New tool calculates economic costs of methane leak detection

April 20, 2016 by Ker Than, Stanford University
Infrared footage of methane gas leak in Southern California’s Aliso Canyon neighborhood. Credit: Environmental Defense Fund

A new "virtual gas field simulator" developed by Stanford scientists aims to help companies and government agencies weigh the economic costs and benefits of different methane leak detection technologies and pick the best one for a given situation.

The tool, detailed online in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, examines the cost associated with implementing four different detection technologies and calculates the economic benefit from the sale of additional gas saved.

"This tool will help both businesses and government to compare various technologies for mitigating leakage and detecting leaks from a very common standpoint," said study coauthor Arvind Ravikumar, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in monitoring and stopping leaks at wells because of methane's potential for accelerating climate change. The primary component of natural gas, methane is a potent greenhouse gas that is up to 80 times more effective at absorbing heat than carbon dioxide.

The massive natural gas leak near Los Angeles earlier this year—which released more than 97,000 tons of methane into the air—drew national attention and prompted California Governor Jerry Brown to issue a state of emergency. Methane leaks can also pose a hazard to human safety, as demonstrated by multiple recent explosions in New York City resulting from natural gas leaks in aging pipes.

At present, companies are not required to find and repair leaky gas wells, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing federal guidelines to address the nation's emissions.

Ravikumar and his colleagues hope that their tool will help energy companies determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not a leak detection and repair program make economic sense. For instance, a company that has a very large facility might opt for a technique that is fast but less sensitive. "Right now, the only way that a company can figure out if something works is to try it at their facilities, and this problem is compounded by the fact that companies don't often share their test results," Ravikumar said. "Our tool aims to both streamline and standardize the technology selection process."

FEAST

Dubbed the Fugitive Emissions Abatement Simulation Toolkit, or FEAST, the tool looks at four detection technologies that vary widely in their costs of equipment and labor: distributed detectors (DD), manual infrared (MIR) detection, and flame-ionization detection (FID), and automated infrared (AIR) detection, which is essentially a drone-mounted infrared camera.

"We are taking these four technologies and simulating how much they will cost to operate and how much gas they will save over the course of 10 years," said study coauthor Adam Brandt, an assistant professor of Energy Resources Engineering at Stanford.

Using the tool, the team showed that three of the technologies (AIR, MIR, and DD) save enough gas that a company could still turn a profit of up to $12,000 per well on average. However, FID, the most traditional method of detection and very time intensive, resulted in a net cost to a , even though it has the potential to save the most gas.

The study also found that selectively targeting the small fraction of so-called "super-emitters" could help mitigate methane leakage at much lower costs than repairing every leak. Super-emitters, which typically spew 10 to 100 times more methane than average, only make up less than 1 percent of the total number of leaks in a field.

"We found that by tuning your methods to detect only the largest leaks, you can eliminate over 80 percent of methane being emitted irrespective of the technology that you're using," Ravikumar said.

Costly, But Effective

Another important finding from the study is that there's a distinction between low-cost technology and low-cost detection. For example, a drone-mounted infrared camera can cost as much as $200,000 to get up and running, but FEAST shows that it is the single-most cost-effective way to detect leaks. "A single drone-mounted camera can cover large areas of gas fields very efficiently in a short time," said Brandt, who is also a Center Fellow at Stanford's Precourt Institute for Energy and an affiliate at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

In contrast, the equipment cost for FID is only about $35,000, but employing the technology is an extremely slow process that requires hundreds of man-hours for every field.

"Our study shows that it is okay to use expensive instruments as long as leak detection can be performed rapidly," Ravikumar said.

Explore further: Survey gives clearer view of risky leaks from gas mains

More information: Chandler E. Kemp et al. Comparing Natural Gas Leakage Detection Technologies Using an Open-Source "Virtual Gas Field" Simulator, Environmental Science & Technology (2016). DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06068

Related Stories

Survey gives clearer view of risky leaks from gas mains

March 28, 2016

Precise measurements of leaks from natural gas pipelines across metropolitan Boston have demonstrated that almost a sixth of the leaks qualified as potentially explosive, and that a handful of leaks emitted half of the total ...

Mars rover technology adapted to detect gas leaks

October 3, 2014

(Phys.org) —In collaboration with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) announced that it is testing state-of-the-art technology adapted from NASA's Mars rover ...

New infrared camera detects gas leaks in industry

October 1, 2015

This company's invention, supported by the Business Incubator at the UC3M Science Park, is based on technology patented by researchers from the UC3M Infrared Laboratory (initialled LIR in Spanish), and can detect gas leaks ...

Recommended for you

Afromontane forests and climate change

January 17, 2019

In the world of paleoecology, little has been known about the historical record of ecosystems in the West African highlands, especially with regard to glacial cycles amidst a shifting climate and their effects on species ...

4 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

eachus
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2016
Sigh! This: "methane is a potent greenhouse gas that is up to 80 times more effective at absorbing heat than carbon dioxide..." is perfectly correct--and totally misleading. Methane can absorb 80 times as much heat as CO2--for a day or two. Methane forms 1 CO2 molecule and two H2O (water) molecules fairly quickly in bright sunlight. Yes, water is the primary greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere--no matter what you have been taught--but the amount of water in the air is mostly controlled by weather not availability. (The excess falls out as rain, morning dew, snow and a couple of other flavors.) So when it comes to long term planning, methane contributes to the greenhouse effect exactly as much as CO2. Well, methane has a molecular weight of 16, while CO2 weighs in at 44, so on a pound for pound basis it is 2.75 times as potent.

Oh, and methane is lighter than air so it rises, runs into UV and falls as CO2, so it stirs the atmosphere. ;-)
RealScience
5 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2016
Methane can absorb 80 times as much heat as CO2--for a day or two. Methane forms 1 CO2 molecule and two H2O (water) molecules fairly quickly in bright sunlight.


From what I've read, methane has a half life in the atmosphere of roughly a decade - are you sure that you aren't thinking of some other small molecule? (Although your breakdown products are correct for methane)

howhot2
4.8 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2016
Sigh back! Everyone knows methane is a very potent green house gas. Methane is typically described as 30 times (30X) more potent than CO2 in trapping solar heat, so it can be devastating as a greenhouse gas. It lasts about 12 years. As the planet heats from greenhouse warming caused by the combustion of fossil fuels, methane frozen for 1000's of years releases compounding global warming. The feed back from methane cause more air conditioners to go on, causing more demand for fuel combustion. So far the result is a about a 2.75F rise in global average temps since 1980. So @eachus what was your point?
HeloMenelo
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2016
Sigh! This: "methane is a potent greenhouse gas that is up to 80 times more effective at absorbing heat than carbon dioxide..." is perfectly correct--and totally misleading. Methane can absorb 80 times as much heat as CO2--for a day or two. Methane forms 1 CO2 molecule and two H2O (water) molecules fairly quickly in bright sunlight. Yes, water is the primary greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere--no matter what you have been taught--but the amount of water in the air is mostly controlled by weather not availability. (The excess falls out as rain, morning dew, snow and a couple of other flavors.) So when it comes to long term planning, methane contributes to the greenhouse effect exactly as much as CO2. Well, methane has a molec;-)


i smell another antisciencegorilla sockpuppet popping it's head out of the mole hole again... c'mon monkey hit it with all you got, we got some special treatment for you.... :D

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.