive)

Image storage mode IR images

GPS Location data automatically added from built-in GPS

Tablet weight 1,6 kg (3,52 lbs)

Ergonomic handler Included

Camera size, including lens (W X D X H) 67 x 102 x 84 mm ( 2,63 x 4,01 x 3,30 in.)

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF NATURAL GAS:

Video streaming Full dynamic to PC using USB or WLAN

DATA COMMUNICATION INTERFACES

USB 3.0 High Speed

Video out DVI, HDMI