Permian Basin Survey with Gas Mapping LiDAR™ Provides Baseline Distribution of Methane Emission Rates and Sources
A recent study conducted by Collaboratory to Advance Methane Science (CAMS) has been published highlighting the results from a study aimed at identifying and statistically analyzing leaks and leak rates in the Permian Basin using Gas Mapping LiDAR aerial surveys. The study assessed the capabilities of Gas Mapping LiDAR for detecting and quantifying leaks within the Permian Basin.
The following are a few of the most significant findings:
1. Emissions Distribution Shows Percentage of Detected Basin Emissions for All Sensitivities
The study reports the most complete Permian basin upstream emissions distribution published to date, measuring all the way down to < 3 kg/hr.
.png?width=795&height=795&name=1%20(3).png)
Why It’s Important: Emissions distributions show, for a given detection sensitivity, what percentage of a basin’s emissions are detected. For instance, the emission distribution shown in GTI’s study can be used to determine that Solar IR technology detects about a third of what was detected by Gas Mapping LiDAR using third-party detection sensitivity measurements and the average wind speed in Midland, TX. Emissions distributions can provide a better understanding of entire basin emissions and can therefore inform policy and technology solution applications.
2. Unparalleled Methane Emissions Detection Sensitivity of Aerial LiDAR
The study results show that Gas Mapping LiDAR detected all SLR-facilitated blind controlled releases down to 0.9 Mscfd (37 scfh, 0.7 kg/hr). This is nearly 100 times better than a Solar IR solution as measured by a third party, and using average wind speeds in Midland, TX.
.png?width=795&height=795&name=3%20(3).png)
Why it’s Important: The high sensitivity of aerial Gas Mapping LiDAR has the potential to remove the need to patrol sites with ground crews and optical gas imaging (OGI) cameras. In fact, a recent third-party study showed that Gas Mapping LiDAR caught more emissions, but from far fewer emitters than grounds crews. This is a win-win for the industry and environment… more emissions reduction with fewer repairs.
3. Common Sources of Methane Emissions are Validated
The study reinforces previous findings in the US and Canada that most emissions come from tanks, compressors, separators, and flares.
.png?width=400&height=400&name=2%20(3).png)
Why it’s Important: As shown in previous studies (like this one by Carleton University in Canada), understanding equipment level emissions allows oil and gas operators to prioritize mitigation efforts based on source types, as well as uncover trends useful for emission reduction tracking.
To read the full study, read the CAMS whitepaper here.
*All photos and graphs are credited to CAMS.