MiQ STANDARD

MiQ STANDARDfor Methane Emissions Performance

MAIN DOCUMENT – ONSHORE

v0.9

Except otherwise noted, the MiQ Standard ©2021 by RMI and SYSTEMIQ Ltd is licensedunder Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International. To view a copy of this license, visit h t tp ://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/.

MiQ and the MiQ logo are registered trademarks of SYSTEMIQ Ltd.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/


MiQ Standard for Methane Emissions PerformanceMain Document – Onshore

Contents

Status of this document 4

1 Background 51.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2 About . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.3 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 Scope 7

3 Normative References 8

4 Terms and Definitions 9

5 Core Principles 16

6 Roles and Responsibilities 186.1 Certification Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186.2 Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186.3 Other Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

7 Methane Emissions Certification 197.1 Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197.2 Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

7.2.1 Certificate Grading System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207.2.2 Certificate end of life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

8 Subsidiary and Procedure Documents 228.1 Subsidiary Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228.2 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Annex A: Conversion Factors (normative) 23

References 24

v0.9 3


Status of this document

This document, MiQ Standard – Main Document, is available to the general publicunder the above mentioned license terms.

Table 1: Version History

Version Date Description

0.7 2020-08 Stakeholder Review 1


0.9 2021-07 Pilot Version

v0.9 4


1 Background

1.1 Introduction

Methane Emissions (CH4) from oil and gas production are a significant contributor toclimate change. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a very potentGreenhouse Gas (GHG) with a short-term climate impact over 80 times that of carbondioxide.[1]i While methane is emitted throughout both the oil and natural gas supplychains, this Standard only addresses Methane Emissions from natural gas production(including associated gas production).

Methane is emitted in the process of natural gas production through venting, leakingand incomplete combustion from flares, burners and engines. While technologies andprocesses that can prevent or significantly reduce Methane Emissions are well known,emissions abatement actions, whether voluntary or enforced through regulation, arenot yet occurring with the sufficient consistency or scale necessary to limit globalwarming to the 1.5 degrees put forward in the Paris Agreement.

The MiQ Standard for Methane Emissions Performance (the Standard) combinesseveral Standard elements – (1) a calculated Methane Intensity, (2) Producer policiesand procedures focused on Methane Emissions prevention, detection, and abatement(Company Practices), and (3) detection and mitigation of Methane Emissions throughMonitoring Technology Deployment – to provide a robust and reliable method tocertify natural gas production according to its Methane Emissions performance. TheStandard is designed to incentivize continuous improvement in Methane Emissionsmonitoring and abatement.

The Standard consists of three main types of documents, to be read in the followingorder:

1. Main Document (this document)

2. Subsidiary Documents

a. Subsidiary Document 1: Methane Intensity – Onshore

b. Subsidiary Document 2: Company Practices – Onshore

c. Subsidiary Document 3: Monitoring Technology Deployment – Onshore

3. Procedures

a. Procedure 1: Certification

i According to IPCC AR5, the global warming potential (GWP) of methane is 84 times that of CO2 overa 20-year period, and 28 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period.

v0.9 5


b. Procedure 2: Non-Compliance

1.2 About

RMIii and SYSTEMIQiii are the joint Standard Holder for this Standard. This partnershipwas established to reduce Methane Emissions from the global oil and gas industriesthrough a market-based gas certification system. This Standard has been developedthrough this non-profit partnership.

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this Standard is to incentivize continuous improvement in MethaneEmissions monitoring and abatement by creating an opportunity for Producers todifferentiate their natural gas production by its Methane Emissions performance.

More specifically, the objectives of this Standard are:

a) to accelerate deployment of practices and technologies that reduce and/oreliminate Methane Emissions;

b) to accelerate deployment of monitoring technologies that detect and measureMethane Emissions;

c) to increase transparency regarding the Methane Emissions performance ofnatural gas production, with a globally consistent methodology;

d) to enable Producers, marketers, and buyers to transact natural gas based on theMethane Emissions performance of a Facility, and to demonstrate additionalvalue to their customers;

e) to provide Producers, buyers, and investors a uniform, independently verifiedStandard consistent with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reportingto address Methane Emissions from natural gas production and consumption;

f) to complement regulations by incentivizing Methane Emissions detection andabatement actions that exceed regulatory requirements; and

g) to credibly recognize Producers who are leading their peers in MethaneEmissions management.

ii RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute), https://www.rmi.org

iii SYSTEMIQ Ltd | Transforming Systems For a Better Future, https://www.systemiq.earth

v0.9 6


2 Scope

This Standard establishes a system for the generation of MiQ Certificates, which willinclude a defined grade that captures the Facility’s Methane Emissions performance.Performance will be assessed according to the Facility’s (1) calculated MethaneIntensity, (2) policies and procedures that are focused on Methane Emissionsprevention, detection, and abatement (Company Practices), and (3) deployment ofMethane Emissions-detecting and monitoring technologies (Monitoring TechnologyDeployment).

Furthermore, this Standard:

• is applicable to natural gas Facilities in the upstream production segment;

• specifies a method to calculate the Methane Intensity of a natural gas Facility(see Subsidiary Document 1: Methane Intensity – Onshore);

• establishes general principles for an effective methane management program –including policies and procedures focused on Methane Emissions prevention,detection, and abatement and deployment of methane monitoring technology(see Subsidiary Document 2: Company Practices – Onshore and SubsidiaryDocument 3: Monitoring Technology Deployment – Onshore);

• defines criteria for Certification Bodies and their Auditors;

• defines certification procedures for Facilities seeking evaluation under theStandard (see Procedure 1: Certification); and

• defines scenarios of, and requirements to manage, non-compliance (seeProcedure 2: Non-Compliance); however,

• does not define requirements for natural gas’ physical or chemical quality.

v0.9 7


3 Normative References

The following referenced documents are indispensable for the applicationof this document. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. Forundated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including anyamendments) applies.

• ISEAL Credibility Principles[2]

• ISO 13443: Natural gas – Standard reference conditions[3]

• Natural Gas Sustainability Initiative (NGSI) Methane Emissions Intensity Protocol,Version 1.0, February 2021[4]

• US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program(GHGRP) Subpart W – Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems[5]

v0.9 8


4 Terms and Definitions

For purposes of this Standard, the following terms have the meanings attributedbelow. All terms and definitions used in this Standard (including in Subsidiary andProcedure documents) are defined here.

Account The account associated with an Account Holder, used to Issue, assign, andultimately Retire MiQ Certificates in the Registry and keep track of transactions.

Account Holder An organization with a registered Account in a Registry under theStandard Program.

Alternative LDAR A LDAR program in which alternative technologies and workpractices, in conjunction with what is prescribed in regulation, is used topotentially find and repair leaks faster and with greater Methane Emissionreductions from leaking equipment.

Applicable Criteria The criteria subject to Audit by a Certification Body todemonstrate compliance with the requirements of this Standard.

Approved instrument monitoring method Specified under state or federallegislation, a method that must be used to inspect components and equipmentat Production Facilities under LDAR requirements.iv

Audit / to Audit The process of assessing, validating (Ex-Ante), and verifying (Ex-Post)the operations of a Producer within a Facility against the requirements in thisStandard.

Auditor A Certification Body is made up of pre-qualified Auditors possessing theexperience, knowledge, and expertise necessary to provide Auditing services,both offsite and onsite, to determine if a Facility meets the requirements of theStandard.

Audit Report The reports prepared by a Certification Body summarizing the resultsof the Ex-Ante and Ex-Post Audits that determine whether a Producer iscompliant with the requirements of this Standard.

Basin A natural gas-producing region (a geologic sedimentary basin), as typicallydefined and referenced by national legislation.

Initial Audit Grade The grade associated with a MiQ Certificate, as determined by

iv For example, Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation 7 (effective 02/14/20) definesAIMM as an infrared (IR) camera, EPA Method 21, or other instrument based monitoring method orprogram approved in accordance with the requirements of Regulation 7, Section XII.L.8 (“AlternativeAIMM”).[6]

v0.9 9


the Issuing Body and indicated in the Registry, based on the recommendationof a Certification Body in its Ex-Ante Audit Report.

Certification Body An organization made up of Auditors that carry out onsiteand company Audits to determine if a Facility meets the requirements of theStandard. Multiple Certification Bodies may Audit against this Standard.

Certification Period The period (maximum 12 months) during which thecertification applies to the Facility that passes assessment through theEx-Ante Audit stage until the Ex-Post Audit stage. Gas produced during thisperiod is considered Certified Production.

Certified Production The natural gas, produced from a certified Facility, producedbetween the start date and the end date of the Certification Period.

Company Practices Policies and procedures a Producer implements to ensure it iseffectively managing Methane Emissions for the Facility.

Component A smaller piece of production equipment, such as a flange, connector,pressure relief device (PRD), thief hatch, screw or compression fitting, stempacking in a valve, pump seal or compressor component.

Continuous Monitoring System A monitoring system at a Facility that (a) is madeup of a network of stationary but linked sensors, (b) autonomously collects,records and reports data directly or indirectly related to Methane Emissions,(c) has an automated detection alert such that the data is interpreted, withouthuman interference, to identify an Emission Source and trigger follow-up byoperators, (d) collects, records and reports data continuously within an envelopeof operating conditions or runtime hours (minimum 2500h/y), and (e) is sensitiveto Site Level emissions.

Delivered Quantity Periodical demonstration of the Facility’s natural gas outputduring the Certification Period, in units of energy, based on Revenue GradeMeter data, and confirmed in the Ex-Post Audit and the basis of issuance of MiQCertificates.

Detection The determination of whether Methane Emissions are present, whethercontinuously or periodically.

Directed Inspection and Maintenance Program A voluntary program to cost-effectively detect, measure, prioritize, and repair equipment leaks to reduceMethane Emissions. This Program includes measuring leaks based on a baselinesurvey, fixing leaking components, and performing surveys informed by datafrom previous surveys. These actions collectively allow operators to concentrateon the components that are most likely to leak and profitable to repair.

v0.9 10


Emission Factor A factor or ratio for converting an activity measure (e.g. numberof times a controller actuates) into an estimate of the quantity of MethaneEmissions associated with that activity, usually expressed in emissions peractivity unit and derived from representative measurement campaigns.

Expiry / to Expire The cessation of a MiQ Certificate being eligible for transfer orRetirement as a consequence of the passage of 12 months since the initialregistration.

Ex-Ante Audit The systematic, independent, and documented assessment bythe Auditor before (Ex-Ante) the intended Certification Period, validating theinformation reported by the Producer against this Standard.

Ex-Post Audit The systematic, independent, and documented assessment by theAuditor after (Ex-Post) the Certification Period, verifying the actual operationswithin this period against the results of the Ex-Ante Audit according to thisStandard.

Facility All natural gas production equipment located in a single geologic fieldor basin under the responsibility of a common owner or operator (includingleased, rented, or contracted activities). Facility Scale emissions inspectionsrequire coverage of the entire Facility and must be capable of detecting andnarrowing the source of emissions to a single Site spatial boundary.

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Carbon dioxide (CO2) and any other gases defined inthe IPCC Fifth Assessment Report to include methane, nitrous oxide, sulfurhexafluoride, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons.[1]Greenhouse Gases other than carbon dioxide can be expressed in terms ofcarbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which is calculated using a timeframe-specificGlobal Warming Potential (GWP).

Intended Sources / Intended Methane Emissions Intentional releases of MethaneEmissions by design, such as from vents, flares and other combustion equipment.These sources have specified design parameters and values, at which anythingoperating within this design criteria are considered intentional.

Inventory A GHG emissions inventory, which contains information on estimates ofGreenhouse Gas emissions from Emission Sources, compiled on an annual basisfor a Facility.

Issuing / to Issue The process of creating a MiQ Certificate in an Account in aRegistry.

Issuing Body Designated by a Program Holder, the Issuing Body is responsiblefor registering each Facility and Account Holder in a Registry, Issuing MiQ

v0.9 11


Certificates, and enabling and registering transfers as well as Retirement andExpiry of MiQ Certificates.

LDAR Leak detection and repair. LDAR programs include procedures to identify,prioritize and repair leaks.

Leaker Emission Factors If direct measurement is not feasible, fugitive emissionscan be estimated using Leaker Emission Factors for detected leakingcomponents. Leaker Emission Factors are specified in national GHG reportingrequirements.v

Measurement Determination of methane concentration or emission rate at a certainlocation and time, following a specific methodology. Typically conducted via:

• Concentration assessment: Determination of methane concentration byan instrument. Concentration assessments can be made at a fixed point inthe emission plume, integrated over a fixed path such as the fence line for afacility, or over a region such as obtained from a satellite retrieval.

• Emission rate assessment (quantification): Determination of the methanemass emission rate of an Emission Source. Emission rate assessments canbe made through direct measurement (e.g. constant volume sampling orusing a calibrated bag), or indirect measurement methods (e.g. tracer flux,or mass balance).

Methane Emissions The methane (CH4) that, during the relevant period, isestimated or monitored to have been emitted to the atmosphere.

Methane Intensity A ratio of Methane Emissions relative to natural gas throughput.This Standard uses the NGSI Protocol definition, which calculates MethaneIntensity at a Facility Level, using Methane Emissions associated with natural gasin the numerator and the methane content of Produced Gas in the denominatorto calculate a unitless ratio, communicated as a percentage [4]. It takes intoaccount natural gas Production Throughput relative to crude and condensatethroughput, and only accounts for Methane Emissions that are attributable tothe production of natural gas (according to relative energy content).

MiQ Certificate A certificate that represents the collection of attributes describing aspecific Facility if the minimum requirements of this Standard are met. A singleMiQ Certificate is assigned to one unit (1 MWh thermal) of Delivered Quantityof natural gas.

v For example, US EPA 40 CFR Appendix Table W-1A specifies Leaker Emission Factors for OnshorePetroleum and Natural Gas Production Facilities.[5]

v0.9 12


Monitoring Technology Deployment Deployment of adequate technologies todetect and/or measure Methane Emissions from potential Emission Sources.Monitoring technology determines the presence of an Emission Source.Monitoring technology must be deployed under a monitoring program, whichdescribes the method, or combination of methods, to be used for each Facility,including survey frequency, repair response, and reporting standards.

Non-Compliance Event Any event or circumstance during the Certification Periodthat exceeds the Reportable Quantity or might result in a deviation from theEx-Ante Audited Standard elements that would downgrade a Facility’s VerifiedGrade lower than its Initial Audit Grade, as evaluated by the Certification Body.

Non-Routine Methane Emissions Any Methane Emissions resulting fromunplanned operational incidents or planned engineered events, outsideof routine operations.

Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production The oil and gas supply chainsegment that includes all equipment, piping, instrumentation and controls(including compressors, generators, or storage facilities), and portablenon-self-propelled equipment (including well drilling and completionequipment, workover equipment, gravity separation equipment, auxiliarynon-transportation-related equipment, and leased, rented or contractedequipment) used in the production, extraction, recovery, lifting, stabilization,separation or treating of petroleum and/or natural gas (including condensate)contained on a wellsite upstream of the transfer point to a gathering system.This equipment also includes associated storage vessels and measurement andall enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations using CO2.

Producer The owner and operator of a Facility, responsible for operating a well or wellsthat recover and bring natural gas to the surface, whether or not in conjunctionwith oil and/or natural gas liquids.

Production Equipment Apparatus found within a Site used in the production,extraction, recovery, lifting, stabilization, separation or treating of petroleumand/or natural gas (including condensate) and includes, but not limitedto, compressors, generators, dehydrators, storage vessels, engines, boilers,heaters, flares, separation and processing equipment, connecting pipework,and portable non-self-propelled equipment, which includes well drilling andcompletion equipment, workover equipment, and leased, rented or contractedequipment). Production equipment also includes associated storage ormeasurement vessels, all petroleum and natural gas production equipmentlocated on islands, artificial islands, or structures connected by a causeway to

v0.9 13


land, an island, or an artificial island.

Production Throughput “The quantity of gas produced in the calendar year fromwells, in thousand standard cubic feet. This includes gas that is routed to apipeline, vented or flared, or used in field operations. This does not includegas injected back into reservoirs or shrinkage resulting from lease condensateproduction,” as per the EPA GHGRP Subpart W.[5]

The Production Throughput is forecasted through production modelling andhistoric data for Ex-Ante Audit and confirmed by the Certification Body in theEx-Post Audit.

See Annex A: Conversion Factors for standard conversion factors betweenthousand standard cubic feet and other units of volume and energy content.

Program The framework for handling all issues related to certification accordingto this Standard. A Program includes explicit roles of an Issuing Body and aRegistry.

Program Holder The operator of a Program. A Program Holder is responsible forensuring that all aspects of the Standard are complied with in the relevantProgram.

Proof of Connection Demonstration that the Facility is feasibly connecteddownstream to other Facilities within the same designated Consumption Zone,assessed at the Ex-Ante Audit stage.

Quantification The process of determining an emissions rate, either through director indirect methods, over a specified duration. Direct quantification is typicallydone using a measurement of the total flow and composition of emitted gases.Indirect quantification of emissions typically involves the detection of methaneand some characterization or measurement of its concentration; models arethen used to convert the concentration into an emission rate.

Registry An information and communication technologies (ICT) system, operatedby a Program Holder or by an organization designated by a Program Holder,that provides administrative management and records of the MiQ Certificatesissued under the Standard. The Registry manages the status of each certificationrecord.

Reportable Quantity A single Methane Emissions release that exceeds or is believedto exceed a flow rate of 25 kg/hr and a duration of at least 24 hours, or a singleMethane Emissions event greater than 600 kg.

Retirement / to Retire To mark, at the request of the Account Holder by which it isheld, a MiQ Certificate as having been used, and to prevent it from subsequently

v0.9 14


being:

• transferred to another Account; or

• used again.

Retirement Statement An electronic, non-transferrable receipt which providesevidence of the Retirement of one or more MiQ Certificates.

Revenue Grade Meter A reliable and accurate measurement device to confirm theDelivered Quantity of natural gas from a Facility.

Site The single wellpad or equipment pad encompassing a Natural Gas Production well(including multi wells) and its supporting equipment, such as that usedfor separation, treating, compression, gathering and storage (i.e. tank batteries).Leak detection at the Site Level must be able to narrow the location of themethane emission to a single wellpad or localized area for further investigationand Source Level inspection and mitigation.

Source / Emission Source Smallest area reasonably detectable using methanemonitoring technology for targeted leak identification and repair. A SourceLevel methane leak might involve a piece of equipment, component or process.

Standard Holder The organization responsible for defining and managing all aspectsof the development of the Standard, including managing the processes formaking changes to the Standard documents: the main document, subsidiarydocuments, and procedures documents.

Super-Emitter An abnormally high-emitting Emission event, due to abnormalconditions which can cause a substantial proportion of a Facility’s gas productionto be emitted to the atmosphere.

Unintended Sources / Unintended Methane Emissions Also known as Fugitiveemissions, Methane Emissions that are not by design, such as those fromequipment leaks and failures. Vents and Combustion equipment operatingoutside their design values may be classified as unintended emissions.

Verified Grade The grade determined by a Certification Body based on an Ex-PostAudit, used to verify the original Initial Audit Grade and identify any cases ofNon-Compliance. This Verified Grade does not replace the Initial Audit Grade inthe Registry, but rather is indicated separately.

v0.9 15


5 Core Principles

This Standard is based upon the following core principles (in no particular order):

1. Relationship with ISEAL Credibility Principles

In addition to the requirements of this Standard, the principles set out asISEAL Credibility Principles shall apply.[2] Where this Standard provides formore specific requirements than the ISEAL Credibility Principles, such specificrequirements shall apply.

2. Voluntary nature

The development and operation of a Program operating under this internationalStandard is voluntary. This international Standard provides requirements for anorganization choosing to develop and operate such a Program using such MiQCertificates.

This Standard provides requirements for natural gas Producers to differentiatethe supply of their product based on its Methane Emissions performance. Theapplication of this Standard is a voluntary action taken by a Producer.

3. Uniqueness

No more than one MiQ Certificate or any other transferable certificate with apurpose of claiming Methane Emissions performance attributes shall be Issuedand subsequently Retired with respect to the same unit of output in order toavoid any potential double counting. A MiQ Certificate shall only be Issued withrespect to output which has not been and is not being otherwise used with apurpose of claiming Methane Emissions performance attributes. Duplication ofthe same MiQ Certificate shall be avoided over its whole lifecycle. The MethaneEmissions performance attributes of an amount of natural gas can only beclaimed through Retirement of the corresponding MiQ Certificate.

4. Transparency

Certification under this Standard is based on objective and publicly disclosedcriteria. Access to details of the MiQ Certificates Issued under this Standardshould be made available to the Account Holder in the Registry.

5. Immutability

The MiQ Certificate data shall not change in any way once a MiQ Certificate hasbeen Issued, except to correct an error,vi or to indicate that it has Expired or been

vi Errors do not include discrepancies between Initial Audit Grade and Verified Grade. The Verified Gradeis indicated separately from the Initial Audit Grade on each MiQ Certificate, following the Ex-Post Audit.

v0.9 16


Retired from the Registry. Re-bundling and re-labeling of MiQ Certificates toproduce derivatives shall not be allowed.

6. Ownership of MiQ Certificates

The Account Holder of an Account on the Registry shall be treated as the ownerof the MiQ Certificates in that Account.

7. Program operational reliability

Operational risks arising in the Issue, transfer, and Retirement processes forMiQ Certificates should be identified and mitigated through the developmentof appropriate systems, controls, and procedures. Program systems should bereliable and secure and have adequate capacity.

The Program(s) should include contingency plans and backup systems that allowfor timely recovery of records and operations and completion of the transferprocess. Records of Account registration, MiQ Certificate issuance, transfer, andretirement, and other Registry changes should be kept to enable resolution ofany potential disputes over ownership of and eligibility for MiQ Certificates.

8. Tradability

MiQ Certificates are transferable, and therefore tradable, as long as they areneither Retired nor Expired.

9. End of life

Every MiQ Certificate Issued under this Standard is subject to Expiry after apredefined period.

v0.9 17


6 Roles and Responsibilities

6.1 Certification Bodies

It is the role of Certification Bodies to carry out the necessary Audits (i.e. Ex-AnteAudit and Ex-Post Audit) according to the requirements defined in this Standard andits subsidiary documents, and according to the procedures defined in Procedure 1:Certification.

6.2 Producers

Producers eligible for Certification under this Standard include Producers of naturalgas from onshore natural gas and oil wells. Producers are responsible for:

• registering Facilities with a Issuing Body;

• selecting and contracting with a Certification Body that fulfills the requirementsof this Standard;

• engaging with the Certification Body to plan and prepare for the certificationprocess;

• providing all necessary information, data, and documentation as well as accessto relevant personnel and field operations to the Certification Body for it to carryout the Audits (see Procedure 1: Certification); and

• following all requirements defined in Procedure 2: Non-Compliance.

6.3 Other Roles and Responsibilities

Programs under this Standard shall further define at least the following roles andtheir responsibilities:

• Account Holders; and

• Issuing Bodies.

v0.9 18


7 Methane Emissions Certification

7.1 Applicability

A Facility is eligible to produce certified gas under this Standard under the followingboundary definitions:

• Physical boundary

The definition of Facility (as provided in Section 4) is a modification of thedefinition articulated in the US EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program(GHGRP).[5] Though the boundary definition leverages US legislation, thisStandard and all methodologies in the Standard documents are globallyapplicable to any Basin or Facility.

• Organizational boundary

Facilities and subsequent production must be under the responsibility of acommon owner or operator.

The ability of a Facility to qualify for certification is based on its Methane Emissionsperformance which is determined by the following Standard elements:

1. Methane Intensity

The requirements to be complied with are defined in Subsidiary Document 1:Methane Intensity – Onshore.

2. Company Practices

The requirements to be complied with are defined in the Subsidiary Document2: Company Practices – Onshore.

3. Monitoring Technology Deployment

The requirements to be complied with are defined in the Subsidiary Document3: Monitoring Technology Deployment – Onshore.

7.2 Certification

A Facility’s Methane Emissions performance, in accordance with the requirementsof the Standard, is first evaluated by a Certification Body in an Ex-Ante Audit. TheEx-Ante Audit Report outlines the Certificate Grade for the Certification Period, andis submitted to the Issuing Body for review. Certification will then be awarded toa Facility by the Issuing Body following their approval of the Ex-Ante Audit Reportfindings.

v0.9 19


See Procedure Document 1: Certification for more detail.

7.2.1 Certificate Grading System

Figure 1 outlines the certificate grading system according to this Standard. The MiQGrade is based on the Methane Emissions performance of a Facility, as evaluatedagainst the requirements of the three Standard elements.

Overall GradeGrade A-F

Methane Intensity

Calculated unitless percentage, rounded to two decimals.

Score ≤ 2.00% to qualify.

Company Practices

Mandatory Practices to qualify.

Score ≥ 4 in Improved Practices to qualify for higher grade.

Monitoring Technology Deployment

Annual Source Level Inspection to qualify.

Score ≥ 4 to qualify for higher grade.

Figure 1: Certificate grading system under this Standard

After the Issuing Body determines the Initial Audit Grade, MiQ Certificates are issuedfor each unit of gas (1 MWh thermal, based on the Higher Calorific Value) producedfrom a Facility within the Certification Period.

Table 2 details the overall certificate grading system for the Standard. Each Standardelement represents an inclusive requirement, such that a Facility must achievethe score indicated or better for all three elements in order to receive a givengrade. The overall Certificate Grade is based on the achieved scores for the threeStandard elements: (1) Methane Intensity, (2) Company Practices, and (3) MonitoringTechnology Deployment. Details on the determination of scores for each elementare defined in the respective subsidiary documents.

To achieve grades D – F by this Standard, a Facility must achieve the Methane Intensitytarget and the minimum score or higher for both Company Practices and MonitoringTechnology Deployment. In order to qualify for higher overall grades (A – C), a Facilitymust obtain a lower Methane Intensity in addition to higher scores for both CompanyPractices and Monitoring Technology Deployment. The scores for each element are

v0.9 20


assessed by the Certification Body, which recommends a grade for the Facility’s gasproduction to the Issuing Body in the Ex-Ante Audit Report.

After the Issuing Body determines the Initial Audit Grade, MiQ Certificates are issuedfor each unit of gas (1 MWh thermal, based on the Higher Calorific Value) producedfrom a Facility within the Certification Period.vii

Table 2: Certificate grading system - score requirements for the three Standardelements

Score requirements

Grade Methane Intensity Company Practices(Improved Practicespoints)

MonitoringTechnologyDeployment

A ≤ 0.05% ≥ 12 12

B ≤ 0.10% ≥ 8 8

C ≤ 0.20% ≥ 4 4

D ≤ 0.50% 0 0

E ≤ 1.00% 0 0

F ≤ 2.00% 0 0

7.2.2 Certificate end of life

Certificates issued by the Issuing Body and registered on a Registry represent a unitof MiQ Certified Gas and will have a lifetime of 36 months from the last day of themonth of issuance unless Retired at an earlier date. At the end of the 12-monthperiod, if not Retired, the MiQ Certificate will Expire.

The certification process under this Standard is defined in Procedure 1: Certification.

vii Conversion factors are defined in Annex A: Conversion Factors (Normative).

v0.9 21


8 Subsidiary and Procedure Documents

The Standard is structured with subsidiary documents and procedures as shown inFigure 2.

Procedure 2

Non-Compliance

Subsidiary Document 1

Methane Intensity

Procedure 1

Certification


Company Practices


Monitoring TechnologyDeployment

Main Document

Subsidiary Documents Procedures

Figure 2: Document hierarchy

8.1 Subsidiary Documents

The following subsidiary documents are defined to supplement this Standard:

• Subsidiary Document 1: Methane Intensity – Onshore

• Subsidiary Document 2: Company Practices – Onshore

• Subsidiary Document 3: Monitoring Technology Deployment – Onshore

8.2 Procedures

The following procedures are defined to supplement this Standard:

• Procedure 1: Certification

• Procedure 2: Non-Compliance

v0.9 22


Annex A: Conversion Factors (normative)

For conversion factors, please follow the values as defined in Table 3:

Table 3: Conversion factors[7]

Megawatt-hour thermal [MWh] Million British thermal unit [MMBtu]

1 3.412141286

0.2930711 1

Standard cubic meter [Sm3] Standard cubic feet [SCF]

1 35.31466672

0.028316847 1

For conversions related to different standard conditions and calorific values ofnatural gas volumes, please consult ISO 13443 – Natural gas – Standard referenceconditions.[3]

The higher calorific, gross or high heating value is the amount of heat produced bythe complete combustion of a unit quantity of fuel.[8]

v0.9 23


References

[1] Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J.,. . . Midgley, P. M. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical ScienceBasis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdomand New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

[2] ISEAL Alliance. (2013). ISEAL Credibility Principles: Principles for Credible andEffective Sustainability Standards Systems. Retrieved from https://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/files/resource/2017-11/ISEAL_Credibility_Principles.pdf

[3] International Organization for Standardization. (1996). ISO 13443:1996,Natural gas — Standard reference conditions. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/20461.html

[4] Natural Gas Sustainability Initiative. (2021, February). NGSI Methane EmissionsIntensity Protocol: Version 1.0. Retrieved from https://www.aga.org/contentassets/c87fc10961fe453fb35114e7d908934f/ngsi_methaneintensityprotocol_v1.0_feb2021.pdf

[5] US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 40 CFR Subpart W - Petroleumand Natural Gas Systems (2010). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-98/subpart-W

[6] Public Health and Environment, C. D. of. Air Quality Control CommissionRegulations (2014). Retrieved from https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs

[7] Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). (2020, February 26). RecommendedSI units and conversion factors. PetroWiki. Retrieved October 26, 2020, fromhttps://petrowiki.org/Recommended_SI_units_and_conversion_factors

[8] Engineering Toolbox. (2005). Heat Value. Retrieved October 26, 2020, fromhttps://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gross-net-heating-value-d_824.html

v0.9 24

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

https://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/files/resource/2017-11/ISEAL_Credibility_Principles.pdf



https://www.iso.org/standard/20461.html


https://www.aga.org/contentassets/c87fc10961fe453fb35114e7d908934f/ngsi_methaneintensityprotocol_v1.0_feb2021.pdf



https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/part-98/subpart-W


https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/aqcc-regs

https://petrowiki.org/Recommended_SI_units_and_conversion_factors

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gross-net-heating-value-d_824.html


SUBSIDIARY DOCUMENT 1:METHANE INTENSITY –ONSHORE

v0.9





MiQ Standard for Methane Emissions PerformanceSubsidiary Document 1: Methane Intensity – Onshore

Contents


1 Introduction 5

2 Scope of this Document 6


4 Methane Intensity 84.1 Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.2 Emission Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.3 Scoring Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.4 Alternative Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.5 Recordkeeping Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

References 14

v0.9 3



This document, MiQ Standard – Subsidiary Document 1: Methane Intensity – Onshore,is a subsidiary document to the MiQ Standard – Main Document.

In the event of conflict between the text of the Main Document and the text of thisdocument, the Main Document shall always take precedence.

This document is available to the general public under the above mentioned licenseterms.






v0.9 4


1 Introduction



1. Main Document


a. Subsidiary Document 1: Methane Intensity – Onshore (this document)



3. Procedures



This subsidiary document outlines the calculation of Methane Intensity as it pertainsto the Standard. In general terms, Methane Intensity is a ratio of Methane Emissionsrelative to natural gas throughput, which is a baseline indicator of Methane Emissionsperformance. See Section 4 for a detailed overview of the Methane Intensitymethodology used in this Standard.

v0.9 5


2 Scope of this Document

This subsidiary document is part of the MiQ Standard and defines the criteria andrequirements to determine the Methane Intensity of a Facility in accordance with theProtocol established by the Natural Gas Sustainability Initiative (NGSI) [1]. Though theNGSI Protocol references the US EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)methodology [2], this Standard and all methodology in this document are globallyapplicable. This document, where applicable, makes specific references to accountand allow for national differences in methodologies (where existing and detailed bylegislation).

This subsidiary document specifies a method to calculate the Methane Intensity ofnatural gas production from onshore Facilities.

v0.9 6





• US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program(GHGRP) Subpart W – Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems[2]

v0.9 7


4 Methane Intensity

Under this Standard, Producers are required to calculate Methane Intensity for aFacility seeking certification and keep detailed records of supplementary data inputsused in the Methane Intensity calculation (detailed in Section 4.5).

Methane Intensity is to be calculated annually for the Certification Period, usingrelevant historic data and assumptions for the Ex-Ante Audit and actual data for theEx-Post Audit. The Methane Intensity is to be reported either by the Producer orthrough a registry platform operated by the Program Holder.

4.1 Calculation

Methane Intensity is defined as the ratio of Methane Emissions relative to natural gasthroughput. Under this Standard, a Facility’s Methane Intensity is to be calculatedfollowing the Natural Gas Sustainability Initiative (NGSI) Protocol for the onshorenatural gas production segment.

It enables Producers to calculate an annual Facility Level Methane Intensity fromidentified Emission Sources (see Section 4.2) and with specified Emission Factors.

The NGSI Protocol Methane Intensity metric is the quotient of the mass of MethaneEmissions associated with natural gas from a Facility by the mass of natural gasProduction Throughput (in terms of methane content) at the Facility. It is calculatedannually as a unitless ratio, and communicated as a percentage. For example, aProducer can calculate its methane intensity as:

Methane Intensity = Methane Emissions ∗ Gas Ratio

Production Throughput ∗ Methane Content(%)

It represents the amount of methane emitted per unit of natural gas ProductionThroughput (in terms of methane content) at any given Facility for a given year. Thiscalculation takes into account natural gas Production Throughput relative to crudeand condensate throughput (the gas ratio), and only accounts for Methane Emissionsthat are attributable to the production of natural gas (according to relative energycontent).

Unit conversion factors necessary to complete the Methane Intensity calculation canbe found in the Main Document, Annex A: Conversion Factors.

The detailed method for calculating Facility Level Methane Intensity is outlined inthe NGSI Protocol, Section 3 – Protocol for the Onshore Production Segment.

v0.9 8


4.2 Emission Sources

A Facility’s calculated Methane Intensity must include Methane Emissions from allthe Emission Sources (outlined in Tables 2 and 3 in the NGSI Protocol) that arepresent in any given Facility. These Emission Sources include all required sourcesfor reporting to the EPA GHGRP Subpart W, and several additional sources from theUS EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) [3].i This method of Methane Emissionsaccounting utilizes a combination of Emission Factors, Engineering Calculations anddirect measurements.

Producers must also incorporate the results from each leak detection survey whencalculating Methane Emissions and Methane Intensity under the NGSI Protocol (SeeSubsidiary Document 3: Monitoring Technology Deployment – Onshore, Section 5.1for more detail).

4.3 Scoring Parameters

The overall grading system for the Standard is detailed in the Main Document. TheInitial Audit Grade and Verified Grade is based on the combination of individual scoresfor each of the Standard elements: (1) Methane Intensity, (2) Company Practices, and(3) Monitoring Technology Deployment.

A Facility’s Methane Intensity score is based on its calculated Methane Intensity(in %), as detailed in the score requirements in the Main Document, Section 7.2:Certification.

4.4 Alternative Methods

Producers seeking certification may utilize Emission Factors detailed in nationallegislation (where the Facility in question is located) in place of those prescribed bythe NGSI protocol and US GHGRP. In this case, the Producer must:

• account for all of the Emission Sources listed in the NGSI Protocol, at a minimum,over the Certification Period; and

i Emission Sources include: Acid Gas Removal, Associated Gas Venting, Associated Gas Flaring,Blowdowns, Blowdown Vent Stacks, Combustion Units, Centrifugal Compressors, ReciprocatingCompressors, Compressor Starts, Compressor Blowdowns, Damages, Dehydrator Vents, DistributionMains, Distribution Services, Equipment Leaks, Flare Stacks, Liquids Unloading, Meters, Natural GasPneumatic Device Vents, Natural Gas Driven Pneumatic Chemical Injection Pump Vents, Pressure ReliefValves, Station Venting, Storage Tank Vented Emissions, Storage Tank Vents, Well Drilling, Well VentingDuring Well Completions / Workovers with and without Hydraulic Fracturing, and Well Testing, Venting& Flaring. Each of the elements includes additional detail of Emission Sources within the element, suchas Dry Gas Seals and Wet Gas Seals within Centrifugal Compressors.

v0.9 9


• provide sufficient documentation of the applied Emission Factors andtheir associated Emission Sources in national legislation for the alternativecalculation(s) applied.

If a Producer determines that the Methane Intensity calculated according to themethods prescribed above does not accurately represent its Facility, then theProducer may submit alternative Methane Intensity calculations. For example,alternative calculations may include Facility specific Emission Factors, engineeringcalculations, process models, and direct measurement of Emission Sources[4].ii Inthis case, the Producer must submit detailed inputs and methods for calculatingMethane Intensity.

In this case, the Producer must:

• account for all of the Emission Sources listed in the NGSI Protocol, at a minimum,over the Certification Period; and

• provide sufficient documentation, such as independent scientific studiesand results of direct measurement campaigns (including but not limitedto the approach and methodology, monitoring equipment, site selectioncriteria, measurement period, measurement uncertainty, as well as technicalspecifications and challenge testing of any measurement solution used) for thealternative method applied.

This documentation shall be assessed by the Certification Body, who may consultthe MiQ Governance body. The final approval decision over the applied alternativemethodologies and resulting Methane Intensity score is made by the Issuing Body,based on the recommendations of the Certification Body.

4.5 Recordkeeping Requirements

In addition to the final calculated Methane Intensity value, Producers must documentthe following aspects that make up the Methane Intensity calculation for CertificationBody review (and note the individuals or departments responsible for determining),at a minimum:

ii Producers may refer to the Environmental Defense Fund’s “Hitting the Mark: Improving the Credibilityof Industry Methane Data” for recommendations for enhanced methane disclosure [4].

v0.9 10


Table 2: Recordkeeping Requirements

Aspect Detail

Production Facilities Producers must document all operational wells andassociated Production Equipment that make up a Facility,including Production Equipment added as a result ofdevelopment activity or acquisition, or removed due toabandonment, shut-in, divestiture, or any other changesmade during the Certification Period.

ProductionThroughput

Producers must document the Production Throughput andvolumes of crude oil and lease condensate used incalculating Methane Intensity (as defined in the NGSIProtocol, Section 3: Onshore Production SegmentThroughput), including the source of data.

Equipment Count Producers must document the total Equipment countassociated with each Emission Source (as listed in the NGSIProtocol’s Tables 2 and 3) for all Production Equipmentincluded within a Facility, and the method used todetermine this count.

Activity data Producers must document the activity data associated witheach Emission Source (e.g. operating time, estimatedleaking time for leaker emission sources). Producers mustalso document their observations of leaking componentsusing LDAR (see Subsidiary Document 3: MonitoringTechnology Deployment, Section 5.1 for more detail).

v0.9 11


Aspect Detail

Calculation method For each Emission Source listed in the NGSI Protocol’sTables 2 and 3, Producers must document the approachused to calculate Methane Emissions from that EmissionSource. For Emission Sources with multiple calculationoptions (see the NGSI Protocol’s Table 2 for an overview ofall calculation methods by Emission Source), Producersmust document the method chosen, any engineeringassumptions (including the rationale for the assumption),and its application to the calculation.If alternative methods (see Section 4.4) are applied,Producers must document all calculation and/or modellingassumptions, and/or technical specifications ofmeasurement technologies deployed.

Engineeringassumptions

Energy content and Gas RatioThe allocation of Methane Emissions between natural gasproduction and other hydrocarbon production must bedocumented and substantiated, including the factor usedfor energy content of natural gas (whether default raw gasvalue or company-specific value) and the factor used forenergy content of liquids (whether default crude oil andcondensate heating value or company-specific value(s)). IfProducers use company-specific values, the source andderivation of those values must be documented.Methane contentThe Production Throughput is converted to mass ofmethane for use in the calculation, by using aFacility-specific methane content value. If Producers use aFacility-specific value, methodology used for determiningmethane content must be documented.

v0.9 12


Aspect Detail

Processes andresponsibilities

Producers must document their processes for determiningand internally reviewing their Methane Intensity foraccuracy. This should include a detailed record of calculationmethods, parameters (Emission Sources, throughput values,and energy and methane content factors) used in both theMethane Intensity calculation and emissions reporting (ifapplicable), and any internal changes to calculations basedon operational incidents and planned events.

v0.9 13


References



[3] US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2017, February 8). Inventory ofU.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. Reports and Assessments. RetrievedOctober 28, 2020, from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks

[4] EDF+Business. (2020, February). Hitting the Mark: Improving the Credibilityof Industry Methane Data. Retrieved October 28, 2020, from https://business.edf.org/insights/hitting-the-mark-improving-the-credibility-of-industry-methane-data/

v0.9 14






https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks

https://business.edf.org/insights/hitting-the-mark-improving-the-credibility-of-industry-methane-data/




SUBSIDIARY DOCUMENT 2:COMPANY PRACTICES –ONSHORE

v0.9





MiQ Standard for Methane Emissions PerformanceSubsidiary Document 2: Company Practices – Onshore

Contents


1 Introduction 5


3 Performance Criteria 83.1 General Company Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2 Company Practices for Managing and Reducing Unintended Methane

Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.3 Company Practices for Managing and Reducing Intended Methane

Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173.4 Required Evidence Available to Auditors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

References 24

v0.9 3



This document, MiQ Standard – Subsidiary Document 2: Company Practices –Onshore, is a subsidiary document to the MiQ Standard – Main Document.








v0.9 4


1 Introduction



1. Main Document



b. Subsidiary Document 2: Company Practices – Onshore (this document)


3. Procedures



Effective management of Methane Emissions from oil and gas production begins witha Facility design that will achieve minimal inherent Methane Emissions and eliminates,to the greatest degree possible, the potential for Fugitive Emissions. However, reviewof the Methane Intensity calculation alone is not a sufficient indicator of a Facility’seffectiveness in Methane Emissions management. Beyond calculated MethaneIntensity, Producers must demonstrate effective Methane Emissions managementthrough Company Practices which exhibit an overarching cultural drive to improveMethane Emissions performance.

Certification under this Standard includes evaluation of Company Practices, whichinclude policies and procedures a Producer employs to ensure it is managing andminimizing Methane Emissions. By establishing and implementing CompanyPractices to guide personnel in Methane Emissions detection and repair, reportingprotocols, and data evaluation, Producers can ensure Methane Emissions aremanaged appropriately throughout the operations lifecycle.

v0.9 5


A Producer should be able to not only produce documentation of their CompanyPractices and procedures, but should also be able to demonstrate that operationspersonnel understand, implement and comply with those practices.

v0.9 6



This subsidiary document is part of the MiQ Standard and defines the CompanyPractices criteria and requirements for compliance with this Standard. This documentoutlines the mandatory and improved Company Practices related to MethaneEmissions management, including monitoring for Unintended Methane Emissions,minimizing Intended Methane Emissions, reporting, and operator training. Therequired Company Practices are broken into three categories:

1. General Company Practices

Outline the required general policies and procedures to demonstrate MethaneEmissions management practices at a Facility, in accordance with a best practiceapproach.

2. Company Practices for Managing and Reducing Unintended MethaneEmissions

Outline the policies and procedures required to effectively identify and fixUnintended Methane Emissions at a Facility.

3. Company Practices for Managing and Reducing Intended Methane Emissions

Outline the policies and procedures required to minimize Intended MethaneEmissions at a Facility.

This subsidiary document covers Company Practices for natural gas production fromonshore Facilities.

v0.9 7


3 Performance Criteria

A Producer seeking certification for a Facility under this Standard is required to provideevidence of their Company Practices relevant to Methane Emissions management.Specific performance criteria are based on the presence, content, and implementationof these Company Practices.

The performance criteria can be demonstrated by a Producer through formal policyor procedure. In the absence of formal policy or procedure, the Producer may presentother documentation of training and implementation of Company Practices at theFacility.

The performance criteria for managing and reducing Unintended Methane Emissionsand Intended Methane Emissions are categorized either as:

• Mandatory: Must be demonstrated by the Producer in order to qualify for theStandard; or

• Improved: By demonstrating these practices, a Producer can achieve theadditional points required to qualify for higher MiQ Grades.

The overall grading system for the Standard is detailed in the Main Document.The MiQ Grade is determined based on the individual scores for each of theStandard elements: (1) Methane Intensity, (2) Company Practices, and (3) MonitoringTechnology Deployment.

For a Facility to be certified under this Standard, each mandatory Company Practicesperformance criteria outlined below must be met. Facilities which adopt improvedpractices for reducing Methane Emissions are eligible for higher MiQ Grades. Theimproved performance criteria are assessed via a points-based scoring system. Pointsfor improved practices are indicated in Tables 2, 3, 4 below. If a Facility demonstratesat least one of the elements listed for an improved practice topic, as outlined inTables 2, 3, 4, it should receive all points nominated for that practice, except if twoelements are indicated to be related by the word “and”.

3.1 General Company Practices

Facilities seeking certification will employ general Company Practices to eliminateMethane Emissions to the greatest degree possible. This will include building aculture of eliminating Methane Emissions as well as employing design strategies forboth operations and maintenance activities.

v0.9 8


The general policies and procedures are listed in Table 2,i categorized according totheir character (‘Mandatory’ or ‘Improved’).

Table 2: General Company Practices (GP)

Practice Character Points

(GP1.1) Employee training and awarenessOperations staff receive training that:

• emphasizes the importance of eliminatingMethane Emissions, equipment most likelyto leak, signs of Methane Emissions includingAudial, Visual, and Olfactory (AVO)observations that may indicate a problem,and actions to take in the event of anobservation; and

• details how to log and report MethaneEmissions for purposes of annual MethaneEmissions calculations; and

• is offered at least annually (detailed versionfor new staff, refresher version for staff with>1 year experience.)

Mandatory -

i Company Practices are numbered by type. Practice types include General Practices (GP), UnintendedMethane Emissions Practices (UMEP), and Intended Methane Emissions Practices (IMEP).

v0.9 9



(GP1.2) Reporting Methane Emissionsobservations and incidents

• A reporting system is accessible for all staff toreport Methane Emissions relatedobservations or incidents; and

• Recordkeeping guidance details what type ofdocumentation needs to be submitted whenMethane Emissions are detected outsideroutine LDAR inspections. This includescomprehensive guidance for identifying,characterizing, and communicatingNon-Compliance Events (as detailed inProcedure Document 2: Non-Compliance,Section 5: Non-Compliance Notification andRecordkeeping); and

• Chain of command and notificationprocesses are clearly outlined.

Mandatory -

v0.9 10



(GP1.3) Estimating and measuring MethaneEmissionsIn line with regulatory GHG reporting wherepresent, guidance for measurement methods andcalculation of Methane Emissions includes:

• Emission Sources that should be estimatedand monitored (and the circumstances underwhich they might not be monitored); and

• Unintended emissions event estimation orQuantification method(s); and

• Equipment to be used for measurement andthe specific applications for that equipment;and

• Information to be collected and reportedfrom detection and/or measurementinspections; and

• Reference to and protocols for applyingleaker Emissions Factors; and

• Reference to NGSI Protocol methodology. [1]

Mandatory -

(GP1.4) Continual improvementMethane management is integrated into theProducer’s company culture, as evidenced by:

• a Health, Safety & Environment (HSE)communication plan that includes MethaneEmissions reduction best practices; and

• availability of capacity building and upskillingfor operators; and

• a key performance metric for MethaneEmissions (such as Methane Intensity) that istracked for the Facility and regularlycommunicated with the staff.

Mandatory -

v0.9 11


3.2 Company Practices for Managing and Reducing Unintended MethaneEmissions

Reducing Unintended Methane Emissions requires awareness and monitoring ofareas where Fugitive Emissions may occur. Specific actions will include activelylooking for Unintended Methane Emissions, tracking Emission Sources thathave been repaired or replaced, developing preventative maintenance plans,and confirming that all required repairs have been completed and verified in anappropriate timeframe. Company Practices relevant to these actions are stated belowin Table 3.

v0.9 12


Table 3: Company Practices for managing and reducing Unintended MethaneEmissions (UMEP)


(UMEP1.1) Employee training and awarenessOperational and maintenance team trainingincludes:

• Audial, Visual, and Olfactory (AVO) specifictrainings for field personnel that detail howand why to make routine checks for MethaneEmissions during site visits; and

Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR)method-specific trainings for:

• Method 21 [2] or equivalent - Producer’spersonnel responsible for carrying outinspection are trained in proper use ofinstruments, instrument calibration,inspection methods and regulatoryrequirements; and/or

• Optical Gas Imaging (OGI) – Producer’spersonnel responsible for use of OGI camerasare trained in the regulatory requirements forsurvey, calibration and proper use of thespecific camera deployed by the Producer;and.

In the event LDAR surveys are carried out bythird-party personnel, the Producer should be inpossession of training records documenting thetraining of personnel hired; andAlternative technology programs have consistentequipment operating and reporting proceduresfor consistent deployment.

Mandatory -

v0.9 13



(UMEP1.2) Monitoring Technology Deploymentfor LDARLDAR plan outlines at a minimum:

• specific equipment / components included inLDAR survey (must reference process valves,connectors, compressor seals, open-endedlines, meters, pressure relief valves, regulators,and pneumatic controllers); and

• leak definition; and

• monitoring methodology (reference toequipment, frequency, conditions, reportinglog); and

• repair or replacement strategy, includingwhen to take immediate corrective actionand when delay of repair is permitted; and

• first attempt requirements within 28 days ofdetection; and

• final repair attempt (maximum 60-dayallowance from time of detection); and

• repair verification completed within 60 daysof initial repair attempt; and

• steps to be taken for delay of repair, includingtagging and reporting; and

• recordkeeping and tracking for delay ofrepair to ensure appropriate follow-up actionis taken; and

• clear roles and responsibilities for repair orreplacement.

Mandatory -

v0.9 14



(UMEP1.3) Managing Methane Emissions fromtanks

• Policies for managing tank emissions mustaddress all key stages of tank use, includingtank filling, tank breathing and tank cleaning;and

• Producers inspect and monitor key areas thatmay result in Methane Emissions from tanksincluding vapor recovery systems, thiefhatches, upstream dump valves, pneumaticcontrollers, and other areas; and

• Policies and procedures for managing tanksinclude observation for Methane Emissionsand preventative maintenance based onhistorical inspection findings.

Mandatory -

v0.9 15



(UMEP1.3.1)In addition to the above, Producers elect to:

• install tank pressure monitoring systems andalarms; and/or

• remotely observe tank batteries usingintegrated operation centers; and/or

• utilize automated tank gauging andreporting; and/or

• install thief hatch monitoring and automatedreporting systems; and/or

• centralize tanks from multiple locations toeliminate sources of Methane Emissions;and/or

• utilizes a vapor recovery tower to capturevapor and limit flash on atmospheric tanks;and/or

• design facilities which eliminate the use oftanks.

Improved 2 points

(UMEP1.4) Directed inspection andmaintenanceTo manage Methane Emissions, Producers elect to:

• target major equipment (i.e. pneumaticcontrollers, thief hatches, natural gas vents,vapor recovery equipment operation,compressor stations, flares) for observation;and

• use cumulative data to develop preventativemaintenance plans; and

• determine equipment to target based onaccumulated historical data from LDARinspection records.[3]

Improved 1 point

v0.9 16


3.3 Company Practices for Managing and Reducing Intended MethaneEmissions

Though Facilities can be designed to minimize Methane Emissions, certainequipment operations and maintenance activities, by design or by definition,result in the release of natural gas (and therefore methane) to the atmosphere. Byimplementing Company Practices to reduce Intended Methane Emissions, Producerscan ensure the amount of gas released is minimized.

Table 4: Company Practices for managing and reducing Intended MethaneEmissions (IMEP)


(IMEP1.1) Venting - Manual liquid unloadingCompany Practices require that the manualunloading process is monitored onsite bypersonnel, and that venting to atmosphere is shutoff as soon as possible once liquids have beenremoved and gas begins to vent.

Mandatory -

(IMEP1.1.1)Producers implement non-venting unloadingprocesses (manual or automated). CertificationBody must verify evidence that non-ventingunloading processes are attempted before ventedunloading where applicable.

Improved 1 point

(IMEP1.2) Venting - Production EquipmentPumpdownProducer coordinates operational and routinemaintenance repairs to minimize the number ofpumpdowns required

Mandatory -

v0.9 17



(IMEP 1.2.1)Producers implement:

• policies and procedures for removal ofnatural gas from equipment or systemsscheduled for repair to the greatest extentpossible prior to pumpdown, whilemaintaining safe operations; and/or

Production Equipment to service, whichaddress purging the equipment of air prior torestoring operation while minimizing naturalgas emitted during purging operations;and/or

• natural gas vented during pumpdowns isrouted to a flare to minimize MethaneEmissions.

Improved 1 point

(IMEP1.3) Venting - Pneumatic DevicesProducers with operations utilizing natural gasdriven pneumatic devices must implement:

• procedures to maintain accurate inventory ofpumps and controllers (checked annually ata minimum); and

• policies and procedures to ensure controllersare operating as designed (based on type ofservice (on/off, throttling) and type of venting(continuous or intermittent)) based onregulatory published limits or industryequipment standardsii; and

• Devices are included in regular inspection inLDAR plan as emission source.

Mandatory -

v0.9 18



(IMEP1.3.1)Producers have:

• installed non-venting (i.e. no-bleed, electric,mechanical, or instrument air) pneumaticcontrollers, actuators and pumps in place ofgas-driven pneumatics for >50% ofinventory).

Improved 2 points

(IMEP1.3.2)Producers have:

• Implemented a program (dated >1yr prior totime of audit) to replace remaining naturalgas driven devices with non-venting deviceswithin 3 years of applying for the Standard,and have demonstrated progress against thisprogram; and/or

• Implemented program that all newconstruction will include non-ventingpneumatic devices.

Improved 1 point

(IMEP1.4) Venting - Compressors

• Producers implement policies to replacereciprocating compressor rings on a fixedschedule based on run hours; and

• Producers have estimated methane loss fromreciprocating compressor rod packing andevaluated the economic threshold forreplacement.

Mandatory -

v0.9 19



(IMEP1.4.1)Producers have evaluated controls to addresscompressor seal methane losses and outlined aprogram to:

• replace centrifugal compressor wet sealswith dry seals or route seal oil gas such that itis recovered or flared; and

• upgrade of reciprocating compressorpacking cups, rings, gaskets, rods based onindication of leak from rod packinginspection, or gas emitted is routed torecovery or flare.

Improved 1 point

(IMEP1.5) Well completions and workoversProducers implement a Reduced EmissionsCompletions (RECs) practice at hydraulic fracturedwells, to capture natural gas that is producedduring completions or workovers to limit ventingto atmosphere.Where implementing a REC is infeasible due toreservoir characteristic, gas is recovered androuted to a combustion device

Improved 1 point

(IMEP1.6) Well operationsProducers implement policies and procedures toaddress casinghead gas venting by:

• evaluating appropriate emission controls atoil wells based on operational considerations(well and reservoir characteristics); and

• capturing and routing casinghead gas foronsite recovery, sales or flare where possible.

Improved 1 point

v0.9 20



(IMEP1.7) FlaringProducers must implement:

• policies to define the use of flaring (routineand non-routine event categories, acceptabledurations); and

• flaring or combusting natural gas whenrecovery is not possible, and limiting gasrouted to vent (including for oil wells at thefacility); and

• procedures which define stable operatingrange and criteria for all flare systems,considering emergency events, for goodcombustion efficiency [4];iii and

• policies and procedures to ensure flares aremanaged and maintained to ensure flarefunctionality, flares are targeted during LDARsurveys, and good combustion efficiency isachieved through utilizing staff/consultantsfor inspections (AVO and engineering &maintenance inspections).

Mandatory -

(IMEP1.7.1)Producers have implemented policies to minimizethe use of routine flaring (applicable to both gasand oil wells), except in the event of anemergency.[5]

• Policies in place to check infrastructuretakeaway is in place before well packagescome online; and

• Utilize a flare gas capture system to reducethe volume of gas flared.

Improved 2 points

v0.9 21



(IMEP1.7.2)Flares are managed to ensure flaring functionalityand efficiency through control and engineeringdesign. Systems may include:

• SCADA systems and logic controllers tomonitor flare ignition;

• auto ignition system for unsupervised flarestacks with intermittent flaring;

• flare capacity and production level ismaintained to ensure flare’s combustionefficiency matches range of production anddoes not overload;

• thermocouples (temperature sensors) toensure pilots stay lit or flame out detectiondevice installed.

Improved 1 point

3.4 Required Evidence Available to Auditors

The Producer’s Company Practices will be reviewed by the Auditor in advance ofan onsite Audit. The purpose of onsite Audits is to interview personnel and observeoperations activities to verify the understanding and implementation of the CompanyPractices for Methane Emissions management. The Auditor will use a combination ofinterviews and observations to determine whether the policies reviewed are effectivelyunderstood and implemented.

Required evidence of implementation of improved practices may include, but isnot limited to, facility logs, equipment run time, P&IDs and maintenance inspection

ii Based on standard emissions rates for the controller category, such as those published by the US EPA(Oil and Natural Gas Sector Pneumatic Devices).

iii For reference, flare performance studies by the US EPA determined a 98% conversion of organiccompounds to carbon dioxide, or greater, as good combustion efficiency. This good combustionefficiency is achieved through flare design, flame stability, and operating envelope parameters (heatcontent, velocity, gas composition etc).

v0.9 22


records. The Auditor may request additional documentation and metrics from theFacility for the purposes of Ex-Post Audit.

v0.9 23


References


[2] US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2017). Method 21 -Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks. Retrieved fromhttps://www.epa.gov/emc/method-21-volatile-organic-compound-leaks

[3] Methane Guiding Principles. (2019). Reducing Methane Emissions: BestPractice Guide - Equipment Leaks. Retrieved from https://methaneguidingprinciples.org/best-practice-guides/equipment-leaks/

[4] US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2012). Parameters for ProperlyDesigned and Operated Flares. US EPA Office of Air Quality Planning andStandards (OAQPS). Retrieved from https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/flare/2012flaretechreport.pdf

[5] Methane Guiding Principles. (2019). Reducing Methane Emissions: BestPractice Guide - Flaring. Retrieved from https://methaneguidingprinciples.org/best-practice-guides/flaring/

v0.9 24




https://www.epa.gov/emc/method-21-volatile-organic-compound-leaks

https://methaneguidingprinciples.org/best-practice-guides/equipment-leaks/

https://methaneguidingprinciples.org/best-practice-guides/equipment-leaks/

https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/flare/2012flaretechreport.pdf

https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/flare/2012flaretechreport.pdf

https://methaneguidingprinciples.org/best-practice-guides/flaring/

https://methaneguidingprinciples.org/best-practice-guides/flaring/


SUBSIDIARY DOCUMENT 3:MONITORING TECHNOLOGYDEPLOYMENT – ONSHORE

v0.9





MiQ Standard for Methane Emissions PerformanceSubsidiary Document 3: Monitoring Technology Deployment – Onshore

Contents


1 Introduction 5


3 Technology Deployment Objective and Performance Criteria 93.1 Key Performance Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.2 Performance Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.2.1 Facility Scale Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.2.2 Source Level Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 164.1 Evidence for exemption – Facility Scale inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5 Interconnections with other Standard Elements 205.1 Interconnection with calculated Methane Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205.2 Interconnection with Company Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Annex A: Methane monitoring technologies (informative) 22

Annex B: Facility Scale inspection from satellites (informative) 24

References 28

v0.9 3



This document, MiQ Standard – Subsidiary Document 3: Monitoring TechnologyDeployment – Onshore, is a subsidiary document to the MiQ Standard – MainDocument.








v0.9 4


1 Introduction



1. Main Document




c. Subsidiary Document 3: Monitoring Technology Deployment – Onshore(this document)

3. Procedures



This subsidiary document outlines requirements for Monitoring TechnologyDeployment for detection of Unintended Methane Emission Sources.

Detecting and abating Unintended Sources of Methane Emissions is a key elementof Methane Emissions management for a Facility. Detecting and tracking EmissionSources helps a Facility prioritize repair and maintenance activities, manageoperational practices, and improve engineering design. Methane Emissions canoriginate from many types of equipment and processes; therefore, effective andfrequent detection is essential to quickly identify and remediate UnintendedMethane Emissions. Methods for both detection and measurement of MethaneEmissions include approaches that are widely available and commonly implemented(including specified by regulation), as well as new and emerging technologysolutions.

v0.9 5


Methane Emissions monitoring technologies can be deployed along a spectrum ofspatial and temporal scales. Top-down approaches aggregate Methane Emissionsfrom multiple Emission Sources at larger spatial scales (e.g. using aerial surveys orsatellites), whereas bottom-up approaches are intended to detect individual EmissionSources at smaller spatial scales (e.g. using handheld devices or perimeter sensors).Both top-down and bottom-up monitoring approaches can vary in temporal scale.Figure 1 illustrates simplified examples of methane monitoring technologies inrelation to spatial and temporal scale (see Annex A for more detail).

SATELLITES

REGIONAL TOWERS

Spat

ial co

vera

ge

Temporal frequency

Continental toglobal

(100-1000 km2)

Regional(10-1000 km2)

Site to facility(<1-10 km2)

Individualsource

(<1-10 m2)

Second Day Year

Bottom-up

Top-down

PERIMETER SENSORS

AIRBORNECARRIERS

HANDHELD

VEHICLES

Figure 1: Methane monitoring technology across a variety of spatial and temporalscales (adapted from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine,2018[1])

Efforts to reconcile top-down and bottom-up Quantification approaches continueto develop through research and industry collaboration. The existing body of workreveals that top-down approaches often produce Methane Emissions estimates thatare significantly higher than those from bottom-up approaches.[2, 3]i These studiesindicate that under-representation of abnormally high emission sources, commonly

i For example, David Allen et al. [2] and Adam Brandt et al. [3] examine the notable discrepanciesbetween top-down and bottom-up Methane Emissions estimates.

v0.9 6


referred to as Super-Emitters, is one cause of this divergence. Super-Emitters arespatially and temporally dynamic, and the characteristics that cause these emissionsvary. Therefore, detection at both the Facility Level and Source Level, and at increasedfrequencies, is key to effective Methane Emissions management and mitigation.

Spatial scales referenced within the Standard, specifically with regards to methaneemissions detection, are outlined below in Figure 2.

Facility

Site

Source

Figure 2: Spatial scales utilized within the Standard, referencing the definitions ofFacility, Site, and Source as outlined in the Standard – Main Document, see there forreference.

v0.9 7



This subsidiary document is part of the MiQ Standard and defines the MonitoringTechnology Deployment criteria and requirements for compliance with the Standard.Monitoring Technology Deployment is considered a part of a holistic technologysolution, which takes into consideration the sensor capabilities, deployment protocols,analysis methods and follow up protocol.

This document outlines the requirement for Monitoring Technology Deployment forthe Detection of Methane Emissions. This version does not require Measurement orQuantification through technology deployment. However, Measurement is highlyencouraged to improve understanding of Emission Sources and establish the cost-effectiveness of abatement options.

Over time as sensor technologies, associated deployment and analytic methodsimprove, the Standard will be updated to reflect recommended best practices.

v0.9 8


3 Technology Deployment Objective and PerformanceCriteria

The primary objective of Monitoring Technology Deployment is to:

• demonstrate active management of Methane Emissions through identificationof Unintended Sources, including Super-Emitters, followed up with necessarycorrective actions.

This objective harmonizes with other elements of this Standard:

• to provide assurance of the calculated Methane Intensity (see SubsidiaryDocument 1: Methane Intensity – Onshore);

• to implement better operating practices and equipment design for reducedMethane Emissions; and

• to encourage Producers to work towards Measurement or Quantification ofEmission Sources at their Facilities.

3.1 Key Performance Parameters

The overall grading system for the Standard is detailed in the Main Document.The MiQ Grade is determined based on the individual scores for each of theStandard elements: (1) Methane Intensity, (2) Company Practices, and (3) MonitoringTechnology Deployment.

A Facility’s score for Monitoring Technology Deployment is based on the followingkey parameters. These parameters are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Key Parameters

Parameter Description

Frequency of MonitoringTechnology Deployment

The minimum number of surveys per year.More frequent surveys, with the same methodology,provide higher assurance in the identification andcomplementary repair of Emission Sources.

v0.9 9


Parameter Description

Sampling coverage ofMonitoring TechnologyDeployment

The minimum percentage of Sites required to besurveyed within a Facility boundary. Achieving andmaintaining uniformly low Methane Emissions levelswill require detection technology deployment at alarger fraction of Sites integrating both Facility Scaleand Source Level approaches over a given time period.

Minimum Detection Limit(MDL) of MonitoringTechnology

The minimum rate of Methane Emissions detectableby a specific technology solution. Technologies withlower MDL can identify more (including smaller)Methane Emission Sources.The technology solution required to achieve thedesired MDL and detection probabilityii must beapplicable for the specific Facility and validated by theCertification Bodyiii.

3.2 Performance Scoring

Table 3 outlines the performance criteria and associated score for MonitoringTechnology Deployment under the Standard. Both Facility Scale inspection for SiteLevel Super-Emitters, and Source Level leak inspections are specified.

A Producer is required, at a minimum, to conduct a baseline Source Level inspectionover the entire Facility annually in order to be certified under this Standard. Producerscan achieve a higher score by increasing the frequency and coverage of Source Levelinspections, as well as Facility Scale inspections to identify Site Level Super-Emitters.

The details for Facility Scale and Source Level inspection for leaks is outlined inSections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, respectively.

ii The validity of an MDL must be shown through a Probability of Detection (PoD) metric, which is thenumber of true positive detections divided by the number of possible detections at the emission rate.This metric can be provided by technology providers who have conducted field assessment at a testingfacility or similar. For the purposes of this Standard, an PoD of at least 90% must be achieved for a giventechnology.

iii The methodology for determining an alternative Facility Level survey MDL (including sensorequipment, deployment characteristics; test method, and measurement period) must be presented tothe Certification Body during the Ex-Ante Audit period.

v0.9 10


Table 3: Technology Performance Criteria

MonitoringObjective

FacilityScaleInspectioniv

SourceLevelInspectionv

Points

Super Emitteridentification& increasedsourceidentification

quarterly(MDL25kg/hr)

EntireFacility

quarterly 50% of Sites 12

semiannually(MDL25kg/hr)

EntireFacility

triannually

50% of Sites 8

annually(MDL25kg/hr)

EntireFacility

semiannually

50% of Sites 4

Baselinesourceidentification

N/A annually All Sites 0

3.2.1 Facility Scale Inspection

The intention of a Facility Scale inspection is to provide assurance that abnormallyhigh emissions are being monitored for, through the detection of Site Level Super-Emitters. The minimum frequency of Monitoring Technology Deployment is outlinedin Table 3. Coverage of the entire Facility is required during each Facility Scale survey.The technology solution is not prescribed here, however must be capable of achieving

iv A Facility where a Continuous Monitoring System is installed on ≥ 50% of Sites, is exempt from thismonitoring objective, however is still required to complete the annual Baseline Site Level inspectionover all Sites and associated Production Equipment, as well as Source Level inspection for leaks (seeSection 3.2.2 for detail).

v Producers may choose to use alternative methods in conjunction with legislatively approved methodsfor Site Level monitoring. AVO inspections are to be conducted in addition to this requirement (at thediscretion of the Producer).

v0.9 11


this level of detection in order to narrow the source to a single Site spatial boundary,hence the use of the term Site Level Super Emitter. The default MDL for Site LevelSuper-Emitter inspection is based on research conducted in the US Barnett Shaleby Zavala-Araiza et al (2017).[4]vi Site to regional scale technology carriers can bedeployed to identify Super-Emitters given they meet the monitoring performancecriteria outlined in Table 3.

A Facility which has a Continuous Monitoring System deployed on 50% or moreof existing Sites are exempt. The Continuous Monitoring System must still meetthe Facility Level inspection criteria; an MDL (25 kg/hr) detected within 1 hour ofemissions start and provide an automated detection alert. Evidence for exemption(see Section 4.1) is to be submitted to and reviewed by the Certification Body duringthe Ex-Ante Audit stage.

Detection of these abnormally high emitting emissions must trigger a producerto follow up with source identification within 24hours and perform necessary finalcorrective actions (repair or replacement protocol, process improvements) within28 days (a delay to repair over this timeframe requires written explanation), repairverification within 60 days of repair, in addition to accounting for the Emission sourcein the Facility emissions inventory.

An inspection recordkeeping form and corrective actions log (where required) mustbe populated for each survey and available for Audit (refer to Section 4).

3.2.1.1 Alternative Methods If a Producer determines that the default MDL doesnot enable sufficient identification and characterization of Site Level Super-Emittersat their Facility, then a Producer may use an alternative method.

For example, where a Facility has conducted sufficient historic and representativeMeasurements of Emission Sources to derive a Methane Emissions distributionprofile, the highest-emitting 1-5% of Sites can be used to determine a more sensitiveSite Level Super-Emitter MDL.[4, 5]vii Alternatively, the functional Super-Emitterframework may be applied to determine a Facility-specific Super-Emitter MDL. [6]viii

vi This rate corresponds to the highest-emitting 1% of sites in the study, which collectively account for44% of Methane Emissions from all sites.

vii A Super-Emitter’s emission rate threshold is not universally defined. Super-Emitters are typicallyconsidered the largest 5% of leaks which are responsible for more than 50% of the total volume ofleakage (Brandt et al, 2016)[5] or the highest-emitting 1% of sites in a site-based distribution (Zavala-Araiza et al., 2017)[4].

viii Zavala-Araiza et al (2015) proposes “functionally” defining a Super-Emitter in relation to a site’s scaleof Production Throughput, to identify areas with the highest proportional loss rates (methane emittedrelative to methane produced). For example, one could classify Super-Emitters by first categorizing sites

v0.9 12


In any case, the methodology for determining an alternative Facility Scale surveyMDL (including sensor equipment, deployment characteristics; test method, andmeasurement period) must be presented to the Certification Body during the Ex-AnteAudit period.

Satellite data services may be submitted for Facility Scale inspections. The details ofthe data service must be disclosed to the Certification Body during the Ex-Ante Auditperiod for approval. The required frequency of Facility Scale inspection must still beadhered to (see Table 3). Because satellites vary in terms of their revisit time, thefrequency of observations over a Facility will depend on the instrument in question.Additionally, several factors affect a satellite’s ability to produce reliable observationsat Facility Scale, including spatial resolution, weather and ground surface conditions,and post-survey processing time. These factors, in addition to the instruments’ highMDL, will impact a satellite’s ability to detect and characterize Methane Emissions.Annex B further discusses these limitations and outlines the current and emerging(as of date of this Standard Version) satellite technologies available for the objectiveof top-down Super-Emitter detection at a Facility Scale.

3.2.2 Source Level Inspection

The intention of the Source Level inspection is to identify and detect sources ofUnintended Methane Emissions to the equipment and component level, for repairor replacement. A Producer may employ either an LDAR program prescribed by aregulatory body or an Alternative LDAR program. Details of the technology programmust be outlined in the Producer’s LDAR Company Practice documentation.

Where a Producer has gained Facility Scale inspection exemption based ondeployment of a Continuous Monitoring System, the same system may also be usedto meet the requirements of Source Level inspection for leaks; based on placement,detection capability, data analysis and relay, as evaluated by the Certification Body inEx-Ante Audit (refer to Section 4.1 for required evidence).

The sampling coverage is defined on the Site Level, where the minimum percentageof Sites to be monitored is specified. As a Facility is inclusive of Production Equipmentnecessary to support production activities, 50% of Sites monitored at the Source Levelmust also cover supporting equipment, such as that used for separation, treating,compression, manifolds and storage (i.e. tank batteries). A minimum percentage ofSites monitored is intended to enable a Producer to focus their Methane Emissions

by their scale of production (<10 mcfd, 10-100 mcfd, 100-1000 mcfd, or >1000 mcfd), and then usinga defined Super-Emitter threshold, >85th percentile, to target emissions considered to be caused byavoidable operational conditions.[6]

v0.9 13


monitoring and repair program on sources with the greatest Methane Emissionspotential and to complement other Company Practices described in SubsidiaryDocument 2: Company Practices – Onshore. The monitoring location selectioncriteria must be disclosed in a company’s LDAR practice documentation. Monitoringlocation selection may be based on the following characteristics, including but notlimited to:

• production throughput;

• age of infrastructure;

• condensate production;

• installation of emission reduction equipment or no leak equipment; and

• maintenance and repair program observations.

Source Level emissions must be monitored at or above the specified frequencyoutlined in Table 3. For Sites and Production Equipment which have no componentswith detectable leaks over the last three consecutive quarters, the survey frequencycan be reduced to the next lower score level (see Table 3). However, to maintain thehighest score, evidence of continued component non-detects must be recorded tocontinue with the reduced survey frequency.

Sources with confirmed visible leaks must be scheduled for repair or replacement, asper the Producer’s LDAR program. The validation of repaired leaks must be specifiedin the program and occur within 60 days of the repair. Repair validation of repairedEmission Sources can align with the Source Level inspection frequency, however, isa separate scope of work and must be done in addition to the sampling coveragerequirement for the Standard.

An LDAR Site inspection recordkeeping form and repair log must be populatedfor each survey event and available for Ex-Post Audit. Changes to the MonitoringTechnology Deployment program arising from adverse weather conditions (affectingpersonnel safety and/or the technology operating envelope), difficult to monitorlocations, and delay to repair or replacement for any other reason must be logged andcommunicated with the Certification Body in the Ex-Post Audit (refer to Section 4).

3.2.2.1 Technology Use The Standard does not specify which monitoringtechnologies or associated methods a Producer should use for Source Levelidentification, but rather simply outlines the requirements for frequency andsampling coverage. A Producer must deploy a monitoring technology programwhich enables Detection of Methane Emissions to the Source Level in order tocorrectly identify Emission Sources for repair or replacement. A combination of

v0.9 14


top-down and bottom-up technology methods for scanning and identifying Sourcesmay be deployed to aid the inspection process. The top-down monitoring technologydeployment method must be disclosed in the Producer’s LDAR Company Practicedocumentation and must be suitable for Site Level inspection. Suitability can bedemonstrated through reference to independent scientific studies or results ofdirect measurement campaigns to verify Detection sensitivity of the monitoringtechnology.

3.2.2.2 Modeled Monitoring Deployment Strategies The frequency and spatialcoverage of monitoring technology deployment in the Standard has been constructedto apply to generic Facilities in varying geographies. Exemptions may be provided fora given Facility where bespoke monitoring deployment strategies are generated usingmodels (such as FEAST or LDAR-SIM). Evidence must be provided to the CertificationBody supporting a models’ assumptions that a given monitoring strategy can meetor exceed the same probability of detection, as that outlined in Table 3, in order toachieve the same number of points.

v0.9 15


4 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Producers are required to record and disclose information related to MethaneEmissions Monitoring Technology Deployment plans and implementation under theStandard. Deployment plans and supporting implementation information must bedisclosed to the Certification Body during the Ex-Ante Audit. Proof of implementationof the deployment of each monitoring technology solution must be disclosed tothe Certification Body during the Ex-Post Audit. Table 4 outlines the minimumrecordkeeping requirements for Monitoring Technology Deployment. A Producercan choose to aggregate the recordkeeping elements to minimize administrativeoverhead. A Producer must have adequate Company Practices in place whichunderpin accurate recordkeeping and reporting structures.

Details for reporting requirements in the case of a Non-Compliance Event aredescribed in Procedure 2: Non-Compliance.

v0.9 16


Table 4: Minimum recordkeeping requirements

Recordkeeping element Details

Monitoring TechnologyDeployment logSpecification(Can be a part of SourceLevel/LDAR or FacilityScale EmissionsManagement Plan orsimilar)

Detail of Technology solution used for both the FacilityScale and Source Level inspection:

• Sensor and instrumentation (including detectionlimits, thresholds, and uncertainty range).

• Deployment of sensors including location forcontinuously installed sensors, and routes andfrequency of survey or mobile sensors (Siteoperating envelope, monitoring methodology)

• Data relay and Analysis (Analytics which interpretthe raw data)

• Results of periodic, single-blind or ‘challengetesting’ to confirm the MDL of the deployedsolution and certification of results.

If a third party is contracted for the survey, this shouldalso include contractor or data service providerinformation.To include details for both Facility Level and SourceLevel inspections.

v0.9 17



Facility Scale and SourceLevel/LDAR inspectionrecordkeeping form

Includes detail on operating conditions at time ofdeployment (including surveyor, location, date, time,site operating/weather conditions), monitoringmethod(s), explicit check that environmentalconditions fall within operating envelope, routetravelled and any deviations from planned route,summary of leaking components / Site ID detected,leak Quantification if available, follow up (repair andreplacement log).For continuous monitoring, must include record ofup-time hours, operational hours where environmentalconditions fall within operating envelope.Also includes detailed records of delay of repair, and ifand when it is difficult, unsafe, or inaccessible tomonitor specific components.

Repair and replacementlog

For each Emission Source, includes component ID andtype, date of all repair efforts (first attempt, additionalattempts, final attempt), repair validation date, successof repair or replacement, and (if applicable) a reason fordelay to repair or replace and the date rectified.

Source Level/LDARmonitoring location log

Includes a list of monitoring locations planned (for atleast the Certification Period) and visited for eachsurvey (categorized by of Well ID or similar uniqueidentifier).

QA/QC Includes chain of custody sign off on data collected foraccuracy (collector to independent reviewer), analyticalsettings as appropriate, calibration of monitoringequipment, and reference to the test method used.

4.1 Evidence for exemption – Facility Scale inspection

As discussed in Section 3.2.1, a Facility may be eligible for Facility Scale inspectionexemption for the Certification Period if the Producer can provide evidence of anestablished Continuous Monitoring System. Table 5 outlines the minimum recordsa Producer must submit for request of exemption to the Certification Body during

v0.9 18


Ex-Ante Audit.

Table 5: Recordkeeping requirements for Facility Scale inspection exemption


Continuous/HighFrequency MonitoringSystem details

In order to be considered for exemption, Producersmust have a Continuous Monitoring System on at least50% of Sites, including coverage of associatedProduction Equipment within a Facility.Strategic placement of the system and detection limitcriteria will be assessed by the Certification Bodyduring evaluation.Documentation should include details of the System,including but not limited to:

• monitored parameters (gas, wind speed,temperature etc)

• evidence of autonomy (duty cycle, recording andrelay capability)

• Probability of Detectionix

• measurement unit location and placement

• detection limits and thresholds (includinguncertainty range)

• samples of measured data, and

• QA/QC process.

ix For the purposes of this Standard, an PoD of at least 90% must be achieved for a given technology.This metric can be provided by technology providers who have conducted field assessment at a testingfacility or similar.

v0.9 19


5 Interconnections with other Standard Elements

Each of the Standard Elements (Methane Intensity, Company Practices, andMonitoring Technology Deployment) is to be assessed separately; however, all areinterconnected given their collective role in indicating effective Methane Emissionsmanagement. Monitoring Technology Deployment tangibly intersects with, andinfluences the score for, the other two Standard Elements.

5.1 Interconnection with calculated Methane Intensity

When calculating annual Methane Emissions for use in the Methane Intensitycalculation using the NGSI Protocol[7], Producers must calculate Methane Emissionsfrom leaking components using LDAR and associated Leaker Emission Factors whereapplicable in national and/or state regulation (as detailed in US EPA Greenhouse GasReporting Program (GHGRP) for Facilities in the US [8]).

For Facilities located outside of the US, but subject to Methane Emissions regulationin the jurisdiction where the Facility is located, Producers can substitute country-specific Leaker Emission Factors for the same Emission Sources, if backed up bya transparent and peer-reviewed process. These Leaker Emission Factors shouldbe applied to components with a total time of assumed leakage based on SourceLevel/LDAR survey frequency. The Producer must use the results from each leakdetection survey when calculating Methane Emissions and Methane Intensity underthe NGSI Protocol.

This Standard also allows Producers to incorporate Facility-specific measuredEmission Factors in order to more accurately characterize a Facility’s MethaneEmissions profile (refer to Subsidiary Document 1: Methane Intensity, Section 4.4 formore detail).

Unintended abnormally high emissions (Super-Emitters) detected from Facility Scaleinspection must be estimated or quantified using best available techniques (BAT),reconciled and included in the Facility emissions inventory, for use in the MethaneIntensity calculation Ex-Post Audit and to track Non-Compliance events throughthe Certification Period (refer to Procedure Document 2: Non-Compliance for moredetail).

v0.9 20


5.2 Interconnection with Company Practices

A Monitoring Technology Deployment plan is detailed as a required CompanyPractices, to ensure follow up actions are taken from an inspection where a methaneemissions detection was observed, specifically:

• Monitoring Technology Deployment for LDAR;

and its implementation in large part rests on the effectiveness of these and otherCompany Practices, including:

• employee training and awareness;

• estimating and measuring Methane Emissions; and

• other Practices designed to reduce Intended and Unintended MethaneEmissions.

v0.9 21


Annex A: Methane monitoring technologies (informative)

Various methane monitoring technologies are available for Producers to enable theacceleration and optimization of methane emissions reduction. Table 6 provides asummary of currently (2021) available technologies, and their spatial and temporalmonitoring capabilities. Only technologies which are commercially available (as of2021) as a product or service are presented. This table is for informative purposesand is not exhaustive. More technology solutions can be found at [9].

For further information on measurement and Quantification abilities of variousapplications, refer to the MGP Best Practice Guideline; Identification, Detection,Measurement and Quantification [10].

Satellite technologies are discussed separately in Annex B.

Table 6: Methane monitoring products and technologies

Application Method SpatialScale x

SpatialResolutionxi

ExampleProviders

Pedestriansurvey

Handheld OpticalGas Imagingcamera,Handheld TDLAS,Laser leakdetector,Soap BubbleScreening,US EPA Method21

Component,Equipment

<1 m FLIR,HeathConsultants,Opgal,The Sniffers,Montrose

StationaryMonitoring

Perimeter linedsensors, perimeterpoint sensors, gasimaging cameras,central towerswith closed pathand long rangeopen path lasers

Equipment,Site

1-5 m LongPathTech,Project Canary,Luxmux,Kivu Systems,Quanta3,Scientific Aviation(SOOFIE)AVITAS LUMENTerrain

v0.9 22


Application Method SpatialScale

SpatialResolution

ExampleProviders

Mobilesurvey

Vehicle mountedlaser sensors, massspectrometer

Site <10 m ABB,HeathConsultants,Picarro Inc,mAirSure

Aerial survey Drone, Helicopter,Plane mountedactive and passivespectroscopy orLiDAR

Equipment,Site,Facility

<10 m Ball Aerospace,BridgerPhotonics,Kairos Aerospace,Avitas LUMEN SkyNASA JPL,Scientific Aviation,SeekOpsLasen

x Spatial scale refers to the level at which the technology is designed to detect emissions: component,source, site, or field (region).

xi Spatial resolution reflects image resolution for image-based technologies, and source attributionprecision for non-image technologies.

v0.9 23


Annex B: Facility Scale inspection from satellites(informative)

Satellite technologies can, in some cases, serve a purpose of Facility Scale inspectionfor Methane Emissions. Satellite applicability under this Standard is primarily afunction of its Measurement frequency and MDL. Several factors contribute to thefrequency of Measurements available from satellites over a given Facility. Theseinclude:

• satellite scanning approach,

• satellite revisit time, and

• weather and ground surface conditions.

Satellites can be categorized as global scanning (push-broom) or tasked satellites– and some can do both, but not simultaneously. Tasked satellites tend to be moresensitive to lower emission rates and have higher spatial resolution. Any one satellitemay have a revisit time over a given area of several days to weeks; a constellation ofsatellites can “tag-team” to re-image more frequently. Usable satellite retrievals aresparse over cloudy regions, and unusable over water and snowy or wet surfaces. Inpractice, this leads to poor data (both in quantity and quality) over oceans, the equator,and the poles, among other regions. Where data is sparse, multiple Measurementsmust be made and the results averaged.

These factors, along with a satellite’s detection threshold, impact the nature ofthe Emission Sources a given satellite can detect. Regions that require numerousobservations to be averaged will capture persistent Emission Sources but often omitintermittent or infrequent Methane Emissions. Moreover, satellites will only be ableto reliably detect Emission Sources above the threshold of the minimum detectionlevel.

The frequency of Measurements available over a given area is also a function of thetime required to clean, validate, process, and analyze observations. Satellites recordobservations of Methane Emissions in units of concentration in an atmosphericcolumn. Inversions are required to usefully convert observations of concentration toemissions rates from Emission Sources on the ground. Additional analytic capabilitiesare required for low-resolution instruments to generate information at the FacilityLevel, and uncertainty in these analyses remains high. In the absence of in-houseinversion and analytic capacity, one must partner with or subscribe to an organizationcapable of this service.

Tables 7, 8 provide an outline of the current (as of 2020) and emerging satellite

v0.9 24


technologies, respectively, available for the objective of top-down Super-Emitterdetection at a Facility Scale. Not all specifications for satellites and monitoringinstruments are available, so some fields are intentionally left blank.

Table 7: Available satellite technology review (existing technologies)

Instrument &Deployer

MinimumDetectionLimitxii

SpatialResolution

Observation methodand measurementfrequency

GHGSat-D Claire [11] 100 kg/hr to~1,000 kg/hr

25 m to 50 m Tasked instrument;subscribers canexamine any regionwith specifiedfrequency (daily,weekly, monthly). Datawill be sparse overcertain regions andrequire moreaveraging.

TROPOMI, EuropeanSpace Agency [12]

10,000 kg/hr to12,000 kg/hr

7 km Global scanning; lowresolution observationsrequire furtherprocessing for FacilityScale resolution.Depending on theregion, observationsmust be averaged overseveral days, weeks, ormonths.

Aqua-AIRS,NASA-JPL [13]

13.5 km Global scanning.

GOSAT-2, JapanAerospaceExploration Agency[14]

4,000 kg/hr 1 km Global scanning,similar limitations toTROPOMI satellite.

v0.9 25



MinimumDetection Limit

SpatialResolution


Gaofen-5, ChinaNational SpaceAgency [15]

3.3 km Global scanning, littleinformation availablepublicly.

Feng Yun-3D, ChinaNational SpaceAgency

15 km to 85 km Global scanning, littleinformation availablepublicly.

Worldview-3, Maxar[16]

Analytics serviceavailable throughSatelytics services. [17]

ISS-HEIST, OrbitalSidekick

5km Global scanning,operational on theInternational SpaceStation providinghyperspectral imagingand analytics service.

PRISMA, ItalianSpace Agency [18]

30 m Global scanning.

Table 8: Satellite technology review (emerging technologies)


MinimumDetectionLimitxiii

SpatialResolution


GHGSat-Iris [19] 100kg/hr 25m Tasked satellite.Expected launch 2020.

GeoCarb, NASA-JPL[20]

4,000 kg/hr 5 km to 20 km Geostationaryscanning satellite onlyavailable over theAmericas.Expected launch 2022.

xii Not all specifications for satellites and monitoring instruments are readily available.

v0.9 26



MinimumDetection Limit

SpatialResolution


Cal-Sat, Planet 100 kg/hr 30 m Tasked and globalscanning satellite.Expected launch 2023.

Bluefield [21] 70 kg/hr 20 m Tasked satellite.Expected launch 2020.

MethaneSAT,EnvironmentalDefense Fund [22]

500 -1,000 kg/hr

400 m to 1 km Expected launch 2022.Will be tasked over200 priority areas.

MERLIN, French andGerman SpaceAgencies [23]

Expected launch 2024.First satellite to haveactive laser sensor.

GOSAT-3, JapanAerospaceExploration Agency

250 kg/hr 12 km Global scanningsatellite.Expected launch 2023.

ENMAP, GermanSpace Agency [24]

30 m Expected launch 2020.

xiii Not all specifications for satellites and monitoring instruments are readily available.

v0.9 27


References

[1] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018).Methane Emission Measurement and Monitoring Methods. In ImprovingCharacterization of Anthropogenic Methane Emissions in the United States.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24987

[2] Allen, D. T. (2014). Methane emissions from natural gas production and use:Reconciling bottom-up and top-down measurements. Current Opinion inChemical Engineering, 5, 78–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2014.05.004

[3] Brandt, A. R., Heath, G. A., Kort, E. A., O’Sullivan, F., Pétron, G., Jordaan, S. M., . . .Harriss, R. (2014). Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems.Science, 343(6172), 733–735. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247045

[4] Zavala-Araiza, D., Alvarez, R. A., Lyon, D. R., Allen, D. T., Marchese, A. J., Zimmerle,D. J., & Hamburg, S. P. (2017). Super-emitters in natural gas infrastructureare caused by abnormal process conditions. Nature Communications, 8(1, 1),14012. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14012

[5] Brandt, A. R., Heath, G. A., & Cooley, D. (2016). Methane Leaks from Natural GasSystems Follow Extreme Distributions. Environmental Science & Technology,50(22), 12512–12520. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04303

[6] Zavala-Araiza, D., Lyon, D., Alvarez, R. A., Palacios, V., Harriss, R., Lan, X., . . .Hamburg, S. P. (2015). Toward a Functional Definition of Methane Super-Emitters: Application to Natural Gas Production Sites. Environmental Science& Technology, 49(13), 8167–8174. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00133


v0.9 28

https://doi.org/10.17226/24987

https://doi.org/10.17226/24987

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2014.05.004

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247045

https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14012

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04303

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00133






[9] CSU Energy Institute). (2021, August 5). Leak Detection and QuantificationSolutions. Retrieved August 5, 2021, from https://energy.colostate.edu/metec/leak-detection-and-quantification-solutions/

[10] Methane Guiding Principles. (2020). Reducing Methane Emissions: BestPractice Guide - Identification, Detection, Measurement and Quantification.Retrieved from https://methaneguidingprinciples.org/best-practice-guides/reducing-methane-emissions-through-identification-detection-measurement-and-quantification/

[11] GHGSat. (n.d.). GHGSat-D - Claire. Retrieved August 3, 2021, from https://www.ghgsat.com/en/technology/claire/

[12] European Space Agency (ESA). (n.d.). Tropomi - Data Products - Methane.Retrieved October 30, 2020, from http://www.tropomi.eu/data-products/methane

[13] NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (n.d.). AIRS Atmospheric Infrared Sounder.Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/

[14] Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). (n.d.). Greenhouse gasesObserving SATellite-2 "IBUKI-2" (GOSAT-2). Retrieved October 30, 2020, fromhttps://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat2/

[15] Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS). (2018). A ConstellationArchitecture for Monitoring Carbon Dioxide and Methane from Space.Atmospheric Composition Virtual Constellation Greenhouse Gas Team.Retrieved from http://ceos.org/document_management/Virtual_Constellations/ACC/Documents/CEOS_AC-VC_GHG_White_Paper_Version_1_20181009.pdf

[16] Maxar. (n.d.). Constellation - The world’s most advanced Earth observationsatellites. Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://www.maxar.com/constellation

v0.9 29



https://energy.colostate.edu/metec/leak-detection-and-quantification-solutions/

https://energy.colostate.edu/metec/leak-detection-and-quantification-solutions/

https://methaneguidingprinciples.org/best-practice-guides/reducing-methane-emissions-through-identification-detection-measurement-and-quantification/



https://www.ghgsat.com/en/technology/claire/

https://www.ghgsat.com/en/technology/claire/

http://www.tropomi.eu/data-products/methane

http://www.tropomi.eu/data-products/methane

https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/

https://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat2/

http://ceos.org/document_management/Virtual_Constellations/ACC/Documents/CEOS_AC-VC_GHG_White_Paper_Version_1_20181009.pdf



https://www.maxar.com/constellation

https://www.maxar.com/constellation


[17] Satelytics. (n.d.). Cloud-based Geospatial Analytics Software Suite. RetrievedOctober 30, 2020, from https://www.satelytics.com/

[18] European Space Agency (ESA). (n.d.). PRISMA (Hyperspectral Precursor andApplication Mission). Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/p/prisma-hyperspectral

[19] GHGSat. (n.d.). Iris – GHGSat’s second greenhouse gas emissions monitoringsatellite. Retrieved August 3, 2021, from https://www.ghgsat.com/en/technology/constellation/

[20] NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (n.d.). Geostationary Carbon Cycle Observatory(EVM-2) (GeoCarb). Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://eospso.nasa.gov/missions/geostationary-carbon-cycle-observatory-evm-2

[21] Bluefield Technologies Inc. (2020). Turning Photons into Insights. RetrievedOctober 21, 2020, from https://bluefield.co/technology/

[22] Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). (2019). MethaneSAT: Putting the Brakeson Climate Change – Key Technical Considerations. Retrieved from https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/MethaneSAT%20Technical%20considerations-May%202019.pdf

[23] European Space Agency (ESA). (n.d.). MERLIN (Methane Remote Sensing LidarMission) Minisatellite. Retrieved from https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/m/merlin

[24] German Space Agency (DLR). (n.d.). DLR - Earth Observation Center - EnMAP(Environmental Mapping and Analysis Program). Retrieved October 30, 2020,from https://www.dlr.de/eoc/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-5514/20470_read-47899/

v0.9 30

https://www.satelytics.com/

https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/p/prisma-hyperspectral

https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/p/prisma-hyperspectral

https://www.ghgsat.com/en/technology/constellation/

https://www.ghgsat.com/en/technology/constellation/

https://eospso.nasa.gov/missions/geostationary-carbon-cycle-observatory-evm-2

https://eospso.nasa.gov/missions/geostationary-carbon-cycle-observatory-evm-2

https://bluefield.co/technology/

https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/MethaneSAT%20Technical%20considerations-May%202019.pdf



https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/m/merlin

https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/m/merlin

https://www.dlr.de/eoc/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-5514/20470_read-47899/

https://www.dlr.de/eoc/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-5514/20470_read-47899/


PROCEDURE 1:CERTIFICATION – ONSHORE

v0.9





MiQ Standard for Methane Emissions PerformanceProcedure 1: Certification – Onshore

Contents


1 Introduction 5



4 Certification Objectives 84.1 Methane Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.2 Company Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.3 Monitoring Technology Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

5 Certification Process 105.1 Certification Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105.2 Ex-Ante and Ex-Post Audit Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105.3 MiQ Certificate Issuance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105.4 Retirement of MiQ Certificates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115.5 Certification Body Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6 Ex-Ante Audit 126.1 Ex-Ante Audit Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126.2 Materiality Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

6.2.1 Identification of Material Error(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136.3 Ex-Ante Audit Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

7 Ex-Post Audit 157.1 Ex-Post Audit Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157.2 Ex-Post Audit Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

References 17

v0.9 3



This document, MiQ Standard – Procedure 1: Certification, is a procedure documentto the MiQ Standard – Main Document.








v0.9 4


1 Introduction



1. Main Document





3. Procedures

a. Procedure 1: Certification (this document)


Producers seeking certification will be responsible for engaging an accreditedCertification Body to carry out an Ex-Ante Audit and an Ex-Post Audit of performancein line with the Standard as described in this procedure document. This CertificationBody Audit shall provide sufficient, reasonable assurance of the implementation ofpractices to manage Methane Emissions against the key criteria of this Standard forthe purposes of the certification.

v0.9 5



This procedure document is part of the MiQ Standard and provides an overview ofthe Standard’s requirements for Ex-Ante Audit and Ex-Post Audit of the MethaneEmissions performance of a Facility in accordance with the Standard, to be carriedout by a Certification Body. It outlines the requirements for Certification Bodies andprovides guidance on the certification cycle process.

v0.9 6




• ISO 19011: Guidelines for auditing management systems (ISO 19011:2018) [1]


v0.9 7


4 Certification Objectives

The objective of certification is to provide an independent third-party assurance ofthe Methane Emissions performance of a natural gas Facility, in order to determinethe MiQ Grade as per the Standard. The certification process shall include both anoffsite assessment and an onsite Audit component to validate performance againstthe following three Standard elements.

4.1 Methane Intensity

The objectives of the Audit by the Certification Body with respect to Methane Intensityare:

a) to provide assurance that the Methane Intensity calculation is free from materialerrors, whether due to fraud or mistake, enabling the Auditor to express aconclusion regarding the calculated Methane Intensity;

b) to report, in accordance with the Auditor’s findings, whether:

(i) the Methane Intensity calculation is prepared, in all material respects, inaccordance with the Applicable Criteria; or

(ii) anything has come to the Auditor’s attention that causes the Auditor tobelieve, based on the procedures performed and evidence obtained, thatthe Methane Intensity calculation is not prepared in accordance with theApplicable Criteria; and

c) to communicate, as required by the Standard, the Auditor’s findings from theAudit process and the Facility’s eligibility for certification.

Details on the Methane Intensity calculations for onshore natural gas productionFacilities are provided in Subsidiary Document 1: Methane Intensity – Onshore.

4.2 Company Practices

The objectives of the Audit by the Certification Body with respect to the CompanyPractices are:

a) to obtain assurance about whether the policies and procedures reviewed,training records observed, interviews conducted, and practices observed inimplementation enable the Auditor to express a conclusion regarding theeffective implementation of Methane Emissions management practices;

v0.9 8


b) to report, in accordance with the Auditor’s findings, about whether:

(i) the Methane Emissions management policies and procedures reviewedare in accordance with the Applicable Criteria; or whether, in the opinion ofthe Auditor, the policies and procedures are equivalent or superior; or

(ii) anything has come to the Auditor’s attention that causes the Auditor tobelieve, on the basis of the review and interviews performed and evidenceobtained, that the Methane Emissions management practices are not inaccordance with the Applicable Criteria or equivalent; and

c) to communicate, as required by the Standard, the Auditor’s findings from theAudit process and eligibility for certification.

Details on the Company Practices requirements for onshore natural gas productionFacilities are provided in Subsidiary Document 2: Company Practices – Onshore.

4.3 Monitoring Technology Deployment

The objectives of the Audit by the Certification Body with respect to MonitoringTechnology Deployment are:

a) to obtain assurance about whether the Monitoring Technology Deploymentmeets the requirements of this Standard, and practices observed inimplementation and training enable the Auditor to express a conclusionregarding the effective implementation of methane monitoring technology;

b) to report, in accordance with the Auditor’s findings, about whether:

(i) the deployment of methane monitoring technology is in accordance withthe Applicable Criteria; or

(ii) anything has come to the Auditor’s attention that causes the Auditor tobelieve, on the basis of the review and interviews performed and evidenceobtained, that the deployment of methane monitoring technology is notin accordance with the Applicable Criteria or does not comport with aprocedure or policy of the Producer; and

c) to communicate, as required by the Standard, the Auditor’s findings from theAudit process and eligibility for certification.

Details on the Monitoring Technology Deployment requirements for onshorenatural gas production Facilities are provided in Subsidiary Document 3: MonitoringTechnology Deployment – Onshore.

v0.9 9


5 Certification Process

A Producer must engage a qualified Certification Body to validate and verify theirMethane Emissions performance against the Standard. The Certification Period willcommence after submittal of the Ex-Ante Audit report over an annual period unlesscontracted for a shorter term.

The same Certification Body must perform the Ex-Ante Audit and Ex-Post Auditprocesses for the Certification Period, unless a formal exemption request is submittedto and approved by the Issuing Body.

5.1 Certification Cycle

The overall certification cycle is presented in the Program Guide detailing theindividual roles of the Registrant, Issuing Body and Certification Body.

5.2 Ex-Ante and Ex-Post Audit Interval

Both the Ex-Ante Audit and the Ex-Post Audit process must be performed for eachCertification Period. The Ex-Ante Audit for the upcoming Certification Period and theEx-Post Audit of the current Certification Period can be performed simultaneouslystarting in year 2.

5.3 MiQ Certificate Issuance

MiQ Certificates are to be issued during the Certification Period after the Ex-AnteAudit and registration of the Facility. MiQ Certificate Issuance will be conducted bythe Issuing Body through the Registry. The Issuing Body must have the followinginformation prior to Issuance:

• Ex-Ante Audit Report submitted by the Certification Body, with the Initial AuditGrade indicated; and

• Delivered Quantity periodically submitted by the Producer, indicating thenatural gas output of the Facility based on, potentially adjusted, Revenue GradeMeter data or an equivalent source for the issuing period. The number of MiQCertificates to be Issued is capped to this amount for the issuing period.

MiQ Certificates are Issued periodically based on demonstrated Delivered Quantityof natural gas and Proof of Connection to the designated Consumption Zone.

v0.9 10


Details of MiQ Certificate Issuance frequency and administration are defined in theProgram Guide.

5.4 Retirement of MiQ Certificates

The Methane Emission performance attributes related to a gas quantity representedby a MiQ Certificate may only be claimed through Retirement of the MiQ Certificate,which may be requested by Account Holders through the Registry.

Where a request has been submitted by the Account Holder for MiQ CertificateRetirement, the Issuing Body automatically Retires the MiQ Certificate in the Registryafter the Consumption Zone is verified. Upon MiQ Certificate Retirement, the MiQCertificate Account Holder will be able to request a Retirement Statement from theIssuing Body containing all relevant information on the MiQ Certificate.

For MiQ Certificate transfer and Retirement timeframe details, refer to the MainDocument, Section 7.2.2: Certificate end of life.

The Issuing Body shall record the status of a MiQ Certificate which has ceased to beeligible for Retirement as Expired in the Registry.

5.5 Certification Body Requirements

The Ex-Ante Audit and Ex-Post Audit processes should follow the criteria establishedin ISO 19011, Section 6 – Conducting an audit, specifically Section 6.4 [1], or anequivalent to be evaluated by the Standard Holder.

Certification bodies must be accredited by the Standard Holder prior to performingan audit against the Standard and possess competencies in auditing, methanemanagement practices, GHG accounting and use of methane detectiontechnologies

v0.9 11


6 Ex-Ante Audit

The Ex-Ante Audit process is the systematic, independent, and documentedassessment by the Auditor before (Ex-Ante) the intended Certification Period,validating the information reported by the Producer against this Standard.

6.1 Ex-Ante Audit Process

1) A Producer submits an Ex-Ante Audit request to a Certification Body withaccredited Auditors;

2) the Producer provides detailed information to the Auditors on all Standardelements:

a) Methane Intensity calculation in line with Subsidiary Document 1 –Methane Intensity – Onshore;

b) Company Practices in line with Subsidiary Document 2 – CompanyPractices – Onshore; and

c) Monitoring Technology Deployment in line with Subsidiary Document 3 –Monitoring Technology Deployment – Onshore;

3) Auditors review the submitted information and conduct an onsite assessment;

4)

5) The Certification Body submits the Audit Report to the Producer, stating theInitial Audit Grade applicable to the Facility’s gas production; and

6) The Producer submits the final Audit Report to the Issuing Body to undergovalidation and approval steps that are defined in the Program Guide.

6.2 Materiality Threshold

The Standard defines a calculated Methane Intensity materiality threshold of 0.01%.If the aggregate of errors sums to more than the materiality threshold, the Auditorsshould communicate this discrepancy with the Producer and recommend pathwaysfor resolution.

v0.9 12


6.2.1 Identification of Material Error(s)

The Ex-Ante Audit will identify and assess any risk of material error in the calculationof Methane Intensity. The Audit will include the following:

a) for significant elements of the Methane Intensity calculation, evaluate the basis,design, and procedures performed by the Producer to prevent potential risks ofmaterial error; and

b) obtainment of assurance about whether the Methane Intensity calculation isprepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the Applicable Criteria.

When performing the procedures required by this Standard, the Auditors shallconsider at least the following factors:

a) the likelihood of intentional error in the Methane Intensity calculation;

b) the likelihood of omission of a potentially significant area of Methane Emissions;

c) the degree of complexity in determining the Facility boundary and equipmentto be included; and

d) how the Producer makes significant engineering assumptions and the data onwhich they are based.

If analytical procedures identify any discrepancies (including parameters that areinconsistent with other relevant information or that differ significantly from expectedquantities), the Certification Body shall make inquiries of the Producer about suchdifferences. The Certification Body shall consider the responses to these inquiries todetermine whether other procedures are necessary to determine the accuracy of theMethane Intensity calculation.

6.3 Ex-Ante Audit Report

Upon completion of the Ex-Ante Audit, the Certification Body will submit a final Ex-Ante Audit Report to the Producer, who will submit to the Registry. The minimumrequirements for inclusion in the Ex-Ante Audit Report are:

a) Location and description of facility being audited for Certification

b) Details of the audit process including scope, schedule, techniques and thestructure of the auditing team

c) Proof of Connection that the Facility is connected downstream to other Facilitieswithin the same designated Consumption Zone; and

v0.9 13


d) Conclusions of the audit of Methane Intensity, Company Practices andMonitoring Technology Deployment including the Facility’s compliance withminimum requirements and use of improved practices to reduce MethaneEmissions, accompanied with relevant data

e) Initial Audit Grade for the Facility’s upcoming Certification Period

f) Recommendations to the Producer

v0.9 14


7 Ex-Post Audit

The Ex-Post Audit process is the systematic, independent, and documentedassessment by the Auditor after (Ex-Post) the Certification Period, verifying the actualoperations within the Certification Period against the results of the Ex-Ante Auditaccording to this Standard.

7.1 Ex-Post Audit Process

1) A Producer submits an Ex-Post Audit request to a Certification Body withqualified Auditors;

2) the Producer provides detailed information to the Auditors on all Standardelements for the Certification Period:

a) Adjusted (due to addition or removal of Emission Sources) MethaneIntensity calculation in line with Subsidiary Document 1 – MethaneIntensity – Onshore;

b) Implementation of Company Practices in line with Subsidiary Document 2– Company Practices – Onshore; and

c) Implementation of Monitoring Technology Deployment in line withSubsidiary Document 3 – Monitoring Technology Deployment – Onshore;

3) Auditors review and verify the submitted information;

4) Auditors assess the implementation of all Standard elements and consequencesderived from monitoring data;

5) Auditors revisit the original Certificate Grade and check that the number of MiQCertificates Issued to the Producer aligns with Facility Production Throughputfor the Certification Period and, in the case of a discrepancy, apply the proceduresas listed in Procedure 2 – Non-Compliance;

6) Auditors submit the Ex-Post Audit Report to the Producer and provides theProducer an adequate timeframe to respond to findings that may affect theVerified Grade of the Facility; and

7) The Producer submits the final Audit Report to the Issuing Body, where itundergoes validation and approval steps that are defined in the Program Guide.

v0.9 15


7.2 Ex-Post Audit Report

Upon completion of the Ex-Post Audit, the Certification Body will submit a final Ex-Ante Audit Report to the Producer, who will submit to the Registry. The minimumrequirements for inclusion in the Ex-Ante Audit Report are:

a) Location and description of facility being audited for Certification

b) Details of the audit process including scope, schedule, techniques and thestructure of the auditing team

c) Proof of Connection that the Facility is connected downstream to other Facilitieswithin the same designated Consumption Zone; and

d) Performance evaluation of the Facility’s Methane Intensity, Company Practicesand Monitoring Technology Deployment including the Facility’s compliancewith minimum requirements and use of improved practices to reduce MethaneEmissions, and a comparison to the projected performance as determined inthe Ex-Ante Audit, accompanied with relevant data from the Certification Period

e) Confirmation of the number of MiQ Certificates issued and Proof of Connectionto the designated Consumption Zone

f) Verified Grade for the completed Certification Period

v0.9 16


References

[1] International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 19011:2018,Guidelines for auditing management systems. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/standard/70017.html


v0.9 17







PROCEDURE 2:NON-COMPLIANCE –ONSHORE

v0.9





MiQ Standard for Methane Emissions PerformanceProcedure 2: Non-Compliance – Onshore

Contents


1 Introduction 5


3 Overview 73.1 Ex-Post Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.2 Exceedance to ‘Fail’ Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4 Non-Compliance Events 94.1 Variation to Estimated Methane Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.2 Variation to Company Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.3 Variation to Monitoring Technology Deployment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5 Non-Compliance Notification and Recordkeeping 115.1 Procedure – Variation to Estimated Methane Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5.1.1 Non-routine Methane Emission Calculation Methodology . . . . . . 13

6 Settlement 156.1 Ex-Post Audit Report and Discrepancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156.2 Settlement mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Annex A: Methane Emission Event Rate Threshold Calculation Methodology(Informative) 16

References 17

v0.9 3



This document, MiQ Standard – Procedure 2: Non-Compliance, is a proceduredocument to the MiQ Standard – Main Document.








v0.9 4


1 Introduction



1. Main Document





3. Procedures


b. Procedure 2: Non-Compliance (this document)

This document outlines the circumstances that can result in a Non-Compliance Event,and the processes that follow.

An Ex-Post Audit shall discern and provide reasonable assurance that theMethane Emissions performance as evaluated in the Ex-Ante Audit was consistentacross the Certification Period, and identify any Non-Compliance Events for theCertification Period, as per this document.

v0.9 5



This procedure document Procedure 2: Non-Compliance is a procedure documentto the MiQ Standard.

This document provides guidance for what may qualify as a Non-Compliance Eventagainst the Standard, specifies the steps to take in case of a Non-ComplianceEvent during the Certification Period, and outlines the process for determining andcommunicating cases of Non-Compliance during the Ex-Post Audit stage.

v0.9 6


3 Overview

A Non-Compliance Event is Any event or circumstance during the Certification Periodthat exceeds the Reportable Quantity or might result in a deviation from the Ex-AnteAudited Standard elements that would make a Facility’s Verified Grade lower than itsInitial Audit Grade, as evaluated by the Certification Body.

Prior to the Ex-Post Audit, it is the responsibility of the Producer to record andcommunicate to the Certification Body and to notify the Issuing Body when itbecomes aware of potential Non-Compliance Event(s), as outlined in Section 4.

The Producer may use the graded MiQ Certificate to claim the Methane Emissionsperformance attributes of each unit of natural gas produced and sold during theCertification Period, unless indicated otherwise by the Issuing Body based on theseverity of a Non-Compliance Event (i.e. Exceedance to ‘Fail’ Grade).

3.1 Ex-Post Audit

If the discrepancy between the Methane Emissions performance attributes claimedby the Producer at the time of Ex-Ante Audit and evaluated by an Auditor at the timeof Ex-Post Audit is deemed immaterial, the Ex-Post Audit Report will recommend aVerified Grade that matches the original Initial Audit Grade. Where Non-ComplianceEvent(s) are deemed material by the Auditor, the Ex-Post Audit Report will attesta Verified Grade that is lower than the original Initial Audit Grade. In the case of amaterial difference between the Verified Grade and the Initial Audit Grade at the timeof Ex-Post Audit, a settlement mechanism may be invoked (see Section 6).

Repeated non-compliance errors or omissions may deem a Facility ineligible for theProgram and recertification, based on the judgement of the Program Holder.

3.2 Exceedance to ‘Fail’ Grade

Where a Facility’s Non-Compliance Event(s) present(s) an exceedance of the InitialAudit Grade to the ‘Fail’ grade category during the Certification Period, the Facilitywill no longer be certified under this Standard, effective immediately.

Exceedance to ‘Fail’ grade is based on the impact of the additional estimated releasedvolume of Methane Emissions on intensity, a facility’s compliance with the mandatoryrequirements listed in the Company Practices Standard Document and a Facility’scompliance with the mandatory requirements listed in the Monitoring TechnologyDeployment Standard Document.

v0.9 7


In this case the Issuing Body will stop issuing MiQ Certificates until the Facility hasundergone recertification.

v0.9 8


4 Non-Compliance Events

The following scenarios may be considered Non-Compliance Events by theCertification Body in the Ex-Post Audit stage.

4.1 Variation to Estimated Methane Intensity

The following scenarios may cause a significant increase in Methane Intensity andtherefore may be considered Non-Compliance Events by the Certification Body. Non-routine engineered and non-engineered releases include, but are not limited to:

• intentional venting of methane from gas/water separation operations;

• intentional well-venting events;

• intentional venting of methane in preference to flaring;

• other intentional methane venting (i.e. removing equipment from service formaintenance or unmitigated casinghead gas venting);

• loss of well integrity during the drilling, operations, or ’well-abandonment’phases; and

• unintentional releases from equipment malfunctions or other loss of equipmentintegrity.

A single Methane Emissions release or an accumulation of emissions from multiplesources or events, including due to an emergency, are considered intentionalscenarios and shall be recorded. Non-routine Methane Emissions (engineered orotherwise), as defined above, are to be quantified (refer to Section 5.1.1).

A Non-Compliance Event identified by a non-contracted third party (from externalmeasurement or survey data) from the Facility during the Certification Period ispermissible for Audit where the data is publicly available.

Annex A suggests a methodology to calculate a Facility-specific leak rate thresholdthat allows the Producer to assess whether an event could have a material impact onthe Facility’s Initial Audit Grade.

4.2 Variation to Company Practices

The Certification Body will evaluate the executed Company Practices with referenceto the certificate grading system for a Verified Grade, taking into consideration

v0.9 9


reasonable exemptions (i.e. weather, process safety concerns) and rectificationactions.

The following circumstances may be considered when determining a Non-Compliance Event by the Certification Body:

• multiple (greater than 3) delays in repair or replacement of identified leak sourcesor emissions events;

• deviation from a mandatory policy or procedure which leads to themisrepresentation of Emission Sources (training, identification, and reporting);and

• significant downtime (greater than 25% for the total Certification Period) ordeviation from any quantifiable Improved Company Practice (i.e. re-routepractices for venting).

4.3 Variation to Monitoring Technology Deployment Plan

Reduction in the Monitoring Technology Deployment from the submitted andaudited Facility Scale inspection for Super-Emitter events (including exemptionclauses) and Emission Source Level inspection for leaks (LDAR) plans may beconsidered a Non-Compliance Event by the Certification Body.

Based on the level of reduction in frequency and spatial coverage from the validatedplans without reasonable exemption (i.e. weather, technology availability) andrecordkeeping, the Certification Body will evaluate the executed MonitoringTechnology Deployment with reference to the grading system for a Verified Grade.

v0.9 10


5 Non-Compliance Notification and Recordkeeping

The Producer shall record all Non-Compliance Events, as outlined in Section 4.

When a Non-Compliance Event is determined, the Producer must:

1. initiate resolution of the issue and document the event;

2. implement, as soon as practicable, the necessary steps to correct underlyingcauses of non-compliance, and to the extent practicable, prevent a recurrenceof the cause of the non-compliance;

3. maintain a written record of the corrective actions taken in response; and

4. notify the Issuing Body where required (refer to Section 5.1).

5.1 Procedure – Variation to Estimated Methane Intensity

Non-routine Methane Emissions (engineered or otherwise) as defined in Section 4.1,must be quantified (i.e. estimated through the NGSI Protocol as described inSection 5.1.1) and documented where practicable and reasonable.

Where a Methane Emissions release event (by size and/or duration, or accumulation)exceeds or is believed to exceed the Reportable Quantity and/or has likely downgradedthe original Initial Audit Grade (based on Ex-Ante Methane Intensity plus the additionalMethane Emissions volume of the event), the Producer must follow the notificationprocedure outlined in Table 2.

v0.9 11


Table 2: Procedure for variation to estimated Methane Intensity

Non-Compliance Event – MethaneIntensity Variation

Notification Procedure

Non-Compliance Event(s) will likelydowngrade the original Initial AuditGrade at Ex-Post Audit stage by 1 ormore bands or to ‘Fail’ grade

Notify the Issuing Body within 30 days afterthe Non-Compliance Event.Submit relevant documentation at the time ofnotification (to the extent possible) and at theEx-Post Audit stage, including:

• estimated quantity of MethaneEmissions as the result of the event, thecalculation procedure including durationand description of the source and/orlocation; and

• corrective actions taken (in line withmethane management protocols andrepair program, i.e. repair the EmissionSource(s) within the maximum daysspecified for final attempt at repair as perthe Company policy).

v0.9 12


Non-Compliance Event – MethaneIntensity Variation

Notification Procedure

Single Methane Emission releaseevent that exceeds or is believed toexceed the Reportable Quantity of25 kg/hr for a duration of at least 24hours or a single MethaneEmissions event greater than 600kg.

Notify the Issuing Body within 30 days afterthe event.Submit relevant documentation at the time ofnotification (to the extent possible) and at theEx-Post Audit stage, including:

• estimated amount of MethaneEmissions as the result of the event, thecalculation procedure including durationand description of the source and/orlocation; and

• corrective actions taken (in line withmethane management protocols andrepair program, i.e. repair the EmissionSource(s) within the maximum daysspecified for final attempt at repair as perthe Company policy).

For Facilities which elect to couple Ex-Post Audit with recertification (Ex-Ante Audit forthe following year), the quantified estimated leak(s) must be presented as a separateline item of the Facility Methane Intensity calculation Inventory.

5.1.1 Non-routine Methane Emission Calculation Methodology

The Quantification of Non-routine Methane Emissions (engineered or otherwise)should be estimated following the NGSI Protocol [1], applicable to the specificEmission Source or attributed to equipment leaks, unless the Producer appliesan alternative Methane Intensity Quantification methodology pre-approved bythe Certification Body from the Ex-Ante Audit stage (see Subsidiary Document 1:Methane Intensity, Section 4.4: Alternative Methods).

The NGSI Protocol utilizes the calculation method outlined by the US EPA GreenhouseGas Reporting Rule: Leak Detection Methodology Revisions [2]. Facilities locatedoutside of the US may elect to follow an alternative regulatory reporting protocolwhere present and comparable (the selected methodology must be documented bythe Producers in written form at the Ex-Ante Audit stage).

v0.9 13


Data derived from a Facility’s leak detection program along with the US EPAGreenhouse Gas Reporting Program leaker Emission Factors (or comparable factorsand methods in other relevant regulation) are to be used to calculate Non-routineMethane Emissions [3]. The calculation methodology, based on equipmentleak surveys, requires the Producer to determine the total amount of time eachcomponent was assumed to be leaking and multiply that by the concentrationof the methane in the gas and the applicable Emission Factor (referred to as a‘leaker Emission Factor’). Along with the estimated time the leak occurred prior toidentification, the calculation should also include the time between survey (leakidentification) and leak repair.

The Quantification of Methane Emissions from equipment leaks should be updated atthe frequency of the Facility’s LDAR program. Where possible, Non-routine MethaneEmissions from other sources or leaks detected outside of the planned surveys shouldbe integrated with the Facility inventory in a timely manner, in order to maintainvisibility of a potential Non-Compliance Event.

v0.9 14


6 Settlement

6.1 Ex-Post Audit Report and Discrepancy

The Certification Body will outline in the final Ex-Post Audit Report the followingelements:

• a comparison of the performance projected of the Facility at the time of Ex-AnteAudit and evaluated at Ex-Post Audit considering the impact of Non-ComplianceEvents;

• the Verified Grade; and

• the estimated quantity of Methane Emissions from Non-routine events duringthe Certification Period (as specified in Sections 4, 5), expressed in metric tonsof methane (CH4).

A discrepancy between the projected performance of the Facility at the time of Ex-Ante Audit and evaluated at Ex-Post Audit is considered material where the VerifiedGrade is one band or more below the original Initial Audit Grade.

6.2 Settlement mechanism

Settlement mechanisms may be prescribed as part of the natural gas tradingagreements contracted between buyers and sellers.

For the avoidance of doubt, a settlement mechanism is not detailed as part ofthis Standard. A settlement mechanism could include, but is not limited to, sellerredelivery, market replacement cost, or financial settlement.

v0.9 15


Annex A: Methane Emission Event Rate Threshold CalculationMethodology (Informative)

To assess whether variations to estimated Methane Intensity have the potential todowngrade the Initial Audit Grade as stated as part of the Ex-Ante Audit Report, theProducer may calculate a Facility-specific leak rate threshold. A Facility-specific leakthreshold is useful to understand the risks associated with leaks that are below theReportable Quantity. The methodology for calculating the leak rate threshold is asfollows:

Determine the minimum amount of additional Methane Emissions in metric tonsthat could trigger a downgrade of the Initial Audit Grade.

mgrade−drop = mactual ∗ (MIgrade−drop − MIactual) ∗ Vng ∗ Mden ∗ MC

GR[MT ] (1)

Where:

• mactual is the Facility’s projected total methane emissions for the CertificationPeriod (mass units)

• mgrade-drop is the total methane emissions a Facility must emit during theCertification Period to drop a grade based on Methane Intensity (mass units)

• MIactual is the Facility’s projected Methane Intensity for the Certification Period(unitless)

• MIgrade-1 is the Methane Intensity threshold of the next lowest grade (unitless)

• Vng is the Facility’s annual natural gas production (volumetric units)

• Mden is the Methane Standard Density. Default value is 0.0192 MT/kscf.

• MC is the Methane Content of the facility’s produced natural gas. Default valueis 0.833 (volume fraction)

• GR is the gas ratio as the energy equivalent of natural gas divided by the totalenergy equivalent of produced natural gas and liquids (unitless)

After determining the total methane emissions increase that would lead to a drop ingrade, the Producer may apply assumed or real leak durations to assess the impactthat leaks of various duration have on the Facility’s Certificate Grade.

It is recommended to have the calculation of the leak rate threshold reviewed at theend of the Ex-Ante Audit by the Certification Body.

v0.9 16


References


[2] US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2016). Fact Sheet – FinalRule: Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Leak Detection Methodology Revisionsand Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems.Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/5847_factsheet.pdf


v0.9 17




https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/5847_factsheet.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/5847_factsheet.pdf

