Constructing a measurement-based spatially explicit inventory of US oil and gas methane emissions (2021)
-
Published:2024-09-10
Issue:9
Volume:16
Page:3973-3991
-
ISSN:1866-3516
-
Container-title:Earth System Science Data
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Earth Syst. Sci. Data
Author:
Omara MarkORCID, Himmelberger Anthony, MacKay Katlyn, Williams James P.ORCID, Benmergui Joshua, Sargent Maryann, Wofsy Steven C., Gautam Ritesh
Abstract
Abstract. Accurate and comprehensive quantification of oil and gas methane emissions is pivotal in informing effective methane mitigation policies while also supporting the assessment and tracking of progress towards emissions reduction targets set by governments and industry. While national bottom-up source-level inventories are useful for understanding the sources of methane emissions, they are often unrepresentative across spatial scales, and their reliance on generic emission factors produces underestimations when compared with measurement-based inventories. Here, we compile and analyze previously reported ground-based facility-level methane emissions measurements (n=1540) in the major US oil- and gas-producing basins and develop representative methane emission profiles for key facility categories in the US oil and gas supply chain, including well sites, natural-gas compressor stations, processing plants, crude-oil refineries, and pipelines. We then integrate these emissions data with comprehensive spatial data on national oil and gas activity to estimate each facility's mean total methane emissions and uncertainties for the year 2021, from which we develop a mean estimate of annual national methane emissions resolved at 0.1° × 0.1° spatial scales (∼ 10 km × 10 km). From this measurement-based methane emissions inventory (EI-ME), we estimate total US national oil and gas methane emissions of approximately 16 Tg (95 % confidence interval of 14–18 Tg) in 2021, which is ∼ 2 times greater than the EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Our estimate represents a mean gas-production-normalized methane loss rate of 2.6 %, consistent with recent satellite-based estimates. We find significant variability in both the magnitude and spatial distribution of basin-level methane emissions, ranging from production-normalized methane loss rates of < 1 % in the gas-dominant Appalachian and Haynesville regions to > 3 %–6 % in oil-dominant basins, including the Permian, Bakken, and the Uinta. Additionally, we present and compare novel comprehensive wide-area airborne remote-sensing data and results for total area methane emissions and the relative contributions of diffuse and concentrated methane point sources as quantified using MethaneAIR in 2021. The MethaneAIR assessment showed reasonable agreement with independent regional methane quantification results in sub-regions of the Permian and Uinta basins and indicated that diffuse area sources accounted for the majority of the total oil and gas emissions in these two regions. Our assessment offers key insights into plausible underlying drivers of basin-to-basin variabilities in oil and gas methane emissions, emphasizing the importance of integrating measurement-based data when developing high-resolution spatially explicit methane inventories in support of accurate methane assessment, attribution, and mitigation. The high-resolution spatially explicit EI-ME inventory is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10734299 (Omara, 2024).
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference59 articles.
1. Alvarez, R. A., Zavala-Araiza, D., Lyon, D. R., Allen, D. T., Barkley, Z. R., Brandt, A. R., Davis, K. J., Herndon, S. C.<span id="page3989"/>, Jacob, D. J., Karion, A., Kort, E. A., Lamb, B. K., Lauvaux, T., Maasakkers, J. D., Marchese, A. J., Omara, M., Pacala, S. W., Peischl, J., Robinson, A. L., Shepson, P. B., Sweeney, C., Townsend-Small, A., Wofsy, S. C., and Hamburg, S. P.: Assessment of Methane Emissions from the U.S. Oil and Gas Supply Chain, Science, 361, 186–188, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7204, 2018. 2. Brantley, H. L., Thoma, E. D., Squier, W. C., Guven, B. B., and Lyon, D.: Assessment of Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas Production Pads Using Mobile Measurements, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 14508–14515, https://doi.org/10.1021/es503070q, 2014. 3. Caulton, D. R., Lu, J. M., Lane, H. M., Buchholz, B., Fitts, J. P., Golston, L. M., Guo, X., Li, Q., McSpiritt, J., Pan, D., Wendt, L., Bou-Zeid, E., and Zondlo, M. A.: Importance of Superemitter Natural Gas Well Pads in the Marcellus Shale, Environ. Sci. Technol., 53, 4747–4754, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06965, 2019. 4. Chan Miller, C., Roche, S., Wilzewski, J. S., Liu, X., Chance, K., Souri, A. H., Conway, E., Luo, B., Samra, J., Hawthorne, J., Sun, K., Staebell, C., Chulakadabba, A., Sargent, M., Benmergui, J. S., Franklin, J. E., Daube, B. C., Li, Y., Laughner, J. L., Baier, B. C., Gautam, R., Omara, M., and Wofsy, S. C.: Methane retrieval from MethaneAIR using the CO2 Proxy Approach: A demonstration for the upcoming MethaneSAT mission, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1962, 2023. 5. Chulakadabba, A., Sargent, M., Lauvaux, T., Benmergui, J. S., Franklin, J. E., Chan Miller, C., Wilzewski, J. S., Roche, S., Conway, E., Souri, A. H., Sun, K., Luo, B., Hawthrone, J., Samra, J., Daube, B. C., Liu, X., Chance, K., Li, Y., Gautam, R., Omara, M., Rutherford, J. S., Sherwin, E. D., Brandt, A., and Wofsy, S. C.: Methane point source quantification using MethaneAIR: a new airborne imaging spectrometer, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 5771–5785, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-5771-2023, 2023.
|
|