Using Prototypical Oil and Gas Sites to Model Methane Emissions in Colorado’s Denver-Julesburg Basin Using a Mechanistic Emission Estimation Tool

Traditional bottom-up (BU) methods estimate methane emissions from oil and gas facilities by multiplying activity data with emission factors. Top-down (TD) methods measure methane emissions from all sources across an entire site and often use BU estimates to attribute emissions specifically to natural gas, often through ethane-to-methane ratio analysis. However, traditional BU methods do not adequately account for variations in throughput and failure conditions, which can significantly impact gas composition and emission rates. The Mechanistic Air Emissions Simulator (MAES) is a computer model developed to estimate methane and other hydrocarbon emissions from oil and gas facilities. MAES employs two distinct modeling approaches: mechanistic models and traditional methods. MAES uses mechanistic models to estimate emissions based on fluid flow through equipment and equipment states, offering a detailed, process-oriented emissions representation. In contrast, the traditional methods utilized by MAES estimate emissions by applying activity data multiplied by emission factor distributions, offering a statistical approach grounded in empirical data. This study applies MAES to assess emission impacts on three vintages of production wellpads in the Denver-Julesburg (DJ) basin: a wellpad with two stages of separation (“old” facility), one with three stages of separation (“current” facility), and a tankless wellpad (“future” facility). The study found that increased throughput led to higher methane emissions in older wellpads but not in tankless future facilities. Additionally, MAES also showed that failure conditions, like stuck dump valves, increased emission rates and affected the ethane-to-methane ratio, which could vary by 2.15 times depending on facility configuration. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating variability in facility operations into emissions estimates to improve accuracy and guide effective mitigation strategies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ACS ES&T Air
Published
2025-04-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.4c00168
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.21
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Using Prototypical Oil and Gas Sites to Model Methane Emissions in Colorado’s Denver-Julesburg Basin Using a Mechanistic Emission Estimation Tool

Daniel Zimmerle, Winrose Mollel, Arthur Santos, Anna L. Hodshire
2 citations
ACS ES&T Air
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
2.21
article

Using Prototypical Oil and Gas Sites to Model Methane Emissions in Colorado’s Denver-Julesburg Basin Using a Mechanistic Emission Estimation Tool

Daniel Zimmerle, Winrose Mollel, Arthur Santos, Anna L. Hodshire
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Traditional bottom-up (BU) methods estimate methane emissions from oil and gas facilities by multiplying activity data with emission factors. Top-down (TD) methods measure methane emissions from all sources across an entire site and often use BU estimates to attribute emissions specifically to natural gas, often through ethane-to-methane ratio analysis. However, traditional BU methods do not adequately account for variations in throughput and failure conditions, which can significantly impact gas composition and emission rates. The Mechanistic Air Emissions Simulator (MAES) is a computer model developed to estimate methane and other hydrocarbon emissions from oil and gas facilities. MAES employs two distinct modeling approaches: mechanistic models and traditional methods. MAES uses mechanistic models to estimate emissions based on fluid flow through equipment and equipment states, offering a detailed, process-oriented emissions representation. In contrast, the traditional methods utilized by MAES estimate emissions by applying activity data multiplied by emission factor distributions, offering a statistical approach grounded in empirical data. This study applies MAES to assess emission impacts on three vintages of production wellpads in the Denver-Julesburg (DJ) basin: a wellpad with two stages of separation (“old” facility), one with three stages of separation (“current” facility), and a tankless wellpad (“future” facility). The study found that increased throughput led to higher methane emissions in older wellpads but not in tankless future facilities. Additionally, MAES also showed that failure conditions, like stuck dump valves, increased emission rates and affected the ethane-to-methane ratio, which could vary by 2.15 times depending on facility configuration. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating variability in facility operations into emissions estimates to improve accuracy and guide effective mitigation strategies.

ACS ES&T AirVol. 2(5)
Energy Institute (GB), Colorado State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
2.21
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.