z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Can new mobile technologies enable fugitive methane reductions from the oil and gas industry?
Author(s) -
T. A. Fox,
Chris H. Hugenholtz,
Thomas E. Barchyn,
Tyler Gough,
Mozhou Gao,
Marshall Staples
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
environmental research letters
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.37
H-Index - 124
ISSN - 1748-9326
DOI - 10.1088/1748-9326/ac0565
Subject(s) - fugitive emissions , environmental science , methane , computer science , greenhouse gas , triage , range (aeronautics) , reliability engineering , engineering , medicine , emergency medicine , ecology , biology , aerospace engineering
New mobile platforms such as vehicles, drones, aircraft, and satellites have emerged to help identify and reduce fugitive methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. When deployed as part of leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs, most of these technologies use multi-visit LDAR (MVL), which consists of four steps: (a) rapidly screen all facilities, (b) triage by emission rate, (c) follow-up with close-range methods at the highest-emitting sites, and (d) conduct repairs. The proposed value of MVL is to identify large leaks soon after they arise. Whether MVL offers an improvement over traditional single-visit LDAR (SVL), which relies on undirected close-range surveys, remains poorly understood. We use the Leak Detection and Repair Simulator (LDAR-Sim) to examine the performance and cost-effectiveness of MVL relative to SVL. Results suggest that facility-scale MVL programs can achieve fugitive emission reductions equivalent to SVL, but that improved cost-effectiveness is not guaranteed. Under a best-case scenario, we find that screening must cost < USD 100 per site for MVL to achieve 30% cost reductions relative to SVL. In scenarios with non-target vented emissions and screening quantification uncertainty, triaging errors force excessive close-range follow-up to achieve emissions reduction equivalence. The viability of MVL as a cost-effective alternative to SVL for reducing fugitive methane emissions hinges on accurate triaging after the screening phase.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here