Recommendations For A Stringent ISO Standard On The GHG Emissions From Blue Hydrogen Production

Recommendations for a stringent ISO
standard on the GHG emissions from blue

hydrogen production
Yuanrong Zhou, Chelsea Baldino

y.zhou@theicct.org; chelsea.baldino@theicct.org.org
23 /06/ 2023
ICCT would like to thank Agora Energiewende for their helpful comments and support
The ISO standard needs clear requirements for the climate
impacts associated with upstream emissions and carbon storage
Blue hydrogen can pose considerable climate risks due to upstream GHG emissions (see new DNV
analysis following). Another risk is potential leakage of carbon dioxide from the storage sites. It is
crucial for any relevant standard, such as the IPHE methodology that is currently being established
into an ISO standard, to properly account for these issues. We thus provide two recommendations for
such a standard of blue hydrogen:
(1) Set clear and stringent requirements for the GHG emissions associated with the upstream
natural gas value chain with respect to measuring, monitoring, reporting, and verification.
• For example, the ISO standard could reference level 4 and level 5 reporting under the OGMP
2.0 framework.
(2) Set clear and stringent requirements for the permanence of carbon storage.
• For example, the ISO standard could reference the Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Protocol under California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard program
Third-party verification and public reporting would enhance the credibility of the measurement.
2
Blue hydrogen can pose a climate risk and
requires an ISO standard with strict guidelines
The Methodology for Determining the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with the Production of
Hydrogen developed by the International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy
(IPHE) in 2021 (hereafter referred as “IPHE methodology”) is currently being established into an
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard (1). However, loopholes in the IPHE
methodology for blue hydrogen produced from fossil gas combined with carbon capture and storage
(CCS) means that the true GHG impact of these hydrogen pathways may not be properly accounted
for within the standard. We address these issues here to inform the ISO standard process.
To accurately account for the climate impact of hydrogen, such a standard must have stringent rules
and requirements. Blue hydrogen can pose a climate risk for two main reasons:
(1) The greenhouse gases, including methane leakage, associated with the upstream natural
gas extraction, processing, and transportation, and
(2) the secure storage of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the waste streams of hydrogen production.
3
Upstream GHG emissions are important,
two studies show
A recent study from DNV (see attached) highlights that upstream GHG emissions are a critical
factor impacting the climate performance of blue hydrogen. The IPHE methodology does not
provide stringent requirements for upstream GHG emissions. It allows the use of emission factors
provided by gas suppliers without any requirements on site specific data verification. Alternatively, the
hydrogen producers may use the National Greenhouse Accounts emission factors.
Even small quantities of methane leakage in the natural gas value chain can have strong
impacts on hydrogen GHG intensity due to the high climate forcing impact of methane, and yet they
are very inconsistently reported by companies, pointed out by DNV. These findings complement a 2021
ICCT study, which includes findings from a literature review showing that upstream methane leakage
can vary from less than 1% to as high as 20% (2). A 20% leakage rate can lead to higher than 90
gCO2e/MJ (11 kgCO2e/kg H2) life-cycle GHG emissions from blue hydrogen, worse than fossil fuels.
Moreover, as noted in the DNV study, different methodologies for measuring the upstream emissions
can lead to very different leakage estimates. The National Greenhouse Accounts factors referenced in
the IPHE methodology is found to underestimate real methane emissions (3).
4
The ISO standard should properly account for
upstream GHG emissions
Our first recommendation for the hydrogen IPHE methodology:
Set clear and stringent requirements for upstream methane emission measuring, monitoring,
reporting, and verification.
The IPHE methodology could require hydrogen producers to get natural gas only from suppliers following
a stringent international methane measuring and reporting standard, such as the Oil and Gas Methane
Partnership (OGMP) 2.0 framework. The level 4 and level 5 reporting under the OGMP 2.0 framework
requires source-level and site-level measurement throughout gas value chain. The proposed Regulation
on methane emissions reduction in the energy sector by the European Commission is built on level 4 and
level 5 reporting requirements under the OGMP 2.0 framework. This framework provides detailed
guidelines on how to measure methane emissions, including leakage, and the reporting of methane
emissions on an intensity basis. Besides having robust measuring and reporting requirements on
methane emissions, it would also be necessary for the IPHE methodology to require the verification of the
measurements from an independent, third-party organization, which could be complemented with public
reporting to encourage greater transparency. The standard could also provide a default methane
emissions value when value chain certification is demonstrably not feasible. This default value could be
set at a relatively high value to motivate producers to present real, independently verified values.
5
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) from blue
hydrogen production
As for carbon capture and storage (CCS), as shown in the DNV report, there are three primary
carbon waste streams during blue hydrogen production.
Typically blue hydrogen producers using natural gas with steam methane reforming
(SMR) only capture carbon from one of these waste streams, thus capturing only around
55% of the CO2. As shown in both the DNV report and ICCT’s 2021 LCA study, only capturing
carbon from one of the waste streams means blue hydrogen provides very little, if any, GHG
benefit relative to fossil fuels. Further, even when capturing most of the waste CO 2 from SMR,
the stored CO2 could leak in various ways and can be significant and long-term, thus
undermining the permanence of the sequestration (4). The IPHE methodology requires the
reporting of fugitive CO2 emissions from storage within the reporting period. However, it does
not provide guidelines on how to measure CO2 leakage and it is not clear if the reporting period
would be able to capture leakages occurring beyond the reporting period.
6
Recommendations on CCS in the ISO standard
Our second recommendation is for the ISO standard to set clear and
stringent requirements for the permanence of carbon storage. The IPHE
methodology could be strengthened with adequate requirements to ensure the
risk management and long-term viability of carbon storage. For example, the
IPHE methodology could refer to the Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Protocol developed by the California Air Resources Board under its Low Carbon
Fuel Standard program. This protocol has explicit requirements for permanence
certification of CCS projects including third-party review. Particularly, project
developers are required to conduct a site-based risk assessment on CO2
leakage over 100 years after the injection with an emergency and remediation
plan. The protocol also specifies the techniques for CO 2 monitoring.
7
Other indirect climate impacts of blue hydrogen
Besides the above-mentioned two risks of blue hydrogen that could be better addressed under the IPHE
methodology, blue hydrogen can also cause indirect climate impacts that are more complicated and
harder to measure. It is likely in many cases that captured CO2 from hydrogen production is used to
enhanced oil recovery (CO2-EOR), which is by far the most common form of carbon storage. This means
the blue hydrogen plant would contribute to the extraction and production of more oil and therefore, to the
release of more CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. While the magnitude of the increase in GHG
emissions from increased oil consumption compared to the GHG savings from storing the CO2 is
unknown, there is a potential concern that more CO2 would end in the atmosphere, having a negative
impact on the climate. It is also possible that the oil producer might switch sourcing its CO2 supply to the
blue hydrogen plant from another industry. That other industry (from which the oil producer had originally
procured the CO2) may then end releasing its CO2 to the atmosphere if it does not find another customer
to purchase and store its CO2. If this happens, the CO2 emissions from the replaced industry would
entirely offset the CO2 savings from performing CCS at the hydrogen plant. The IPHE methodology does
not account for these indirect impacts.
8
ICCT References
1. International Energy Agency, “Towards Hydrogen Definitions Based on Their Emissions Intensity –
Analysis,” IEA, 2023, https://www.iea.org/reports/towards-hydrogen-definitions-based-on-their-emissions-
intensity
2. Yuanrong Zhou et al., “Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Biomethane and Hydrogen Pathways in
the European Union” (Washington, D.C.: International Council on Clean Transportation, October 10, 2021),
https://theicct.org/publication/life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-biomethane-and-hydrogen-pathways-
in-the-european-union/; Yuanrong Zhou, Zhen Zhang, and Yan Li, “Life-Cycle Analysis of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions of Hydrogen, and Recommendations for China” (Washington, D.C.: International Council on
Clean Transportation, October 19, 2022), https://theicct.org/publication/china-fuels-lca-ghgs-hydrogen-
oct22/.
3. Ramón A. Alvarez et al., “Assessment of Methane Emissions from the U.S. Oil and Gas Supply Chain,”
Science 361, no. 6398 (July 13, 2018): 186–88, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7204; Jeffrey S.
Rutherford et al., “Closing the Methane Gap in US Oil and Natural Gas Production Emissions Inventories,”
Nature Communications 12, no. 1 (August 5, 2021): 4715, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25017-4.
4. Yuanrong Zhou, “Carbon Capture and Storage: A Lot of Eggs in a Potentially Leaky Basket,” ICCT Staff
Blog (blog), January 17, 2020, https://theicct.org/carbon-capture-and-storage-a-lot-of-eggs-in-a-potentially-
leaky-basket/.
Review of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Blue Hydrogen
Authors: Mark Fisher, Steven He, Stuart Blackburn, Claas Hülsen, Sarah Kimpton 23 June 2023
DRAFT
Copyright © DNV 2023. All rights reserved. This study has been prepared for Agora Energiewende. The information and the views set out in this report are those of the authors. No third party may rely on its contents and DNV undertakes no duty
of care toward any third party. Reference to part of this publication which may lead to misinterpretation is prohibited. The trademarks DNV® and Det Norske Veritas® are the properties of companies in the Det Norske Veritas group.
2 DNV ©
Table of Contents
CHAPTER PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
1 Introduction 6
2 Blue hydrogen value chain 10
2.1 Gas production from upstream onshore and offshore wells
2.2 Gas transport
2.3 Production of blue hydrogen
2.4 CO2 capture and storage
3 Evaluation of possible GHG emissions alongside the above 20

value chain
3.1 Metrics for evaluating GHG Emissions
3.2 GHG emissions from upstream onshore and offshore hydrocarbon production
3.3 GHG emissions from the production of blue hydrogen
3.4 GHG Emissions – full value chain scenarios – Summary
4 Requirements for a standard for low-CO2 production of blue 37

hydrogen
REFERENCES 39
APPENDIX A – Glossary 42
APPENDIX B – Tabulated Results 43
3 DNV ©
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
2 Blue hydrogen value chain
3 Evaluation of possible GHG emissions alongside the value

chain
4 Requirements for a standard for low-CO2 production of

blue hydrogen
5 APPENDIX
4 DNV ©
Executive Summary
This report provides insight into the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the production of blue hydrogen.
Quantification of the real GHG footprint requires availability of reliable data on emissions upstream of the
reformer.
Blue hydrogen carbon intensity depends on the Data on GHG emissions along the value chain: Transparent reporting is essential to quantify
full value chain: emissions properly:
DNV has analysed a wide selection of publicly
The value chain for blue hydrogen production may available data alongside calculation from first- Our calculations show that the GHG emission
differ from location to location due to different gas principles to assess the range of emissions intensity for blue hydrogen production may vary
fields, upstream processes, transport modes and intensity figures presented in literature. Several from less than 1 kgCO2e/kgH2, to more than 10
reforming processes. Each of these elements can studies aiming to quantify the GHG emissions kgCO2e/kgH2. This implies that it will be critical for
influence significantly the GHG footprint. impact from the natural gas value chain are blue hydrogen producers to provide transparency
available. However, all studies raise concerns over to the emission calculations and the underlying
The accuracy of GHG emission estimates for the accuracy and reliability of the figures produced
hydrogen production from natural gas with CCS (blue data to deliver confidence that the hydrogen is
due to a lack of transparent data and lack of produced and delivered with low GHG emissions.
hydrogen) also depends on model assumptions and accounting for methane emissions.
methodological choices. It is particularly important to This requires reliable and consistent reporting of
consider the blue hydrogen production technology, emissions for each part of the value chain. Special
the upstream emissions from natural gas supply, and attention should be placed on quantification of
the chosen metric for measuring global warming methane emissions along the gas supply chain.
potential (GWP) over a specified timeframe.
5 DNV ©
Executive Summary
1 Introduction

chain

blue hydrogen
5 APPENDIX
6 DNV ©
1. Hydrogen and rationale for blue hydrogen
This report provides an overview of the blue hydrogen production value chain and the potential Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions that can
be associated along the value chain.
Background and scope of the study

This short study has been written by DNV to explain and evaluate the possible GHG emissions that come with the
production of blue hydrogen.
Logic of the report

After this introductory chapter, our analysis follows the logic set out below:
Natural Gas
• Chapter two explains the blue hydrogen production value chain. Possible process alternatives that have an impact Natural Gas Natural Gas Hydrogen
Upstream
on the GHG footprint will be explained at a high level to provide the reader with the necessary process knowledge. Transport Reforming transport
• Chapter three defines the possible ranges of GHG emissions across the whole blue hydrogen value chain. Production
• Chapter four explains, as a conclusion of the analysis, what is required to produce and deliver blue hydrogen with a
carbon intensity lower than the thresholds set for low-carbon or green hydrogen production. • Methane leakage / boil • CO2 emissions from the • H2 emissions pipeline
• Methane leakage transport to users
off natural gas conversion
• Flaring process and the energy
System boundaries • CO2 emissions from the used in the hydrogen
For this report we have set out the system boundaries as shown in the diagram opposite. This report does not include • CO2 emissions from the energy used in the production process
energy used in the transportation process
life cycle emissions associated with the construction and decommissioning of the production facilities. It does include
production process
scope 1 and 2 emissions from the production, transport and reforming processes. While emissions downstream of the
hydrogen production process are not included in our study, it is noted that hydrogen is an indirect greenhouse gas, and
Source: DNV
that emissions related to transport from centralised facilities to end users should be considered in life-cycle
assessments.
When evaluating any methane-based mitigation options such as blue hydrogen, the choice of GHG emission metric
used to compare the impact of methane emissions to CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases is important. The Blue hydrogen will generally have a larger greenhouse gas footprint compared to green hydrogen since not all
most common metric is the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of a specific greenhouse gas. emissions from hydrogen production can be abated. However, the actual emissions will vary greatly depending on the
chosen technologies and processes within the entire value chain.
7 DNV ©
Various studies show hydrogen as an energy vector will be needed in the future to decarbonize sectors with a high energy intensity.
Hydrogen as an energy vector for decarbonisation
Hydrogen has been used in large quantities for well over 100 years as a chemical feedstock, in fertiliser production and
in refineries. However, the use of hydrogen as an energy carrier is negligible. Hydrogen is now receiving increased
focus as a potential low-emission energy vector and regarded as a critical component in global efforts to mitigate
climate change. However, current hydrogen production has a significant carbon footprint. The production of hydrogen
must therefore be decarbonized – currently at high cost – before it can play a prominent role in the drive to decarbonize
the energy system. Hydrogen has significant cost, complexity, efficiency, and often safety disadvantages compared
with the direct use of electricity. However, for many energy sectors, the direct use of electricity is not viable. Instead,
hydrogen and its derivatives such as ammonia, methanol and e-kerosene are the prime low-carbon contenders.
Further information from DNV on the role of hydrogen in the energy transition is available, see references below.
Hydrogen does not occur in a pure form naturally and it needs to be produced. There are two sources of hydrogen –
from water (H2O) or from hydrocarbons (usually fossil fuels comprising hydrogen and carbon):
1. To produce hydrogen from water, low-carbon electricity is used to split water molecules into hydrogen (H2)
and oxygen (O2) in an electrolyser; oxygen is a byproduct. No carbon dioxide is produced (apart from the
emissions that come with the set up of the infrastructure). This is often known as green hydrogen.
2. To produce hydrogen from hydrocarbons (usually natural gas), a reforming process is used to split the
hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide and hydrogen. For the hydrogen to be low-carbon (or blue):
i. The carbon dioxide produced from the reforming process needs to be captured, transported and then
stored permanently underground – this process is known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).
ii. Any GHG emissions associated with the production, processing and transport of the fossil fuel need to
be minimized and included in the assessment of the carbon intensity of the hydrogen.
References
DNV Energy Transition Outlook Energy Transition Outlook – DNV
DNV Hydrogen Forecast to 2050 Hydrogen forecast DNV
Source: DNV
8 DNV ©
There are many different types of emissions that have a global warming potential – here we consider the two largest sources for blue
hydrogen production.
Climate change impacts Global warming potential (GWP)
DNV believes that both green and blue hydrogen have a role in decarbonising the global energy system. However, all GWP is a metric developed and adapted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to account for trade-offs
types of hydrogen need to be low-carbon to contribute to legally binding internationally agreed targets adopted as part between different greenhouse gases. It compares the future global warming caused by an idealized pulse of emissions
of the Paris Agreement. The climate change impacts of hydrogen production from natural gas with CCS (blue of a specific greenhouse gas. The GWP aggregates impacts over time, hence the estimation requires a specific time
hydrogen) depend on several processes along the entire value chain, and on many assumptions and methodological horizon over which future warming is quantified and compared (e.g. 20 years in GWP20 and 100 years in GWP100).
choices. It is particularly important to consider the blue hydrogen production technology, the upstream emissions from Given the short atmospheric lifetime of methane of roughly 12 years, the choice of time horizon has a strong impact on
natural gas supply chains, and the metric for measuring global warming potential (GWP) over a specified timeframe. its GWP and the results of our greenhouse gas footprint analysis.
This brief elaborates on these three aspects, gathering data for different blue hydrogen production technologies and for The IPCC 6th Assessment Report (AR6) quote the following GWP figures for methane:
upstream emissions from natural gas supply chains in different regions. It then combines this data in various
combinations and compares it to the thresholds for GHG footprint. • GWP(20) = 82.5 ± 25.8 (after 20 years, methane is 82.5 times more potent than an equivalent kg of carbon dioxide)
Thresholds for low, medium and high emissions associated with hydrogen production • GWP(100) = 29.8 ± 11 (after 100 years, methane is 29.8 times more potent than an equivalent kg of carbon
dioxide).
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) recommends the following thresholds (on a full
life-cycle basis): Why have we considered only CO2 and CH4?
Other greenhouse gases, such as NOX, HFCs, and CFCs, are more potent climate gases (measured in GWP per tonne
Maximum allowed Maximum allowed
of gas emitted) and more persistent than both CO2 and methane. However, we do not consider these in our report and
Category emissions Units emissions Units
there are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the energy sector is not a significant contributor to these emissions.
Reduced-carbon hydrogen 6 kg CO2e/kg H2 50 g CO2e/MJ H2 (net) Secondly, the quantities of these greenhouse gases are low, despite their high potency.
Low-carbon hydrogen 3 kg CO2e/kg H2 25 g CO2e/MJ H2 (net)
Hydrogen itself is not a direct GHG, but its chemical reactions adversely affect the amounts of greenhouse gases such
Ultralow-carbon hydrogen 1 kg CO2e/kg H2 8.3 g CO2e/MJ H2 (net) as methane, ozone and aerosols in the atmosphere. It is prudent therefore to ensure that all processes downstream of
the hydrogen production facility (whether green or blue) limit the amount of hydrogen that is emitted to the atmosphere.
The reduced-carbon hydrogen threshold is only relevant as a steppingstone to achieving lower carbon hydrogen for Units
existing higher intensity production installations.
Emissions may be expressed using a variety of units including mass and energy units in terms of methane and
The EU taxonomy sets the greenhouse gas emissions threshold for hydrogen production at 3 t CO2eq/t H2 on a hydrogen. When expressed in energy units (MJ) we have used the net or lower calorific values. For hydrogen, the net
lifecycle basis. This corresponds to the low-carbon threshold as defined by WBCSD. calorific value is 119.910 MJ/kg.
Source: DNV
9 DNV ©
Executive Summary
1 Introduction

chain

blue hydrogen
5 APPENDIX
10 DNV ©
2. Blue hydrogen value chain
Introduction to the blue hydrogen value chain
The gas value chain comprises various stages at which GHG emissions can occur – the emissions are mainly either methane or carbon
dioxide.
• In this section we will focus on a description of the blue hydrogen value chain so that the reader gets a
basic understanding of the entire process needed to produce blue hydrogen and also of the most
common process alternatives that are today considered and that have an influence on the GHG
emissions from the value chain.
• We describe the three major elements that need to be considered to understand the process. These Upstream Midstream Natural Gas
are: Natural Gas Reforming with Hydrogen
Natural Gas
Transport CCS transport
• The upstream production process, where gas is taken out of natural reservoirs Production
• The transport of the gas by pipeline or ship that may differ depending on the geographical location • Methane leakage / CO2 emissions from: • H2 emissions pipeline
• Methane leakage
of the gas reserve methane slip / boil off transport to users
• Flaring • the energy used in the
• CO2 emissions from the reforming process
• The reforming process to produce hydrogen from the natural gas and the capture of the carbon
• CO2 emissions from the energy used in the
dioxide produced. energy used in the transportation process • energy for carbon
production process capture and conditioning
• We have not included: • residual CO2 emissions
not captured
• The downstream hydrogen value chain but we do highlight that hydrogen can play an indirect role in
Source: DNV
global warming if it escapes into the atmosphere
• The transport of the captured carbon dioxide to the geological long-term storage site
11 DNV ©
2.1 Gas production from upstream onshore and offshore wells
Upstream gas production is generally a case of separating gas from other produced fluids before conditioning at a processing plant.
Natural gas is mainly methane which is the simplest hydrocarbon comprising one atom of carbon and four Fugitive
Gas Turbine Exhaust Emissions
atoms of hydrogen. Gas is produced around the world from hydrocarbon reservoirs deep underground – Emissions Routine &
these are often a mix of hydrocarbons which are then initially separated into gases, associated oil and gas Emergency Flaring
condensates, water and solids. The gases are compressed, liquids pressurised and water treated and Emissions
discharged.
Gas Turbine Gas
Gas and liquids can be exported through different routes or recombined, sometimes with the water as well, Driver Gas Export
compression
and sent to a processing plant by pipeline. At the processing plant gases are dehydrated, conditioned and
blended to achieve the right specification (moisture content, calorific value, purity, etc.) for use.
At production, additional systems may be included to enhance recovery from the reservoir, to address Fugitive Emissions
particular hazards such as hydrogen sulphide and naturally occurring radioactive materials, and deal with
high-levels of entrained solids. Systems for testing particular wells and to allow controlled depressurisation
Production
of the process system in routine and emergency situations also add to the complexity of the process Separation Venting During
systems. Offshore production systems (i.e. those used over water and out at sea) require an ability to be Maintenance
able to be installed using components that can be handled in areas with restricted access. This tends to
increase the number of mechanical (flanged) joints in the process system. In conjunction with an
aggressive corrosion environment, this means an increased risk of leaks and fugitive methane emissions if Fugitive
Water Discharge Emissions
inspection and maintenance is not of a very high level.
In the diagram opposite, red arrows are used to indicate possible sources of GHG emission sources in the
methane value chain - these consist mainly of flaring, venting and fugitive emissions. Increasingly, Pumps Flare/ Vent
Production
regulations are being used to minimise or mitigate GHG emissions – for example, corporate or national Stack
Wells
regulations that limit venting and flaring and/or the use of electrification of production processes such as Oil/ Condensate
compression. Export
Source: DNV
12 DNV ©
2.2 Gas transport value chain – pipeline transmission, storage and distribution in gaseous form
Natural gas can be transported by long-distance pipelines from point of production to energy markets, both nationally and internationally.
Options for long-distance transportation of natural gas

Once natural gas has been produced from geological hydrocarbon reserves and processed to
sales gas quality, it needs to be moved to the energy markets and, ultimately, end-users. Leaks
Most natural gas is exported via pipeline, with modern long-distance transmission systems
spanning thousands of kilometres from wellhead to burner-tip. Pipeline transport is particularly Combustion
Venting, seal
advantageous when there are no significant obstacles between supply and demand, such as emissions
leakage etc Gas
deep waters or mountainous terrain. However, natural gas transferred via pipeline connects two Storage
or more fixed points. To take advantage of other export market opportunities, natural gas can be Booster Compression
Station
converted to liquefied natural gas (LNG) and transported at low temperatures by specially Leaks
designed ships.
Driver Comp.
Distribution Line
Transport of natural gas by pipeline
Leaks
Gas flows through a pipeline due to pressure differential. Long-distance transmission lines, Leaks Leaks
operating up to approximately 100 barg, install regular booster compression stations placed Sales gas
every 100-200 km to overcome pipeline friction. The compression stations are a key source of from upstream
carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of natural gas, and they may also be a source of
Transmission Line Transmission Line Transmission Line
leaks, such as through compressor seals.
Typical GHG emissions sources are indicated in the diagram opposite by the red arrows. Distribution Line
Efficiency of the overall system is usually measured through gas shrinkage metrics, which
indicate the gas lost in the system. Gas-driven compressors are normally fuelled by the pipeline
gas whilst fugitive emissions may occur throughout the system from compressor seals, piping
design, metering and maintenance procedures.
As the demand for energy varies considerably throughout the year, seasonal storage is used by
countries to economically satisfy peak demand. Gas is stored typically by injection into depleted
hydrocarbon reservoirs, aquifers and salt caverns. Source: DNV
13 DNV ©
2.2 Gas transport value chain – Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
Where natural gas reserves are geographically isolated from energy markets, LNG provides an economically viable solution to transport gas
from stranded assets.
The need for LNG Shipping
A large proportion of natural gas production is geographically isolated from the energy markets. In order LNG is traded internationally and transported via large cargo ships (LNG carriers), which are specially
to provide access to key demand centres, whilst also creating flexibility for the seller to respond to designed to transport LNG below -160 ̊C and atmospheric pressure. LNG carrier scale has been steadily
demand in the global energy markets, liquefied natural gas is an economically viable solution to deliver increasing over the last 20 years, from 160,000 m3 in early 2000s, to the largest 260,000 m3 Q-max
large quantities of gas from remote locations. The high energy density of LNG means that transportation vessel commissioned in 2011 for the Qatar LNG market. Two main types of cargo containment systems
is more efficient, however the nature of the liquefaction process means that extra gas processing steps exist – the membrane-type (approximately 70%) and the moss-type and both aim to reduce boil-off gas
are required resulting in an overall higher carbon intensity. (BOG). A typical range of 0.1 - 0.15% of the LNG cargo with boil off each day at sea, however modern
ships with the membrane containment systems are quoted to reach as low as 0.08%. Older carrier
By cooling natural gas to below -160°C at 1 atm, the volume reduces by a factor of 600, creating an
designs would use the boil off gas and heavy fuel oil or marine diesel oil for propulsion, however more
economical method to flexibly store and transport energy globally. The three main steps in the LNG
recent designs acknowledge that BOG is too valuable to burn and thus rely primarily on Marine Diesel Oil
process are:
(MDO), with the BOG reliquefied and returned to the tanks. Shipboard carbon capture (SBCC) has been
Liquefaction suggested as an effective transition solution to achieve significant reductions in carbon emissions before
carbon-neutral fuels such as bio-LNG, methanol and ammonia are widely available. However, capture
Upstream gas is fed into the facility where it is purified to remove impurities such as carbon dioxide, water and storage on mobile offshore vessels presents challenges, such as availability of onboard storage
and heavy hydrocarbons that will cause issues during liquefaction by freezing in the cryogenic heat capacity, CO2 liquefaction power demand and the technical feasibility for retrofitting existing vessels.
exchanger. The gas is sequentially cooled in the multi-stage exchanger, with the resultant liquified natural
gas transferred to storage prior to ship loading. Boil-off gas (BOG), a mixture of mainly methane and Regasification
nitrogen, is generated due to tank heat ingress. BOG is normally recovered and either returned upstream
LNG is received and unloaded from carriers to regasification terminal storage, which are located both
in the process to be re-liquified, supplied to the fuel gas system or sent to flare. Depending on the
onshore (90% of total regasification capacity) and floating offshore via Floating Storage and
liquefaction technology, age of the facility, and ambient temperature, which influences system thermal
Regasification Units (FRSUs). The primary objective of the terminal is a storage and send out facility that
efficiency, typically 8 – 12% gas shrinkage occurs i.e. 8 – 12% of the facility feed gas is used for energy at
can supply energy markets on demand. LNG is stored in thermally insulated tanks that limits heat ingress
the facility. The primary energy expenditure and source of emissions will be the refrigerant compressors
and BOG generation. In send out mode, LNG is pumped from the tank to export pressure before
and, depending on the geographical location of the facility and availability of grid infrastructure, on-site
vaporisation in dedicated heat exchangers. In warm climates, Open Rack Vaporisers are common with
electrical power generation. Opportunities for heat integration are being explored by developers (such as
ambient water temperature supplying sufficient temperature driving force. In colder climates,
imported liquid CO2) which would reduce the energy consumption of liquefaction facilities. However, the
supplemental heat must be supplied through burning fuel gas in Submerged Combustion Vaporisers.
benefits that could be realised through utilisation of cold energy imports is likely to be limited due to the
Typically this results in a gas shrinkage of 1.5%. There are existing technologies which have been
lower temperature of natural gas liquefaction, whilst the economic viability for importing cold energy is not
deployed at scale for regassification terminals to recover and utilise the high grade cold energy that
clear.
otherwise would be lost. Power generation and air separation are techniques that could be considered for
utilisation of this cold energy, with potential future use cases in cryogenic CO2 capture and liquefaction.
14 DNV ©
2.2 Gas transport value chain – Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
The LNG value chain contains more processing steps compared to the pipeline value chain, which results in a higher emissions intensity.
Liquefaction Shipping Regasification

Combustion Combustion Combustion
Emissions Emissions Emissions
Flare / Vent Flare / Vent

Stack Stack
Fuel gas Fuel gas Fuel gas
system system system
Combustion
Emissions
Boil-Off Boil-Off Boil-Off
Gas Gas Gas
Inlet facilities
Sales gas / CO2 / H2O
LNG
Sea Unloading &
from upstream / HHC Liquefaction storage & Pumping Vapouriser Sales gas
Shipping storage
Removal loading
Leaks Leaks Leaks
Refrigeration
Combustion Emissions
15 DNV ©
2.3(i) Production of blue hydrogen from stream methane reformers
The two main ways of producing blue hydrogen at scale are steam methane reformation and autothermal reformation. In this section we
explore the typical process plant layouts for these reforming technologies together with the options for carbon capture.
Steam methane reformation (SMR)
Simply explained, the SMR process works by introducing natural gas, mainly methane, and steam into a
reactor, which is supplied by heat from a surrounding furnace. The furnace generates heat from
combustion of natural gas along with excess air. Methane that has been converted to hydrogen and carbon
monoxide is then sent through the water gas shift (WGS) reactor(s) to convert carbon monoxide to carbon
dioxide. The pressure swing absorber (PSA) separates the hydrogen out from the syngas that exits the
WGS process. There are several different carbon capture options for the SMR process:
• Capturing CO2 from the syngas prior to the PSA
• Capturing CO2 from the tail gas after the PSA
• Capturing CO2 from the flue gas exiting the furnace
A flowsheet of the SMR process, along with the different CO2 capture locations is shown opposite. If only
capture option 1 (syngas) or option 2 (tail gas) are selected, then the overall capture rate is limited to a
maximum of 60% as the emissions from the reformer flue gas are neglected. When including carbon
capture from the flue gas (capture option 3) in addition to capture from the syngas or tail gas, the capture Source: DNV
rate can reach around 95 to 96%. Other options to consider are electrical heating of the reformer and, in
contrast, less natural gas would be required to produce H2 which would impact the CO2 footprint along the
entire production chain.
16 DNV ©
2.3(ii) Production of blue hydrogen from autothermal reformers
Autothermal reformers are less common than steam methane reformers but they are simpler and more efficient.
Autothermal reformation (ATR)
There is less commercial experience with ATR compared with SMR; however, the processes have
some similarities as ATR is based on a combination of SMR and partial oxidation (POX) technology.
In an autothermal reformer (ATR), pure oxygen is used instead of air, making an air separation unit
(ASU) necessary. The primary reformer in ATR differs from SMR in that the heat is supplied by the
process itself, eliminating the need for a furnace. Otherwise, the process is similar, with WGS
reactor(s), a capture plant, and PSA following the reformer.
For the ATR process, a gas heated reformer (GHR) can also be included for pre-heating and
reforming some of the initial hydrocarbons. An example of the ATR process including GHR, and
carbon dioxide capture is shown.
ATR has some advantages over SMR, such as lower operating pressure, and a smaller and more
easily controllable system. It also provides benefits of better temperature control, lower energy
requirements and easier start-up. A shortcoming of the ATR is the need for oxygen, rather than air Source: DNV
combustion, as the oxygen production plant is a large investment, besides of requiring additional
energy.
Source: DNV
The carbon dioxide capture rate for hydrogen production from ATR is typically greater than 94%.
17 DNV ©
2.4 CO2 capture and storage
Comparing and contrasting blue hydrogen production technologies in terms of energy efficiency and emissions.
Prior to the Paris Agreement on reaching net zero emissions by 2050, hydrogen was dominantly
produced using SMR without capture of carbon dioxide. Now, however, CCS is increasingly seen as
a necessity for future hydrogen production from fossil fuel sources.
The figure to the right shows examples of achievable efficiency and capture rates for various
configurations. The two ATR options deliver the highest overall capture rates, while SMR with syngas SMR with syngas CO2 capture (Option 1)
or tail gas carbon capture delivers the lowest overall carbon capture rates. Noting the differences in
efficiencies for SMR with different capture options, combining capture option 1 and 3 is more efficient
than solely having capture option 3, even though they reach approximately the same capture rate. SMR with tail gas CO2 capture (Option 2)
This is because the low pressure steam is required when capturing carbon dioxide from flue gas,
leading to a higher consumption of natural gas. When combining high pressure capture and low-
pressure capture (capture option 1+3), waste heat from the reformer is used for power generation to SMR with flue gas CO2 capture (Option 3)
produce low pressure steam. Combining the two capture options would, however, require electrical
power import and two capture plants, making the increase in efficiency an expensive improvement.
SMR with combined syngas and flue
SMR with the two combined capture options and ATR with GHR and CO2 capture are the best gas CO2 capture (Option 1+3)
options for efficiency. However, both options are relatively expensive – the combined capture in SMR
because it requires two capture plants and the ATR because of the required air separation unit. Oxygen fired ATR with syngas high
An overview of energy efficiencies higher heating value (HHV) and capture rates of SMR and ATR
pressure CO2 capture
with CCS is shown in the figure opposite. The capture rate is the overall carbon capture rate for the Oxygen fired ATR with Gas Heated
whole process. Reformer and syngas high pressure
CO2 capture
Source: DNV
18 DNV ©
2.4 Summary and key takeaways
Value chains for blue hydrogen production can differ by hydrocarbon production properties, gas transportation modes, hydrogen production
methods and carbon removal techniques that occur at various points.
A number of points have been raised from this section:

Oil & associate gas
• The value chain for blue hydrogen production may differ from location to location due production
Natural Gas Natural gas
to different reservoirs, upstream processes, transport modes and reforming Hydrocarbon Gas
Upstream
processes. The combination of each of these elements results in a significantly processing Metering
varying GHG footprint.
Production Gas & condensate
production
• In the upstream process the geology of the reservoirs, their age, co-production and
other aspects matter and influence potential GHG sources.
• In the transport value chain, the transportation mode is an important consideration -

LNG has a much higher emissions than pipeline transmission due to the increased Liquified Natural Gas
energy requirements needed to liquify and re-gasify the natural gas. Natural Gas value chain
Transport Natural gas Gas
• In the blue hydrogen production process, the location and efficiency of the capture Metering
process is important in balancing the energy consumption and the emissions Gas pipeline
reduction it delivers. transmission
• Any standard for blue hydrogen production needs to carefully take into account the
different processes that might be involved across the value chain. At each stage,
each of the different value chain elements need to be monitored and measured in
order to determine the full value chains GHG emissions.
Natural Gas
Steam Methane
Reforming with Reformation
In the following chapter, we will dive more deeply into the ranges of GHG emissions that CCS Hydrogen
can occur and we provide values for different combinations of the value chain elements Carbon Capture
that are observed in reality.
Autothermal
Carbon Dioxide
Source: DNV reformation
19 DNV ©
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
3 GHG emissions along blue hydrogen value chains

blue hydrogen
5 APPENDIX
20 DNV ©
3. Evaluation of possible GHG emissions alongside the value chain
3 GHG Emissions – introduction
Across the value chain there are large variations and uncertainties regarding emissions reporting. This is for a range of reasons but suggests
that generic figures should be used with caution for decision making.
When building a set of GHG emissions for the blue hydrogen value chain, the main challenges include: Assumptions Explanation
 Inconsistent reporting – this is particularly prevalent in the upstream part of the value chain.
 Lack of data – data gaps appear in all areas due to lack of public reporting.
GHG protocol All measurements have been made in line with the requirements of the
 Limited experience with the technology – in the case of hydrogen production and the associated carbon Green House Gas Protocol (see next page).
capture systems, there is limited operational experience with these technologies at scale.
Heating Value Lower Heating Values (LHV) have been used consistently in our
calculations although in some cases it is not clear which value has
DNV has attempted to make use of the data in the most appropriate manner, ensuring consistency where been used when developing some of the input data.
possible. However, we have also been clear on the uncertainties and the broad range of results.
 Where data is used, this has either come from formal reporting by the emitter or from studies with Global Warming A GWP100 for fossil Methane of 29.8 has been used in calculations
strong provenance. Potential consistent with the GHG Protocol AR6 from March 2023.
 The analysis covers each of the options presented in the previous section and reports them separately
where possible. Energy carrier It should be noted that across the value chain different energy carriers
 The output of the analysis is a set of charts showing the high, medium and low ranges for emissions in have been used.
each part of the value chain and the impact on each of the range of options. Upper and lower  Upstream, methane has been used but this is complicated by the
thresholds have been defined based on the grouping of the data. For this reason, extreme outliers have fact that liquids and gases are co-produced and separating
been excluded. Medium values have been calculated using the median figure and includes the outliers. emissions associated with gas production is problematic from the
reported sources.
 Midstream, methane has been used consistently as processed
natural gas is the input to this part of the value chain.
 Downstream, hydrogen has been used as the output from the
reformation processes.
The final aggregated output is presented in gCO2e/MJHydrogen
Scope 3 Emissions These have been excluded from upstream emissions because
separating those related to consumption of the product from those due
to other reasons (such as contracted services) proved to be
challenging to do consistently from the reported data.
21 DNV ©
3. Evaluation of possible GHG emissions across the value chain
3.1 Metrics for evaluating GHG Emissions
The Green House Gas Initiative provides a recognised basis for reporting emissions with global warming potential. Whilst regularly quoted by
companies as the basis for reporting, it is often applied in different ways resulting in inconsistent results.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development and World Resources Institute’s Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Protocol provides a standard for GHG accounting and reporting. The revised edition is the starting
point for most GHG reporting initiatives. It has some important aspects:
 GHG Emissions – The protocol requires reporting of substances that have a Global Warming Potential
(GWP) in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is used as the reference. GWP figures are regularly
revised as the climate science evolves. Methane (CH4) has a very high GWP100 around 29.8 that of
CO2, whilst hydrogen is increasingly being seen as having a GWP when present in the upper
atmosphere.
 Emissions Scopes – Three main types of emissions are required to be reported as shown in the
diagram on the right. Scope 1 emissions are directly from the company’s activities. Scope 2 are related
to energy the company purchases from other sources and consumes (such as electricity, natural gas,
heat and steam). Scope 3 emissions are those indirectly resulting from the company’s activities. These
include contracted services (i.e. emissions generated by work done by other companies on behalf of
the reporting company), but also includes the use of sold products and services. For upstream oil and
gas producers, this Scope 3 category is generally the biggest source of GHG emissions, often
estimated at 5 to 7 times the size of Scope 1 & 2 emissions. Accurate Scope 3 reporting is challenging
as it requires significant data transfer between companies within value chains. The GHG Protocol
currently allows Scope 3 emissions to be reported on a discretionary basis meaning they are often not
reported.
 Operational Boundaries – Two main approaches are allowed for accounting of emissions within the
GHG Protocol. Control Approach allows companies to report emissions where they have operational or
financial control over an asset even if they do not own the asset (e.g. where the company has an
operations and maintenance contract). The Equity Share Approach allows companies to allocate the
emissions from an asset based on the proportion of the equity they own in the asset. Source: WBCSD, WRI
As it is generic, the GHG Protocol is open to interpretation leading to inconsistency in reporting between
companies. Industry groupings are working to provide consistent interpretations within their sectors.
22 DNV ©
Upstream gas production has seen big reductions in some emissions, but inconsistent reporting across the sector and operational factors
mean there are large variations in the emissions intensity of methane feedstock.
Data Sources
The sector is made up primarily of large International Oil Companies (IOC), National Oil Companies Metric
(NOC) and smaller Independent Oil Companies (Independent). Of these, IOCs publish the most detailed definition
and comprehensive data driven by shareholder and wider stakeholder scrutiny. NOCs typically have Green House Gas Protocol
less stakeholder pressure to disclose and so tend to only comply with applicable regulations.
Independents generally have fewer resources to develop and report the data and so their reporting is
Company Annual Reporting Process

much more inconsistent if they report at all. Data
Although most companies quote the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol as the basis for their reporting, Collection
they interpret the requirements differently in terms of boundaries, units and reporting basis (i.e. equity,
operational control, financial control). Contracting terms (such as production sharing agreements) also
impact the disclosure made.
Most producers only report Scope 1 (own emissions) and Scope 2 (from purchased energy). Scope 3 Internal
are not readily reported as these are more difficult to measure. Scope 3 associated with contracted Reporting
services for production (categories 1 to 8) require engagement with suppliers and sharing of accurate
information. Scope 3 emissions associated with getting the product to market and its use (categories 9 Sector initiatives and reporting
to 15) are generally reported by IOCs but sporadically by other operators. A large proportion of the
companies reporting to shareholders, report GHG emissions data that has been independently verified. Independent
Where required for reporting
verification
The sector recognises that consistent reporting standards are needed, and efforts are being made to
that end. Different programmes have been launched, by organisations such as the Oil & Gas Climate
Initiative (OGCI), to drive consistency in reporting and establish targets. However, none of these
programmes have yet fully penetrated the sector to the point of driving widespread consistent reporting.
This means determining sector-wide performance is challenging and has wide levels of uncertainty. Disclosure
For this study: DNV used publicly available reporting from 60 Oil & Gas companies from 2021. It
worked to ensure the figures used were as consistent as possible resulting in a subset of results from 30
companies whilst retaining representation across all company types and geographical regions. Further
Source: DNV Company Sustainability Reports
information on the dataset is given later.
23 DNV ©
Upstream emissions vary by type of asset and geographical region as well as the technology used. Older assets tend to be less energy
efficient and suffer more leaks. New assets benefit from low carbon power solutions, newer reservoirs and better operational controls.
Factors Impacting Emissions Intensity
There are a range of factors that affect the emissions associated with upstream oil & gas production.
These have a significant impact on the emissions associated with each asset throughout its lifecycle.
This means that company-level reporting is heavily impacted by the assets within the portfolio being Nature of
considered. Reservoir
 Nature of the reservoir – The pressure, associated fluids and associated solids have a significant
impact on the operational emissions to lift the gas to surface then do initial separation ready for
export. Older reservoirs tend to have more associated water and solids that take energy to separate,
process and dispose of.
 Location of the reservoir – Production operations in remote or offshore locations tend to result in
higher operational emissions as power generation (typically gas turbine driven) is needed for Technology Location of
compression and life support. The growth of on and offshore wind generation at scale offers some
Deployed Reservoir
assets opportunities for renewable energy sources to be deployed reducing emissions.
 Infrastructure availability – Connections to pipeline transmission or gas transportation mean more Factors
stable operations and tend to result in less venting or flaring.
 Age of the asset – Older facilities tend to incur more production upsets and be subject to more
leaks than newer assets resulting in higher fugitive emissions and flaring. Reduced use of flanged
connections, better condition monitoring and more resilient materials all contribute to reducing
emissions. Increased use of reusable assets, such as Floating Production, Storage and Offtake
(FPSO) vessels allow offshore assets to be more readily overhauled and upgraded.
 Technology deployed – Use of more efficient pump and compression equipment has the potential Infrastructure
Age of Assets
to significantly reduce operational emissions. Better reservoir management maintains ideal operating Availability
conditions for longer reducing the need for intervention.
The impact of some of these factors can be influenced by local regulation which may require emissions
Source: DNV
reduction, incentivise investment in assets, or encourage decommissioning.
24 DNV ©
Publicly available data suggests that there is a broad range of emissions performance across the upstream production sector.
Performance
Production Emissions intensity (gCO2e/MJ CH4 )
DNV used publicly available data from upstream operators and from other sources to determine the
potential range of emissions.
Production Emissions intensity – Scope 1 & 2 emissions intensities are presented based on DNV’s
analysis of the public reporting. Excluding outliers, intensities typically are in the region 1.40 to 18.10
gCO2e/MJ CH4 (natural gas net or lower calorific value). Intensities below 1 gCO2e/MJ CH4 are possible Low Median High
but tend to be from assets with specific operating conditions. These intensities include flaring and 1.40 4.80 18.10
methane emissions within Scope 1.
Contributing to the overall Scope 1 & 2 Production Emission Intensity (among other factors) are:
 Methane Emissions Intensity – These emissions are difficult to measure and are generally Methane Emissions intensity (gCO2e/MJ CH4 )
estimated by deducting measured output from measured inputs. There are wide variations in
reported emissions with outliers showing emissions of below 0.1 up to 2.9 gCO2e/MJ CH4. However, Methane and Flaring
there are significant gaps in reporting within the sector despite high-profile initiatives to disclose and Emissions are among
reduce methane emissions. a range of sources
contributing to overall
 Flaring Emissions – Flaring is easier to monitor as flare systems can be fitted with metering. The Production Emissions
sector has worked hard to reduce routine flaring (where associated gas is burned to prioritise oil Low Median High
production) but it does still happen where lack of infrastructure makes it difficult to get the gas to 0.03 2.60 2.87
market. Emergency flaring results from unexpected upset conditions in the process system requiring
rapid depressurisation for safety reasons. Again, there are significant differences in the range with Flaring Emissions intensity (gCO2e/MJ CH4 )
outliers reporting above gCO2e/MJ CH4.
Scope 3 emissions have not been included in the report. As this report is looking at value chain
emissions, emissions associated with end use of the gas (category 11) should be excluded. However it
is generally not possible to extract category 11 emissions from the overall scope 3 reporting. This
means that emissions are under estimated as they do not include contracted services. Depending upon Low Median High
the nature of the operations and the degree of outsourcing, scope 3 emissions from purchased goods 0.003 4.65 5.5
Source: DNV
and services (category 1) can be as much as twice the total scope 1 & 2 emissions. This suggests a
significant underestimate of the total emissions intensity, but currently consistent with GHG Protocol
requirements.
25 DNV ©
The nature of upstream data suggests that gathering specific data about the actual production is important to have confidence in the
emissions associated with products of the value chain.
Conclusions from upstream emissions
 There is a broad range of reported emissions performance. Inconsistent application of reporting standards means that it is Producing the figures:
not possible to present reliable figures across the sector.
DNV conducted a review of publicly available data sources for 2021 (the last
 It is not possible to consistently isolate emissions associated with gas production. As a result, these numbers reflect overall year with most complete reported data). Data came largely from
hydrocarbon production which provides a conservative result as oil production tends to be more emissions intensive. sustainability reports, annual reports and websites published by oil and gas
However as oil, gas and condensate are generally produced together in varying degrees, using an overall figure is producers. Around 60 companies covering all major producing regions were
appropriate. included.
 Extreme outliers from the general emissions intensity ranges may be artifacts of specific factors some of which have little or It should be noted that 2021 was a year when the global economy began to
no impact on emissions (e.g. production sharing agreements). As a result these have been excluded from the ranges below. rebound from the COVID pandemic and before the invasion of Ukraine.
 International Oil Companies generally provide the most consistent, publicly available datasets, compliant with international Thus, Russian sources are represented, playing a significant role in gas
standards (e.g. Green House Gas Protocol). National Oil Companies and Independents produce much more inconsistent production in that year. The year was unusual compared with historical
publicly reported data, but may still have good quality data available for customers and partners. norms but was the last recent year where all regions contributed to an open
market.
 When building a blue hydrogen production facility, the specific emissions intensity associated with the methane source is
critical to determining the overall emissions impact of the produced hydrogen.
Low (best case) Medium (median case) High (worst case)
1.4 4.8 18.1

gCO2e/MJ.CH4 gCO2e/MJ.CH4 gCO2e/MJ.CH4
26 DNV ©
3.2 GHG emissions from gas transport
Emissions data for the different gas transport value chains remains a source of uncertainty.
Data Sources
DNV has analysed a wide selection of publicly available data alongside calculation from first-principles to assess the range of emissions intensity figures presented in literature. Several studies aiming to quantify
the GHG emission impact from the natural gas value chain are available. However, all studies raise concerns over the accuracy and reliability of the figures produced due to a lack of transparent data and lack of
accounting for methane emissions. In addition, a number of assumptions are applied in an effort to estimate emissions, such as different system boundaries, attempts to apply top-down and bottom-up principles
to methane estimation, allocation of emissions to co-products, application of average emissions factors and assumed methane content of the natural gas.
The data reviewed are considered best available estimates, with US EPA Inventory of GHG Emissions and Sinks providing the most comprehensive dataset of emissions sources. The EPA publishes an annual
report which produces estimates for US annual GHG emissions using emission factors. DNV has conducted a review of recent 2020 data and has applied this learning during assessment of the proposed range
of emissions intensity figures, particularly in relation to gas pipeline transmission and storage.
Low, median and high emission intensity scenarios are taken from literature and adjusted from High Heating Value to Low Heating Value to allow comparison with the other sections of the blue hydrogen value
chain.
Factors Impacting Midstream Emissions Intensity

There are a range of factors that influence the emissions associated with midstream gas transport and storage, with a large degree of asset specificity meaning that it is challenging to definitively define
generalised upper and lower bounds for emissions intensity. The following hold significant influence over the midstream gas transport value chain emissions.
 Geographical location – The distance to energy markets is a crucial factor influencing the gas transport method, and governs the decision-making between the selection of long-distance pipelines or LNG.
Longer distances result in higher emissions through additional compressor stations or longer voyages. Remote locations face challenges accessing low-carbon grid infrastructure, often burning fuel gas for on-
site power generation at LNG facilities and compressor stations. Moreover, ambient conditions and challenging terrains can further impact energy requirements.
 Process design – Optimising pipeline design can minimize compressor station requirements and promote electrification. Similarly, optimizing liquefaction processes and shipping carriers in the LNG value
chain can significantly lower energy consumption and emissions.
 Methane – Methane emissions have a substantial impact on emissions intensity. Long-distance pipeline infrastructure are particularly vulnerable to methane leakage and venting practises, contributing to a
majority of the value chain emissions. However, accurately measuring and quantifying methane emissions remains challenging. Enhanced monitoring and reporting protocols, implementing leak detection
technologies and adopting industry-wide best practices are crucial for mitigating methane emissions.
 Ageing infrastructure – Raises challenges in terms of increased leak paths and reduced efficiencies through reliance on older designs and outdated technologies. These factors contribute to a higher
emissions intensity compared with modern best available techniques (BATs). Upgrading and modernizing infrastructure (e.g. electrification) can have a significant positive impact.
27 DNV ©
3.2 GHG emissions from gas transport – pipelines
Publicly available data suggests that there is a broad range of emissions performance across the gas pipeline value chain.
Pipeline (transmission, storage, distribution)

Methane emissions throughout the natural gas transmission network account for the vast majority of GHG
emissions. The low/high range presented from literature allocates the contribution to overall emissions for
CH4 and CO2 as 78% and 22% respectively. However, recent US EPA data (2020) indicates the methane
contribution could be as high as 95% for transmission and storage [Note 2]. CH4 emissions arising from
leakage from compressor stations (e.g. compressor seals), venting of pneumatic controllers and routine
maintenance are significant sources of methane leakage from the system. Quantification of methane leaks
is inherently difficult and therefore a large degree of uncertainty remains about the GHG data. Users of
emissions data need to exercise caution as the range presents only indicative figures and the true GHG
emissions intensity for a specific pipeline is influenced by multiple factors.
Overall Emissions Intensity – Scope 1 & 2 emissions intensity is typically in the region of 0.7 to 12.9 Low High
gCO2e/MJ CH4. Outliers of this range are possible, but have been excluded to provide a fair and
representative range that reflects current best practise. As described previously, the uncertainty in 0.7 12.9
methane emission quantification can result in large variability in reported intensity figures as it is the largest gCO2/MJ gCO2/MJ
CH4 CH4
contributor.
2.8
 Methane Emissions Intensity – These emissions are difficult to measure and are generally
estimated by deducting measured output from measured inputs. There are wide variations in gCO2e/MJ CH4
Source: DNV
reported emissions with outliers showing emissions of below 0.5 gCO2e/MJ CH4 and in excess of 1,000 km pipeline
9.5 gCO2e/MJ CH4. [Note 1]
 Combustion Emissions – The main source of combustion emissions is from the booster
compressors that are fed from the pipeline gas. Typically, this intensity is in the region of 0.2 to 3.4
gCO2e/MJ CH4.
[Note] An estimation for the gas shrinkage of long-distance transmission systems is typically 0.5% of the
transferred gas volume per 100km, however transmission network design such as pipeline diameter and routing
will have a large impact on this number.
28 DNV ©
3.2 GHG emissions from gas transport – pipeline transmission in gaseous form
A broad range in the emissions performance of gas transport via pipelines is evident due to several key factors.
Conclusions from gas transport via pipeline emissions
 It is evident that there exists a broad range in emissions performance and it is difficult to generalise the gas pipeline value chain. A number of factors influence the emissions intensity of a pipeline transmission and
gas storage network, such as geographical distance and topography, pipeline design, maintenance regimes and compression station technology.
 Gas transport via pipeline generally has a lower emissions intensity compared to LNG, however the contribution of methane emissions to the overall GHG output is much higher. Low emissions intensity pipeline
operation is achieved generally through electrification of compressor stations connected to low carbon grid infrastructure, however the low intensity figures presented here may be unrealistic as methane emissions
could be underestimated. Equally, high emissions intensity transport may still be underestimating methane leakage across the system.
 Methane emissions are understood to contribute significantly to the emissions intensity of the network, however accurate quantification is difficult resulting in a high degree of uncertainty. Major leak paths such as at
compressor stations, pneumatic devices and during routine maintenance are well-known sources.
 There is a general lack of good system-wide data on which to draw concrete conclusions for best and worst case emissions intensity, resulting in a number of assumptions applied in literature in an effort to estimate
emissions with potential for real operation of gas transmission networks to be outside the range presented here. More detailed reporting and better measurement techniques should be applied to generate quality
data for more detailed analysis.
0.7 5.4 12.9

29 DNV ©
3.2 GHG emissions from gas transport – LNG
Generally, the emissions intensity of the LNG value chain is higher than gas transport via pipelines. However, publicly available data suggests
that there is a broad range of emissions performance.
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
There is a general lack of transparency around global GHG emissions performance data for LNG facilities,
with quality and availability of data different from site-to-site, particularly with regards to methane emissions.
However, generally the liquefaction stage will likely incur lower methane emissions due to the positioning of
LNG facilities close to natural gas sources, requiring shorter distance pipelines. Storage and regasification
facilities tend to have a higher methane load, but there is significant uncertainty in the data due to a lack of
regular and reliable measurements. Low High
Overall Emissions Intensity – Scope 1 & 2 emissions intensity is typically in the region of 4.3 to 21.9 4.3 21.9
gCO2e/MJ CH4 for the LNG value chain. Outliers of this range are possible but they have been excluded to
gCO2/MJ gCO2/MJ
provide a fair and representative range that outlines current best practise.. CH4 CH4
 Liquefaction – emission intensity is largely dependent on process technology, thermal efficiency 5.5 14.3
(ambient temperature) and access to clean power. As such, there is a broad range in reported
emissions of below 3 up to 11.3 gCO2e/MJ CH4. Methane is estimated to contribute 10-15% of total gCO2e/MJ CH4 gCO2e/MJ CH4
GHG emissions. Source: DNV [Note 1] [Note 2]
 Shipping– Typically, emissions intensity is in the region of 1 to 7.9 gCO2e/MJ CH4. Ship design and
voyage duration are key factors, whilst methane venting and leakage is estimated to contribute a
much smaller proportion of the overall emissions, circa 10%.
 Regasification –Typically, this intensity is in the region of 0.3 to 2.7 gCO2e/MJ CH4, with methane [Note 1] Lower emissions intensity LNG value chain example where liquefaction is conducted in a colder climate,
contribution in this section of the LNG value chain at its highest of 15-20%. increasing plant thermal efficiency, and electrification of key equipment such as refrigeration compressors, with
power to the facility supplied by low emissions grid. Transport of LNG is via new membrane-type vessels, with a
The scenarios presented in Notes 1 and 2 detail low and high emissions intensity LNG value chains. It is low BOG rate of 0.08% per day which is recovered. Shipping is fuelled by marine oil, with a voyage duration of 10
clear that factors such as deployed technology, geographical location, ambient conditions and ageing days. Regasification is completed via open rack vaporisers and methane leakage is minimised.
infrastructure play an important role in the overall efficiency of the LNG value chain. [Note 2] Higher emissions intensity LNG value chain example where liquefaction occurs in a hotter climate,
reducing plant thermal efficiency. Optimised liquefaction processes and new technologies are not installed, relying
on gas-driven compressors and on-site power generation from inlet natural gas feed, with frequent methane leaks
due to ageing infrastructure. Transport of LNG is via moss-type vessels with a high BOG rate of 0.15% per day
which is burnt for propulsion and a long voyage duration of 25 days. Regasification is completed with submerged
combustion vaporisers resulting in a gas shrinkage of 1.5%.
30 DNV ©
3.2 GHG emissions from gas transport – Liquefied Natural Gas
A broad range in the emissions performance of gas transport via LNG is evident due to several key factors.
Conclusions from gas transport via LNG
 It is evident that a broad range in emissions performance exists and that it is difficult to generalise the LNG value chain. A number of factors influence the emissions intensity, such as deployed technology
considering BAT, geographical location, ambient conditions governing thermal efficiency, ageing infrastructure and choice of LNG carrier vessel. A comparison of different low/high emissions intensity LNG value
chains is provided on the previous slide.
 Owing to the additional processing steps, the LNG value chain generally experiences higher emissions intensity compared to gas transport via pipeline. Direct emissions of methane are far less throughout the LNG
value chain, however combustion of natural gas primarily for gas-driven compressors and potentially electrical power results in higher CO2 emissions.
 There is a general lack of transparency and availability of emissions data associated with LNG facilities across the world, resulting in a high degree of uncertainty in the numbers presented here, particularly with
regards to methane emissions.
4.3 9.6 21.9

31 DNV ©
3.3 GHG emissions from the production of blue hydrogen
There is no “typical” set of emissions from blue hydrogen production and we have produced a range of emissions by assessing SMR and
ATR plant from across the world.
The analysis shows very clearly that the GHG emissions from SMR and ATR vary significantly
36.0
depending upon the thoroughness of the carbon capture regime. 34.5
For SMR, if carbon capture is only carried out at the syngas stage (option 1 as described in section 2)
g CO2eq/MJ (net)
or only at the tail gas stage (option 2), then little over 50% of the CO2 emissions are captured. However,
if CO2 emissions from the flue gas (option 3) or the combined syngas and flue gas stages (options 1 and
3) then capture rates are over 90%.
For both ATR options, carbon capture rates are about 94%.
The hydrogen production routes that give the lowest carbon emissions are relatively expensive - the 8.4
combined capture in SMR requires two separate capture plants whilst for ATR, an air separation unit is 5.8
3.8 3.8
required to generate the oxygen required for the reformer.
The main message is that there is no single figure for the GHG emissions from hydrocarbon reforming
plants – each SMR or ATR case needs to be examined individually noting the plant designs and SMR with CCS SMR with CCS SMR with CCS SMR with CCS ATR with CCS ATR with GHR
operational methodologies. The range of CO2 equivalent emissions expressed per unit hydrogen option 1 option 2 option 3 options 1+3 and CCS
energy (net calorific value) is shown below.
3.8 7.0 35.0

gCO2e/MJ.H2 gCO2e/MJ.H
Source: DNV
2
gCO2e/MJ.H2
32 DNV ©
3.4 GHG Emissions – full value chain scenarios – Summary: Low supply chain emissions
There are combinations of upstream, transport (including LNG) and reforming technologies leading to a wide range of GHG intensities for
hydrogen, as shown on the below graphs and the ones in the following two slides.
SMR with syngas CO2 capture SMR with tail gas CO2 capture SMR with flue gas CO2 capture SMR with combined syngas and flue gas Oxygen fired ATR with syngas high Oxygen fired ATR with GHR and syngas
(Option 1) (Option 2) (Option 3) CO2 capture (Option 1+3) pressure CO2 capture high pressure CO2 capture
33 DNV ©
3.4 GHG Emissions – full value chain scenarios – Summary: Medium supply chain emissions
Even for the medium case, it is still possible to produce low-carbon hydrogen. However, the contribution from the medium LNG case
becomes challenging.
SMR with syngas CO2 capture SMR with tail gas CO2 capture SMR with flue gas CO2 capture SMR with combined syngas and flue gas Oxygen ﬁred ATR with syngas high Oxygen fired ATR with GHR and syngas
34 DNV ©
3.4 GHG Emissions – full value chain scenarios – Summary: High supply chain emissions
When supply chain emissions are high, it is only just possible to achieve reduced-carbon hydrogen. Low-carbon hydrogen is not achievable.
35 DNV ©
3.4 GHG Emissions – full value chain scenarios – Summary:
Production of blue hydrogen is strongly dependent on emissions throughout the supply chain. Low-carbon and even ultra-low carbon
hydrogen production is possible but will require a case-by-case assessment.
Threshold levels for Hydrogen Production†
Supply chain emissions Reduced carbon hydrogen Low-carbon hydrogen Ultralow-carbon hydrogen
50 g CO2e/MJ H2 (net) | 6 kg CO2e/kg H2 25 g CO2e/MJ H2 (net) | 3 kg CO2e/kg H2 8.3 g CO2e/MJ H2 (net) | 1 kg CO2e/kg H2
All at the low end of range Excluding SMR with option 1 or option 2 Only with hydrogen production using ATR
High, Medium and Low
0.83 to 5.25 kg CO2e/kg H2 | carbon capture

6.9 to 43.8 g CO2e/MJ H2 (net)
All at the medium of range Excludes LNG transport + with SMR with Excludes LNG transport except when Not possible
results
2.34 to 6.70 kg CO2e/kg H2 | option 1 or option 2 carbon capture combined with ATR
19.5 to 55.8 g CO2e/MJ H2 (net)
All at the high end of range Only ATR with Gas Heated Reformer and Not possible Not possible
6.11 to 10.93 kg CO2e/kg H2 | carbon capture
51.0 to 91.1 g CO2e/MJ H2 (net)
It is possible to achieve the emissions threshold with all options Only some options can achieve the emissions threshold No options can achieve the emissions threshold
The output of this study suggests that it is only at the low end of the emissions range, where upstream, midstream and production approaches are all delivering minimum GHG emissions, that the value chain comfortably
meets the 50 gCO2e/MJ H2 criteria for reduced carbon blue hydrogen. All other tighter emissions thresholds require particular combinations of technologies and supply chain options to be able to meet the criteria. This
indicates that the specific supply chain arrangements are key to demonstrating whether blue hydrogen production is sufficiently low carbon.
36 DNV © 19.06.2023 † From World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)
Executive Summary
1 Introduction

chain
4 Requirements for a standard for low-CO2 footprint of

blue hydrogen
37 DNV ©
4. Requirements for low-GHG emissions of blue hydrogen
Building confidence in hydrogen emissions intensity
The quantification of emissions intensity of blue hydrogen requires clear measurement and accounting standards in a number of sectors to
ensure input data can be trusted. Specifics are important as a broad range of factors have a significant impact on emissions.
The nature of blue hydrogen is that it only represents a serious low-GHG energy route if it can 2. Clear reporting of the methane supply route specific to the hydrogen produced.
be shown that it delivers low emissions. Confidence in the emissions intensity of blue hydrogen
 Where the methane comes from a range of sources, a consistent means for aggregating the
is critical. Details are important and need to be implemented/accepted globally
emissions intensities is required so that the relative performance of different blue hydrogen
The report has shown that currently establishing that confidence is challenging. Key points are: sources can be evaluated. This could be in the form of upper and lower ranges and/or a
median figure.
 There are broad ranges of emission intensities at each stage of the value chain. This is due to the
different application of technologies, the length and nature of the methane supply chain and the  However, to do this will require regular review and update of the supply chain route and
route that the methane feedstock takes to the hydrogen production unit. associated emissions. This may be achieved through industry level databases as long as
input data is consistently measured and reported.
 The reported data has high levels of uncertainty due to inconsistent and missing reporting of
emissions and due to a lack of operational experience in hydrogen production and carbon capture Incentives for transparent reporting are seen as coming from a number of areas:
technology.
 Contractual requirement by blue hydrogen producers. As a condition of supply, reported data
 The methods for calculating operational value chain emissions intensity are relatively straight will need to meet the required standard. This may impact the cost of blue hydrogen feedstock and
forward and once key factors are defined then outputs can be presented transparently and make the output less competitive, a challenge the sector already faces.
consistently.
 Governmental regulation. Regulation is becoming increasingly tight in the area of GHG
Therefore, to improve the confidence in reporting of blue hydrogen emissions, two things are required: emissions. As hydrogen demand increases for transportation and heating, planned national
infrastructure will create a ready market that will require blue hydrogen sources. Regulators will
1. Much better and consistent reporting of emissions intensities for each part of the value
respond to societal expectations that the hydrogen used has increasingly low-GHG-emission
chain. This requires agreement across a wide range of organisations in a broad range of sectors.
associated with it.
DNV’s suggestions are:
The focus here is on reporting the emissions rather than on how to reduce the emissions associated
 A standard for consistent reporting of emissions intensities for the upstream and midstream
with the blue hydrogen value chain. DNV sees one as driving the other – better reporting will lead to
sectors. This could include a means for accurately quantifying emissions associated with
lower emissions, particularly if the reporting starts to impact the marketability of methane feedstock and
natural gas production and include Scope 3 emissions from contracted services.
attracts increasing carbon taxes. The technology and operational controls needed to reduce value chain
 Third party verification of the reported figures consistent with the certification already emissions exist, the pressure to apply them and return on that investment is what will deliver improved
conducted by many companies for their reported GHG emissions. performance.
38 DNV ©
References
39 DNV ©
References
[1] EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2020. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-23-002.
[2] Balcombe, P., Anderson, K., Speirs, J., Brandon, N. and Hawkes, A., 2015. Methane and CO2 emissions from the natural gas supply chain: an evidence assessment. London: Sustainable Gas Institute, Imperial
College London.
[3] Songhurst, B., 2018. LNG plant cost reduction 2014–18.
[4] Hafner, M. and Luciani, G., 2022. The Palgrave Handbook of International Energy Economics (p. 770). Springer Nature.
40 DNV ©
Appendix
41 DNV ©
Appendix A
Abbreviations
ASU - Air Separation Unit LNG - Liquid Natural Gas

ATR - Autothermal Reforming MJ - Mega Joule
BOG - Boil-off Gas NG - Natural Gas
CCS - Carbon Capture and Storage NOC - National Oil Company
EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency NOX - Nitrous Oxides
EU - European Union OGCI - Oil and Gas Climate Initiative
FPSO - Floating Production, Storage and Offtake vessel type POX - Partial Oxidation
GHG - Greenhouse Gas PSA - Pressure Swing Adsorption
GHR - Gas Heated Reformer SMR - Steam Methane Reforming
GWP - Global Warming Potential WBCSD - World Business Council For Sustainable Development
HHC - Heavy Hydrocarbons WGS - Water-gas shift
HHV - Higher Heating Value WRI - World Resources Institute
IOC - International Oil Company
IOGP - International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
Source: DNV
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPHE - International Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the
Economy
LHV - Lower Heating Value
42 DNV ©
Appendix B
Tabulated Results – Low Case
Low Case, in unit of g CO2eq/MJ H2
Supply chain emissions Process CO2 Emissions Process CH4 Emissions Midstream Supply Chain (LNG, Pipeline) Emissions Upstream Supply Chain Emissions Electricity Grid Emissions
SMR with syngas CO2 Capture

34.37 0.05 5.86 0.95 1.91 0.00
(Option 1)

35.91 0.05 5.91 0.96 1.92 0.02
(Option 2)
SMR with flue gas CO2 Capture

8.24 0.05 6.23 1.01 2.03 0.00
(Option 3)

5.69 0.05 6.27 1.02 2.04 0.13
gas CO2 Capture (Option 1+3)
Oxygen fired ATR with syngas high

3.61 0.05 6.51 1.06 2.12 0.19
Oxygen fired ATR with Gas Heated

Reformer and syngas high pressure 3.64 0.05 6.12 1.00 1.99 0.26
CO2 capture
Low Case, in unit of kg CO2eq/kg H2

4.121 0.006 0.702 0.114 0.229 0.000
(Option 1)

4.306 0.006 0.708 0.115 0.231 0.002
(Option 2)

0.988 0.006 0.747 0.122 0.243 0.000
(Option 3)

0.683 0.006 0.752 0.122 0.245 0.015

0.433 0.006 0.780 0.127 0.254 0.023

CO2 capture
43 DNV ©
Appendix B
Tabulated Results – Medium Case
Medium Case, in unit of g CO2-eq/MJ H2

34.37 0.05 13.07 7.35 6.54 0.00
(Option 1)

35.91 0.05 13.18 7.42 6.59 0.09
(Option 2)

8.24 0.05 13.91 7.82 6.95 0.00
(Option 3)

5.69 0.05 14.00 7.88 7.00 0.62

3.61 0.05 14.52 8.17 7.26 0.93

CO2 capture
Medium Case, in unit of kg CO2-eq/kg H2

4.121 0.006 1.568 0.882 0.784 0.000
(Option 1)

4.306 0.006 1.581 0.889 0.790 0.011
(Option 2)

0.988 0.006 1.668 0.938 0.834 0.000
(Option 3)

0.683 0.006 1.679 0.944 0.839 0.074

0.433 0.006 1.742 0.980 0.871 0.112

CO2 capture
44 DNV ©
Appendix B
Tabulated Results – High Case
High Case, in unit of g CO2-eq/MJ H2

34.37 0.05 29.82 17.57 24.65 0.00
(Option 1)

35.91 0.05 30.07 17.72 24.86 0.23
(Option 2)

8.24 0.05 31.73 18.69 26.22 0.00
(Option 3)

5.69 0.05 31.94 18.81 26.40 1.56

3.61 0.05 33.13 19.52 27.38 2.35

CO2 capture
High Case, in unit of kg CO2-eq/kg H2

4.121 0.006 3.576 2.106 2.955 0.000
(Option 1)

4.306 0.006 3.606 2.124 2.980 0.028
(Option 2)

0.988 0.006 3.804 2.241 3.144 0.000
(Option 3)

0.683 0.006 3.830 2.256 3.165 0.187

0.433 0.006 3.973 2.340 3.284 0.282

CO2 capture
45 DNV ©
Our vision
A trusted voice to tackle

global transformations
Contact: Mark Fisher
Mail: mark.fisher@dnv.com
Phone: +447884117998
Contact: Claas F. Hülsen

Mail: claas.huelsen@dnv.com
Phone: +49 1724085218
www.dnv.com
46 DNV © 03 MARCH 2022

Recommendations For A Stringent ISO Standard On The GHG Emissions From Blue Hydrogen Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recommendations For A Stringent ISO Standard On The GHG Emissions From Blue Hydrogen Production

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recommendations For A Stringent ISO Standard On The GHG Emissions From Blue Hydrogen Production

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recommendations for a stringent ISO

standard on the GHG emissions from blue

Yuanrong Zhou, Chelsea Baldino

3 Evaluation of possible GHG emissions alongside the above 20

4 Requirements for a standard for low-CO2 production of blue 37

2 Blue hydrogen value chain

3 Evaluation of possible GHG emissions alongside the value

4 Requirements for a standard for low-CO2 production of

2 Blue hydrogen value chain

3 Evaluation of possible GHG emissions alongside the value

4 Requirements for a standard for low-CO2 production of

Background and scope of the study

Logic of the report

Hydrogen as an energy vector for decarbonisation

Climate change impacts Global warming potential (GWP)

2 Blue hydrogen value chain

3 Evaluation of possible GHG emissions alongside the value

4 Requirements for a standard for low-CO2 production of

Options for long-distance transportation of natural gas

Liquefaction Shipping Regasification

Flare / Vent Flare / Vent

Leaks Leaks Leaks

Steam methane reformation (SMR)

• Capturing CO2 from the syngas prior to the PSA

• Capturing CO2 from the tail gas after the PSA

• Capturing CO2 from the flue gas exiting the furnace

Autothermal reformation (ATR)

A number of points have been raised from this section:

• In the transport value chain, the transportation mode is an important consideration -

2 Blue hydrogen value chain

3 GHG emissions along blue hydrogen value chains

4 Requirements for a standard for low-CO2 production of

Company Annual Reporting Process

Low (best case) Medium (median case) High (worst case)

1.4 4.8 18.1

Factors Impacting Midstream Emissions Intensity

Pipeline (transmission, storage, distribution)

Conclusions from gas transport via pipeline emissions

Low (best case) Medium (median case) High (worst case)

0.7 5.4 12.9

Conclusions from gas transport via LNG

Low (best case) Medium (median case) High (worst case)

4.3 9.6 21.9

Low (best case) Medium (median case) High (worst case)

3.8 7.0 35.0

Threshold levels for Hydrogen Production†

0.83 to 5.25 kg CO2e/kg H2 | carbon capture

2 Blue hydrogen value chain

3 Evaluation of possible GHG emissions alongside the value

4 Requirements for a standard for low-CO2 footprint of

ASU - Air Separation Unit LNG - Liquid Natural Gas

SMR with syngas CO2 Capture

SMR with syngas CO2 Capture

SMR with flue gas CO2 Capture

SMR with combined syngas and flue

Oxygen fired ATR with syngas high

Oxygen fired ATR with Gas Heated

Low Case, in unit of kg CO2eq/kg H2

SMR with syngas CO2 Capture