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

Abstract

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 (R = 0.75) and active gas well pad count (R = 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.

Methane Mitigation: Methods to Reduce Emissions, on the Path to the Paris Agreement

“…Karion et al (, ) and Caulton et al () used aircraft‐based measurements to map out emissions from unconventional oil and gas fields in the United States, while Peischl et al (, ) and Schwietzke et al () used aircraft equipped with a high‐precision analyzer to study several major shale gas fields. Similarly, in the Netherlands, Yacovitch et al () used a light aircraft equipped with a high‐precision gas analyzer and flask sampling capability to determine emissions from the giant Groningen gasfield and the heavily agricultural surrounding area.…”

Comparing facility-level methane emission rate estimates at natural gas gathering and boosting stations

“…Aircraft measurements ("aircraft") and resulting emission estimates for this study were made by Scientific Aviation Incorporated, and a detailed discussion of the methods, results and uncertainty are presented in Conley et al (2017). Note that this method targets individual facilities and differs from "area mass balance methods" utilized to quantify emissions from multiple facilities over larger spatial scales (Karion et al, 2013;Pétron et al, 2014;Schwietzke et al, 2017).…”

Natural gas facility methane emissions: measurements by tracer flux ratio in two US natural gas producing basins

“…Additional results from these coordinated campaigns are published separately (Robertson et al, 2017;Schwietzke et al, 2017) including synthesis and reconciliation of diverse methodologies for the FV production sector (Bell et al, 2017) and the FV gathering sector (Vaughn et al, 2017).…”