MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4360608363 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2681923/v1

Global observational coverage of oil and gas methane sources with TROPOMI

2023· preprint· en· W4360608363 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mozhou Gao, Zhenyu Xing, Coleman Vollrath, Chris H. Hugenholtz, Thomas E. Barchyn

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSatelliteZenithLatitudeSolar zenith angleAtmospheric sciencesRemote sensingMeteorologyMixing ratioClimatologyGeographyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Satellite observations have been widely used to measure methane (CH4) emissions from the oil and gas (O&G) industry, particularly by revealing previously undocumented, very large emission events and basin-level emission estimates. However, the performance of retrieving CH4 mixing ratios from the short-wave infrared band of passive remote sensing instruments is spatially and temporally varied due to sunlight, earth surface properties, and atmospheric conditions. Thus, the reliability of satellites is also varied. To assess the reliability of passive remote sensing satellite instruments for routine monitoring of CH4 emissions, we investigated the global observational coverage of the TROPOMI (onboard the Sentinel-5P), which has been providing a daily global CH4 mixing ratio since 2017. A 0.1° x 0.1° gridded global map that indicates the average number of days with valid observations from TROPOMI from 2019 to 2021 was generated by following the measurement retrieval quality-assurance threshold (≥0.5). We found TROPOMI had promising observational coverage over dryland regions (maximum: 58.6%) but limited coverage over tropical regions and high latitudes (minimum: 0%). Cloud cover and solar zenith angle were the primary factors at high latitudes, while aerosol optical thickness was the primary factor over dryland regions. To further assess the country-level reliability of satellites for detecting and quantifying CH4 emissions from the O&G sector, we extracted the average annual TROPOMI observational coverage (TOC) over O&G infrastructure for 160 countries. Seven of the top-10 O&G-producing countries had an average annual TOC < 10% (< 36 days per year), which indicates the limited ability to routinely identify large emissions events, track their duration, and quantify emissions rates using inverse modelling. We further assessed the potential performance of the latter by combining TOC and the uncertainties from the global O&G inventory. Results inverse modeling with CH4 measurements from TROPOMI may only be accurate for quantifying emissions from O&G sectors in countries located in dryland and mid-latitude regions. Conclusively, the current passive-sensing satellites have low potential for frequent monitoring of large methane emissions from O&G sectors in countries located in tropical and high latitudes (e.g., Canada, Russia, Brazil, Norway, and Venezuela). Therefore, alternative methods should be considered for routine emissions monitoring in the corresponding regions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→