A review of close-range and screening technologies for mitigating fugitive methane emissions in upstream oil and gas. (26th April 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fox, Thomas A; Barchyn, Thomas E; Risk, David; Ravikumar, Arvind P; Hugenholtz, Chris H
• Is Part Of: Environmental research letters. Volume 14:Number 5(2019:May)
• Publication Date: 2019-04-26
• Subjects: natural gas leaks -- leak detection and repair -- fugitive emissions management -- methane emissions monitoring -- technology evaluation; Environmental sciences -- Periodicals; Human ecology -- Research -- Periodicals; Environmental health -- Periodicals; 333.7
• DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab0cc3
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1748-9326

Abstract

Abstract: Fugitive methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are targeted using leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. Until recently, only a limited number of measurement standards have been permitted by most regulators, with emphasis on close-range methods (e.g. Method-21, optical gas imaging). Although close-range methods are essential for source identification, they can be labor-intensive. To improve LDAR efficiency, there has been a policy shift in Canada and the United States towards incorporating alternative technologies. However, the suitability of these technologies for LDAR remains unclear. In this paper, we systematically review and compare six technology classes for use in LDAR: handheld instruments, fixed sensors, mobile ground labs (MGLs), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), aircraft, and satellites. These technologies encompass broad spatial and temporal scales of measurement. Minimum detection limits for technology classes range from <1 g h −1 for Method 21 instruments to 7.1 × 10 6 g h −1 for the GOSAT satellite, and uncertainties are poorly constrained. To leverage the diverse capabilities of these technologies, we introduce a hybrid screening-confirmation approach to LDAR called a comprehensive monitoring program. Here, a screening technology is used to rapidly tag high-emitting sites to direct close-range source identification. Currently, fixed sensors, MGLs, UAVs, and aircraft could be used as screening technologies, but their performances must be evaluated under a range of environmental and operational conditions to better constrain detection effectiveness. Methane-sensing satellites are improving rapidly and may soon be ready for facility-scale screening. We conclude with a speculative discussion of the future of LDAR, touching on integration, analytics, incentivization, and regulatory pathways.