MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382541387 · doi:10.1080/14693062.2023.2229295

Assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of methane regulations in British Columbia, Canada

2023· article· en· W4382541387 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marie France Johnson, Martin Lavoie, Katlyn MacKay, Mallory Long, David Risk

Bibliographic record

VenueClimate Policy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasMethaneBaseline (sea)Work (physics)BusinessEnvironmental scienceCommissionFossil fuelLeakEnvironmental economicsFinanceWaste managementEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many jurisdictions are introducing methane reduction policy as part of climate commitments, with a focus on the oil and gas supply chain. Periodic comprehensive leak detection and repair (LDAR) surveys or screening leak detection and repair surveys are required in the British Columbia, Canada oil and gas sector to reduce unintentional methane emissions caused by leaking infrastructure. By finding and fixing leaks quickly, emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, are reduced. In this study, we explored how effectively British Columbia’s regulation, deposited in December 2018, made progress towards meeting the policy objective of a 45% decrease in methane emissions by 2025 from a 2014 baseline. We evaluated the performance and cost effectiveness of regulatory-prescribed LDAR programmes using data collected by the BC Energy Regulator (formerly BC Oil and Gas Commission) for the 2020 year, and survey cost data submitted by service providers. We found that the new regulation was only partially effective due to low compliance rates. We also observed heavy tail leak distributions in LDAR data collected by service companies, but comparatively narrow leak distributions in data from permit holders who internalized LDAR operations, suggesting a difference in work practice or the use of equipment. Comprehensive leak detection surveys were found to be more cost efficient ($23 CAD/tCO2e reduced) compared to screening surveys ($1,787 CAD/tCO2e reduced) because more methane leaks are detected in comprehensive assessments. To meet methane reduction targets, we recommend that: 1) jurisdictions work to improve compliance rates by introducing minimum administrative penalties specific to noncompliance; 2) that all future LDAR surveys are instrument-based; 3) limiting turnaround time limits so that repairs are not delayed indefinitely; and 4) that LDAR completed internally by permit holders undergo independent third-party verification.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClimate PolicySame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207