Detecting high-emitting methane sources in oil/gas fields using satellite observations

Abstract. Methane emissions from oil/gas fields originate from a large number of relatively small and densely clustered point sources. A small fraction of high-mode emitters can make a large contribution to the total methane emission. Here we conduct observation system simulation experiments (OSSEs) to examine the potential of recently launched or planned satellites to detect and locate these high-mode emitters through measurements of atmospheric methane columns. We simulate atmospheric methane over a generic oil/gas field (20–500 production sites of different size categories in a 50×50 km2 domain) for a 1-week period using the WRF-STILT meteorological model with 1.3×1.3 km2 horizontal resolution. The simulations consider many random realizations for the occurrence and distribution of high-mode emitters in the field by sampling bimodal probability density functions (PDFs) of emissions from individual sites. The atmospheric methane fields for each realization are observed virtually with different satellite and surface observing configurations. Column methane enhancements observed from satellites are small relative to instrument precision, even for high-mode emitters, so an inverse analysis is necessary. We compare L1 and L2 regularizations and show that L1 regularization effectively provides sparse solutions for a bimodally distributed variable and enables the retrieval of high-mode emitters. We find that the recently launched TROPOMI instrument (low Earth orbit, 7×7 km2 nadir pixels, daily return time) and the planned GeoCARB instrument (geostationary orbit, 2.7×3.0 km2 pixels, 2 times or 4 times per day return times) are successful (> 80 % detection rate, < 20 % false alarm rate) at locating high-emitting sources for fields of 20–50 emitters within the 50×50 km2 domain as long as skies are clear. They are unsuccessful for denser fields. GeoCARB does not benefit significantly from more frequent observations (4 times per day vs. 2 times per day) because of a temporal error correlation in the inversion, unless under partly cloudy conditions where more frequent observation increases the probability of clear sky. It becomes marginally successful when allowing a 5 km error tolerance for localization. A next-generation geostationary satellite instrument with 1.3×1.3 km2 pixels, hourly return time, and 1 ppb precision can successfully detect and locate the high-mode emitters for a dense field with up to 500 sites in the 50×50 km2 domain. The capabilities of TROPOMI and GeoCARB can be usefully augmented with a surface air observation network of 5–20 sites, and in turn the satellite instruments increase the detection capability that can be achieved from the surface sites alone.

[1]  J. A. Hartigan,et al.  A k-means clustering algorithm , 1979 .

[2]  R. Tibshirani Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso , 1996 .

[3]  Clive D Rodgers,et al.  Inverse Methods for Atmospheric Sounding: Theory and Practice , 2000 .

[4]  Tomaso A. Poggio,et al.  Regularization Networks and Support Vector Machines , 2000, Adv. Comput. Math..

[5]  J. F. Meirink,et al.  Assessing Methane Emissions from Global Space-Borne Observations , 2005, Science.

[6]  Merritt N. Deeter,et al.  Effects of a Spectral Surface Reflectance on Measurements of Backscattered Solar Radiation: Application to the MOPITT Methane Retrieval , 2005 .

[7]  G. Powers,et al.  A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 3 , 2008 .

[8]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent. , 2010, Journal of statistical software.

[9]  Sylvain Arlot,et al.  A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection , 2009, 0907.4728.

[10]  John C. Lin,et al.  Coupled weather research and forecasting–stochastic time-inverted lagrangian transport (WRF–STILT) model , 2010 .

[11]  P. Hansen Discrete Inverse Problems: Insight and Algorithms , 2010 .

[12]  Menghua Wang,et al.  The United States' Next Generation of Atmospheric Composition and Coastal Ecosystem Measurements: NASA's Geostationary Coastal and Air Pollution Events (GEO-CAPE) Mission , 2012 .

[13]  Lorraine A. Remer,et al.  Retrieving aerosol in a cloudy environment: aerosol product availability as a function of spatial resolution , 2012 .

[14]  James Thomas,et al.  Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  Hartmut Boesch,et al.  Carbon Monitoring Satellite (CarbonSat): assessment of atmospheric CO 2 and CH 4 retrieval errors by error parameterization , 2013 .

[16]  Peter Bergamaschi,et al.  Atmospheric CH4 in the first decade of the 21st century: Inverse modeling analysis using SCIAMACHY satellite retrievals and NOAA surface measurements , 2013 .

[17]  Christopher W. O'Dell,et al.  Performance of a geostationary mission, geoCARB, to measure CO 2 , CH 4 and CO column-averaged concentrations , 2013 .

[18]  M. Luo,et al.  Simulated retrievals for the remote sensing of CO 2 , CH 4 , CO, and H 2 O from geostationary orbit , 2015 .

[19]  Zhe Jiang,et al.  Mapping of North American methane emissions with high spatial resolution by inversion of SCIAMACHY satellite data , 2014 .

[20]  Sean Crowell,et al.  Constraining regional greenhouse gas emissions using geostationary concentration measurements: a theoretical study , 2014 .

[21]  Hartmut Boesch,et al.  Inverse modelling of CH 4 emissions for 2010–2011 using different satellite retrieval products from GOSAT and SCIAMACHY , 2014 .

[22]  Chung‐Chieh Wang On the Calculation and Correction of Equitable Threat Score for Model Quantitative Precipitation Forecasts for Small Verification Areas: The Example of Taiwan , 2014 .

[23]  John R. Worden,et al.  Spatially resolving methane emissions in California: constraints from the CalNex aircraft campaign and from present (GOSAT, TES) and future (TROPOMI, geostationary) satellite observations , 2014 .

[24]  Daniel Zavala-Araiza,et al.  Toward a Functional Definition of Methane Super-Emitters: Application to Natural Gas Production Sites. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[25]  Anthony J. Marchese,et al.  Constructing a Spatially Resolved Methane Emission Inventory for the Barnett Shale Region. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[26]  Vijay Natraj,et al.  Constraints on methane emissions in North America from future geostationary remote-sensing measurements , 2015 .

[27]  Mark S. Zahniser,et al.  Mobile Laboratory Observations of Methane Emissions in the Barnett Shale Region. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[28]  Xin Lan,et al.  Characterizing Fugitive Methane Emissions in the Barnett Shale Area Using a Mobile Laboratory. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[29]  Hartmut Boesch,et al.  Estimating global and North American methane emissions with high spatial resolution using GOSAT satellite data , 2015 .

[30]  C. Frankenberg,et al.  Quantifying lower tropospheric methane concentrations using GOSAT near-IR and TES thermal IR measurements , 2015 .

[31]  Tracy R Tsai,et al.  Measuring emissions from oil and natural gas well pads using the mobile flux plane technique. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[32]  O. Hasekamp,et al.  Geostationary Emission Explorer for Europe (G3E): mission concept and initial performance assessment , 2015 .

[33]  Igor Polonsky,et al.  Potential of a geostationary geoCARB mission to estimate surface emissions of CO 2 , CH 4 and CO in a polluted urban environment: casestudy Shanghai , 2016 .

[34]  Scot M. Miller,et al.  Atmospheric inverse modeling via sparse reconstruction , 2016 .

[35]  Scot M. Miller,et al.  Atmospheric inverse modeling via sparse reconstruction , 2016 .

[36]  Henry Buijs,et al.  Update on GOSAT TANSO-FTS performance, operations, and data products after more than 6 years in space , 2016 .

[37]  J. Sheng,et al.  Satellite observations of atmospheric methane and their value for quantifying methane emissions , 2016 .

[38]  J. Sheng,et al.  High-resolution inversion of methane emissions in the Southeast US using SEAC 4 RS aircraft observations of atmospheric methane: anthropogenic and wetland sources , 2017 .

[39]  S. Wofsy,et al.  MethaneSat: Detecting Methane Emissions in the Barnett Shale Region , 2017 .

[40]  Peter Rayner,et al.  Potential of a geostationary GeoCARB mission to estimate surface emissions of CO2, CH4 and CO in a polluted urban environment , 2017 .

[41]  Daniel J. Jacob,et al.  Modeling of Atmospheric Chemistry , 2017 .

[42]  J. Sheng,et al.  Comparative analysis of low-Earth orbit (TROPOMI) and geostationary (GeoCARB, GEO-CAPE) satellite instruments for constraining methane emissions on fine regional scales: application to the Southeast US , 2018, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.

[43]  D. Jacob,et al.  Assessing the capability of different satellite observing configurations to resolve the distribution of methane emissions at kilometer scales , 2018, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[44]  Assessing the capability of different satellite observing configurations to resolve the distribution of methane emissions at kilometer scales , 2018, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

[45]  Daniel J. Jacob,et al.  Quantifying methane point sources from fine-scale satellite observations of atmospheric methane plumes , 2018, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.

[46]  Haili Hu,et al.  Toward Global Mapping of Methane With TROPOMI: First Results and Intersatellite Comparison to GOSAT , 2018 .

[47]  Daniel Mendoza,et al.  Simulating atmospheric tracer concentrations for spatially distributed receptors: updates to the Stochastic Time-Inverted Lagrangian Transport model's R interface (STILT-R version 2) , 2018, Geoscientific Model Development.

[48]  Daniel J. Jacob,et al.  Quantifying methane point sources from fine-scale (GHGSat) satellite observations of atmospheric methane plumes , 2018 .