Oil and gas companies are being challenged by low oil prices and the need to focus on cost-efficiency. At the same time, the industry is under increasing pressure to act upon the Paris Agreement and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The recently-adopted UN sustainable development goals also require the industry to reduce environmental footprint beyond GHG. There is a need for a conceptual abatement framework that focuses on how to improve environmental sustainability in the sector, identifying the most cost-efficient mitigating measures for offshore assets. This paper proposes a framework which is based on the IPIECA, API and IOGP's guideline for sustainability reporting, but which also could use other sustainability reporting initiatives or company specific sustainability KPIs as a starting point. A three-step integrated approach is proposed, building on:
reporting and accounting of emissions and discharges,
impact and risk assessment, and
prioritizing cost-efficient environmental improvements.
The intention is to cover both emissions to air and discharges to sea for specific offshore assets (i.e. GHG, hydrocarbon spills, produced water, etc.), and the associated potential environmental impacts and risks.
The framework is ideally suited for providing a decision basis for how and where to improve the environmental performance of one asset or a mix of assets. This will also help operators in reporting and communicating with stakeholders, as well as in their efforts for continuous improvements and benchmarking. It can also provide status on the most critical environmental issues for all assets, and increase control and opportunities for global environmental risk management.
To demonstrate the proposed framework, DNV GL has carried out a case study for CO2. emissions from an offshore asset. The results showed that there were a number of measures that could be considered profitable; for example, process control and optimization, in addition to power management and performance monitoring. It also showed that energy storage could be considered profitable. In total, the measures that were profitable could provide almost a 28% reduction in the current CO2 emissions from the installation. An increased price on emissions could make the cost-effective reduction potential even higher. This demonstrates that it is possible to reduce CO2 emissions, and also obtain significant cost reductions.
