Intercomparison of Three Continuous Monitoring Systems on Operating Oil and Gas Sites

We compare continuous monitoring systems (CMS) from three different vendors on six operating oil and gas sites in the Appalachian Basin using several months of data. We highlight similarities and differences between the three CMS solutions when deployed in the field and compare their output to concurrent top-down aerial measurements and to site-level bottom-up inventories. Furthermore, we compare vendor-provided emission rate estimates to estimates from an open-source quantification algorithm applied to the raw CMS concentration data. This experimental setup allows us to separate the effect of the sensor platform (i.e., sensor type and arrangement) from the quantification algorithm. We find that 1) localization and quantification estimates rarely agree between the three CMS solutions on short time scales (i.e., 30 min), but temporally aggregated emission rate distributions are similar between solutions, 2) differences in emission rate distributions are generally driven by the quantification algorithm, rather than the sensor platform, 3) agreement between CMS and aerial rate estimates varies by CMS solution but is close to parity when CMS estimates are averaged across solutions, and 4) similar sites with similar bottom-up inventories do not necessarily have similar emission characteristics. These results have important implications for developing measurement-informed inventories and for incorporating CMS-inferred emission characteristics into emission mitigation efforts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ACS ES&T Air
Published
2025-03-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.4c00298
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.32
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Intercomparison of Three Continuous Monitoring Systems on Operating Oil and Gas Sites

Sam Kidd, Arvind Pawan Ravikumar, William Daniels, Shuting Lydia Yang et al.
3 citations
ACS ES&T Air
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
3.32
article

Intercomparison of Three Continuous Monitoring Systems on Operating Oil and Gas Sites

Sam Kidd, Arvind Pawan Ravikumar, William Daniels, Shuting Lydia Yang, Dorit Hammerling, Shannon Stokes
article en
3 citations

Abstract

We compare continuous monitoring systems (CMS) from three different vendors on six operating oil and gas sites in the Appalachian Basin using several months of data. We highlight similarities and differences between the three CMS solutions when deployed in the field and compare their output to concurrent top-down aerial measurements and to site-level bottom-up inventories. Furthermore, we compare vendor-provided emission rate estimates to estimates from an open-source quantification algorithm applied to the raw CMS concentration data. This experimental setup allows us to separate the effect of the sensor platform (i.e., sensor type and arrangement) from the quantification algorithm. We find that 1) localization and quantification estimates rarely agree between the three CMS solutions on short time scales (i.e., 30 min), but temporally aggregated emission rate distributions are similar between solutions, 2) differences in emission rate distributions are generally driven by the quantification algorithm, rather than the sensor platform, 3) agreement between CMS and aerial rate estimates varies by CMS solution but is close to parity when CMS estimates are averaged across solutions, and 4) similar sites with similar bottom-up inventories do not necessarily have similar emission characteristics. These results have important implications for developing measurement-informed inventories and for incorporating CMS-inferred emission characteristics into emission mitigation efforts.

ACS ES&T AirVol. 2(4)
Colorado School of Mines (US), The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
3.32
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.