Literature DB >> 26281719

Methane Emissions from United States Natural Gas Gathering and Processing.

Anthony J Marchese1, Timothy L Vaughn1, Daniel J Zimmerle2, David M Martinez1, Laurie L Williams3, Allen L Robinson4, Austin L Mitchell4, R Subramanian4, Daniel S Tkacik4, Joseph R Roscioli5, Scott C Herndon5.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26281719     DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02275

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Sci Technol        ISSN: 0013-936X            Impact factor:   9.028


  8 in total

1.  Satellite observations reveal extreme methane leakage from a natural gas well blowout.

Authors:  Sudhanshu Pandey; Ritesh Gautam; Sander Houweling; Hugo Denier van der Gon; Pankaj Sadavarte; Tobias Borsdorff; Otto Hasekamp; Jochen Landgraf; Paul Tol; Tim van Kempen; Ruud Hoogeveen; Richard van Hees; Steven P Hamburg; Joannes D Maasakkers; Ilse Aben
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain.

Authors:  Ramón A Alvarez; Daniel Zavala-Araiza; David R Lyon; David T Allen; Zachary R Barkley; Adam R Brandt; Kenneth J Davis; Scott C Herndon; Daniel J Jacob; Anna Karion; Eric A Kort; Brian K Lamb; Thomas Lauvaux; Joannes D Maasakkers; Anthony J Marchese; Mark Omara; Stephen W Pacala; Jeff Peischl; Allen L Robinson; Paul B Shepson; Colm Sweeney; Amy Townsend-Small; Steven C Wofsy; Steven P Hamburg
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  South Philadelphia passive sampler and sensor study.

Authors:  Eben D Thoma; Halley L Brantley; Karen D Oliver; Donald A Whitaker; Shaibal Mukerjee; Bill Mitchell; Tai Wu; Bill Squier; Elsy Escobar; Tamira A Cousett; Carol Ann Gross-Davis; Howard Schmidt; Dennis Sosna; Hallie Weiss
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.235

4.  Methane emissions from the Marcellus Shale in southwestern Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia based on airborne measurements.

Authors:  Xinrong Ren; Dolly L Hall; Timothy Vinciguerra; Sarah E Benish; Phillip R Stratton; Doyeon Ahn; Jonathan R Hansford; Mark D Cohen; Sayantan Sahu; Hao He; Courtney Grimes; Ross J Salawitch; Sheryl H Ehrman; Russell R Dickerson
Journal:  J Geophys Res Atmos       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 4.261

5.  Cumulative environmental and employment impacts of the shale gas boom.

Authors:  Erin N Mayfield; Jared L Cohon; Nicholas Z Muller; Inês M L Azevedo; Allen L Robinson
Journal:  Nat Sustain       Date:  2019

6.  Declining methane emissions and steady, high leakage rates observed over multiple years in a western US oil/gas production basin.

Authors:  John C Lin; Ryan Bares; Benjamin Fasoli; Maria Garcia; Erik Crosman; Seth Lyman
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-16       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Estimating Regional Methane Emission Factors from Energy and Agricultural Sector Sources Using a Portable Measurement System: Case Study of the Denver-Julesburg Basin.

Authors:  Stuart N Riddick; Fancy Cheptonui; Kexin Yuan; Mercy Mbua; Rachel Day; Timothy L Vaughn; Aidan Duggan; Kristine E Bennett; Daniel J Zimmerle
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 3.847

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

Authors:  Timothy L Vaughn; Clay S Bell; Cody K Pickering; Stefan Schwietzke; Garvin A Heath; Gabrielle Pétron; Daniel J Zimmerle; Russell C Schnell; Dag Nummedal
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 11.205

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.