Single-blind inter-comparison of methane detection technologies – results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge

Methane leakage regulations in the US and Canada have spurred the development of new technologies that promise faster and cheaper leak detection for the oil and natural gas industry. Here, we report results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge – the first independent assessment of 10 vehicle-, drone-, and plane-based mobile leak detection technologies. Using single-blind controlled release tests at two locations, we analyze the ability of mobile technologies to detect, localize, and quantify methane emissions. We find that the technologies are generally effective at detecting leaks, with 6 of the 10 technologies correctly detecting over 90% of test scenarios (true positive plus true negative rate). All technologies demonstrated pad-level localization of leaks, while 6 of the 10 technologies could assign a leak to the specific piece of equipment in at least 50% of test scenarios. All systems tested here will require secondary inspection to identify leak locations for repair; thus, mobile leak detection technologies can act as a complement, and not a substitute, for currently used optical gas imaging systems. In general, emissions quantification needs improvement as most technologies were only able to generally provide order of magnitude emissions estimates. Improvements to quantification algorithms, reducing false positive detection rates, and identifying early applications will be critical for deployment at scale. Even as this study provides the first independent verification of the performance of mobile technologies, it only represents the first step in the road to demonstrating that these technologies will provide emissions reductions that are equivalent to existing regulatory approaches.

[1]  J. Peischl,et al.  Airborne flux measurements of methane and volatile organic compounds over the Haynesville and Marcellus shale gas production regions , 2015 .

[2]  S. Solomon,et al.  Centuries of thermal sea-level rise due to anthropogenic emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  M. Omara,et al.  Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain , 2018, Science.

[4]  D. Thompson,et al.  Airborne methane remote measurements reveal heavy-tail flux distribution in Four Corners region , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  R. Jackson,et al.  Aerial Interyear Comparison and Quantification of Methane Emissions Persistence in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota, USA. , 2018, Environmental science & technology.

[6]  Adam R. Brandt,et al.  Designing better methane mitigation policies: the challenge of distributed small sources in the natural gas sector , 2017 .

[7]  L. Golston,et al.  Importance of Superemitter Natural Gas Well Pads in the Marcellus Shale. , 2019, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  S. Hamburg,et al.  Super-emitters in natural gas infrastructure are caused by abnormal process conditions , 2017, Nature Communications.

[9]  D. Shindell,et al.  Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing , 2014 .

[10]  Ivan Marić,et al.  The Joule–Thomson effect in natural gas flow-rate measurements , 2005 .

[11]  Adam R. Brandt,et al.  Comparing Natural Gas Leakage Detection Technologies Using an Open-Source "Virtual Gas Field" Simulator. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[12]  C. Hugenholtz,et al.  A review of close-range and screening technologies for mitigating fugitive methane emissions in upstream oil and gas , 2019, Environmental Research Letters.

[13]  Jingfan Wang,et al.  Are Optical Gas Imaging Technologies Effective For Methane Leak Detection? , 2017, Environmental science & technology.

[14]  Clay S. Bell,et al.  "Good versus Good Enough?" Empirical Tests of Methane Leak Detection Sensitivity of a Commercial Infrared Camera. , 2018, Environmental science & technology.

[15]  Daniel Cooley,et al.  Methane Leaks from Natural Gas Systems Follow Extreme Distributions. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[16]  Matthew R. Johnson,et al.  Comparisons of Airborne Measurements and Inventory Estimates of Methane Emissions in the Alberta Upstream Oil and Gas Sector. , 2017, Environmental science & technology.

[17]  Adam R. Brandt,et al.  Aerial Surveys of Elevated Hydrocarbon Emissions from Oil and Gas Production Sites. , 2016, Environmental science & technology.

[18]  G. Myhre,et al.  Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing , 2016 .

[19]  J. Sheng,et al.  1 Satellite observations of atmospheric methane 2 and their value for quantifying methane emissions 3 4 , 2016 .

[20]  Michael B. Frish,et al.  Natural Gas Fugitive Leak Detection Using an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle: Localization and Quantification of Emission Rate , 2018, Atmosphere.

[21]  J. Peischl,et al.  Methane emissions from the 2015 Aliso Canyon blowout in Los Angeles, CA , 2016, Science.

[22]  David John Lary,et al.  Near-Field Characterization of Methane Emission Variability from a Compressor Station Using a Model Aircraft. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[23]  Chris H. Hugenholtz,et al.  A UAV-based system for detecting natural gas leaks , 2017 .

[24]  D. Risk,et al.  Mobile measurement of methane emissions from natural gas developments in northeastern British Columbia, Canada , 2017 .

[25]  Matthew R. Johnson,et al.  A methane emissions reduction equivalence framework for alternative leak detection and repair programs , 2019, Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene.

[26]  Christian Frankenberg,et al.  Ambiguity in the causes for decadal trends in atmospheric methane and hydroxyl , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.