New Technologies Can Cost Effectively Reduce Oil and Gas Methane Emissions, but Policies Will Require Careful Design to Establish Mitigation Equivalence

Abstract

Reducing methane emissions from oil and gas systems is a central component of US and international climate policy. Leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs using optical gas imaging (OGI)-based surveys are routinely used to mitigate fugitive emissions or leaks. Recently, new technologies and platforms such as planes, drones, and satellites promise more cost-effective mitigation than existing approaches. To be approved for use in LDAR programs, new technologies must demonstrate emissions mitigation equivalent to existing approaches. In this work, we use the FEAST modeling tool to (a) identify cost vs mitigation trade-offs that arise from using new technologies and (b) provide a framework for effective design of alternative LDAR programs. We identify several critical insights. First, LDAR programs can trade sensitivity for speed without sacrificing mitigation outcomes. Second, low sensitivity or high detection threshold technologies have an effective upper bound on achievable mitigation that is independent of the survey frequency. Third, the cost effectiveness of tiered LDAR programs using site-level detection technologies depends on their ability to distinguish leaks from routine venting. Finally, "technology equivalence" based on mitigation outcomes differs across basins and should be evaluated independently. The FEAST model will enable operators and regulators to systematically evaluate new technologies in nextgeneration LDAR programs.

Robust Probabilities of Detection and Quantification Uncertainty for Aerial Methane Detection: Examples for Three Airborne Technologies

“…In recent years, a range of potential detection and/or measurement technologies have been explored with promise to significantly reduce time and labour costs to find and measure sources of methane, especially for applications in the oil and gas sector (Bell et al, 2020;Fox et al, 2019;Kemp and Ravikumar, 2021;Rashid et al, 2020;Ravikumar et al, 2019;Schwietzke et al, 2019). Of particular interest are airplane-mounted technologies, which are increasingly used in large-scale field campaigns with success (Chen et al, 2022;Cusworth et al, 2021;Tyner and Johnson, 2021) and gaining acceptance in alternate fugitive emissions management programs (Alt-FEMP) replacing or supplementing optical gas imaging (OGI) surveys using hand-held infrared cameras (AER, 2021;Bridger Photonics, 2022;InvestableUniverse, 2021;Kairos Aerospace, 2022a).…”

Tiered Leak Detection and Repair Programs at Oil and Gas Production Facilities

“…Here, two different sources of emissions based on field data were combined to have a representative emission distribution of the Permian basin. The first dataset came from studies using close range inspections (OGI cameras or method 21) from Allen et al, 7 Bell et al 21 and Kuo et al, 22 as described by Kemp et al 13 with the addition of data from Pacsi et al 23 These studies were chosen as they have information of the equipment where each emission originated from, which was used to randomly assign emissions in this study from that equipment category, for example a component at a separator will sample from the emissions originating from separators from the combined datasets. The second dataset was from Permian basin flyovers from Bridger Photonics, whose distribution is shown in Figure 1 and was also disaggregated by equipment.…”

“…14 Bridger Photonics uses a continuous wave LiDAR measurements and has been described and evaluated by Johnson et al 24 and Conrad et al 25 From this dataset, only the emissions where operators confirmed that the source was non-routine, after following-up, were included in the distribution. Sensitivity analysis S0 was performed by adding to the distribution of close range inspections data from ERG 26 and Ravikumar et al, 27 as described by Kemp et al, 13 and assigning emissions randomly from a combined distribution, independently of which equipment the data came from, except for tanks and flares where the data comes from the flyover distribution.…”

“…With these models it has been demonstrated that novel technologies can achieve at least the same reduction as two or four times a year OGI, and that OGI inspections are still needed in follow-ups from the novel technologies to find the smallest leaks. 13 However studies that employ these models have not evaluated combinations of multiple technologies nor continuous monitors. In addition, these studies have simulated facilities with the same equipment and components, while the types of equipment can vary depending on their vintage and throughput.…”

Single-blind validation of space-based point-source methane emissions detection and quantification

“…Regression results for stages 1 and 2 based on the fixed-intercept ordinary least squares regression in Eq (1)…”