Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “basin”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 631 records · Page 35
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

Appalachian Basin Play Fairway Analysis: Thermal Quality Analysis in Low-Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis (GPFA-AB)

This collection of files are part of a larger dataset uploaded in support of Low Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis for the Appalachian Basin (GPFA-AB). Phase 1 of the GPFA-AB project identified potential Geothermal Play Fairways within the Appalachian basin of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York. This was accomplished through analysis of 4 key criteria: thermal quality, natural reservoir productivity, risk of seismicity, and heat utilization. Each of these analyses represent a distinct project task, with the fifth task encompassing combination of the 4 risks factors. Supporting data for all five tasks has been uploaded into the Geothermal Data Repository node of the National Geothermal Data System (NGDS). This submission comprises the data for Thermal Quality Analysis (project task 1) and includes all of the necessary shapefiles, rasters, datasets, code, and references to code repositories that were used to create the thermal resource and risk factor maps as part of the GPFA-AB project. The identified Geothermal Play Fairways are also provided with the larger dataset. Figures (.png) are provided as examples of the shapefiles and rasters. The regional standardized 1 square km grid used in the project is also provided as points (cell centers), polygons, and as a raster. Two ArcGIS toolboxes are available: 1) RegionalGridModels.tbx for creating resource and risk factor maps on the standardized grid, and 2) ThermalRiskFactorModels.tbx for use in making the thermal resource maps and cross sections. These toolboxes contain item description documentation for each model within the toolbox, and for the toolbox itself. This submission also contains three R scripts: 1) AddNewSeisFields.R to add seismic risk data to attribute tables of seismic risk, 2) StratifiedKrigingInterpolation.R for the interpolations used in the thermal resource analysis, and 3) LeaveOneOutCrossValidation.R for the cross validations used in the thermal interpolations. Some file descriptions make reference to various 'memos'. These are contained within the final report submitted October 16, 2015. Each zipped file in the submission contains an 'about' document describing the full Thermal Quality Analysis content available, along with key sources, authors, citation, use guidelines, and assumptions, with the specific file(s) contained within the .zip file highlighted. UPDATE: Newer version of the Thermal Quality Analysis has been added here: https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/879 (Also linked below) Newer version of the Combined Risk Factor Analysis has been added here: https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/880 (Also linked below)

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Tularosa Basin Play Fairway: Weights of Evidence Models

These models are related to weights of evidence play fairway anlaysis of the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico and Texas. They were created through Spatial Data Modeler: ArcMAP 9.3 geoprocessing tools for spatial data modeling using weights of evidence, logistic regression, fuzzy logic and neural networks. It used to identify high values for potential geothermal plays and low values. The results are relative not only within the Tularosa Basin, but also throughout New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and other places where high to moderate enthalpy geothermal systems are present (training sites).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Appalachian Basin Play Fairway Analysis Gravity, Magnetics, and Earthquake Data

This archived dataset contains magnetic and gravity imaging data for the Appalachian Basin, compiled using Poisson Wavelet Multiscale Edge Detection, referred to as 'worm' for brevity, and stored in a PostGIS database, along with shapefiles and CSVs of relevant data. The archive also includes regional earthquake data going back to 1973 and relevant world stress map data. These data are used in estimating the seismic hazards (both natural and induced) for candidate direct use geothermal locations in the Appalachian Basin Play Fairway Analysis by Jordan et al. (2015).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Appalachian Basin Play Fairway Analysis: Revised 2016 Combined Risk Factor Analysis

This submission contains information used to compute the combined risk factors for deep geothermal energy opportunities in the Appalachian Basin, in the context of a the Play Fairway Analysis project. The risk factors are sedimentary rock reservoir quality, thermal resource quality, potential for induced seismicity, and utilization for direct-use heating of neighborhoods. The methods used to combine the risk factors included taking the average, the geometric mean, and the minimum of the four risk factors. Combined risk maps are provided for three different sedimentary rock reservoir metrics. Combined risk maps are also provided for the three geologic risk factors alone (thermal, reservoir, and seismic), and for the three risk factors that exclude reservoir quality (utilization, seismicity, and thermal qualities). The 2015 data submission should be visited to obtain associated shapefiles, which include: 1) definition of the High and Medium priority play fairways (Inner_Fairway, and Outer_Fairway), 2) definition of the US Census Places (usCensusPlaces), 3) places (cities) of interest in the region (Places_of_Interest) identified as geothermal play fairways, 4) the point centers of the raster cells (Raster_Center_Locations), and 5) locations of industries and special-use communities (e.g., colleges and military bases) identified as low temperature heat users (Industries). The 2015 submission also includes: 1) a methodology memo that explains how the risk factors were combined (GPFA-AB_combining_risk_factors.pdf), 2) the earthquake-based seismic risk map, and 3) supporting information with details of the calculations or processing used in generating these data files. More details on each file are given in the spreadsheet "list_of_contents.xlsx" in the folder "Supporting_Information". Code used to calculate values is available at https://github.com/calvinwhealton/geothermal_pfa under the folder "combining_metrics". Note that the 2016 code is currently under the branch named "combining_metrics_2016" in the folder called "combining_metrics". This branch may be merged with the master branch in the future. Many files contained within this submission update and replace the indicated files contained in: Cornell University. (2015). Risk Factor Analysis in Low-Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis for the Appalachian Basin (GPFA-AB) [data set]. Retrieved from https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/622. doi:10.15121/1261942

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Appalachian Basin Temperature-Depth Maps and Structured Data in support of Feasibility Study of Direct District Heating for the Cornell Campus Utilizing Deep Geothermal Energy

This dataset contains shapefiles and rasters that summarize the results of a stochastic analysis of temperatures at depth in the Appalachian Basin states of New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. This analysis provides an update to the temperature-at-depth maps provided in the Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis of the Appalachian Basin (GPFA-AB) Thermal Quality Analysis (GDR repository 879: https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/879). This dataset improves upon the GPFA-AB dataset by considering several additional uncertainties in the temperature-at-depth calculations, including geologic properties and thermal properties. A Monte Carlo analysis of these uncertain properties and the GPFA-AB estimated surface heat flow was used to predict temperatures at depth using a 1-D heat conduction model. In this data submission, temperatures are provided for depths from 1-5 km in 0.5 km increments. The mean, standard deviation, and selected quantiles of temperatures at these depths are provided as shapefiles with attribute tables that contain the data. Rasters are provided for the mean and standard deviation data. Figures and maps that summarize the data are also provided. For the pixel corresponding to Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, a .csv file containing the 10,000 temperature-depth profiles estimated from the Monte Carlo analysis is provided. These data are summarized in a figure containing violin plots that illustrate the probability of obtaining certain temperatures at depths below Cornell.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

CLM simulated data at three FLUXNET sites and three SNOTEL sites in the Colorado River Basin

This data package includes 6 csv files that include Community Land Model (CLM) simulations for three Fluxnet sites (i.e., US-NR1, US-GLE and US-VCM) and three SNOTEL sites (i.e., ER-BT, ER-SP and ER-PK) in the Upper Colorado River Basin area. Data inputs include meteorological forcing data (obtained from Fluxnet and SNOTEL databases) and CLM-simulated evapotranspiration (ET) data from 2005 to 2016. These datasets support the development of subseasonal regime approach based on statistics driven Hidden Markov Model to assess intra- and inter-annual variability of ET, which improves our understanding of climate change's impacts on water resources and ecosystem dynamics in the Colorado River Basin.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data and Scripts associated with a manuscript on ecosystem responses to wildfires in the Columbia River Basin

This data package is associated with the publication “Ecosystem leaf area, gross primary production, and evapotranspiration responses to wildfire in the Columbia River Basin” submitted to Biogeosciences (Shi et al., 2024; doi: 10.22541/au.171053013.30286044/v1). In this research, data products, leaf area index (LAI), gross primary production (GPP), and evapotranspiration (ET), from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) are used to quantify the resistance and resilience of different ecosystem types in the Columbia River Basin (CRB). A machine learning algorithm, random forest (RF), was used to examine the impacts of precipitation, vapor pressure deficit (VPD), and burn severity from Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) on ecosystem resilience. The data package includes the processed MODIS data products, precipitation, VPD, and burn severity in 138 fire regions in CRB and the input files for RF model training. This data package includes six folders. The MODIS products are included in three MODIS_* folders with shell scripts for data clipping and *ncl files for data processing: (1) “/MODIS_LAI_CRB”; (2) “/MODIS_GPP_CRB”; and (3) “/MODIS_ET_CRB”. All the processed data for each fire event are NetCDF formatted. The MTBS burn severity data and the shell and *ncl scripts used for data processing are in the folder named (4) “MTBS_fire”. The ERA meteorological fields and the data processing scritps are in (5) “ERA_Var_CR”. All the scripts for figure development are in the format of *ncl and in the folder (6) “paper_scripts”. See the file ending in “flmd.csv” for a list of all files contained in this data package and descriptions for each. Tabular column headers and units are described in the data dictionary file ending in “dd.csv”.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Illinois Basin Coal Wells

Data described of the Illinois Basin Coal Wells from the Technical Report: Paronish, T.; Crandall, D.; Jarvis, K.; Workman, S.; Pohl, M.; Drosche, J.; Mckisic, T.; McLaughlin P.; Freidberg, J.; Delpomdor F. Computed Tomography Scanning and Petrophysical Measurements of Illinois Basin Coal Wells; DOE/NETL-2024/XXX; NETL Technical Report Series; U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Morgantown, WV, 2024; p 59.

Coal↗
DOE OSTI2015

Identifying and Mitigating Potential Nutrient and Sediment Hot Spots under a Future Scenario in the Missouri River Basin

Using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) for large-scale watershed modeling could be useful for evaluating the quality of the water in regions that are dominated by nonpoint sources in order to identify potential “hot spots” for which mitigating strategies could be further developed. An analysis of water quality under future scenarios in which changes in land use would be made to accommodate increased biofuel production was developed for the Missouri River Basin (MoRB) based on a SWAT model application. The analysis covered major agricultural crops and biofuel feedstock in the MoRB, including pasture land, hay, corn, soybeans, wheat, and switchgrass. The analysis examined, at multiple temporal and spatial scales, how nitrate, organic nitrogen, and total nitrogen; phosphorus, organic phosphorus, inorganic phosphorus, and total phosphorus; suspended sediments; and water flow (water yield) would respond to the shifts in land use that would occur under proposed future scenarios. The analysis was conducted at three geospatial scales: (1) large tributary basin scale (two: Upper MoRB and Lower MoRB); (2) regional watershed scale (seven: Upper Missouri River, Middle Missouri River, Middle Lower Missouri River, Lower Missouri River, Yellowstone River, Platte River, and Kansas River); and (3) eight-digit hydrologic unit (HUC-8) subbasin scale (307 subbasins). Results showed that subbasin-level variations were substantial. Nitrogen loadings decreased across the entire Upper MoRB, and they increased in several subbasins in the Lower MoRB. Most nitrate reductions occurred in lateral flow. Also at the subbasin level, phosphorus in organic, sediment, and soluble forms was reduced by 35%, 45%, and 65%, respectively. Suspended sediments increased in 68% of the subbasins. The water yield decreased in 62% of the subbasins. In the Kansas River watershed, the water quality improved significantly with regard to every nitrogen and phosphorus compound. The improvement was clearly attributable to the conversion of a large amount of land to switchgrass. The Middle Lower Missouri River and Lower Missouri River were identified as hot regions. Further analysis identified four subbasins (10240002, 10230007, 10290402, and 10300200) as being the most vulnerable in terms of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus loadings. Overall, results suggest that increasing the amount of switchgrass acreage in the hot spots should be considered to mitigate the nutrient loads. The study provides an analytical method to support stakeholders in making informed decisions that balance biofuel production and water sustainability.

land use change↗
DOE OSTI2017

488-1D Ash Basin closure cap help modeling- Microdrain® liner option

At the request of Area Completion Engineering and in support of the 488-1D Ash Basin closure, the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) performed hydrologic simulations of the revised 488-1D Ash Basin closure cap design using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model. The revised design substitutes a MicroDrain Liner®—60-mil low-density polyethylene geomembrane structurally integrated with 130-mil drainage layer—for the previously planned drainage/barrier system—300-mil geosynthetic drainage layer (GDL), 300-mil geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), and 6-inch common fill soil layer. For a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, HELP model v3.07 was employed to (1) predict the peak maximum daily hydraulic head for the geomembrane layer, and (2) ensure that South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) requirements for the barrier layer (i.e., ≤ 12 inches hydraulic head on top of a barrier having a saturated hydraulic conductivity ≤ 1.0E-05 cm/s) will not be exceeded. A 25-year, 24-hour storm event at the Savannah River Site (SRS) is 6.1 inches rainfall (Weber 1998). HELP model v3.07 results based upon the new planned cap design suggest that the peak maximum daily hydraulic head on the geomembrane barrier layer will be 0.15 inches for a minimum slope equal to 3%, which is two orders of magnitude below the SCDHEC upper limit of 12 inches.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

488-1D Ash basin closure cap help modeling-Microdrain® liner option

At the request of Area Completion Engineering and in support of the 488-1D Ash Basin closure, the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) performed hydrologic simulations of the revised 488-1D Ash Basin closure cap design using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model. The revised design substitutes a MicroDrain Liner®—50-mil linear low-density polyethylene geomembrane structurally integrated with 130-mil drainage layer—for the previously planned drainage/barrier system—300-mil geosynthetic drainage layer (GDL), 300-mil geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), and 6-inch common fill soil layer. For a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, HELP model v3.07 was employed to (1) predict the peak maximum daily hydraulic head for the geomembrane layer, and (2) ensure that South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) requirements for the barrier layer (i.e., ≤ 12 inches hydraulic head on top of a barrier having a saturated hydraulic conductivity ≤ 1.0E-05 cm/s) will not be exceeded. A 25-year, 24-hour storm event at the Savannah River Site (SRS) is 6.1 inches rainfall (Weber 1998). HELP model v3.07 results based upon the new planned cap design suggest that the peak maximum daily hydraulic head on the geomembrane barrier layer will be 0.179 inches for a minimum slope equal to 3%, which is approximately two orders of magnitude below the SCDHEC upper limit of 12 inches.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

L-Basin microbial monitoring program - evaluation of 20 years of monitoring

This report summarizes the results from over 20-years’ of activities for microbial monitoring of the bulk water, floc analysis, and test coupon surfaces for the Savannah River Site L Basin. The Microbial Monitoring Program provides important information for the characterization of overall water quality as it impacts the continued safe storage of spent nuclear fuel in L Basin. The potential impacts to fuel storage are: 1) microbial-influenced corrosion of the fuel; and 2) biofouling of the fuel storage systems.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Enhanced Recovery Opportunities in the Appalachian Basin

The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) has incorporated the work of geologic research teams (Geoteams) in its regional characterization, project planning and carbon dioxide (CO2) injection implementation work since the partnership was established by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 2003. Over this 16-year period, the cohort of Geoteams has grown from five to ten states and has contributed to the characterization of geologic sequestration opportunities, refinement of reservoir and seal data, and supported injection efforts through both predictive and post-injection assessments. The Appalachian Basin Geoteam consists of geologists from the state geological surveys of Kentucky, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Pennsylvania and West Virginia led the research related to enhanced recovery opportunities in oil and gas fields, while Kentucky led the work associated with enhanced gas recovery (EGR) opportunities in organic-rich shales. The Appalachian Basin Geoteam evaluated reservoirs amenable to CO2-EOR and EGR using a combination of data sources and technical approaches. The Geoteam characterized the subsurface geology of the area in stepwise fashion, starting with existing geologic maps and fields/pools data generated as part of previous MRCSP regional characterization research. With this data, the Geoteam correlated stratigraphy and generated cross sections to delineate the extent, depths and thicknesses of those formations that may serve as reservoirs for either miscible or immiscible enhanced recovery projects. In addition, the team prepared structure and isopach maps for prospective formations, as well as assessments of gross and net porosity of these units. Once prospective localities were identified, the Geoteam selected a short list of oil fields in each of the three states for assessment for case study preparation.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2021

Report on Mowry Shale Thermal Maturity Mapping in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming

The Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute (EORI) has completed a map of thermal maturity of the Mowry Shale in the Powder River Basin (PRB). Thermal maturity, the degree to which the total organic carbon in a formation has been transformed from kerogen to producible hydrocarbons due to heat and pressure, is an important measure for not just the quality of a source rock, but also helps for delineating areas more favorable for unconventional drilling. There is a dearth of published Mowry maturity maps available for the PRB and this publication endeavors to provide a detailed map based on a large, public data set covering the Wyoming portion of the PRB. Additional data, currently held confidential by operators in the basin, would be of benefit to future iterations of this map.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2021

Newly acquired core enhances geologic understanding of the northern Paradox Basin Cane Creek play, southeastern Utah

The Cane Creek interval is an emerging unconventional heterolithic play within the Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation of the northern Paradox Basin, southeastern Utah. Structural controls (basement uplifts, salt movement, faults, fractures) likely control production from the Cane Creek, where total oil production of ~10 MMBO is just a fraction of current estimates of the undiscovered resource (up to 1.2 BBOE). Oil production has been most successful from unstimulated horizontal wells in the Cane Creek Unit in the central play area, whereas areas to the north (Greentown and Gunnison Valley) have to date proven to be largely unproductive from vertical and horizontal wells drilled without the benefit of 3D seismic or the deployment of modern hydraulic fracturing techniques. However, the limited historical drilling has shown significant promise (e.g., significant shows). The lack of core data in the northern part of the play has impeded thorough assessment of reservoir quality, character, and lithological facies heterogeneity. The Cane Creek is informally divided into three distinct zones. The upper A and basal C zones are composed of fabric destructive and wavy bedded anhydrite, dolomitic mudstone, and organic-rich algal laminated mudstones (source rock). The middle B zone is generally wave rippled and burrowed, low-permeability sandstone-siltstone (reservoir) with subordinate displacive anhydrite. Recent potash cores collected from the Salt Valley anticline near Crescent Junction, Utah (but east of the main play area), show thicker reservoir sandstone/siltstone packages (~40 ft) in the B zone, and parts of the C zone, in the northern part of the Paradox Basin in comparison to the central (~35 ft) and southern (~30 ft) areas. Source rock analyses from northern core/cuttings also indicate that it is well positioned within the oil window (VRo ~0.8), with thin organic-rich mudstone beds containing up to 20 wt% TOC. Because the siliciclastic reservoir rocks have low permeabilities (0.009–0.202 mD) and variable porosities (6–17%) due to dolomite-anhydrite cement, naturally occurring and possibly stimulated fractures may be essential for hydrocarbon recovery. To better understand the northern part of the Cane Creek play, a new core was obtained from the research stratigraphic well State 16-2 (January 2021). Details from this new core will help characterize reservoir quality via core analyses, petrography, fracture orientations, geomechanics, and correlation of facies and depositional trends. Additionally, an evaluation of matrix porosity/permeability will be conducted to determine its contribution to productivity.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2024

UT-GOM2-2 Preliminary Report: Terrebonne Basin Northern Gulf of Mexico, 30 July-28 September 2023

In the summer and fall of 2023, the Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Hydrate Coring Expedition (UT-GOM2-2) drilled, cored, made downhole measurements, and analyzed samples from the seafloor to the base of the gas hydrate stability zone in one location (Site H, WR313) in the Terrebonne basin, deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Analyses of data and samples from the expedition will inform biological, geochemical, and geomechanical models to constrain the role of gas hydrates in the carbon cycle and the potential for gas hydrates as an energy resource. Pressure and conventional cores were collected continuously to a depth of 155.1 meters below the seafloor (mbsf). At deeper depths, cores were taken periodically from hydrate-bearing sands and their bounding muds to a total depth of 861.3 mbsf. 162.6 m of conventional core and 54.8 m of pressure core were obtained. Twelve temperature measurements were made between 27.1 and 144.5 mbsf to determine the geothermal gradient. At the seafloor, more than 4 m of sandy silt of unknown origin was encountered. Beneath this sand, to a depth of ~200 mbsf, the section was composed of interbedded mud and biogenic carbonate ooze. The biogenic ooze correlated to low density and high porosity intervals observed in the previously acquired logging while drilling (LWD) data and as measured. Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy constrains the entire record to the Pleistocene (< 0.91 million years) with a pronounced increase in sedimentation rate with depth. Beneath 200 mbsf, the section was predominantly composed of mud with two thicker, hydrate-bearing coarse-grained intervals, which are commonly known as the Blue and Orange sands. The dissolved gas concentration was quantified from pressure cores. In the shallow section, dissolved methane concentration increased below the sulfate-methane transition zone (SMTZ) and reaches saturation (the limit of solubility for methane) at 147 mbsf. Gas expansion was very common in conventional and depressurized pressure (conventionalized) cores below the SMTZ. At deeper depths, the methane concentration within muds bounding the Blue and Orange reservoirs was generally found to be less than saturation. The dissolved and hydrate gas composition is consistent with a microbial source, containing greater than 99.99% methane and only trace concentrations of ethane, propane, and butane. The methane to ethane ratio (C 1 /C 2 ) and the methane to ethane plus propane (C 1 /(C 2 +C 3 )) decrease with depth down to at least 678 mbsf, mainly driven by the increase in ethane with depth. It is unclear if this trend continues through the Orange sand interval. The δ 13 C isotopic signature of methane ranges between -69.9 and -78.5 ‰ Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB). Pressure core recovery of all sandy intervals was poor. However, pressure core logs of the Orange sand show intervals of low density and high velocity, which are indicative of high hydrate saturation. One core from within the Orange sand was composed of interbedded graded sandy silt and mud. The sandy silts from this core are composed of mainly quartz and feldspar with some lithics. Most of the recovered pressure core samples are maintained at near in-situ pressure and temperature (within the hydrate stability field) at the University of Texas Pressure Core Center awaiting analysis. In the shallow section, samples will be used to determine the flux of organic carbon through the basin system, find the rate at which that carbon was consumed, and understand the microbial population responsible for these processes. In the deeper section, samples from in and around the hydrate reservoirs will be used to determine the petrophysical properties of the reservoir and bounding seals in these systems.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Large reductions in Permian Basin methane intensity shown in multi-year comparison of aerially-visible methane emissions

Spanning the US states of Texas and New Mexico, the Permian Basin has been a hotspot of methane emissions from oil and natural gas activity 1–4, although studies disagree over the magnitude of these emissions. The most comprehensive measurement campaigns published were conducted in 2019 1–5 .There have been large changes in the energy industry since then, including in the prices of oil and gas, both state and federal regulatory environments, investor and activist pressure over methane emissions, and the adoption of new technologies and policies by energy operators. Understanding how any or all of these might influence methane emissions is important for policy makers, oil and gas operators, and other stakeholders. We characterize the time evolution of Permian Basin methane emissions using a series of comprehensive aerial surveys conducted every year from 2020-2023 and compare them to the 2019 results cited above. To maintain comparability, all the data sets are from surveys using Insight M point source methane sensing technology. The scope of these surveys expanded over time: from 33-46% of wells, oil production, and gas production in 2020 to 60-65% in 2021, to 84% of wells and over 90% of both oil and gas production in 2023. These surveys by Insight M also include hundreds of gas processing plants and compressor stations as well as 1000s of km of gathering and transmission pipelines. Considering only the aerially detected portion of emissions (typically the majority of the total in such surveys 4), we find reductions of more than 70% in methane emissions intensity compared to the 2019 New Mexico-only Insight M survey, with variation depending on the year 3,4. Notably, although sources below 100 kg/hr contributed less than 10% of aerially measured emissions the 2019 New Mexico survey 3, these smaller sources constitute a larger proportion of total aerially measured emissions (although not the majority) in 2020-2023. Production facilities and gathering pipelines are responsible for the larges shares of total emissions, followed by compressor stations and gas processing plants. Permian methane emissions were also measured in a comprehensive 2019 Permian-wide survey by the Carbon Mapper team 2. That analysis led to a lower total emissions estimate at the time 4. These new Insight M-based emission rates are still roughly 30-70% lower than the aerially measured portion of the 2019 Carbon Mapper-based estimates 4. Further work is needed to harmonize these surveys in space and time to create the most intercomparable numbers possible 5. Additional analysis is needed to compare our findings to the more spatially constrained 2020, 2021, and 2023 Carbon Mapper surveys in the Permian 4,6. The evidence is strong from these two survey teams that emissions intensity has declined significantly since 2019. Reasons for this trend are currently unclear but point to possible success of emissions control programs. Future work investigating frequency, source, and operator-specific intensities could provide insights into the causes of this promising trend.

methane, oil and gas, data science, remote sensing↗