Comparison of Sub-Ppm Instrument Response Suggests Higher Detection Limits Could Be Used to Quantify Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Infrastructure
Author:
Riddick Stuart N.1ORCID, Mbua Mercy1ORCID, Brouwer Ryan1, Emerson Ethan W.1ORCID, Anand Abhinav1, Kiplimo Elijah1, Ojomu Seunfunmi1, Lo Jui-Hsiang1, Zimmerle Daniel J.1ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Methane Emission Technology Evaluation Center (METEC), The Energy Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
Abstract
Quantifying and controlling fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas facilities remains essential for addressing climate goals, but the costs associated with monitoring millions of production sites remain prohibitively expensive. Current thinking, supported by measurement and simple dispersion modelling, assumes single-digit parts-per-million instrumentation is required. To investigate instrument response, the inlets of three trace-methane (sub-ppm) analyzers were collocated on a facility designed to release gas of known composition at known flow rates between 0.4 and 5.2 kg CH4 h−1 from simulated oil and gas infrastructure. Methane mixing ratios were measured by each instrument at 1 Hertz resolution over nine hours. While mixing ratios reported by a cavity ring-down spectrometer (CRDS)-based instrument were on average 10.0 ppm (range 1.8 to 83 ppm), a mid-infrared laser absorption spectroscopy (MIRA)-based instrument reported short-lived mixing ratios far larger than expected (range 1.8 to 779 ppm) with a similar nine-hour average to the CRDS (10.1 ppm). We suggest the peaks detected by the MIRA are likely caused by a micrometeorological phenomenon, where vortex shedding has resulted in heterogeneous methane plumes which only the MIRA can observe. Further analysis suggests an instrument like the MIRA (an optical-cavity-based instrument with cavity size ≤10 cm3 measuring at ≥2 Hz with air flow rates in the order of ≤0.3 slpm at distances of ≤20 m from the source) but with a higher detection limit (25 ppm) could detect enough of the high-concentration events to generate representative 20 min-average methane mixing ratios. Even though development of a lower-cost, high-precision, high-accuracy instrument with a 25 ppm detection threshold remains a significant problem, this has implications for the use of instrumentation with higher detection thresholds, resulting in the reduction in cost to measure methane emissions and providing a mechanism for the widespread deployment of effective leak detection and repair programs for all oil and gas infrastructure.
Funder
METEC Industry Advisory Board (IAB) at Colorado State University
Reference31 articles.
1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014). IPCC Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press. 2. Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., and Möller, V. (2022). IPCC Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press. 3. Methane Mitigation: Methods to Reduce Emissions, on the Path to the Paris Agreement;Nisbet;Rev. Geophys.,2020 4. Seinfeld, J.H., and Pandis, S.N. (2016). Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. [3rd ed.]. 5. Approaches to Measuring Fluxes of Methane and Nitrous Oxide between Landscapes and the Atmosphere;Denmead;Plant Soil,2008
|
|