I'm not sure how we would implement any more effective monitoring of natural gas leakage. We have gas detectors all over the facility and personnel walk around with gas detectors on their coveralls. Flowmeters are generally not accurate to <1%.
I would expect the only credible thing we can do is design it out, e.g. by running seal vents to flare rather than safe location, improving reliability, flareless operation etc.
I imagine the majority of "leakage" must be unburnt hydrocarbon in flare and GT exhausts.
But when you say "straightforward extant solutions" what are you referring to? In the industry, nobody particularly assesses "leakage" or really designs for minimising leakage per se.
> In the industry, nobody particularly assesses "leakage" or really designs for minimising leakage per se.
An interesting perspective.
You sound as if you have relevant first-hand experience. From your knowledge, what is the state of aerial/satellite detection? Those are the solutions that I've seen cross my news feeds in recent years.
I work for an operating company rather than a design contractor, and I'm involved in topsides. I can't quite imagine what benefit aerial/satellite detection would have. Before we start up a process system, the last stage of commissioning is to pressurise with a nitrogen-helium mix and get a contractor to go round with a very sensitive helium detector to catch any tiny leaks.
To put it in perspective, we have another low-tech approach where you put tape around a potential leak point, spray a soapy mixture, then count the bubbles. The pass/fail criterion is measured in bubbles per minute. Yet inside the pipe you measure the flowrate in tens or hundreds of tonnes of gas per hour.
Possibly unburnt hydrocarbon in the flare could contribute to this "leakage" but flares are designed for complete combustion so I can't imagine it would make any difference in terms of GHG emissions compared to the already-considerable CO2.
We already have plenty of fixed gas detectors and personal gas monitors around site that are sensitive to about 0.04% methane (I think) so I can't really picture a satellite doing anything better.
I'd like to interrogate those ideas, if you don't mind? I'm truly curious here. Somewhat skeptical from the impression my reading has given me, but I don't mean to be hostile.
The initial testing is all very well, and I have no reason to expect it's at all ineffective, but I imagine it would be more interesting to look at the consequences of wear/weathering over time.
I suppose my biggest question is the mechanism by which those (fixed and personal) detectors work. I know that the aerial solutions work via lidar, and I expect satellite similarly looks for absorption in particular wavelengths.
Also, as you can probably tell from my comment already, I know very little about satellite surveillance for methane leakage, only that it is not common practice for operating companies.
I recently saw an intriguing software engineer job posting for a company in Montreal & Ottawa that deploys satellites for testing/surveying for methane leakage. I was tempted.
It could be mandated that all facility pressures be below atmospheric pressure. Then all leaks would lead to air getting into the pipes rather than gas getting out.
Clearly with that being the case, one needs much bigger more expensive pipes.
That would easily solve the problem, by making any gas processing facilities completely uneconomic to operate ;)
I am quite interested in the idea of methane leakage though. There seems to be a growing consensus online that it exists and is significant, but within industry it is really not recognised.
I would expect the only credible thing we can do is design it out, e.g. by running seal vents to flare rather than safe location, improving reliability, flareless operation etc.
I imagine the majority of "leakage" must be unburnt hydrocarbon in flare and GT exhausts.
But when you say "straightforward extant solutions" what are you referring to? In the industry, nobody particularly assesses "leakage" or really designs for minimising leakage per se.