Comparative Performance of Gaussian Plume and Backward Lagrangian Stochastic Models for Near-Field Methane Emission Estimation Using a Single Controlled Release Experiment
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Methane (CH4) is a major component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas. Increasing atmospheric methane concentrations are attributed to emissive anthropogenic activities by an average of 13 ppb per yr since 2020 and are linked to a changing global climate. Mitigating CH4 emissions from oil and gas production sites has recently become a target to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions; however, monitoring the efficacy of mitigation strategies depends on accurate quantification of CH4 emissions at the facility-level. Near-field quantification of methane (CH4) emissions from oil and gas (O&G) facilities remains challenging due to the effects of atmospheric variability and sensor configuration on atmospheric dispersion models. This study evaluates the performance of two atmospheric dispersion models, the Gaussian plume (GP) and backward Lagrangian stochastic (bLS), by comparing calculated CH4 emissions to controlled single-point emissions between 0.4 and 5.2 kg CH4 h−1. Emissions were calculated by both models using 121 individual sets of measurements comprising five-minute averaged downwind methane mixing ratios and matching meteorological data. The comparison shows that the bLS approach achieved a higher proportion of emission estimates within a factor of two (FAC2) of the known emission rates compared to the GP approach. The emissions calculated by the bLS model also had a lower multiplicative error and reduced bias relative to GP. Other error-based metrics further confirmed the bLS model performed better, as it yielded lower RMSE and MAE than GP. Statistical analysis of the emission data shows that the lateral and vertical alignment of the source and the sensor plays a critical role in emission estimations, as measurements made closer to the plume centerline and at a distance between 40 and 80 m downwind yielded the best FAC2 agreement. High wind meander degraded the ability of both approaches to generate representative emissions, particularly with the GP approach, as it violates the modeling approach’s assumption of steady-state emissions. Data suggest emissions calculated by the bLS model are comprehensively in better agreement, but the computational demands of the modeling approach and integration into fenceline systems limit real-time applicability. While these results provide insight into model performance under controlled near-field conditions, their applicability to more complex or heterogeneous oil and gas production environments (e.g., the regions Marcellus or Unita Basins) remains limited and uncertain.