Aerially guided leak detection and repair: A pilot field study for evaluating the potential of methane emission detection and cost-effectiveness.

Novel aerial methane (CH4) detection technologies were used in this study to identify anomalously high-emitting oil and gas (O&G) facilities and to guide ground-based "leak detection and repair" (LDAR) teams. This approach has the potential to enable a rapid and effective inspection of O&G facilities under voluntary or regulatory LDAR programs to identify and mitigate anomalously large CH4 emissions from a disproportionately small number of facilities. This is the first study of which the authors are aware to deploy, evaluate, and compare the CH4 detection volumes and cost-effectiveness of aerially guided and purely ground-based LDAR techniques. Two aerial methods, the Kairos Aerospace infrared CH4 column imaging and the Scientific Aviation in situ aircraft CH4 mole fraction measurements, were tested during a 2-week period in the Fayetteville Shale region contemporaneously with conventional ground-based LDAR. We show that aerially guided LDAR can be at least as cost-effective as ground-based LDAR, but several variable parameters were identified that strongly affect cost-effectiveness and which require field research and improvements beyond this pilot study. These parameters include (i) CH4 minimum dectectable limit of aerial technologies, (ii) emission rate size distributions of sources, (iii) remote distinction of fixable versus nonfixable CH4 sources ("leaks" vs. CH4 emissions occurring by design), and (iv) the fraction of fixable sources to total CH4 emissions. Suggestions for future study design are provided. Implications: Mitigation of methane leaks from existing oil and gas operations currently relies on on-site inspections of all applicable facilities at a prescribed frequency. This approach is labor- and cost-intensive, especially because a majority of oil and gas-related methane emissions originate from a disproportionately small number of facilities and components. We show for the first time in real-world conditions how aerial methane measurements can identify anomalously high-emitting facilities to enable a rapid, focused, and directed ground inspection of these facilities. The aerially guided approach can be more cost-effective than current practices, especially when implementing the aircraft deployment improvements discussed here.

Temporal variability largely explains top-down/bottom-up difference in methane emission estimates from a natural gas production region.

This study spatially and temporally aligns top-down and bottom-up methane emission estimates for a natural gas production basin, using multiscale emission measurements and detailed activity data reporting. We show that episodic venting from manual liquid unloadings, which occur at a small fraction of natural gas well pads, drives a factor-of-two temporal variation in the basin-scale emission rate of a US dry shale gas play. The midafternoon peak emission rate aligns with the sampling time of all regional aircraft emission studies, which target well-mixed boundary layer conditions present in the afternoon. A mechanistic understanding of emission estimates derived from various methods is critical for unbiased emission verification and effective greenhouse gas emission mitigation. Our results demonstrate that direct comparison of emission estimates from methods covering widely different timescales can be misleading.

Improved Mechanistic Understanding of Natural Gas Methane Emissions from Spatially Resolved Aircraft Measurements.

Divergence in recent oil and gas related methane emission estimates between aircraft studies (basin total for a midday window) and emissions inventories (annualized regional and national statistics) indicate the need for better understanding the experimental design, including temporal and spatial alignment and interpretation of results. Our aircraft-based methane emission estimates in a major U.S. shale gas basin resolved from west to east show (i) similar spatial distributions for 2 days, (ii) strong spatial correlations with reported NG production (R2 = 0.75) and active gas well pad count (R2 = 0.81), and (iii) 2× higher emissions in the western half (normalized by gas production) despite relatively homogeneous dry gas and well characteristics. Operator reported hourly activity data show that midday episodic emissions from manual liquid unloadings (a routine operation in this basin and elsewhere) could explain ∼1/3 of the total emissions detected midday by the aircraft and ∼2/3 of the west-east difference in emissions. The 22% emission difference between both days further emphasizes that episodic sources can substantially impact midday methane emissions and that aircraft may detect daily peak emissions rather than daily averages that are generally employed in emissions inventories. While the aircraft approach is valid, quantitative, and independent, our study sheds new light on the interpretation of previous basin scale aircraft studies, and provides an improved mechanistic understanding of oil and gas related methane emissions.

Airborne Quantification of Methane Emissions over the Four Corners Region.

Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas and the primary component of natural gas. The San Juan Basin (SJB) is one of the largest coal-bed methane producing regions in North America and, including gas production from conventional and shale sources, contributed ∼2% of U.S. natural gas production in 2015. In this work, we quantify the CH4 flux from the SJB using continuous atmospheric sampling from aircraft collected during the TOPDOWN2015 field campaign in April 2015. Using five independent days of measurements and the aircraft-based mass balance method, we calculate an average CH4 flux of 0.54 ± 0.20 Tg yr-1 (1σ), in close agreement with the previous space-based estimate made for 2003-2009. These results agree within error with the U.S. EPA gridded inventory for 2012. These flights combined with the previous satellite study suggest CH4 emissions have not changed. While there have been significant declines in natural gas production between measurements, recent increases in oil production in the SJB may explain why emission of CH4 has not declined. Airborne quantification of outcrops where seepage occurs are consistent with ground-based studies that indicate these geological sources are a small fraction of the basin total (0.02-0.12 Tg yr-1) and cannot explain basinwide consistent emissions from 2003 to 2015.