Literature DB >> 26824407

Methane Emissions from Conventional and Unconventional Natural Gas Production Sites in the Marcellus Shale Basin.

Mark Omara1, Melissa R Sullivan1, Xiang Li1, R Subramanian1, Allen L Robinson1, Albert A Presto1.   

Abstract

There is a need for continued assessment of methane (CH4) emissions associated with natural gas (NG) production, especially as recent advancements in horizontal drilling combined with staged hydraulic fracturing technologies have dramatically increased NG production (we refer to these wells as "unconventional" NG wells). In this study, we measured facility-level CH4 emissions rates from the NG production sector in the Marcellus region, and compared CH4 emissions between unconventional NG (UNG) well pad sites and the relatively smaller and older "conventional" NG (CvNG) sites that consist of wells drilled vertically into permeable geologic formations. A top-down tracer-flux CH4 measurement approach utilizing mobile downwind intercepts of CH4, ethane, and tracer (nitrous oxide and acetylene) plumes was performed at 18 CvNG sites (19 individual wells) and 17 UNG sites (88 individual wells). The 17 UNG sites included four sites undergoing completion flowback (FB). The mean facility-level CH4 emission rate among UNG well pad sites in routine production (18.8 kg/h (95% confidence interval (CI) on the mean of 12.0-26.8 kg/h)) was 23 times greater than the mean CH4 emissions from CvNG sites. These differences were attributed, in part, to the large size (based on number of wells and ancillary NG production equipment) and the significantly higher production rate of UNG sites. However, CvNG sites generally had much higher production-normalized CH4 emission rates (median: 11%; range: 0.35-91%) compared to UNG sites (median: 0.13%, range: 0.01-1.2%), likely resulting from a greater prevalence of avoidable process operating conditions (e.g., unresolved equipment maintenance issues). At the regional scale, we estimate that total annual CH4 emissions from 88 500 combined CvNG well pads in Pennsylvania and West Virginia (660 Gg (95% CI: 500 to 800 Gg)) exceeded that from 3390 UNG well pads by 170 Gg, reflecting the large number of CvNG wells and the comparably large fraction of CH4 lost per unit production. The new emissions data suggest that the recently instituted Pennsylvania CH4 emissions inventory substantially underestimates measured facility-level CH4 emissions by >10-40 times for five UNG sites in this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26824407     DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05503

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  A review of the public health impacts of unconventional natural gas development.

Authors:  P J Saunders; D McCoy; R Goldstein; A T Saunders; A Munroe
Journal:  Environ Geochem Health       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 4.609

2.  Measurements of Atmospheric Methane Emissions from Stray Gas Migration: A Case Study from the Marcellus Shale.

Authors:  Lauren E Dennis; Scott J Richardson; Natasha Miles; Josh Woda; Susan L Brantley; Kenneth J Davis
Journal:  ACS Earth Space Chem       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 3.556

3.  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

4.  Super-emitters in natural gas infrastructure are caused by abnormal process conditions.

Authors:  Daniel Zavala-Araiza; Ramón A Alvarez; David R Lyon; David T Allen; Anthony J Marchese; Daniel J Zimmerle; Steven P Hamburg
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 14.919

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

Review 8.  Toward Consistent Methodology to Quantify Populations in Proximity to Oil and Gas Development: A National Spatial Analysis and Review.

Authors:  Eliza D Czolowski; Renee L Santoro; Tanja Srebotnjak; Seth B C Shonkoff
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Exploring the endocrine activity of air pollutants associated with unconventional oil and gas extraction.

Authors:  Ashley L Bolden; Kim Schultz; Katherine E Pelch; Carol F Kwiatkowski
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 5.984

10.  On the climate benefit of a coal-to-gas shift in Germany's electric power sector.

Authors:  Stefan Ladage; Martin Blumenberg; Dieter Franke; Andreas Bahr; Rüdiger Lutz; Sandro Schmidt
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.