Methane leaks

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/12/climate/texas-methane-super-emitters.html

This article is the equivalent of going around to grave yards with a flir and saying any hot or cold spots you can find are proof of ghosts.

Obvious problem.
They assume anything hot or cold is a methane leak.
Methane is lighter than air, but some of the exhaust plooms they show are sinking, which means they are obviously not lighter than air and are likely high in sulphur gases or ammonia.
They show a building thats "leaking methane", I don't think so on account of it would blow up with the smallest spark.
They say "a worker walked through a cloud of methane" since the cloud was sinking it wasn't methane, it might have looked like he walked through the cloud to the perspective of the camera. There's no way he walked through a cloud of heavier than air gas like that. It stinks and burns your eyes, nose and lungs.
It appears almost as if it's the first time these reporters have held any kind of camera.
Anyone who has ever used a flir knows this is bs.

If it was that easy to find methane leaks, why doesn't the epa drive around with a flir and cut huge tickets to all the offenders?
Why doesn't the gas company use flir to find line and meter leaks? If it worked it would be a lot faster than using people with hand held methane sniffers.

This may fall into the category of techno-brainwashing. Just because you can find a new thing to measure does not mean that what you are seeing it what you THINK you are seeing..

You could use a heat sensing camera and get those images, but it may only be HEAT and not toxic materials...

To be fair, they did say they enlisted the help of an expert in detecting methane emissions. Just because they didn't detail their methods doesn't mean they were invalid. And just because an infrared camera was used doesn't mean they labelled any heat signature as methane. In fact they mention distinguishing between various emissions.

Literally everything hot or cold they could see was "a methane leak".

Oilpan4 said:

Literally everything hot or cold they could see was "a methane leak".

Click to expand...

You know this... how?

Oilpan4 said:

Literally everything hot or cold they could see was "a methane leak".

Click to expand...

I don't believe that was either expressed or implied. They also used a spectrometer to analyze air samples and the camera wasn't an off-the-shelf thermal camera looking for any old heat, it was a custom unit fitted with a narrow-pass filter from 3.2 to 3.4 um. If the following paper is relevant, then multiple emitters would be aimed at the target and Methane responds strongly to one of them at 3.3um, and not to the other, identifying the composition of the plume.

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/10000368.html

WetEV said:

Oilpan4 said:

Literally everything hot or cold they could see was "a methane leak".

Click to expand...

You know this... how?

Click to expand...

That's what the article said did you not read it?

If it's that easy why doesn't the epa get them selves one like that and ride around cutting huge tickets?
If 10% of these methane leaks are actually methane leaks it would pay for its self a few times before lunch on its first day in service.

Oilpan4 said:

If it's that easy why doesn't the epa get them selves one like that and ride around cutting huge tickets?
If 10% of these methane leaks are actually methane leaks it would pay for its self a few times before lunch on its first day in service.

Click to expand...

Oilpan4 said:

WetEV said:

Oilpan4 said:

Literally everything hot or cold they could see was "a methane leak".

Click to expand...

You know this... how?

Click to expand...

That's what the article said did you not read it?

Click to expand...

Show the quote.

The first picture shows a ploom of "methane escaping from a tank" it's definitely something coming out of that vent. But since it's traveling parallel to the ground and appears to be sinking slightly it's likely not methane as methane is much lighter than air, I thought you knew that?

In the second picture they admit they don't even know what they are looking at. "A device meant to burn off methane". Burning methane on too of a roof like that is an idiotic fire a and explosion hazard it would never be attempted. It appears to be an exhaust vent for a larger industrial boiler up to 1,000hp.

For the 3rd picture they say "The shed appears to be emitting methane from all sides" . That's ridiculous as the shed would have exploded or burned down long ago.

The 4th IR picture they say "a worker walked into a ploom without protection". Clearly the tank is emitting something a lot heavier than air.
Methane is lighter than air, I thought you knew that, no?

The 5th picture may actually be a methane discharge.

The 6th picture doesn't even show a what's making the emission showing up on their camers. The picture is clearly of a generator or pump shed with a ladder cage. Whatever is emitting the ploom is behind the shed. It could be a methane discharge, but it's more likey another stationary diesel engine with an exhaust pipe turned towards the sky. No one would put a methane discharge that close to a perfect ignition source like a generator or pump shed.

Over all a possible 1 out of 6, 0 confirmed. That's about on par with the nytimes.

Hey Guys,

It is good to inform everyone of new issues with information.. It is also good to be skeptical.

Especially since no one has skin in the game (or $) let's all allow for everyone's opinions?

I, like OilPan like to be doubting Thomas' until we get evidence. It is part of my real life job..

If it was really that easy I would love for the epa to go around and fine these guys until they stop leak gas.
The gas should be contained with in pipe until it reaches it's end use, burned for heat or used in some transformitive chemical process like plastics, synthetic motor oil, or to make hydrogen.
It would be pretty embarrassing if the epa wrote a ticket for a methane leak and it was just an exhaust vent for a boiler or an exhaust pipe from a diesel engine, or a permitted methane release then the oil company would have every right to sue the epa for harassment, fraud, abuse of authority, ect.

For example picture number 6, "the huge leak" that could be a gas well that someone backed a pickup into and cracked a line or an engine running. Gas wells can have up to 7,000 psi head pressure so a small crack can make big leak at the well head. I find it a little suspicious they didn't try to get more footage from different angles since that was the grand fanally pic.

Oilpan4 said:

The first picture shows a ploom of "methane escaping from a tank" it's definitely something coming out of that vent. But since it's traveling parallel to the ground and appears to be sinking slightly it's likely not methane as methane is much lighter than air, I thought you knew that?

Click to expand...

Methane is lighter than air, but we are not looking at pure methane, and we are not looking at still air.

With no wind currents, methane would rise. But this isn't still air. Wind blowing past a tank will make air rise on the upwind side and sink on the downwind side. Methane released at the top of the tank will be carried by the wind.

A mixture of methane and other hydrocarbon gases can be heaver than air. But that would only matter in still air, not with a breeze blowing.

If it's hydrocarbon soup then it should at least be burned off on a flare.
One thing they did good here in new Mexico is the state not the feds went after the methane leakers. Since the start of the Crack down gas production has more than doubled due to demand and improved hydraulic fracturing and the gas emissions have been reduced 30%, which translates into 200 million dollars in additional royalties over the last 11 or 12 years.
But regulators think between 10 and 30 million dollars per year maybe escaping.

Oilpan4 said:

If it's that easy why doesn't the epa get them selves one like that and ride around cutting huge tickets?
If 10% of these methane leaks are actually methane leaks it would pay for its self a few times before lunch on its first day in service.

Click to expand...

Did you read the full article?
They first used a spectrometer to test the air above potential sites. They then visited some sites on the ground.
They used a specialized camera with a metal lens to make the plumes visible.
While the camera shows a number of materials, the spectrometer would give ratios, so you could get a general idea of how much of each material is being emitted.

This seems very well thought out, investigated, and documented.
Pretty much the opposite of what you are suggesting.

Yeah read it. It appears they were casually flying around sniffing for methane. Since they gave no method of searching, no observational data, discription of instrumentation, any indication of training, no details of the technical aspects I figured that part crashing and burning it's self as being obvious to everyone.
How do I convert a blip of methane to imperial units?

Do you understand how fire and explosive gasses work?
There's no way there would be a "device on a roof meant to burn off methane" or a "building leaking methane from all sides".

If this article presets such an air tight case then why doesn't the epa do it this way?
If reporters who likely have English degrees are so well qualified to hunt for pollution then the epa should easily be god level compared to these guys.

The only thing I can say for sure they did right was following the money

Oilpan4 said:

Yeah read it. It appears they were casually flying around sniffing for methane. Since they gave no method of searching, no observational data, discription of instrumentation, any indication of training, no details of the technical aspects I figured that part crashing and burning it's self as being obvious to everyone.

Click to expand...

You might want to read the article next time.

I guess the pilot know what he was doing or no one to write this "article".