Seen From Space: Huge Methane Leaks

Seen From Space: Huge Methane Leaks By Henry Fountain, Feb. 4, 2022, NYT

Until recently, identifying major emitters of methane has largely been accomplished through remote sensing by airplanes, drones or surface equipment, which can only spot emissions over relatively small areas, usually for relatively short periods. These methods can be revealing ? a 2019 New York Times investigation using airborne sensors, for example, showed large leaks from facilities in the Permian Basin in West Texas, a major oil and gas producing area.

Satellites can provide much broader, continuous coverage, but at a lower resolution that makes it difficult to pinpoint emissions sources.

Dr. Lauvaux and his colleagues found, however, that they could detect extremely large emitters ? those releasing more than 25 tons per hour ? in data from a sensor aboard a European satellite, Sentinel 5. Using data from 2019 and 2020, they located about 1,200 of these ultra emitters, a large portion of them from Russia, Turkmenistan, the United States, the Middle East and Algeria.

Total emissions from these sites were estimated at about 9 million tons per year. In terms of its potential to warm the planet, that much methane is equivalent to about 275 million tons of carbon dioxide, which is the total carbon footprint of 40 million people, based on the global average per capita.

The reported amount of methane does not include amounts from some regions, including the Permian Basin and oil-producing areas in Canada and China, where overall emissions were so high it was not possible to distinguish large individual sources. Dr. Lauvaux estimated that if ultra emitters from those regions were included, the annual methane total would be about double.

That would account for more than 10 percent of methane emissions from the industry as a whole. Requiring companies to repair these major leaks or other problems would likely help reduce emissions more quickly and at lower net cost than detecting and repairing countless thousands of much smaller leaks.

Even though the researchers were able to detect huge emission plumes, the satellite resolution, about 15 square miles, is not high enough to give the exact location of the source ? the specific pump or pipeline section that is leaking, for example.

So the research points to a need to use multiple methods to detect emissions sources, said Riley Duren, a researcher at the University of Arizona and one of the study authors. Airborne or ground-based sensors could be used to follow up at sites detected by satellites like Sentinel 5.

There is also soon to be a new generation of methane-detecting satellites with much higher resolution, capable of more precisely pinpointing sources.

Satellites like Sentinel 5 ?act like wide angle lenses on cameras,? Dr. Duren said. ?They give good, wide-area global situational awareness of where hot spots are.?

Dr. Duren is also the chief executive of Carbon Mapper, a public-private partnership behind a project that will use a constellation of satellites. It and another satellite, MethaneSAT, a project of the Environmental Defense Fund, ?will act more like a telephoto lens,? he said.

?We?re going to see dramatic advances in space-based monitoring of methane,? Dr. Duren said. ?That?s going to push the detection limits down.?

formatting link

Reply to
David P
Loading thread data ...

Methane is an even less credible candidate than CO2 for causing warming (and that's saying something).

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

There's a discussion of this on WUWT

formatting link
formatting link
A couple of weeks ago, there was an interesting paper discussed on WUWT of the relative amounts of anthropogenic and natural CO2 in the atmosphere.
formatting link
formatting link

The original paper is here

formatting link
formatting link
In brief, Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope with a half-life of about

5700 years. C-14 is continuously generated within the upper atmosphere by incoming high-energy particles, so-called cosmic rays, that collide with nitrogen molecules. It is present at about 1 part per trillion in the atmosphere.
formatting link
All the carbon that is absorbed by plants, oceans etc (the exchange reservoirs) and recycled from those sources contains C-14 while all fossil fuels contain virtually none, fossil fuels being millions of years old and their C-14 decayed long ago. So combustion of fossil fuels will dilute the natural levels of C-14 coming from those natural sources (plants, oceans etc). These guys have studied the variation in C-14 from 1750 to 2018, and it's dilution by carbon from fossil fuels that contain no C-14. They determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs (plants, oceans etc). Their results showed that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

Now, methane from oil or gas wells is a fossil fuel and will contain no C-14, so the leaks from them come within the purview of the paper I've just quoted. It means that leaking methane is nothing to be worried about, regardless of its being 84 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Yes, well 84 times zero = zero anyway.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Sounds nice, but does this presuppose a constant rate of generation of C14? To what extent does the generation rate vary with cosmic ray flux, to what extent does cosmic ray flux vary with Earth's magnetic field and *its* variations. We know the field does vary, what with movement of the magnetic poles etc etc.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Good questions. Cosmic ray flux certainly varies, and Svensmark reckons the resulting variation in cloud formation (due to cosmic ray seeding) causes variation in global temperatures

formatting link
But the first graph in that Wiki article shows the cosmic ray flux variation going back 500 million years, but the scale is such that over the timescale considered by authors of the paper I referred to, (1875 - 2018), or the lifetime of 14C (5,500 years), I doubt there's been much change in the flux.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Its more warming but has a shorter life in the atmosphere. This is not new of course. It also appears that when the seabed is disturbed at very deep areas that Methane can be dissolved in the high pressure water and travel a fair distance before emerging as it rises and ends up in the atmosphere. Its been going on for many years, even before we came along. However whatever you feel, we are not doing any good, and if you are in an ever deepening hole you would be wise to stop digging, I suspect. Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff (Sofa

Variations in cosmic ray flux (and human nuclear tests) and C14 generation are well documented using calibration of C14 with e.g. dendrochronology.

We know what past rates of C14 generation were. At least up to a few thousand years ago.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Ok so then the question is whether this variation was taken into account in the calculation stated.

Reply to
Tim Streater

For the answer to that, you'll have to read (and understand!) the original paper that I linked to. Here it is again

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Thanks, that makes sense. Might set the cat amongst the pigeons.

Reply to
Tim Streater

TBH I'm having second thoughts about the logic in the last paragraph in my first post is actually correct. I think the claim that methane is nothing to worry about does not follow from it not having any 14C. The carbon cycle that involves CO2, plants and photosynthesis, oceans and dissolution etc, may not be relevant to methane. Trying to think about it makes my head hurt! Opinions welcome!

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Former CERN colleague now living in Portugal replies thus:

"A first criticism of the paper is that it uses an unreasonably long baseline. Most of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide has been emitted in the last 40 years

- emissions are actually still increasing now. So in calculating "23%", the denominator is 260 years of total emission, but the numerator is something like 40 years of anthropogenic emission.

The rate of temperature increase has not been uniform over the past 260 years; the rate of increase has been much higher in the last 40 years - as you would expect if anthropogenic CO2 had something to do with it."

And TBH I found the central section, where they make the argument in detail and justify the approach, to be too dense.

Reply to
Tim Streater

I only just about managed the Abstract! :-)

Reply to
Chris Hogg

But almost zero in the last 20 years which is not what you would expect, if anthropogenic CO2 had something to do with it.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.