Comparison of Sub-Ppm Instrument Response Suggests Higher Detection Limits Could Be Used to Quantify Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Infrastructure.

Quantifying and controlling fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas facilities remains essential for addressing climate goals, but the costs associated with monitoring millions of production sites remain prohibitively expensive. Current thinking, supported by measurement and simple dispersion modelling, assumes single-digit parts-per-million instrumentation is required. To investigate instrument response, the inlets of three trace-methane (sub-ppm) analyzers were collocated on a facility designed to release gas of known composition at known flow rates between 0.4 and 5.2 kg CH4 h-1 from simulated oil and gas infrastructure. Methane mixing ratios were measured by each instrument at 1 Hertz resolution over nine hours. While mixing ratios reported by a cavity ring-down spectrometer (CRDS)-based instrument were on average 10.0 ppm (range 1.8 to 83 ppm), a mid-infrared laser absorption spectroscopy (MIRA)-based instrument reported short-lived mixing ratios far larger than expected (range 1.8 to 779 ppm) with a similar nine-hour average to the CRDS (10.1 ppm). We suggest the peaks detected by the MIRA are likely caused by a micrometeorological phenomenon, where vortex shedding has resulted in heterogeneous methane plumes which only the MIRA can observe. Further analysis suggests an instrument like the MIRA (an optical-cavity-based instrument with cavity size ≤10 cm3 measuring at ≥2 Hz with air flow rates in the order of ≤0.3 slpm at distances of ≤20 m from the source) but with a higher detection limit (25 ppm) could detect enough of the high-concentration events to generate representative 20 min-average methane mixing ratios. Even though development of a lower-cost, high-precision, high-accuracy instrument with a 25 ppm detection threshold remains a significant problem, this has implications for the use of instrumentation with higher detection thresholds, resulting in the reduction in cost to measure methane emissions and providing a mechanism for the widespread deployment of effective leak detection and repair programs for all oil and gas infrastructure.

Methane emissions from abandoned oil and gas wells in Colorado.

Recent studies indicate emission factors used to generate bottom-up methane inventories may have considerable regional variability. The US's Environmental Protection Agency's emission factors for plugged and unplugged abandoned oil and gas wells are largely based on measurement of historic wells and estimated at 0.4 g and 31 g CH4 well-1 h-1, respectively. To investigate if these are representative of wells more recently abandoned, methane emissions were measured from 128 plugged and 206 unplugged abandoned wells in Colorado, finding the first super-emitting abandoned well (76 kg CH4 well-1 h-1) and average emissions of 0 and 586 g CH4 well-1 h-1, respectively. Combining these with other states' measurements, we update the US emission factors to 1 and 198 g CH4 well-1 h-1, respectively. Correspondingly, annual methane emissions from the 3.4 million abandoned wells in the US are estimated at between 2.6 Tg, following current methodology, and 1.1 Tg, where emissions are disaggregated for well-type. In conclusion, this study identifies a new abandoned well-type, recently-producing orphaned, that contributes 74 % to the total abandoned wells methane emissions. Including this new well-type in the bottom-up inventory suggests abandoned well emissions equate to between 22 and 49 % of total emissions from US active oil and gas production operations.

Uncertainty Quantification of Methods Used to Measure Methane Emissions of 1 g CH4 h-1.

The recent interest in measuring methane (CH4) emissions from abandoned oil and gas wells has resulted in five methods being typically used. In line with the US Federal Orphaned Wells Program's (FOWP) guidelines and the American Carbon Registry's (ACR) protocols, quantification methods must be able to measure minimum emissions of 1 g of CH4 h-1 to within ±20%. To investigate if the methods meet the required standard, dynamic chambers, a Hi-Flow (HF) sampler, and a Gaussian plume (GP)-based approach were all used to quantify a controlled emission (Qav; g h-1) of 1 g of CH4 h-1. After triplicate experiments, the average accuracy (Ar; %) and the upper (Uu; %) and lower (Ul; %) uncertainty bounds of all methods were calculated. Two dynamic chambers were used, one following the ACR guidelines, and a second "mobile" chamber made from lightweight materials that could be constructed around a source of emission on a well head. The average emission calculated from the measurements made using the dynamic chamber (Qav = 1.01 g CH4 h-1, Ar = +0.9%), the mobile chamber (Qav = 0.99 g CH4 h-1, Ar = -1.4%), the GP approach (Qav = 0.97 g CH4 h-1, Ar = -2.6%), and the HF sampler (Qav = 1.02 g CH4 h-1, Ar = +2.2%) were all within ±3% of 1 g of CH4 h-1 and met the requirements of the FOWP and ACR protocols. The results also suggest that the individual measurements made using the dynamic chamber can quantify emissions of 1 g of CH4 h-1 to within ±6% irrespective of the design (material, number of parts, geometrical shape, and hose length), and changes to the construction or material specifications as defined via ACR make no discernible difference to the quantification uncertainty. Our tests show that a collapsible chamber can be easily constructed around the emission source on an abandoned well and be used to quantify emissions from abandoned wells in remote areas. To our knowledge, this is the first time that methods for measuring the CH4 emissions of 1 g of CH4 h-1 have been quantitively assessed against a known reference source and against each other.

Estimating the Below-Ground Leak Rate of a Natural Gas Pipeline Using Above-Ground Downwind Measurements: The ESCAPE-1 Model.

Natural gas (NG) leaks from below-ground pipelines pose safety, economic, and environmental hazards. Despite walking surveys using handheld methane (CH4) detectors to locate leaks, accurately triaging the severity of a leak remains challenging. It is currently unclear whether CH4 detectors used in walking surveys could be used to identify large leaks that require an immediate response. To explore this, we used above-ground downwind CH4 concentration measurements made during controlled emission experiments over a range of environmental conditions. These data were then used as the input to a novel modeling framework, the ESCAPE-1 model, to estimate the below-ground leak rates. Using 10-minute averaged CH4 mixing/meteorological data and filtering out wind speed < 2 m s-1/unstable atmospheric data, the ESCAPE-1 model estimates small leaks (0.2 kg CH4 h-1) and medium leaks (0.8 kg CH4 h-1) with a bias of -85%/+100% and -50%/+64%, respectively. Longer averaging (≥3 h) results in a 55% overestimation for small leaks and a 6% underestimation for medium leaks. These results suggest that as the wind speed increases or the atmosphere becomes more stable, the accuracy and precision of the leak rate calculated by the ESCAPE-1 model decrease. With an uncertainty of ±55%, our results show that CH4 mixing ratios measured using industry-standard detectors could be used to prioritize leak repairs.

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.