Methane emission rate estimate using airborne measurement at offshore oil platforms in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Methane (CH 4 ) measurements are needed to better understand emissions from oil and gas sources. While many CH 4 measurement studies have been done in Canada, they have not yet targeted offshore production from which low emission intensities are reported by industry. For this study, a Twin Otter aircraft was equipped with a Picarro 2210-i gas analyzer and an Aventech wind measurement system (AIMMs_30) to measure CH 4 emissions from three oil production facilities in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. Each facility was visited three times to account for daily variability. Measured concentrations were used to estimate emission rates and production-weighted intensities using two different methods, Top-down Emission Rate Retrieval Algorithm (TERRA), a mass conservation technique developed by Environment and Climate Change Canada, and a Gaussian Dispersion method (GD). Overall, TERRA mass balance-derived emission rates from our measurements were 2,890 ± 3,027 m 3 CH 4 day − 1 (GD = 7,721 m 3 CH 4 day − 1 ), 3,738 ± 7,199 m 3 CH 4 day − 1 (GD = 13,131 m 3 CH 4 day − 1 ) and 7,975 ± 4,453 m 3 CH 4 day − 1 (GD = 7,242 m 3 CH 4 day − 1 ), respectively for SeaRose, Hibernia and Hebron. Based on results from both TERRA and Gaussian dispersion the weighted average was (considering number of samples in each method) 5,000 m 3 CH 4 day − 1 (3.35 tonnes CH 4 day − 1 ), which is comparable to the federally reported estimate of 8,037 m 3 CH 4 day − 1 of federal estimates, reported in 2019. Production-weighted methane intensities calculated using measured emission rates and reported oil production show that Canadian offshore production ranges from 0.4–2.2 MJ emitted/MJ produced, making it among the least methane-intensive oil produced in Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".