4.4 Article

Gathering pipeline methane emissions in Fayetteville shale pipelines and scoping guidelines for future pipeline measurement campaigns

期刊

出版社

UNIV CALIFORNIA PRESS
DOI: 10.1525/elementa.258

关键词

methane; natural gas; emissions; pipelines; greenhouse gas

资金

  1. RPSEA/NETL [12122-95/DE-AC26-07NT42677]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gathering pipelines, which transport gas from well pads to downstream processing, are a sector of the natural gas supply chain for which little measured methane emissions data are available. This study-performed leak detection and measurement on 96 km of gathering pipeline and the associated 56 pigging facilities and 39 block valves. The study found one underground leak accounting for 83% (4.0 kg CH4/hr) of total measured emissions. Methane emissions for the 4684 km of gathering pipeline in the study area were estimated at 402 kg CH4/hr [95 to 1065 kg CH4/hr, 95% CI], or 1% [0.2% to 2.6%] of all methane emissions measured during a prior aircraft study of the same area. Emissions estimated by this study fall within the uncertainty range of emissions estimated using emission factors from EPA's 2015 Greenhouse Inventory and study activity estimates. While EPA's current inventory is based upon emission factors from distribution mains measured in the 1990s, this study indicates that using emission factors from more recent distribution studies could significantly underestimate emissions from gathering pipelines. To guide broader studies of pipeline emissions, we also estimate the fraction of the pipeline length within a basin that must be measured to constrain uncertainty of pipeline emissions estimates to within 1% of total basin emissions. The study provides both substantial insight into the mix of emission sources and guidance for future gathering pipeline studies, but since measurements were made in a single basin, the results are not sufficiently representative to provide methane emission factors at the regional or national level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据