MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392915727 · doi:10.5194/amt-17-1599-2024

First validation of high-resolution satellite-derived methane emissions from an active gas leak in the UK

2024· article· en· W4392915727 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Dowd, Alistair J. Manning, Bryn Orth-Lashley, Marianne Girard, James L. France, Rebecca Fisher, David Lowry, Mathias Lanoisellé, Joseph Pitt, Kieran Stanley, Simon O’Doherty, Dickon Young, G. Thistlethwaite, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Emanuel Gloor, Chris Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric measurement techniques · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsGHGSat (Canada)
FundersNational Centre for Earth ObservationNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKDepartment for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, UK Government
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasSatelliteMethaneAtmospheric sciencesAtmospheric dispersion modelingAtmospheric methaneFlux (metallurgy)Natural gasEmission inventoryMeteorologyAir pollutionGeologyAir quality indexGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Atmospheric methane (CH4) is the second-most-important anthropogenic greenhouse gas and has a 20-year global warming potential 82 times greater than carbon dioxide (CO2). Anthropogenic sources account for ∼ 60 % of global CH4 emissions, of which 20 % come from oil and gas exploration, production and distribution. High-resolution satellite-based imaging spectrometers are becoming important tools for detecting and monitoring CH4 point source emissions, aiding mitigation. However, validation of these satellite measurements, such as those from the commercial GHGSat satellite constellation, has so far not been documented for active leaks. Here we present the monitoring and quantification, by GHGSat's satellites, of the CH4 emissions from an active gas leak from a downstream natural gas distribution pipeline near Cheltenham, UK, in the spring and summer of 2023 and provide the first validation of the satellite-derived emission estimates using surface-based mobile greenhouse gas surveys. We also use a Lagrangian transport model, the UK Met Office's Numerical Atmospheric-dispersion Modelling Environment (NAME), to estimate the flux from both satellite- and ground-based observation methods and assess the leak's contribution to observed concentrations at a local tall tower site (30 km away). We find GHGSat's emission estimates to be in broad agreement with those made from the in situ measurements. During the study period (March–June 2023) GHGSat's emission estimates are 236–1357 kg CH4 h−1, whereas the mobile surface measurements are 634–846 kg CH4 h−1. The large variability is likely down to variations in flow through the pipe and engineering works across the 11-week period. Modelled flux estimates in NAME are 181–1243 kg CH4 h−1, which are lower than the satellite- and mobile-survey-derived fluxes but are within the uncertainty. After detecting the leak in March 2023, the local utility company was contacted, and the leak was fixed by mid-June 2023. Our results demonstrate that GHGSat's observations can produce flux estimates that broadly agree with surface-based mobile measurements. Validating the accuracy of the information provided by targeted, high-resolution satellite monitoring shows how it can play an important role in identifying emission sources, including unplanned fugitive releases that are inherently challenging to identify, track, and estimate their impact and duration. Rapid, widespread access to such data to inform local action to address fugitive emission sources across the oil and gas supply chain could play a significant role in reducing anthropogenic contributions to climate change.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric measurement techniquesSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207