The launch of Planet’s and the CarbonMapper Coalition’s Tanager-1 hyperspectral methane detection satellite marks a significant advancement in the rapidly expanding field of remote sensing technologies designed to monitor methane emissions levels in the oil and gas industry. The burgeoning sector of advanced methane monitoring, with a market potential in the hundreds of millions of dollars, has been propelled by regulatory initiatives in the United States and Europe, alongside a growing demand from buyers, importers, and investors in fossil fuels to accurately assess their emissions levels.
Detecting Individual Plumes Leads to Faster Mitigation
Satellite emissions analysis completed earlier this year indicates that the CarbonMapper Coalition’s future constellation of Tanager satellites could detect up to one plume above 100 kg/hr per site annually, depending on the emissions profile of the basin. Plume monitoring satellite constellations like Tanager have the potential to gather emissions data on up to a daily basis from global target areas and plume attribution will lead to the identification of responsible parties and faster mitigation action. CarbonMapper’s plan to make screened emissions data publicly available on their existing portal will enhance trust and transparency, also accelerating mitigation efforts.
Plume monitoring satellites play a crucial role in methane management by precisely pinpointing the location and magnitude of individual emission plumes, thereby enhancing advanced monitoring programs. These satellites are particularly valuable for operators aiming to better understand and mitigate significant emission sources that contribute heavily to their overall emissions. In basins worldwide, especially those producing oil and associated gas, plume monitoring satellites are effective in detecting a substantial share of methane emissions from abnormal operations.
Improving the Characterization of Super-Emitting Events
The frequency of satellite monitoring will help characterize large, intermittent emissions sources more reliably, giving operators more robust data to evaluate causes and implement well founded mitigation efforts. Factors like weather conditions, safety concerns, airspace restrictions, and site access may limit the continuous deployment of advanced methane detection technologies throughout the year. However, satellite data serves as a vital bridge, offering more frequent and comprehensive detection coverage for basins with a history of super-emitting events.
Although satellites are not useful for source-level leak detection and measurement, modeling performed by MiQ indicates that complete spatial coverage and frequent surveys of upstream and midstream assets – even at relatively high detection sensitivities – can reduce the risk of unknown super-emitting events disproportionately affecting an operator’s methane emissions inventory. Over time , the spatial and temporal variability of intermittent emissions sources from abnormal operations will be better understood by both operators and the research community.
The MiQ Equivalency Table: First-of-its-Kind Options to Incorporate Satellites into Advanced Technology Programs
Using the results of this modeling MiQ has released first-of-its-kind guidance for how oil and gas producers can use methane detection data collected from satellites to demonstrate and improve their emissions performance.
MiQ’s updated Equivalency Table now includes programs that combine frequent satellite monitoring with other monitoring methodologies, such as aerial flyovers and handheld source-level detection surveys. Beyond supporting emissions certification, the Equivalency Table and its associated methodology serve as valuable references by oil and gas operators examining credible ways to meaningfully incorporate new data into their operational excellence efforts and corporate responsibility strategies.
The Equivalency Table comprises 124 monitoring programs modeled to assess their potential for emissions reductionat oil and gas production facilities. To ensure consistency, several modeling parameters are standardized across each program simulation, while four key parameters are varied to evaluate their impact on emissions reductions:
- Monitoring method(s) used including
- Handheld optical gas imaging,
- Remote aerial or drone-based sensing methods
- continuous monitoring systems (CMS), and
- Remote satellite-based sensing methods
- Alarm threshold of the monitoring program, defined as the instantaneous or time-averaged threshold where an operator will investigate a detection. A technology must have proven a minimum detection limit of at least the value of the alarm threshold at a 90 percent probability of detection to qualify for use under a specific program.
- Frequency of deployment of OGI and snapshot monitoring methods
- Percent coverage of an asset for OGI and CMS methods (100% coverage assumed for snapshot methods)
Additionally, each program in the Equivalency Table is modeled against two distinct methane emissions distributions: one representing a dry gas production basin and the other reflecting a basin with significant associated oil and condensate production[1]. The emissions reduction potential of each program is compared to the requirements in the MiQ Standard which are shown in Table 1.
Figure 1: Monitoring Technology Deployment Requirements of the MiQ Standard for Methane Emissions Performance for Onshore Oil and Gas Producers
Putting the Equivalency Table into Action
For instance, an operator in a primarily oil-producing basin may face significant challenges in maintaining the safety and effectiveness of aerial surveys during harsh winter conditions, which can impede their ability to qualify for a high MiQ grade. The standard MiQ monitoring program to be eligible for an A grade typically requires quarterly aerial surveys covering 100% of sites, along with quarterly source-level surveys across most locations. However, by consulting the MiQ Equivalency Table, an operator can adjust their monitoring strategy by reducing the frequency of aerial surveys to semi-annual and conducting OGI surveys annually, supplemented with a monthly satellite survey at an alarm threshold of <=100 kg/hr. 12 separate programs (Programs 8.10 to 8.12, 8.16 to 8.18, 9.10 to 9.12 and 9.16 to 9.18) depicted in Figure 2 would qualify their emissions performance for an A grade, pending review of their methane intensity and company practices.
Figure 2: Categories 8 and 9 of the MiQ Equivalency Table inclusive of each modeled program that includes a satellite-based inspection method.
Figure 3 outlines the MiQ grades that producers could qualify for when following a program in the Equivalency Table that incorporates satellite-based inspection methods. For these programs, operators are required to acquire data from the satellite provider at least once a month, covering their entire asset. The alarm thresholds modeled are 100 kg/hr, which aligns with the detection limit of Tanager-1, and 500 kg/hr, corresponding to the point-source detection limit of MethaneSAT.
Additionally, the satellite provider must deliver this data to the operator within 15 days of detection, and the operator must carry out any necessary follow-up or repairs within one month of becoming aware of the event. These timelines are critical for satellite data to be most effectively spurn and influence investigations of root causes and prioritization of lasting mitigation actions.
Figure 3: Grading eligibility with programs including satellite-based methods. All programs also included one annual source-level inspection survey across 100% of the asset, and 1 to 3 aerial-based surveys across 100% of the asset with a detection limit below 10 kg/hr or below 25 kg/hr.
Continuously Improving Satellite Data Utilization
Despite the progress made, there are still challenges in leveraging satellite emissions data to inform decision-making in the oil and gas industry .It is crucial to develop products that deliver emissions data in the hands of operators as quickly as possible. Potential solutions could offer operators the ability to access and respond to attributed, yet non-quantified data, within days while awaiting on further quantification. Establishing trusted industry best practices for the optimal use of emissions data is essential to maximizing its impact on emissions mitigation. In addition, further testing of satellites under non-optimal conditions, such as cloud cover and snow, is necessary to better understand their effectiveness in various weather events and climatic conditions.
First-adopters operators will need to respond to satellite data in time periods more closely aligning with the existing follow-up, repair, and investigative procedures they currently comply with for traditional detection methods, like handheld OGI surveys. Timely follow-up, repair and investigation of emissions events is arguably the most important remaining variable to maximizing their mitigation potential. Furthermore, many operators in North America and may require this data to meet increasingly stringent performance-based regulations and looming fossil fuel import standards. Operators who are in earlier stages of developing comprehensive methane emission management plans will need frequent surveys across their entire asset bases to establish accurate baselines for both short and long-term mitigation plans. These operators may also face the same import standards, particularly in countries where methane mitigation is a key part of national climate change commitments.
What’s Next?
By integrating satellite data with other more sensitive monitoring methods, operators across the oil and gas supply chain can more effectively and consistently manage their emissions risks. This integration not only enhances environmental performance but also bolsters market confidence in products with transparent emission intensities.
MiQ continues to support an adaptable yet standardized deployment of advanced monitoring technologies as they are adopted in both regulations and best practices gloabally. The MiQ Equivalency Table serves as a leading example, showcasing the systematic application of satellite methane emissions data for achieving superior emissions management.
For more information on MiQ’s Equivalency Table, the methodology and other resources related to the deployment of advanced monitoring and measurement technologies for emissions certification you can review the following links or reach out to us directly.
- MiQ Equivalency Table
- MiQ Equivalency Table modeling methodology
- List of technology providers that have completed a compability assessment to the MiQ Standard
This work would not have been possible without the modeling expertise of MiQ alumnus Joshua Romo. Joshua is currently improving methane emissions characterization of oil and gas infrastructure through his PhD program in Stanford’s Energy Science and Engineering department.
[1] This definition is established by the operator’s average gas-to-oil ratio of their assets in the basin. An asset with an average GOR of <=100 scf/bbl is defined as an “oil” basin
[2] Monitoring Technology Deployment (MTD) points are one of the 3 key inputs to determining a producer’s MiQ overall Grade along with their calculated methane intensity and their Company Practices points total. 12 MTD points = eligibility for A grade, 8 points = eligibility for B grade, 4 points = eligibility for C grade, 0 points = eligibility for D grade
[3] MDL = Minimum Detection Limit
[4] PoD = Probability of Detection
[5] Source-level inspections are modeled as handheld OGI inspections