MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386608536 · doi:10.1525/elementa.2023.00053

Methane venting from uncontrolled production storage tanks at conventional oil wells—Temporal variability, root causes, and implications for measurement

2023· article· en· W4386608536 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Simon A. Festa-Bianchet, Zachary R. Milani, Matthew R. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueElementa Science of the Anthropocene · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceMethaneVolume (thermodynamics)MetreFossil fuelStorage tankHydrology (agriculture)Upstream (networking)Volumetric flow rateFugitive emissionsPetroleum engineeringGreenhouse gasEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementEngineeringGeologyChemistryGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uncontrolled oil production storage tanks are important but poorly understood sources of methane (CH4) emissions in the upstream oil and gas sector. This study reports and analyzes directly measured, temporally varying CH4 emission rates, total gas vent rates, and vent gas CH4 fractions from storage tanks at eight active upstream oil production sites in Alberta, Canada. Using a built-for-purpose optical mass flux meter (VentX) supplemented by an ultrasonic flow meter and quantitative optical gas imaging camera where possible, mean vent rates (whole gas) among tanks in the study ranged from 37 to 598 m3/d; however, at some individual tanks, instantaneous flow rates could vary significantly from 0 to over 4,000 m3/d for minutes at a time, while unsteady CH4 volume fractions varied by up to 41% absolute. Root cause analysis revealed the limits of estimating vented emissions from oil production volumes using an assumed gas–oil ratio, especially in cases where produced gas from wells fully or partially bypasses separators. The analysis of the acquired data also demonstrated how 1-h duration vent measurements recommended in some regulations are insufficient to reliably estimate emissions from unsteady tanks. These two factors are the likely reason for significantly underreported vent rates in the present sample and are thought to be a key cause of the mismeasurement/underestimation of tank venting that has driven persistent gaps between bottom-up inventories and top-down measurements. Finally, detailed statistical analyses were completed to suggest minimum sampling durations and instrumentation requirements for direct measurements of tanks and minimum sample sizes for discrete (“snapshot”) surveys of both individual tanks and multitank surveys under different scenarios. Results show that caution is warranted when interpreting snapshot measurements of individual tanks, but aggregate emissions of multiple tanks should be accurately measurable with readily achievable sample sizes. These results are expected to be especially valuable to ongoing efforts seeking to develop robust protocols for gas certification and measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of CH4 emissions in the oil and gas sector.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElementa Science of the AnthropoceneSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207