United States
Environmental Protection
                                        Air and Radiation
June 2000
Texaco  Exploration
and Production, Inc.
Natural Gas STAR Case  Study Series

        t Texaco, reducing methane emissions
        is about being a good corporate citi-
        zen. In an era of increasing public
        and private sector concern about cli-
mate change, Texaco is tracking and reducing
its greenhouse gas emissions.  Texaco's Natural Gas STAR Program,
piloted at its Gulf Coast regional facilities, is a central part of this
effort. Since its inception in October 1996, Texaco's Gas STAR
Program has quantified 860,000 Mcfin emission reductions and
saved the company $1.7 million. By keeping reporting informal
and emphasizing cooperative participation from facilities and
employees,  the pilot program has set the stage for a smooth
company-wide program expansion with minimal time investment.
Texaco, Inc., is an integrated oil and
gas company that employs more than
18,000 people worldwide and has
annual revenues of $35.7 billion. The
White Plains, New York-based com-
pany and its affiliates explore for, pro-
duce, and sell petroleum and natural
gas in more than 150 countries. The
company's natural gas production
totals 786 billion cubic feet per year.
                                                   Texaco Exploration and Production,
                                                   Inc., a subsidiary of Texaco, Inc.,
                                                   joined EPA's Natural Gas STAR
                                                   Program in 1996, implementing a
                                                   pilot emission reduction program at
                                                   its Gulf Coast regional facilities.
                                                   Texaco's Gulf Coast region consists of
                                                   production facilities on the Gulf
                                                   Coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
                                                   Alabama, and adjacent offshore areas.

        TfiUKO'f  CM m
     Texaco's Emission Reductions (Mcf)
       1991 1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999
 Annual   19,482 35,405 46,856 59,631 70,034  99,187  148,166 171,880 215,935

             17 101,743 161,374 231,408  330,595  478,761 650,641 866,576
    Texaco has averaged 75,000 Mcf annual
    emission reductions since 1991. As part
    of the pilot program, Texaco inventoried
    emission reductions achieved prior to
    joining Gas STAR in 1996.
    "exaco eliminated seven times as much
     lethane in 1998 as it did in 1991.
    Texaco's Emission Reduction Savings

$1200,00" -1
        1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999

        ico saves an average of nearly
    ..i ^0,000 each year through its pilot
    program emission reduction activities.
In its four years of involvement with
Natural Gas STAR, Texaco has learned
several tactics that contribute to
smooth program implementation and
continued participation. The lessons
learned are outlined below:
   Gain senior management support
   and commitment to full participa-
   tion in the emission reduction pilot
•   Sell the program to midlevel man-
   agers who oversee day-to-day
   operations. This is as important as
   securing upper management sup-
   port. Demonstrating, through data
   or pilot projects, that emission
   reductions will actually save money

               s operating
   Integrate Gas STAR with existing
   programs to facilitate transfer of
   information such as new manage-
   ment practices and emission reduc-
   tion totals.
   Get operating personnel involved in
   identifying and reducing emissions.

     arly in the development of the EPA Natural
     Gas STAR Program, Texaco representatives
•J^m met with EPA officials to discuss program
  ^H requirements, potential for cost savings, and
environmental benefits. Although interested in the
program, the company adopted a cautious
approach to Natural Gas STAR and delayed join-
ing the program until there was a higher level of
experience from other natural gas producers.
The catalyst for joining Natural Gas STAR came in
1996, when Texaco representatives  received EPAs
invitation to join the program following an
announcement that fellow producers Exxon and
Mobil had partnered with EPA. Mike Milliet, an
air quality specialist in Texaco's Gulf Coast regional
headquarters in New Orleans, spoke to Exxon and
Mobil personnel and confirmed that Natural Gas
STAR was fully voluntary, did not  involve a large
time commitment for reporting, and allowed flexi-
bility in deciding which best management practices
were suitable for the company.
Mr. Milliet relayed this information to the director
of Environmental, Health, and Safety for the
Exploration and Production Division, who recom-
mended to  the head of the division that Texaco
join Natural Gas STAR. The EPA invitation letter
and conversations with Exxon and  Mobil con-
vinced the division's senior managers to sign the
program's Memorandum of Understanding.
Getting Started
Texaco chose to pilot test the emission reduction
program to assess its feasibility and develop a
sound program before implementing it on a wider
scale. Because of his familiarity with the Natural
Gas STAR Program and expertise in air quality
          management, Mr. Milliet headed up the pilot proj-
          ect at Texaco's Gulf Coast regional facilities. The
          company sent a letter to all managers in its domes-
          tic operations, notifying them of Texaco's commit-
          ment and describing the pilot activities.

          Texaco took a collaborative approach to pilot
          implementation, emphasizing education, out-
          reach, information  sharing, and relationship
          building. The company believed successful imple-
          mentation would require the commitment of
          personnel at every level, particularly engineers and
          other operating personnel—those who could best
          identify equipment for cost-effective upgrades or
  "The EPA Natural Gas STAR program's
  wealth of information about emission
  reduction tactics eliminated time
  spent exploring and testing new
                               -Mike Milliet,
             Air Quality Specialist, Texaco, Inc.

An important component of Texaco's approach was
engaging and educating the field personnel on the
full potential for emission reductions from their
facilities. Prior to joining the program, many
Texaco engineers had come to accept methane
emissions as  a normal part of business. They were
aware that emission reductions from activities such
as the installation of flash tank separators and low-
bleed pneumatic control devices were possible, but
did not realize the magnitude of savings that could
be achieved.
To improve awareness and facilitate employee par-
ticipation, the Gulf Coast region reoriented the air
quality component of annual environmental train-
ing to focus heavily on emission reduction activi-
ties. During  the training, Mr. Milliet and his col-
Texaco Exploration and Production, Inc.
                      Natural Gas STAR Case Study Series

leagues introduced field personnel to the program,
described major methane and cost saving opportuni-
ties, demonstrated how to quantify and verify these
activities, and urged field personnel to notify Texaco
Gas STAR managers of similar activities, past or
present, at their plants.
To secure cooperation from operating personnel,
                Texaco encouraged staff to reduce
                   methane emissions, but did
                      not direct them to imple-
                       ment specific activities.
                        Texaco presented operat-
                        ing personnel the option
                        of developing their own
                        methods for reducing
                        emissions and encouraged
                       them to share new emis-
                       sion reduction ideas, which
                     could be disseminated to the
                   rest of the pilot group.
Texaco gathered information on emission reductions
through facility visits and its greenhouse gas emission
inventory. Interactions  during facility visits involving
air permitting provided Mr. Milliet information on
the types of emission reduction activities facilities
were pursuing and reductions they had achieved,
forming the basis of the region's Natural Gas STAR
reporting. Texaco supplemented this information
with data gathered through the company's green-
house gas emission inventory. The inventory involved
measuring and reporting the emission of methane,
carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases by equip-
ment type in each business unit. Texaco used this
data to locate and address equipment and work prac-
tices that resulted in large methane emissions and
utilized this highly detailed information for Gas
STAR reporting.

Pilot Activities
The  company placed a high priority on identifying,
quantifying, and replicating successful emission
reduction activities already in place. The most com-
monly implemented practices included:
•  Identifying and replacing high-bleed pneumatic
   control devices. The program helped characterize
   the use of these devices in current operations. An
   initial review at the time of pilot implementation
   indicated that facilities already used low/no-bleed
                           EXflCOf JIGK  TO
      Focusing on one region initially. By piloting the program in one region, Texaco was able
      to test its applicability to the company's operations and build momentum for broader
      implementation. Emission reduction information was easier to collect and disseminate in
      one region than it woulci have been if Texaco had launched the program simultaneously in
      all domestic business units. Initial information gathering proved critical for the decision to
      implement the program across the  entire company.
      Using a cooperative approach. Rather than mandating emission reduction activities,
      Texaco relied on the voluntary cooperation of field staff. Since implementation and report-
      ing was voluntary, Texaco's Gas STAR managers did not have to spend time following up
      with every facility to make   ; the plant filed an emission reduction report.
      Decentralizing implementation decisions. Texaco allowed individual facilities the flexibil-
      ity to determine which practices were  most appropriate to their organizations and to
      develop innovative new emission reducing processes, which could be shared with the
      rest of the region.
Texaco Exploration and Production, Inc.
              Natural Gas STAR Case Study Series

    devices or compressed air in new installations.
    In some cases, the program helped expand the
    use of compressed air at existing facilities; for
    instance, one facility began to use compressed
    air from a compressor station to power pneu-
    matic devices at an adjacent tank battery.
•   Installing flash tank separators on glycol dehy-
    drators and quantifying emission reductions.
    At the time of the pilot, many  of the glycol
    dehydrators in southern Louisiana had already
    been equipped with flash tanks and condensers.
    Texaco documented reductions for these
    devices and evaluated the economic feasibility
    of installing flash tanks on the  remaining units
    in south Louisiana and south Texas.
•   Exploring ways to reduce or eliminate flash
    gas emissions from treaters and storage tanks.
    Texaco worked to identify cost-effective oppor-
    tunities to capture flash gas at various facilities
    and to implement technology to capture or pre-
    vent emissions of flash gas. The company evalu-
    ated the installation of vapor recovery units
    (VRUs) and the connection of vents from
    treaters to fuel gas systems.
•   Converting pneumatic pumps to air operation
    or replacing pneumatic pumps with other
    devices. At the  time of the pilot, Texaco operat-
    ed approximately 200 pneumatic pumps in
    southern Louisiana to move fluids in and
    around tank batteries. The pilot involved evalu-
    ating the use of air rather than natural gas as
    the motive force for these devices or replacing
    the devices with nonemitting alternatives where
    economically feasible.
The results of these activities, in quantified emission
reductions and cost savings, are listed in the "Texaco's
Gas STAR Program Achievements"  section.

Maintaining the Program
"Throughout the industry," notes Mr. Milliet,
"people like to stick to the  old method of opera-
tions. New procedures encounter an inertial
effect—because it's new and different, it needs
additional help to keep it going. Like any other
program, Texaco's Gas
STAR Program requires
an ongoing marketing
effort." Texaco sus-
tains program
momentum by
incorporating dis-
cussion of emission
reduction activities
into onsite air per-
mitting visits.
As an air permitting
specialist, Mr. Milliet often
weaves technical suggestions
into his exchanges with operation managers, either
in informal conversations during annual environ-
mental training or during air permitting visits. In
these interactions, Mr. Milliet tries to inform field
staff of opportunities for improving emission
reductions and encourages them to work with him
on developing  methodologies, installing new
equipment, and verifying reductions.
One of the benefits of the program, according to
Mr. Milliet, is that it not only brings emission
reduction activities to the attention of engineers,
but it also demonstrates newer, better, and more
economical process and equipment changes. "The
[EPA Natural Gas STAR] program's wealth of
information about emission reduction tactics elimi-
nated time spent exploring and testing new solu-
tions," he said.
     the Program
      'ith the pilot program successfully imple-
       mented, Texaco's Gas STAR team is
       poised to introduce the program to the
       rest of the company. Texaco plans to  fol-
low its pilot program model, providing broad
guidance and allowing each business unit to
determine exactly how it wants to  implement
emission reduction  activities.
Texaco Exploration and Production, Inc.
                Natural Gas STAR Case Study Series

Dovetailing With the Engineering
Reliability Program
Texaco is considering using its engineering reliability
program as one of the vehicles to facilitate program
expansion. The engineering reliability program pro-
vides a system for assessing the operational efficiency
of company facilities through inspections and reviews
of equipment downtime, preventative maintenance,
and work processes.  Texaco personnel conduct "root
cause analyses" to locate the source of inefficiencies
and develop measures to eliminate problems.
Texaco believes methane emission reduction activities
will dovetail extremely well with the engineering reli-
ability program, as emission reductions often result
from improvements  in process and  equipment effi-
ciency. One significant benefit of linking Texaco's
Gas STAR Program  with engineering reliability is
that Texaco would not need to develop a new report-
ing framework specifically for Gas STAR. The engi-
neering reliability program already has a network of
contacts who  could be responsible for gathering and
reporting emission reduction information. Until Gas
STAR is completely  integrated with engineering reli-

  " Rather than sponsoring a top-down
  approach to implementation, Texaco
  hopes to  foster a two-way information
  exchange between the business units
  and corporate headquarters."
                               -Mike Milliet,
             Air Quality Specialist, Texaco, Inc.
ability, Texaco will likely use a Gas STAR-specific
reporting procedure, possibly through the company's
Gas STAR intranet site.

Decentralizing Implementation
Texaco would like to provide individual business units
with the flexibility to determine how to implement
emission reduction programs. Instead of having one
coordinator or centralized Gas STAR team for the
entire domestic organization, Texaco likely will estab-
lish a program coordinator for each business unit.
These coordinators could be individuals in the busi-
ness units who currently manage air regulatory issues.
Business units might be able to choose to implement
the activities through engineering reliability or
through a program of their own, if that program is
more applicable. According to Mr. Milliet, "Rather
than sponsoring a top-down approach to implemen-
tation, Texaco hopes to foster a two-way information
exchange between the business units and corporate
  What  Natural as  $TAR
       Tleans to Texac^
  ^j Ithough lost methane is a relatively small por-
    I tion of Texaco's total natural gas production,
^LJ the company joined Natural Gas STAR to be a
  I I good corporate citizen and to gain recognition
for its efforts. In a sense, the economic benefits of
Natural Gas STAR are "icing on the cake."
In the long term,  however, the project will be sus-
tained by Texaco's desire to control greenhouse gas
emissions. "You can generally sell individual emission
reduction projects on economics alone," says Mr.
Milliet,  "but because methane emissions are such a
small portion of overall production, companywide
efforts need to tie into customer and societal con-
cerns about greenhouse gases. The time is becoming
riper for examining greenhouse gas emissions at a
company, industry, and society level." Texaco is
working on quantifying greenhouse gas emissions
throughout the company and is in the process of
integrating greenhouse gas management analyses into
all business planning processes, including  strategic
planning among all business units and the review of
new projects worldwide.
"In general, Texaco will put  its money where it can
get the best return," says Mr. Milliet, "but we have to
think about the company's position and society's
position on global warming  as well."
Texaco Exploration and Production, Inc.
              Natural Gas STAR Case Study Series