Synthesis of recent ground-level methane emission measurements from the U.S. natural gas supply chain

Littlefield, James; Marriott, Joe; Schivley, Greg; Skone, Timothy J

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.101

Cited by 61 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is worth noting that in REm-U P25 scenarios CH 4 emissions from gathering are particularly higher than the ones in P50 (50% higher in Germany and 35% in the UK), highlighting the impact that low well productivity (especially in Germany) has on gathering sector emissions. The prominent role of CH 4 emitted at gathering facilities and production sites finds confirmation in the literature (Zavala-Araiza et al, 2015;Balcombe et al, 2016;Littlefield et al, 2017). The gas processing stage, as characterized in our study (between 2.8% and 5.6% of gas burned for power production and turbines efficiency between 30% and 60%; SM Text S1, Section S2.11.2), comes only third in terms of CH 4 emissions contribution after the gathering and production stages in REm, while second in OEm.…”

Section: Turbines ( Processing)supporting

confidence: 85%

“…The Figure also illustrates the effect of different operation and technologies/performances on final leakage rates, the large variance within the OEm range, and the strong correlation between well productivity (the P-cases) and the extent of CH 4 emissions (see in particular Germany OEm P25). Although the leakage rates resulting from our emission scenarios vary considerably, results in REm are within the range of the estimates reported by the latest regional and nationwide studies carried out worldwide (Littlefield, 2017;WEO, 2017;EPA, 2018), or are of similar magnitude (Zavala-Araiza et al, 2015;Alvarez et al, 2018).…”

Section: Speciessupporting

confidence: 62%

“…It is here worth noting that the gas vented during well completion practices estimated by the EPA GHG Inventory 2016 are much higher than the amount we assign (SM, Text S1, Section S2.6). Littlefield et al (2017) carried out a multi-basin analysis on old and new emission data in the US and processed them in a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the amount of CH 4 lost along the entire natural gas supply chain. Their study found a leakage rate of 1.23% (with a 95% confidence interval from 0.72 to 1.59%) of the total gas delivered from the wellhead up to the processing stage, a value close to our highest simulated leakage rate (Germany REm P25, Figure 9).…”

Section: Methane Leakage Rates In the International Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Emission scenarios of a potential shale gas industry in Germany and the United Kingdom

Cremonese¹,

Weger

Gon

et al. 2019

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The shale gas debate has taken center stage over the past decade in many European countries due to its purported climate advantages over coal and the implications for domestic energy security. Nevertheless, shale gas production generates greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions including carbon dioxide, methane, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and volatile organic compounds. In this study we develop three shale gas drilling projections in Germany and the United Kingdom based on estimated reservoir productivities and local capacity. For each projection, we define a set of emission scenarios in which gas losses are assigned to each stage of upstream gas production to quantify total emissions. The “realistic” (REm) and “optimistic” (OEm) scenarios investigated in this study describe, respectively, the potential emission range generated by business-as-usual activities, and the lowest emissions technically possible according to our settings. The latter scenario is based on the application of specific technologies and full compliance with a stringent regulatory framework described herein. Based on the median drilling projection, total annual methane emissions range between 150–294 Kt in REm and 28–42 Kt in OEm, while carbon dioxide emissions span from 5.55–7.21 Mt in REm to 3.11–3.96 Mt in OEm. Taking all drilling projections into consideration, methane leakage rates in REm range between 0.45 and 1.36% in Germany, and between 0.35 and 0.71% in the United Kingdom. The leakage rates are discussed in both the European (conventional gas) and international (shale gas) contexts. Further, the emission intensity of a potential European shale gas industry is estimated and compared to national inventories. Results from our science-based prospective scenarios can facilitate an informed discussion among the public and policy makers on the climate impact of a potential shale gas development in Europe, and on the appropriate role of natural gas in the worldwide energy transition.

show abstract

Section: Turbines ( Processing)supporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Speciessupporting

confidence: 62%

Section: Methane Leakage Rates In the International Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Emission scenarios of a potential shale gas industry in Germany and the United Kingdom

Cremonese¹,

Weger

Gon

et al. 2019

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent studies have used a variety of measurement methods to quantify CH 4 emission rates from natural gas systems (Brandt et al, 2016;Littlefield et al, 2017). Topdown methods that rely on atmospheric CH 4 mole fraction measurements alone may have difficulty attributing emissions to distinct sources (Pétron et al, 2014;Peischl et al, 2015), e.g., from biogenic or thermogenic sources at the regional scale, or from individual point sources at the facility scale (Brantley et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A variety of factors may contribute to differences between top-down and bottom-up estimates of CH 4 emissions. Recurring themes in recent discussions and studies (Brandt et al, 2016;Littlefield et al, 2017) include temporal variability, unrepresentative emission factors or activity data, and skewed emission rate distributions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Vaughn

Bell

Yacovitch

et al. 2017

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaughn, Comparing facility-level methane emission rate estimates at natural gas gathering and boosting stations. Elem Sci Anth, 5: 71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.257 RESEARCH ARTICLEComparing facility-level methane emission rate estimates at natural gas gathering and boosting stations , Daniel Zimmerle * Coordinated dual-tracer, aircraft-based, and direct component-level measurements were made at midstream natural gas gathering and boosting stations in the Fayetteville shale (Arkansas, USA). On-site component-level measurements were combined with engineering estimates to generate comprehensive facility-level methane emission rate estimates ("study on-site estimates (SOE)") comparable to tracer and aircraft measurements. Combustion slip (unburned fuel entrained in compressor engine exhaust), which was calculated based on 111 recent measurements of representative compressor engines, accounts for an estimated 75% of cumulative SOEs at gathering stations included in comparisons. Measured methane emissions from regenerator vents on glycol dehydrator units were substantially larger than predicted by modelling software; the contribution of dehydrator regenerator vents to the cumulative SOE would increase from 1% to 10% if based on direct measurements. Concurrent measurements at 14 normally-operating facilities show relative agreement between tracer and SOE, but indicate that tracer measurements estimate lower emissions (regression of tracer to SOE = 0.91 (95% CI = 0.83-0.99), R 2 = 0.89). Tracer and SOE 95% confidence intervals overlap at 11/14 facilities. Contemporaneous measurements at six facilities suggest that aircraft measurements estimate higher emissions than SOE. Aircraft and study on-site estimate 95% confidence intervals overlap at 3/6 facilities. The average facility level emission rate (FLER) estimated by tracer measurements in this study is 17-73% higher than a prior national study by Marchese et al. Keywords IntroductionEfforts to understand methane (CH 4 ) emissions over the entire US natural gas supply chain are motivated by increased natural gas production and usage. Natural gas produces less CO 2 when combusted than coal or petroleum on a per unit energy basis, and is often suggested as a bridge fuel to a lower-carbon energy sector. However,

show abstract

Methane emissions from oil and gas production sites and their storage tanks in West Virginia

Johnson

Clark

Heltzel

et al. 2022

Atmospheric Environment: X

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synthesis of recent ground-level methane emission measurements from the U.S. natural gas supply chain

Cited by 61 publications

References 19 publications

Emission scenarios of a potential shale gas industry in Germany and the United Kingdom

Emission scenarios of a potential shale gas industry in Germany and the United Kingdom

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

Methane emissions from oil and gas production sites and their storage tanks in West Virginia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About