ArticleAtmospheric Environment: X2022
Methane emissions from oil and gas production sites and their storage tanks in West Virginia.
Article in Atmospheric Environment: X, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Pathways for Potential Exposure to Onshore Oil and Gas Wastewater: What We Need to Know to Protect Human Health.GeoHealth · 2025Review
- Catalytic Heaters at Oil and Gas Sites May be a Significant yet Overlooked Seasonal Source of Methane Emissions.Environmental science & technology letters · 2024Article
- Methane Quantification Performance of the Quantitative Optical Gas Imaging (QOGI) System Using Single-Blind Controlled Release Assessment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Quantification of natural gas and other hydrocarbons from production sites in northern West Virginia using tracer flux ratio methodology.Atmospheric Environment: X · 2023Article
- Evaluating Natural Gas Emissions from Pneumatic Controllers from Upstream Oil and Gas Facilities in West Virginia.Atmospheric Environment: X · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A measurement campaign characterized methane and other emissions from 15 natural gas production sites. Sites were surveyed using optical gas imaging (OGI) cameras to identify fugitive and vented emissions, with the methane mass emission rate quantified using a full flow sampler. We present storage tank emissions in context of all site emissions, followed by a detailed account of the former. In total, 224 well pad emission sources at 15 sites were quantified yielding a total emission rate of 57.5 ± 2.89 kg/hr for all sites. Site specific emissions ranged from 0.4 to 10.5 kg/hr with arithmetic and geometric means of 3.8 and 2.2 kg/hr, respectively. The two largest categories of emissions by mass were pneumatic devices (35 kg/hr or ~61% of total) and tanks (14.3 kg/hr or ~25% of total). Produced water and condensate tanks at all sites employed emissions control devices. Nevertheless, tanks may still lose gas via component leaks as observed in this study. The total number of tanks at all sites was 153. One site experienced a major malfunction and direct tank measurements were not conducted due to safety concerns and may have represented a super-emitter as found in other studies. The remaining sites had 143 tanks, which accounted for 42 emissions sources. Leaks on controlled tanks were associated with ERVs, PRVs, and thief hatches. Since measurements represented snapshots-in-time and could only be compared with modeled tank emission data, it was difficult to assess real capture efficiencies accurately. Our estimates suggest that capture efficiency ranged from 63 to 92% for controlled tanks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.