Unaddressed Uncertainties When Scaling Regional Aircraft Emission Surveys to Basin Emission Estimates

Abstract

Wide-area aerial methods provide comprehensive screening of methane emissions from oil and gas (O & G) facilities in production basins. Emission detections ("plumes") from these studies are also frequently scaled to the basin level, but little is known regarding the uncertainties during scaling. This study analyzed an aircraft field study in the Denver-Julesburg basin to quantify how often plumes identified maintenance events, using a geospatial inventory of 12,629 O & G facilities. Study partners (7 midstream and production operators) provided the timing and location of 5910 maintenance events during the 6 week study period. Results indicated three substantial uncertainties with potential bias that were unaddressed in prior studies. First, plumes often detect maintenance events, which are large, short-duration, and poorly estimated by aircraft methods: 9.2 to 46% (38 to 52%) of plumes on production were likely known maintenance events. Second, plumes on midstream facilities were both infrequent and unpredictable, calling into question whether these estimates were representative of midstream emissions. Finally, 4 plumes attributed to O & G (19% of emissions detected by aircraft) were not aligned with any O & G location, indicating that the emissions had drifted downwind of some source. It is unclear how accurately aircraft methods estimate this type of plume; in this study, it had material impact on emission estimates. While aircraft surveys remain a powerful tool for identifying methane emissions on O & G facilities, this study indicates that additional data inputs, e.g., detailed GIS data, a more nuanced analysis of emission persistence and frequency, and improved sampling strategies are required to accurately scale plume estimates to basin emissions.