Assessment of current methane emission quantification techniques for natural gas midstream applications
Yunsong Liu,Jean-Daniel Paris,Gregoire Broquet,Violeta Bescós Roy,Tania Meixus Fernandez,Rasmus Andersen,Andrés Russu Berlanga,Emil Christensen,Yann Courtois,Sebastian Dominok,Corentin Dussenne,Travis Eckert,Andrew Finlayson,Aurora Fernández de la Fuente,Catlin Gunn,Ram Hashmonay,Juliano Grigoleto Hayashi,Jonathan Helmore,Soeren Honsel,Fabrizio Innocenti,Matti Irjala,Torgrim Log,Cristina Lopez,Francisco Cortés Martínez,Jonathan Martinez,Adrien Massardier,Helle Gottschalk Nygaard,Paula Agregan Reboredo,Elodie Rousset,Axel Scherello,Matthias Ulbricht,Damien Weidmann,Oliver Williams,Nigel Yarrow,Murès Zarea,Robert Ziegler,Jean Sciare,Mihalis Vrekoussis,Philippe Bousquet,Liu, Yunsong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1633-2024
IF: 4.184
2024-03-20
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
Abstract:Methane emissions from natural gas systems are increasingly scrutinized, and accurate reporting requires quantification of site- and source-level measurement. We evaluate the performance of 10 available state-of-the-art CH 4 emission quantification approaches against a blind controlled-release experiment at an inerted natural gas compressor station in 2021. The experiment consisted of 17 blind 2 h releases at a single exhaust point or multiple simultaneous ones. The controlled releases covered a range of methane flow rates from 0.01 to 50 kg h −1 . Measurement platforms included aircraft, drones, trucks, vans, ground-based stations, and handheld systems. Herewith, we compare their respective strengths, weaknesses, and potential complementarity depending on the emission rates and atmospheric conditions. Most systems were able to quantify the releases within an order of magnitude. The level of errors from the different systems was not significantly influenced by release rates larger than 0.1 kg h −1 , with much poorer results for the 0.01 kg h −1 release. It was found that handheld optical gas imaging (OGI) cameras underestimated the emissions. In contrast, the "site-level" systems, relying on atmospheric dispersion, tended to overestimate the emission rates. We assess the dependence of emission quantification performance on key parameters such as wind speed, deployment constraints, and measurement duration. At the low wind speeds encountered (below 2 m s −1 ), the experiments did not reveal a significant dependence on wind speed. The ability to quantify individual sources degraded during multiple-source releases. Compliance with the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership's (OGMP 2.0) highest level of reporting may require a combination of the specific advantages of each measurement technique and will depend on reconciliation approaches. Self-reported uncertainties were either not available or were based on the standard deviation in a series of independent realizations or fixed values from expert judgment or theoretical considerations. For most systems, the overall relative errors estimated in this study are higher than self-reported uncertainties.
meteorology & atmospheric sciences