Johnson Derek, Clark Nigel, Heltzel Robert, Darzi Mahdi, Footer Tracey L, Herndon Scott, Thoma Eben D
West Virginia University, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, PO Box 6106, Morgantown, WV, 26506, United States.
Eastern Research Group, Inc., 601 Keystone Park Drive, Suite 700, Morrisville, NC, 27560, United States.
Atmos Environ X. 2022 Dec;16:1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.aeaoa.2022.100193.
A measurement campaign characterized methane and other emissions from 15 natural gas production sites. Sites were surveyed using optical gas imaging (OGI) cameras to identify fugitive and vented emissions, with the methane mass emission rate quantified using a full flow sampler. We present storage tank emissions in context of all site emissions, followed by a detailed account of the former. In total, 224 well pad emission sources at 15 sites were quantified yielding a total emission rate of 57.5 ± 2.89 kg/hr for all sites. Site specific emissions ranged from 0.4 to 10.5 kg/hr with arithmetic and geometric means of 3.8 and 2.2 kg/hr, respectively. The two largest categories of emissions by mass were pneumatic devices (35 kg/hr or ~61% of total) and tanks (14.3 kg/hr or ~25% of total). Produced water and condensate tanks at all sites employed emissions control devices. Nevertheless, tanks may still lose gas via component leaks as observed in this study. The total number of tanks at all sites was 153. One site experienced a major malfunction and direct tank measurements were not conducted due to safety concerns and may have represented a super-emitter as found in other studies. The remaining sites had 143 tanks, which accounted for 42 emissions sources. Leaks on controlled tanks were associated with ERVs, PRVs, and thief hatches. Since measurements represented snapshots-in-time and could only be compared with modeled tank emission data, it was difficult to assess real capture efficiencies accurately. Our estimates suggest that capture efficiency ranged from 63 to 92% for controlled tanks.
一次测量活动对15个天然气生产场地的甲烷及其他排放物进行了特征分析。使用光学气体成像(OGI)摄像机对场地进行勘测,以识别逃逸排放和放空排放,并使用全流量采样器对甲烷质量排放率进行量化。我们在所有场地排放的背景下呈现储罐排放情况,随后对前者进行详细说明。总共对15个场地的224个井场排放源进行了量化,所有场地的总排放率为57.5±2.89千克/小时。各场地特定排放范围为0.4至10.5千克/小时,算术平均值和几何平均值分别为3.8千克/小时和2.2千克/小时。按质量计算,最大的两类排放源是气动装置(35千克/小时,约占总量的61%)和储罐(14.3千克/小时,约占总量的25%)。所有场地的采出水和凝析油罐均采用了排放控制装置。尽管如此,如本研究中所观察到的,储罐仍可能因部件泄漏而损失气体。所有场地的储罐总数为153个。一个场地发生了重大故障,出于安全考虑未进行储罐直接测量,该场地可能如其他研究中所发现的那样是一个超级排放源。其余场地有143个储罐,占42个排放源。受控储罐的泄漏与紧急释放阀(ERV)、压力释放阀(PRV)和采样口有关。由于测量代表的是瞬时情况,且只能与模拟的储罐排放数据进行比较,因此难以准确评估实际的捕获效率。我们的估计表明,受控储罐的捕获效率在63%至92%之间。