Chris Welsh Chair of the PIDX Emissions Transparency Data Exchange Work Group cited the Carbon Trust’s definitions* of the different scopes in carbon reporting. There are two approaches to reporting. Top down ‘science-based’ targets and bottom-up aggregation of line item emissions. The latter dovetails neatly with PIDX XML-based invoicing which now includes a <pidx:EmissionsData> collection of GHG volumes, units of measure and scope. Data exchange between operator and suppliers using PIDX order creation and invoicing can embed full cycle emissions data reporting, although this can get quite complicated! Welsh’s straw-man describes the ‘art of the possible’. Currently reporting leverages top down macro level industry averages. Welsh sees these being gradually replaced by detailed line item bottom-up reporting by 2030. There are of course challenges, as The Carbon Call puts it, ‘Today, carbon accounting suffers from data quality issues, measurement and reporting inconsistencies, siloed platforms, and infrastructure challenges. This makes it difficult to compare, combine and share reliable data, particularly for companies.’ PIDX orchestration of supply chain messages is seen as the way forward. Welsh concluded with a reference to ongoing collaboration between PIDX and the Open Footprint Forum.
* A guide to carbon reporting and the scopes is available from the Trust here.
Reem Radwan revealed that Schlumberger is aiming for net zero by 2050, with ‘minimal reliance on offsets’. Clearly for any company in the oil and gas supply chain, scope 3 is the elephant in the room. Schlumberger has analyzed 15 categories of scope 3 emissions and is working with suppliers to improve disclosure data and help them reduce emissions. Emissions are studied at a very granular level – down to the inputs and emissions from individual offshore equipment items. Schlumberger is proposing, along the lines of the GHG Protocol, to include ‘avoided emissions’ by its clients in its reporting. Thus technology substitution, such as the sale of a subsea boosting unit that avoids gas lift, is included in the calculation. Hardware for ‘digitally-enabled emissions quantification’ also ran.
Greg Coleman explained how Future Energy Partners provides a suite of top-down and bottom up technologies to facilitate flare and methane emissions mitigation and reporting. Coleman observed en passant that emissions from the energy vertical are significantly less that those released by biomass and agriculture, citing a Manchester University study of global biogeochemical cycles. He moved on to the subject of greenwashing. Companies’ reported environmental, social, and governance (ESG) data is often unaudited. Some ‘greenwashers’ may reveal large quantities of ESG data but in reality perform poorly. FEP has analyzed some 1925 large cap firms to create a greenwashing scorecard for the EU majors. He observed that although the companies have allocated significant resources into their GHG reporting, none have a clear, comprehensive and quantitative systems in place. FEP’s analysis found differences between companies studied that might translate into a competitive advantage, ‘which should help investors make informed choices’.
Sumouli Bhattacharjee presented on collaboration between The Open Group’s Open Footprint (OFP) and PIDX. Bhattacharjee made a strong case for collaboration. But how this is going to be achieved is work in progress. This is being carried out by the ‘A team’, a.k.a. the OFP Workstream 3 that is ‘defining the data model and schema for a robust Scope 3 capability’. Chris Welsh from PIDX is on the team.
* The Open Footprint Forum is variously acronymized as OFF or OFP. The latter is canonical.
Comment: PIDX would appear to be further advanced than OFP in the field – although OFP is more secretive than PIDX. An earlier PWC presentation stressed the ‘criticality of the data model’. Critical it may be but there is no sign of where or what it is!
© Oil IT Journal - all rights reserved.