Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas with a 25 times higher 100-year warming potential than carbon dioxide and is a target for mitigation to achieve climate goals. To control and curb methane emissions, estimates are required from the sources and sectors which are typically generated using bottom-up methods. However, recent studies have shown that national and international bottom-up approaches can significantly underestimate emissions. In this study, we present three bottom-up approaches used to estimate methane emissions from all emission sectors in the Denver-Julesburg basin, CO, USA. Our data show emissions generated from all three methods are lower than historic measurements. A Tier 1/2 approach using IPCC emission factors estimated 2022 methane emissions of 358 Gg (0.8% of produced methane lost by the energy sector), while a Tier 3 EPA-based approach estimated emissions of 269 Gg (0.2%). Using emission factors informed by contemporary and region-specific measurement studies, emissions of 212 Gg (0.2%) were calculated. The largest difference in emissions estimates were a result of using the Mechanistic Air Emissions Simulator (MAES) for the production and transport of oil and gas in the DJ basin. The MAES accounts for changes to regulatory practice in the DJ basin, which include comprehensive requirements for compressors, pneumatics, equipment leaks, and fugitive emissions, which were implemented to reduce emissions starting in 2014. The measurement revealed that normalized gas loss is predicted to have been reduced by a factor of 20 when compared to 10-year-old normalization loss measurements and a factor of 10 less than a nearby oil and production area (Delaware basin, TX); however, we suggest that more measurements should be made to ensure that the long-tail emission distribution has been captured by the modeling. This study suggests that regulations implemented by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment could have reduced emissions by a factor of 20, but contemporary regional measurements should be made to ensure these bottom-up calculations are realistic.

Quantifying methane emissions is essential for meeting near-term climate goals and is typically carried out using methane concentrations measured downwind of the source. One major source of methane that is important to observe and promptly remediate is fugitive emissions from oil and gas production sites but installing methane sensors at the thousands of sites within a production basin is expensive. In recent years, relatively inexpensive metal oxide sensors have been used to measure methane concentrations at production sites. Current methods used to calibrate metal oxide sensors have been shown to have significant shortcomings, resulting in limited confidence in methane concentrations generated by these sensors. To address this, we investigate using machine learning (ML) to generate a model that converts metal oxide sensor output to methane mixing ratios. To generate test data, two metal oxide sensors, TGS2600 and TGS2611, were collocated with a trace methane analyzer downwind of controlled methane releases. Over the duration of the measurements, the trace gas analyzer’s average methane mixing ratio was 2.40 ppm with a maximum of 147.6 ppm. The average calculated methane mixing ratios for the TGS2600 and TGS2611 using the ML algorithm were 2.42 ppm and 2.40 ppm, with maximum values of 117.5 ppm and 106.3 ppm, respectively. A comparison of histograms generated using the analyzer and metal oxide sensors mixing ratios shows overlap coefficients of 0.95 and 0.94 for the TGS2600 and TGS2611, respectively. Overall, our results showed there was a good agreement between the ML-derived metal oxide sensors’ mixing ratios and those generated using the more accurate trace gas analyzer. This suggests that the response of lower-cost sensors calibrated using ML could be used to generate mixing ratios with precision and accuracy comparable to higher priced trace methane analyzers. This would improve confidence in low-cost sensors’ response, reduce the cost of sensor deployment, and allow for timely and accurate tracking of methane emissions.

The dependable reporting of methane (CH₄) emissions from point sources, such as fugitive leaks from oil and gas infrastructure, is important for profit maximization (retaining more hydrocarbons), evaluating climate impacts, assessing CH₄ fees for regulatory programs, and validating CH₄ intensity in differentiated gas programs. Currently, there are disagreements between emissions reported by different quantification techniques for the same sources. It has been suggested that downwind CH₄ quantification methods using CH₄ measurements on the fence line of production facilities could be used to generate emission estimates from oil and gas operations at the site level, but it is currently unclear how accurate the quantified emissions are. To investigate the accuracy of downwind methods, this study uses fence-line simulated data collected during controlled-release experiments as input for a non-standard closed-path eddy covariance (EC), the Gaussian plume inverse model (GPIM), and the backward Lagrangian stochastic (bLs) model in a range of atmospheric conditions. This study's EC attempt was unsuccessful due to data collection and instrumentation issues, resulting in invalid results characterized by underestimated emissions, large negative fluxes, and cospectra/ogives that deviated from their ideal shapes. Consequently, the EC results could not be compared with the GPIM and bLS model. The bLs model demonstrated the highest accuracy for single-release single-point emissions, though it exhibited greater uncertainty than GPIM under multi-release conditions. Across the GPIM and bLs model, the most reliable quantification was achieved with 15 min averaging and a narrow 5° wind sector range. Although EC was limited in this context, future studies should consider employing a standard EC system and further optimizing GPIM and bLs approaches – particularly for complex multi-source scenarios – to enhance quantification accuracy and reduce uncertainty.

The quantification of methane concentrations in air is essential for the quantification of methane emissions, which in turn is necessary to determine absolute emissions and the efficacy of emission mitigation strategies. These are essential if countries are to meet climate goals. Large-scale deployment of methane analyzers across millions of emission sites is prohibitively expensive, and lower-cost instrumentation has been recently developed as an alternative. Currently, it is unclear how cheaper instrumentation will affect measurement resolution or accuracy. To test this, the Wireless Autonomous Transportable Methane Emission Reporting System (WATCH₄ERS) has been developed, comprising four commercially available sensing technologies: metal oxide (MOx,), Non-dispersion Infrared (NDIR), integrated infrared (INIR), and tunable diode laser absorption spectrometer (TDLAS). WATCHERS is the accumulated knowledge of several long-term methane measurement projects at Colorado State University’s Methane Emission Technology Evaluation Center (METEC), and this study describes the integration of these sensors into a single unit and reports initial instrument response to calibration procedures and controlled release experiments. Specifically, this paper aims to describe the development of the WATCH₄ERS unit, report initial sensor responses, and describe future research goals. Meanwhile, future work will use data gathered by multiple WATCH₄ERS units to 1. better understand the cost–benefit balance of methane sensors, and 2. identify how decreasing instrumentation costs could increase deployment coverage and therefore inform large-scale methane monitoring strategies. Both calibration and response experiments indicate the INIR has little practical use for measuring methane concentrations less than 500 ppm. The MOx sensor is shown to have a logarithmic response to methane concentration change between background and 600 ppm but it is strongly suggested that passively sampling MOx sensors cannot respond fast enough to report concentrations that change in a sub-minute time frame. The NDIR sensor reported a linear change to methane concentration between background and 600 ppm, although there was a noticeable lag in reporting changing concentration, especially at higher values, and individual peaks could be observed throughout the experiment even when the plumes were released 5 s apart. The TDLAS sensor reported all changes in concentration but remains prohibitively expensive. Our findings suggest that each sensor technology could be optimized by either operational design or deployment location to quantify methane emissions. The WATCH₄ERS units will be deployed in real-world environments to investigate the utility of each in the future.

Quantifying and controlling fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas facilities remains essential for addressing climate goals, but the costs associated with monitoring millions of production sites remain prohibitively expensive. Current thinking, supported by measurement and simple dispersion modelling, assumes single-digit parts-per-million instrumentation is required. To investigate instrument response, the inlets of three trace-methane (sub-ppm) analyzers were collocated on a facility designed to release gas of known composition at known flow rates between 0.4 and 5.2 kg CH₄ h⁻¹ from simulated oil and gas infrastructure. Methane mixing ratios were measured by each instrument at 1 Hertz resolution over nine hours. While mixing ratios reported by a cavity ring-down spectrometer (CRDS)-based instrument were on average 10.0 ppm (range 1.8 to 83 ppm), a mid-infrared laser absorption spectroscopy (MIRA)-based instrument reported short-lived mixing ratios far larger than expected (range 1.8 to 779 ppm) with a similar nine-hour average to the CRDS (10.1 ppm). We suggest the peaks detected by the MIRA are likely caused by a micrometeorological phenomenon, where vortex shedding has resulted in heterogeneous methane plumes which only the MIRA can observe. Further analysis suggests an instrument like the MIRA (an optical-cavity-based instrument with cavity size ≤10 cm³ measuring at ≥2 Hz with air flow rates in the order of ≤0.3 slpm at distances of ≤20 m from the source) but with a higher detection limit (25 ppm) could detect enough of the high-concentration events to generate representative 20 min-average methane mixing ratios. Even though development of a lower-cost, high-precision, high-accuracy instrument with a 25 ppm detection threshold remains a significant problem, this has implications for the use of instrumentation with higher detection thresholds, resulting in the reduction in cost to measure methane emissions and providing a mechanism for the widespread deployment of effective leak detection and repair programs for all oil and gas infrastructure.

The accurate reporting of methane (CH₄) emissions from point sources, such as fugitive leaks from oil and gas infrastructure, is important for evaluating climate change impacts, assessing CH₄ fees for regulatory programs, and validating methane intensity in differentiated gas programs. Currently, there are disagreements between emissions reported by different quantification techniques for the same sources. It has been suggested that downwind CH₄ quantification methods using CH₄ measurements on the fence-line of production facilities could be used to generate emission estimates from oil and gas operations at the site level, but it is currently unclear how accurate the quantified emissions are. To investigate model accuracy, this study uses fence-line simulated data collected during controlled release experiments as input for eddy covariance, aerodynamic flux gradient and the Gaussian plume inverse methods in a range of atmospheric conditions. The results show that both the eddy covariance and aerodynamic flux gradient methods underestimated emissions in all experiments. Although calculated emissions had significant uncertainty, the Gaussian plume inversion method performed better. The uncertainty was found to have no significant correlation with most measurement variables (i.e. downwind measurement distance, wind speed, atmospheric stability, or emission height), which indicates that the Gaussian method can randomly either underestimate or overestimate emissions. For eddy covariance, downwind measurement distance and percent error had negative correlation indicating that far away emissions sources were likely underestimated or be undetected. The study concludes that using fence-line measurement data as input to eddy covariance, aerodynamic flux gradient or Gaussian plume inverse method to quantify CH₄ emissions from an oil and gas production site is unlikely to generate representative emission estimates.