Literature DB >> 28548824

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

Stefan Schwietzke1,2, Gabrielle Pétron1,2, Stephen Conley3,4, Cody Pickering5, Ingrid Mielke-Maday1,2, Edward J Dlugokencky2, Pieter P Tans2, Tim Vaughn5, Clay Bell5, Daniel Zimmerle5, Sonja Wolter1,2, Clark W King2, Allen B White2, Timothy Coleman1,2, Laura Bianco1,2, Russell C Schnell2.   

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 (R2 = 0.75) and active gas well pad count (R2 = 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28548824     DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01810

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


  7 in total

Review 1.  Reflecting on progress since the 2005 NARSTO emissions inventory report.

Authors:  Melissa Day; George Pouliot; Sherri Hunt; Kirk R Baker; Megan Beardsley; Gregory Frost; David Mobley; Heather Simon; Barron B Henderson; Tiffany Yelverton; Venkatesh Rao
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.235

2.  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

3.  Multiscale Methane Measurements at Oil and Gas Facilities Reveal Necessary Frameworks for Improved Emissions Accounting.

Authors:  Jiayang Lyra Wang; William S Daniels; Dorit M Hammerling; Matthew Harrison; Kaylyn Burmaster; Fiji C George; Arvind P Ravikumar
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2022-10-06       Impact factor: 11.357

4.  Wintertime CO2, CH4, and CO Emissions Estimation for the Washington, DC-Baltimore Metropolitan Area Using an Inverse Modeling Technique.

Authors:  Israel Lopez-Coto; Xinrong Ren; Olivia E Salmon; Anna Karion; Paul B Shepson; Russell R Dickerson; Ariel Stein; Kuldeep Prasad; James R Whetstone
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Coal seam gas industry methane emissions in the Surat Basin, Australia: comparing airborne measurements with inventories.

Authors:  Bruno G Neininger; Bryce F J Kelly; Jorg M Hacker; Xinyi Lu; Stefan Schwietzke
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2021-09-27       Impact factor: 4.226

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.