ArticleACS ES&T air2025
The Efficacy of Methane Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) Programs in Practice.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.