Facility-level methane emissions were measured at 114 gathering facilities and 16 processing plants in the United States natural gas system. At gathering facilities, the measured methane emission rates ranged from 0.7 to 700 kg per hour (kg/h) (0.6 to 600 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm)). Normalized emissions (as a % of total methane throughput) were less than 1% for 85 gathering facilities and 19 had normalized emissions less than 0.1%. The range of methane emissions rates for processing plants was 3 to 600 kg/h (3 to 524 scfm), corresponding to normalized methane emissions rates <1% in all cases. The distributions of methane emissions, particularly for gathering facilities, are skewed. For example, 30% of gathering facilities contribute 80% of the total emissions. Normalized emissions rates are negatively correlated with facility throughput. The variation in methane emissions also appears driven by differences between inlet and outlet pressure, as well as venting and leaking equipment. Substantial venting from liquids storage tanks was observed at 20% of gathering facilities. Emissions rates at these facilities were, on average, around four times the rates observed at similar facilities without substantial venting.

The recent growth in production and utilization of natural gas offers potential climate benefits, but those benefits depend on lifecycle emissions of methane, the primary component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas. This study estimates methane emissions from the transmission and storage (T&S) sector of the United States natural gas industry using new data collected during 2012, including 2,292 onsite measurements, additional emissions data from 677 facilities and activity data from 922 facilities. The largest emission sources were fugitive emissions from certain compressor-related equipment and "super-emitter" facilities. We estimate total methane emissions from the T&S sector at 1,503 [1,220 to 1,950] Gg/yr (95% confidence interval) compared to the 2012 Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) estimate of 2,071 [1,680 to 2,690] Gg/yr. While the overlap in confidence intervals indicates that the difference is not statistically significant, this is the result of several significant, but offsetting, factors. Factors which reduce the study estimate include a lower estimated facility count, a shift away from engines toward lower-emitting turbine and electric compressor drivers, and reductions in the usage of gas-driven pneumatic devices. Factors that increase the study estimate relative to the GHGI include updated emission rates in certain emission categories and explicit treatment of skewed emissions at both component and facility levels. For T&S stations that are required to report to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), this study estimates total emissions to be 260% [215% to 330%] of the reportable emissions for these stations, primarily due to the inclusion of emission sources that are not reported under the GHGRP rules, updated emission factors, and super-emitter emissions.

Equipment- and site-level methane emissions from 45 compressor stations in the transmission and storage (T&S) sector of the US natural gas system were measured, including 25 sites required to report under the EPA greenhouse gas reporting program (GHGRP). Direct measurements of fugitive and vented sources were combined with AP-42-based exhaust emission factors (for operating reciprocating engines and turbines) to produce a study onsite estimate. Site-level methane emissions were also concurrently measured with downwind-tracer-flux techniques. At most sites, these two independent estimates agreed within experimental uncertainty. Site-level methane emissions varied from 2-880 SCFM. Compressor vents, leaky isolation valves, reciprocating engine exhaust, and equipment leaks were major sources, and substantial emissions were observed at both operating and standby compressor stations. The site-level methane emission rates were highly skewed; the highest emitting 10% of sites (including two superemitters) contributed 50% of the aggregate methane emissions, while the lowest emitting 50% of sites contributed less than 10% of the aggregate emissions. Excluding the two superemitters, study-average methane emissions from compressor housings and noncompressor sources are comparable to or lower than the corresponding effective emission factors used in the EPA greenhouse gas inventory. If the two superemitters are included in the analysis, then the average emission factors based on this study could exceed the EPA greenhouse gas inventory emission factors, which highlights the potentially important contribution of superemitters to national emissions. However, quantification of their influence requires knowledge of the magnitude and frequency of superemitters across the entire T&S sector. Only 38% of the methane emissions measured by the comprehensive onsite measurements were reportable under the new EPA GHGRP because of a combination of inaccurate emission factors for leakers and exhaust methane, and various exclusions. The bias is even larger if one accounts for the superemitters, which were not captured by the onsite measurements. The magnitude of the bias varied from site to site by site type and operating state. Therefore, while the GHGRP is a valuable new source of emissions information, care must be taken when incorporating these data into emission inventories. The value of the GHGRP can be increased by requiring more direct measurements of emissions (as opposed to using counts and emission factors), eliminating exclusions such as rod-packing vents on pressurized reciprocating compressors in standby mode under Subpart-W, and using more appropriate emission factors for exhaust methane from reciprocating engines under Subpart-C.

New facility-level methane (CH4) emissions measurements obtained from 114 natural gas gathering facilities and 16 processing plants in 13 U.S. states were combined with facility counts obtained from state and national databases in a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate CH4 emissions from U.S. natural gas gathering and processing operations. Total annual CH4 emissions of 2421 (+245/-237) Gg were estimated for all U.S. gathering and processing operations, which represents a CH4 loss rate of 0.47% (±0.05%) when normalized by 2012 CH4 production. Over 90% of those emissions were attributed to normal operation of gathering facilities (1697 +189/-185 Gg) and processing plants (506 +55/-52 Gg), with the balance attributed to gathering pipelines and processing plant routine maintenance and upsets. The median CH4 emissions estimate for processing plants is a factor of 1.7 lower than the 2012 EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) estimate, with the difference due largely to fewer reciprocating compressors, and a factor of 3.0 higher than that reported under the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Since gathering operations are currently embedded within the production segment of the EPA GHGI, direct comparison to our results is complicated. However, the study results suggest that CH4 emissions from gathering are substantially higher than the current EPA GHGI estimate and are equivalent to 30% of the total net CH4 emissions in the natural gas systems GHGI. Because CH4 emissions from most gathering facilities are not reported under the current rule and not all source categories are reported for processing plants, the total CH4 emissions from gathering and processing reported under the EPA GHGRP (180 Gg) represents only 14% of that tabulated in the EPA GHGI and 7% of that predicted from this study.

Starting from the original definition of the cohesive energy density and the Hildebrand solubility parameter, an approach utilizing an equation of state of the form P = f(ρ,T) is used for calculating Hildebrand solubility parameters for a range of temperatures and pressures, including the supercritical fluid region. In addition, an approach is presented to determine Hansen solubility parameters over the same range of temperatures and pressures. The pure fluid used in these calculations is carbon dioxide (CO2). CO2 has been extensively studied, and its use as a supercritical fluid is well established in high-pressure chromatography and fluid extraction applications.