Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41262187›Full record

ArticleACS ES&T air2025

The Efficacy of Methane Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) Programs in Practice.

Shona E Wilde, David R Tyner, Matthew R Johnson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS ES&T air, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Shona E WildeEnergy and Emissions Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0429-4347
David R TynerEnergy and Emissions Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6500-9888
Matthew R JohnsonEnergy and Emissions Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3637-9919

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Periodic leak detection and repair (LDAR) surveys are a key part of most modern oil and gas sector methane regulations, however their effectiveness in real-world practice has been difficult to assess. This study analyzes three years of reported data from regulated LDAR surveys in British Columbia, Canada, which suggest that 3×/year optical gas imaging (OGI)-based LDAR surveys reduce detected emissions by half at fully compliant sites. However, independent source-resolved aerial surveys at an identical subset of sites find 12 times more methane emissions overall, and four times more emissions after conservatively excluding potential combustion-related and intentional vent sources not targeted by OGI LDAR surveys. This demonstrates that regulated OGI-based LDAR surveys only capture a small portion of total emissions in practice, raising concerns about overestimated mitigation impacts and potentially misguided expectations when assessing alternative technologies. Further analysis reveals the two methods find complementary subsets of sources, with aerial detections comprising a range of larger combustion, vent, and fugitive sources and LDAR detections dominated by numerous smaller leaks from connectors and valves. This underscores the importance of integrating complementary measurement approaches to capture the full distribution of emissions and the necessity of independent verification frameworks such as OGMP 2.0.

Indexed as

aerialcompliancefugitive emissionsLDARmethaneOGIoil and gasreconciliation

Identifiers

PMID41262187
PMCPMC12624710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.