CASE STUDY: TC Energy and Chesapeake Energy Share Data Management Best Practices

As the oil and gas industry turns its attention to accurate emissions reporting, many experience challenges in aggregating data from different systems, standards, and vintages of assets. With the new wave of ESG disclosures set to take effect and the constant changes in the regulatory landscape, companies need to focus more attention on developing credible plans to ensure accurate tracking and reporting of emissions data.

At the online event session, Data Management Best Practices, hosted by the Industrial Decarbonization Network, Jay Thanki, Decarbonization Systems Engineer - Energy Transition, TC Energy and Deirdre Shepherd, Manager – Air Compliance, Chesapeake Energy discuss how accurate tracking and reporting of emissions data is ensured at their respective organizations. TC Energy is one of North America's leading energy infrastructure companies with operations in natural gas, oil, and power industries across 42 different jurisdictions, whereas Chesapeake Energy is an independent exploration and production company, headquartered in Oklahoma City. As we listen to Jay and Deirdre, it becomes increasingly apparent that while both companies have a different asset base, the opportunities and challenges remain the same.

Read as we break down the ways each organization tackles the data challenge when it comes to emissions reporting.

Fugitive emissions data management processes:

TC Energy: The company’s large asset footprint and dedicated workforce enables them to create quantification methodologies for each asset and business line. Specialists within the company curate a holistic view of emissions data for every company in every jurisdiction. However, the process is extremely time-consuming, given that the company has been operating for over 70 years. From a technological perspective, Jay thinks, it is exciting to see how TC Energy can further enhance their reporting and quantification processes as they move towards the future.

Chesapeake Energy: Broader than the traditional LDAR programmes, Chesapeake’s approach to fugitive emissions management and data handling employs and all-encompassing approach. This includes implementing methods like flyovers, fixed methane sensors and traditional inspections. The challenge, however, is collating data from the various sources, including sensors that provide real-time data every 5 to 15 minutes. To streamline this, Deirdre shares that Chesapeake Energy leverages its existing operational processes by utilizing their alarming systems to notify operators of any emissions-related events. The operators then use a simple form to help stakeholders understand the cause of those emissions. And as the data volume grows, utilizing tools like Power BI helps visualize and analyse all the information.

READ: How Data Defines The Future Of Methane Mitigation

Identifying data collection sites to ensure accurate data recording:

TC Energy: Even with an extensive asset footprint spanning multiple jurisdictions and numerous compressor stations, TC Energy benefits from real-time telemetry from most facilities. As a result, all active data is continuously transmitted to their SCADA systems and command control centres.

Since its construction in 1950, TC Energy’s pipeline is always evolving, with each decade introducing new expansions and additions to the infrastructure. So, the challenge operators face when collecting data is that some locations provide vintage 1970s data sets and streams while newer locations provide pristine data from 2022. The approach here is to adopt an agnostic view of all the systems, respecting the origins of assets and data collection systems. Jay explains that TC Energy strives for a holistic evaluation of their asset base, recognizing that a valve's fundamental nature remains consistent, regardless of location (Canada, US, or Mexico) or pipeline type (liquids or gas). Objectively assessing the asset base with detailed granularity allows them to make well-informed decisions during the extensive data management processes. It is important to understand that bridging gaps between various data streams and departments is vital to develop a comprehensive understanding of emissions data.

Chesapeake Energy: Similar to TC Energy, Chesapeake Energy manages a diverse range of facilities with varying vintages, some constructed by Chesapeake Energy and others obtained from different operators, resulting in differing levels of SCADA information flow. To better understand what is happening with the emissions on-site, they are progressively working on utilizing their SCADA information, including the implementation of fixed methane sensors. This emphasizes the need for all data sources to work in harmony to achieve their goal of preventing emissions.

READ: Surveying The Methane Emissions Technology Landscape: A 4-Step Buyer’s Framework

Accurately labelling inventory and mapping regulatory equipment:

TC Energy: In Canada, TC Energy has implemented a comprehensive LDAR (Leak Detection and Repair) program and a few years ago, the company took the initiative to affix QR codes on all its facilities and locations prone to fugitive emissions. This allowed LDAR technicians to scan the QR codes and associate specific data points with corresponding points on the site, proving to be highly beneficial, especially when mapping emissions to the precise equipment responsible for them.

However, while technicians could identify the specific equipment causing the emission, the challenging part was correlating that tag with the various other domains that also interacted with that equipment. For instance, the valve integrity team, facility specialists, and gas control personnel each have their interpretations, limited to their respective data streams. What TC Energy is doing now is holistically reviewing how they name each asset, depending on jurisdiction, construction data and naming standards.

By appropriately labelling and tagging equipment, and having the good data management processes in place, they ensure that the data quality doesn’t degrade overtime, despite the ongoing changes and technological advancements.

Chesapeake Energy: Since tagging of devices is not mandatory for the upstream oil and gas industry, Chesapeake Energy approaches the situation differently, relying more on operators and construction groups to ensure equipment updates in the database. Even with the already well-established databases, the teams constantly work on providing better interfaces for the operators, enabling them to cross-reference records with on-site equipment. Given the fast-paced nature of the upstream industry, equipment frequently undergoes changes throughout its lifecycle, which is a challenge.

However, advancement in technology like apps and improved internet coverage allow for continuous improvement, simplifying processes for operators calculating those emissions. At the end of the day, it about utilizing the technology that already exists to effectively manage emissions.

LISTEN: BP’s Approach to Methane Measurement

These insights, as shared by Jay and Deirdre, shed light on how TC Energy and Chesapeake Energy ensure accurate emissions tracking and reporting at their respective organizations. Despite the different asset portfolios, one thing is clear: both understand the importance of evaluating their asset base holistically, ensuring that data from different sources and departments is connected to develop a comprehensive understanding of their emissions. Ultimately, they recognize the need for continuous improvement in data management practices, while embracing existing and emerging technologies, to ensure transparency, accountability, and progress in their emission reduction efforts.

WATCH: Data Management Best Practices: A Guide to Ensure Accurate Tracking and Reporting of Emissions Data

Interested in learning more?

Join over 150 oil and gas leaders at the Methane Mitigation America conference on December 5-7, 2023 in Houston. You'll learn how methane reduction is being shaped by the global regulatory landscape, understand the key pathways to lowering emissions, discover how to build innovative partnerships to accelerate abatement efforts and explore how to improve the reliability and credibility of methane emissions data. Download the event agenda for more information.