Assessing the Progress of the Performance of Continuous Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol.

The recent regulatory spotlight on continuous monitoring (CM) solutions and the rapid development of CM solutions have demanded the characterization of solution performance through regular, rigorous testing using consensus test protocols. This study is the second known implementation of such a protocol involving single-blind controlled testing of 9 CM solutions. Controlled releases of rates (6-7100 g) CH4/h over durations (0.4-10.2 h) under a wind speed range of (0.7-9.9 m/s) were conducted for 11 weeks. Results showed that 4 solutions achieved method detection limits (DL90s) within the tested emission rate range, with all 4 solutions having both the lowest DL90s (3.9 [3.0, 5.5] kg CH4/h to 6.2 [3.7, 16.7] kg CH4/h) and false positive rates (6.9-13.2%), indicating efforts at balancing low sensitivity with a low false positive rate. These results are likely best-case scenario estimates since the test center represents a near-ideal upstream field natural gas operation condition. Quantification results showed wide individual estimate uncertainties, with emissions underestimation and overestimation by factors up to >14 and 42, respectively. Three solutions had >80% of their estimates within a quantification factor of 3 for controlled releases in the ranges of [0.1-1] kg CH4/h and > 1 kg CH4/h. Relative to the study by Bell et al., current solutions performance, as a group, generally improved, primarily due to solutions from the study by Bell et al. that were retested. This result highlights the importance of regular quality testing to the advancement of CM solutions for effective emissions mitigation.

Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol.

Continuous emission monitoring (CM) solutions promise to detect large fugitive methane emissions in natural gas infrastructure sooner than traditional leak surveys, and quantification by CM solutions has been proposed as the foundation of measurement-based inventories. This study performed single-blind testing at a controlled release facility (release from 0.4 to 6400 g CH4/h) replicating conditions that were challenging, but less complex than typical field conditions. Eleven solutions were tested, including point sensor networks and scanning/imaging solutions. Results indicated a 90% probability of detection (POD) of 3-30 kg CH4/h; 6 of 11 solutions achieved a POD < 6 kg CH4/h, although uncertainty was high. Four had true positive rates > 50%. False positive rates ranged from 0 to 79%. Six solutions estimated emission rates. For a release rate of 0.1-1 kg/h, the solutions' mean relative errors ranged from -44% to +586% with single estimates between -97% and +2077%, and 4 solutions' upper uncertainty exceeding +900%. Above 1 kg/h, mean relative error was -40% to +93%, with two solutions within ±20%, and single-estimate relative errors were from -82% to +448%. The large variability in performance between CM solutions, coupled with highly uncertain detection, detection limit, and quantification results, indicates that the performance of individual CM solutions should be well understood before relying on results for internal emissions mitigation programs or regulatory reporting.

Estimating Regional Methane Emission Factors from Energy and Agricultural Sector Sources Using a Portable Measurement System: Case Study of the Denver-Julesburg Basin.

Methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas (GHG), has been identified as a key target for emission reduction in the Paris agreement, but it is not currently clear where efforts should be focused to make the greatest impact. Currently, activity data and standard emission factors (EF) are used to generate GHG emission inventories. Many of the EFs are globally uniform and do not account for regional variability in industrial or agricultural practices and/or regulation. Regional EFs can be derived from top-down emissions measurements and used to make bespoke regional GHG emission inventories that account for geopolitical and social variability. However, most large-scale top-down approaches campaigns require significant investment. To address this, lower-cost driving surveys (DS) have been identified as a viable alternative to more established methods. DSs can take top-down measurements of many emission sources in a relatively short period of time, albeit with a higher uncertainty. To investigate the use of a portable measurement system, a 2260 km DS was conducted throughout the Denver-Julesburg Basin (DJB). The DJB covers an area of 8000 km2 north of Denver, CO and is densely populated with CH4 emission sources, including oil and gas (O and G) operations, agricultural operations (AGOs), lakes and reservoirs. During the DS, 157 individual CH4 emission sources were detected; 51%, 43% and 4% of sources were AGOs, O and G operations, and natural sources, respectively. Methane emissions from each source were quantified using downwind concentration and meteorological data and AGOs and O and G operations represented nearly all the CH4 emissions in the DJB, accounting for 54% and 37% of the total emission, respectively. Operations with similar emission sources were grouped together and average facility emission estimates were generated. For agricultural sources, emissions from feedlot cattle, dairy cows and sheep were estimated at 5, 31 and 1 g CH4 head-1 h-1, all of which agreed with published values taken from focused measurement campaigns. Similarly, for O and G average emissions for well pads, compressor stations and gas processing plants (0.5, 14 and 110 kg CH4 facility-1 h-1) were in reasonable agreement with emission estimates from intensive measurement campaigns. A comparison of our basin wide O and G emissions to measurements taken a decade ago show a decrease of a factor of three, which can feasibly be explained by changes to O and G regulation over the past 10 years, while emissions from AGOs have remained constant over the same time period. Our data suggest that DSs could be a low-cost alternative to traditional measurement campaigns and used to screen many emission sources within a region to derive representative regionally specific and time-sensitive EFs. The key benefit of the DS is that many regions can be screened and emission reduction targets identified where regional EFs are noticeably larger than the regional, national or global averages.