the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An evaluation of airborne mass balance and tracer correlation approaches to estimate site-level CH4 emissions from LNG facilities using CO2 as a tracer of opportunity
Abstract. Accurate and representative quantification of methane (CH4) emissions from individual oil and gas facilities is crucial to improve our knowledge of CH4 sources, improve the reliability of emissions reporting and help facilitate mitigation opportunities. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals primarily emit carbon dioxide (CO2) but are also potentially large CH4 sources in the gas supply chain. Here, in work supported by the United Nations Environment Program International Methane Emissions Observatory (UNEP’s IMEO), we evaluate two airborne measurement approaches to quantify CH4 emissions from four LNG facilities. The first approach applies a downwind mass balance method to quantify emissions of both CH4 and CO2. Since operator-reported CO2 emissions are relatively well-established, we evaluate the method’s performance by comparing to operator-reported CO2 values. Using this approach, we show that an individual facility CO2 mass balance quantification has a mean relative difference to operator reporting of ±20 %, with no significant mean bias across all estimates. The second approach uses measured CH4:CO2 mole fraction ratios as an alternative method for estimating site-level CH4 emissions. Using this tracer correlation approach, we show that uncertainties in the ratio of CH4:CO2 from a single day can be below ±10 % at the 95 % confidence level. Due to uncertainty in the CO2 emission rate, the resulting mean 2σ uncertainty on CH4 emissions is ±30 %. CH4:CO2 ratios are found to vary with height, with larger variation at lower altitudes (<250 m). Representative sampling across both horizontal and vertical space is needed to enhance the accuracy of the tracer correlation approach for individual emission estimates. We find that when repeated over multiple days and different atmospheric conditions, ratio measurements below 250 m provide a median estimate that is within 5 % of the mass balance and multi-height ratio methods. Whilst the CO2:CH4 emission ratios derived from measurements could be applied to estimate CH4 emissions over longer timeframes, the degree of representativeness will depend on the variability of the ratio over time. Our results indicate that the tracer correlation approach using CO2 as a tracer of opportunity can be used to efficiently estimate CH4 emissions from LNG facilities with a low level of uncertainty.
Competing interests: Mark F. Lunt and James L. France are employees of the Environmental Defense Fund and Environmental Defense Fund Europe respectively. Ian~Joynes is an employee of Woodside Energy Limited. Tim Robertson and Simon Thompson are employees of Chevron Australia Pty Ltd.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(1382 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(494 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1926', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1926/egusphere-2025-1926-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mark Lunt, 23 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1926/egusphere-2025-1926-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mark Lunt, 23 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1926', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jun 2025
Comments on the manuscript:
Interesting study, focusing on the emission quantification of LNG facilities. Especially the use of the already emitted CO2 as a tracer is valuable. This study is therefore a good addition within this field of research. It also gives a good overview of the advantages and disadvantages of the mass balance and tracer approach. Furthermore, the statistical substantiation is well provided. The paper is written clear and a relevant topic, that contributes to a better understanding of methane emissions in the environment. It is also helpful to the OGMP 2.0 implementation as a potential method.
Specific comments:
In the abstract, the authors present 2 approaches, downwind mass balance method (1) and the tracer correlation approach (2). In line 38 the authors mention the tracer correlation approach can be used, but here the mass balance approach is not mentioned. Maybe good to also mention the results of this approach in comparison to approach 2.
I miss information on the site description and size of the LNG facilities. I understand that they are anonymised, but later on some measurements are above water instead of land. This can have major influences on the dispersion and mixing of the plumes.
Line 488: For completeness, maybe add that also because of closer distances, plumes from differenced sources of the facilities will not be well mixed already. At closer distances, the individual sources can be detected, which may result in difference CH4:CO2 ratios. This is also shown in Figure 6, with the different sources having different CH4:CO2 ratios at closer distances (Figure 6 a, b and c) and are well mixed at further distances (8 km; Figure 6 d).
Line 538: Here the authors mentioned that measurements were often taken over water. This can also explain part of the poor mixing below 250 m (line 536). The mixing/dispersion of plumes behave different above water compared to above land (this is for example included in the EPA OCD (Offshore and Coastal Dispersion) model.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1926-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mark Lunt, 23 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1926/egusphere-2025-1926-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mark Lunt, 23 Jul 2025
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1926', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1926/egusphere-2025-1926-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mark Lunt, 23 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1926/egusphere-2025-1926-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Mark Lunt, 23 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1926', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Jun 2025
Comments on the manuscript:
Interesting study, focusing on the emission quantification of LNG facilities. Especially the use of the already emitted CO2 as a tracer is valuable. This study is therefore a good addition within this field of research. It also gives a good overview of the advantages and disadvantages of the mass balance and tracer approach. Furthermore, the statistical substantiation is well provided. The paper is written clear and a relevant topic, that contributes to a better understanding of methane emissions in the environment. It is also helpful to the OGMP 2.0 implementation as a potential method.
Specific comments:
In the abstract, the authors present 2 approaches, downwind mass balance method (1) and the tracer correlation approach (2). In line 38 the authors mention the tracer correlation approach can be used, but here the mass balance approach is not mentioned. Maybe good to also mention the results of this approach in comparison to approach 2.
I miss information on the site description and size of the LNG facilities. I understand that they are anonymised, but later on some measurements are above water instead of land. This can have major influences on the dispersion and mixing of the plumes.
Line 488: For completeness, maybe add that also because of closer distances, plumes from differenced sources of the facilities will not be well mixed already. At closer distances, the individual sources can be detected, which may result in difference CH4:CO2 ratios. This is also shown in Figure 6, with the different sources having different CH4:CO2 ratios at closer distances (Figure 6 a, b and c) and are well mixed at further distances (8 km; Figure 6 d).
Line 538: Here the authors mentioned that measurements were often taken over water. This can also explain part of the poor mixing below 250 m (line 536). The mixing/dispersion of plumes behave different above water compared to above land (this is for example included in the EPA OCD (Offshore and Coastal Dispersion) model.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1926-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mark Lunt, 23 Jul 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-1926/egusphere-2025-1926-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Mark Lunt, 23 Jul 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
459 | 52 | 24 | 535 | 26 | 17 | 30 |
- HTML: 459
- PDF: 52
- XML: 24
- Total: 535
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1