Salehi_subbed.qxp 2/4/09 04:45 Page 137
New Albany Shale Gas Project – A Joint Industry Project Sponsored by the RPSEA
Field Data Acquisition and Verification, the New Albany shale, which will be captured in best practices
Co-ordination and Technology Transfer recommendations. All project reports will be compiled in a complete
A prerequisite for the success of a field-based project is the summary volume available in electronic format from RPSEA and GTI. ■
acquisition of reliable data and timely testing of results so that
dependable data are provided for analytical work and designs. Acknowledgements
Procedures are checked in the field and modified based on test Funding for this project is provided by RPSEA through the Ultra-
results. The New Albany shale project includes extensive field data Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum
acquisition and testing including sampling, coring, logging, hydraulic Resources Research and Development Program authorised by the US
fracturing, fracture diagnostics and production logging. Specifically, Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005. RPSEA is under contract with the
two production logging tests, two hydraulic fracturing experiments US Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory to
and four fracture diagnostic surveys are planned. GTI will administer three elements of the EPAct Section 999 programme:
co-ordinate and manage all field data acquisition and field testing ultra-deepwater architecture and technology; unconventional natural
while research contractors design and supervise the operations. gas and other petroleum resources exploration and production; and
technology challenges of small producers. RPSEA is a non-profit
In multifaceted field-based research, prudent co-ordination and corporation established to help meet the US’s growing need for
open communication are of the essence. GTI will be responsible for hydrocarbon resources produced from reservoirs in America, formed
co-ordination of the efforts of individual team members to ensure by a consortium of premier US energy research universities, industry
that each team member is aware of the results of other team and independent research organisations. The mission of RPSEA is to
members and incorporates those results into their own analyses. provide a stewardship role in ensuring the focused research,
Preparation of clear and comprehensive reports will be used to development and deployment of safe, environmentally sensitive
extend the technology beyond the limited individuals and technology that can effectively deliver hydrocarbons from domestic
companies, expanding the information to other applicable regions. resources to the citizens of the US. RPSEA will sharply focus its
In the New Albany shale project, all independent research experience, expertise and capabilities on meeting the programme’s
organisations will prepare a stand-alone detailed report describing objectives: to maximise the value of domestic natural gas and oil
the scientific bases and results of their work. resources through new technologies to increase production, and to
do so in less expensive, safer and more efficient and environmentally
The work of the various contributors will be used to develop an benign ways. For additional information on the New Albany shale gas
integrated analysis of the factors controlling economic production in project, please contact
iraj.salehi@gastechnology.org
1. BEG/PTTC presentation, November 2006.
BP and ExxonMobil Top Carbon Disclosure Report
BP and ExxonMobil have come top of a carbon emissions performance unit of output and it “falls well short of best practice”. In a statement,
assessment carried out by PFC Energy, the global energy consultants. Shell drew attention to its higher ranking by the Carbon Disclosure
In a ranking that also covers Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell and Total, Project (a much more general rating system on the basis of which it
PFC uses its Quality of Carbon Disclosure Index (QCDI) to assess the would be second in its peer group, behind Chevron), and claimed that
rigour, comprehensiveness and transparency of carbon emissions “transparency must be judged widely: not only numbers on emissions,
reporting. Assessment parameters, weighted across multiple upstream but understanding how well companies understand and manage risks.
and downstream activities, included comprehensiveness of operational It is regrettable that this study did not take that wider perspective.” It
disclosure, the existence of disaggregated data for direct and indirect also arguable that Shell’s reserves write-down and corporate and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by operating segment, GHG business reorganisations have made it difficult for the group to
emissions from flaring and venting and third-party data verification. quantify its emissions thoroughly. Structural GHG emissions for the
ExxonMobil’s high score was linked to the clarity of its equity share combined peer group is 445MtCO
2
e, rivalling the national emissions of
emissions reporting, comprehensive asset coverage and use of third- France, Spain and Italy. However, the report found that GHG emissions
party verification. ConocoPhillips has a high level of transparency and data reporting is often incomplete or opaque, partly resulting from the
detail on certain operational parameters, but fails to report detailed absence of standardised carbon accounting protocols. PFC’s
GHG data with sufficient frequency. Chevron has robust internal assessment is timely, coinciding with tighter carbon emissions
accounting practices, but key assets are omitted from the inventory regulation in Europe and the US that will make emissions disclosure
and no clear data are provided on sectoral emissions intensity and/or and management a central business concern, rather than an
energy intensity. Like Shell and ConocoPhillips, Total does not report environmental gesture. The increase in carbon-intensive extraction
on an equity basis, but only on an operatorship basis, undermining such as heavy oil, and increasing activity in regions with above-average
disclosure quality. Shell’s carbon disclosure comes out bottom of the gas flaring such as Africa, where Total for instance is particularly active,
group. Its carbon data reporting was group-wide rather than sector- further underline the need for transparency of disclosure and
specific, no data were provided on indirect emissions or emissions per management of GHGs. ■
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION – VOLUME 7 ISSUE 1
137
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156