Single-blind inter-comparison of methane detection technologies – results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge
Methane leakage regulations in the US and Canada have spurred the development of new technologies that promise faster and cheaper leak detection for the oil and natural gas industry. Here, we report results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge – the first independent assessment of 10 ve...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BioOne
2019-09-01
|
| Series: | Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.elementascience.org/articles/373 |
| _version_ | 1811213205872050176 |
|---|---|
| author | Arvind P. Ravikumar Sindhu Sreedhara Jingfan Wang Jacob Englander Daniel Roda-Stuart Clay Bell Daniel Zimmerle David Lyon Isabel Mogstad Ben Ratner Adam R. Brandt |
| author_facet | Arvind P. Ravikumar Sindhu Sreedhara Jingfan Wang Jacob Englander Daniel Roda-Stuart Clay Bell Daniel Zimmerle David Lyon Isabel Mogstad Ben Ratner Adam R. Brandt |
| author_sort | Arvind P. Ravikumar |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Methane leakage regulations in the US and Canada have spurred the development of new technologies that promise faster and cheaper leak detection for the oil and natural gas industry. Here, we report results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge – the first independent assessment of 10 vehicle-, drone-, and plane-based mobile leak detection technologies. Using single-blind controlled release tests at two locations, we analyze the ability of mobile technologies to detect, localize, and quantify methane emissions. We find that the technologies are generally effective at detecting leaks, with 6 of the 10 technologies correctly detecting over 90% of test scenarios (true positive plus true negative rate). All technologies demonstrated pad-level localization of leaks, while 6 of the 10 technologies could assign a leak to the specific piece of equipment in at least 50% of test scenarios. All systems tested here will require secondary inspection to identify leak locations for repair; thus, mobile leak detection technologies can act as a complement, and not a substitute, for currently used optical gas imaging systems. In general, emissions quantification needs improvement as most technologies were only able to generally provide order of magnitude emissions estimates. Improvements to quantification algorithms, reducing false positive detection rates, and identifying early applications will be critical for deployment at scale. Even as this study provides the first independent verification of the performance of mobile technologies, it only represents the first step in the road to demonstrating that these technologies will provide emissions reductions that are equivalent to existing regulatory approaches. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T05:43:01Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5512191118fb4814ae8784d00e43d9d2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2325-1026 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T05:43:01Z |
| publishDate | 2019-09-01 |
| publisher | BioOne |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene |
| spelling | doaj.art-5512191118fb4814ae8784d00e43d9d22022-12-22T03:45:34ZengBioOneElementa: Science of the Anthropocene2325-10262019-09-017110.1525/elementa.373347Single-blind inter-comparison of methane detection technologies – results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring ChallengeArvind P. Ravikumar0Sindhu Sreedhara1Jingfan Wang2Jacob Englander3Daniel Roda-Stuart4Clay Bell5Daniel Zimmerle6David Lyon7Isabel Mogstad8Ben Ratner9Adam R. Brandt10Harrisburg University of Science and Technology, Harrisburg, PennsylvaniaStanford University, Stanford, CaliforniaStanford University, Stanford, CaliforniaStanford University, Stanford, California; California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CaliforniaStanford University, Stanford, California; Alphataraxia Management, Los Angeles, CaliforniaColorado State University Energy Institute, Fort Collins, ColoradoColorado State University Energy Institute, Fort Collins, ColoradoEnvironmental Defense Fund, Washington DCEnvironmental Defense Fund, Washington DCEnvironmental Defense Fund, Washington DCStanford University, Stanford, CaliforniaMethane leakage regulations in the US and Canada have spurred the development of new technologies that promise faster and cheaper leak detection for the oil and natural gas industry. Here, we report results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge – the first independent assessment of 10 vehicle-, drone-, and plane-based mobile leak detection technologies. Using single-blind controlled release tests at two locations, we analyze the ability of mobile technologies to detect, localize, and quantify methane emissions. We find that the technologies are generally effective at detecting leaks, with 6 of the 10 technologies correctly detecting over 90% of test scenarios (true positive plus true negative rate). All technologies demonstrated pad-level localization of leaks, while 6 of the 10 technologies could assign a leak to the specific piece of equipment in at least 50% of test scenarios. All systems tested here will require secondary inspection to identify leak locations for repair; thus, mobile leak detection technologies can act as a complement, and not a substitute, for currently used optical gas imaging systems. In general, emissions quantification needs improvement as most technologies were only able to generally provide order of magnitude emissions estimates. Improvements to quantification algorithms, reducing false positive detection rates, and identifying early applications will be critical for deployment at scale. Even as this study provides the first independent verification of the performance of mobile technologies, it only represents the first step in the road to demonstrating that these technologies will provide emissions reductions that are equivalent to existing regulatory approaches.https://www.elementascience.org/articles/373Methane emissionsTechnologyOil and gasLeak Detection and RepairPolicy |
| spellingShingle | Arvind P. Ravikumar Sindhu Sreedhara Jingfan Wang Jacob Englander Daniel Roda-Stuart Clay Bell Daniel Zimmerle David Lyon Isabel Mogstad Ben Ratner Adam R. Brandt Single-blind inter-comparison of methane detection technologies – results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene Methane emissions Technology Oil and gas Leak Detection and Repair Policy |
| title | Single-blind inter-comparison of methane detection technologies – results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge |
| title_full | Single-blind inter-comparison of methane detection technologies – results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge |
| title_fullStr | Single-blind inter-comparison of methane detection technologies – results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge |
| title_full_unstemmed | Single-blind inter-comparison of methane detection technologies – results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge |
| title_short | Single-blind inter-comparison of methane detection technologies – results from the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge |
| title_sort | single blind inter comparison of methane detection technologies results from the stanford edf mobile monitoring challenge |
| topic | Methane emissions Technology Oil and gas Leak Detection and Repair Policy |
| url | https://www.elementascience.org/articles/373 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT arvindpravikumar singleblindintercomparisonofmethanedetectiontechnologiesresultsfromthestanfordedfmobilemonitoringchallenge AT sindhusreedhara singleblindintercomparisonofmethanedetectiontechnologiesresultsfromthestanfordedfmobilemonitoringchallenge AT jingfanwang singleblindintercomparisonofmethanedetectiontechnologiesresultsfromthestanfordedfmobilemonitoringchallenge AT jacobenglander singleblindintercomparisonofmethanedetectiontechnologiesresultsfromthestanfordedfmobilemonitoringchallenge AT danielrodastuart singleblindintercomparisonofmethanedetectiontechnologiesresultsfromthestanfordedfmobilemonitoringchallenge AT claybell singleblindintercomparisonofmethanedetectiontechnologiesresultsfromthestanfordedfmobilemonitoringchallenge AT danielzimmerle singleblindintercomparisonofmethanedetectiontechnologiesresultsfromthestanfordedfmobilemonitoringchallenge AT davidlyon singleblindintercomparisonofmethanedetectiontechnologiesresultsfromthestanfordedfmobilemonitoringchallenge AT isabelmogstad singleblindintercomparisonofmethanedetectiontechnologiesresultsfromthestanfordedfmobilemonitoringchallenge AT benratner singleblindintercomparisonofmethanedetectiontechnologiesresultsfromthestanfordedfmobilemonitoringchallenge AT adamrbrandt singleblindintercomparisonofmethanedetectiontechnologiesresultsfromthestanfordedfmobilemonitoringchallenge |