ArticlePDF Available

Methane Emissions from Superemitting Coal Mines in Australia Quantified Using TROPOMI Satellite Observations

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Two years of satellite observations were used to quantify methane emissions from coal mines in Queensland, the largest coal-producing state in Australia. The six analyzed surface and underground coal mines are estimated to emit 570 ± 98 Gg a-1 in 2018-2019. Together, they account for 7% of the national coal production while emitting 55 ± 10% of the reported methane emission from coal mining in Australia. Our results indicate that for two of the three locations, our satellite-based estimates are significantly higher than reported to the Australian government. Most remarkably, 40% of the quantified emission came from a single surface mine (Hail Creek) located in a methane-rich coal basin. Our findings call for increased monitoring and investment in methane recovery technologies for both surface and underground mines.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Methane Emissions from Superemitting Coal Mines in Australia
Quantied Using TROPOMI Satellite Observations
Pankaj Sadavarte,*Sudhanshu Pandey, Joannes D. Maasakkers, Alba Lorente, Tobias Borsdor,
Hugo Denier van der Gon, Sander Houweling, and Ilse Aben
Cite This: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03976
Read Online
ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations *
sıSupporting Information
ABSTRACT: Two years of satellite observations were used to quantify methane
emissions from coal mines in Queensland, the largest coal-producing state in
Australia. The six analyzed surface and underground coal mines are estimated to
emit 570 ±98 Gg a1in 20182019. Together, they account for 7% of the
national coal production while emitting 55 ±10% of the reported methane
emission from coal mining in Australia. Our results indicate that for two of the
three locations, our satellite-based estimates are signicantly higher than reported
to the Australian government. Most remarkably, 40% of the quantied emission
came from a single surface mine (Hail Creek) located in a methane-rich coal basin.
Our ndings call for increased monitoring and investment in methane recovery
technologies for both surface and underground mines.
KEYWORDS: underground mines, surface mines, source rate, emission inventory, superemitters
INTRODUCTION
Methane (CH4) is the second most important greenhouse gas
and is responsible for 25% of the anthropogenic radiative forcing
in the atmosphere.
1
Due to its shorter atmospheric lifetime (12
years) compared to CO2and higher greenhouse warming
potential, the mitigation of methane emissions is an ecient
method to tackle near-term climate warming.
2
The current
methane growth rate, however, challenges existing climate
policies, including the Paris Agreement (PA), and will ask for
additional reductions on top of what is already foreseen to attain
the PA goals.
3
To do this in an ecient manner, an improved
understanding and quantication of anthropogenic methane
emissions are of vital importance.
The fossil fuel industry, including oil/gas (O/G) production
and coal mining, accounts for one-third of the total
anthropogenic methane emission.
4,5
Coal mining is responsible
for about 12% of total anthropogenic methane emissions,
4,5
with
90% coming from underground mines.
6
The recent global
methane budget suggests an increase of 38% (12 Tg) in
emissions from coal mines between 20002009 and 2017,
4,7
most likely due to the increase in global coal production.
Methane emissions from coal mines have been quantied using
atmospheric measurements from ground-based and aircraft
campaigns.
8,9
Space-borne remote-sensing instruments have
been used to detect and quantify methane emissions on a
regional scale and can provide a measurement-based integral
quantication of large point sources.
1013
Recent developments
in space-borne instruments with subkilometer pixel resolution
have made identication and quantication of emissions from
individual oil and gas facilities and coal mine shafts possible.
14,15
However, these high-resolution satellites have limited spatial
coverage as they tend to only observe targeted areas.
15
Here, we use satellite observations of the TROPOspheric
Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) onboard the Copernicus
Sentinel-5 Precursor (S-5P) satellite, launched on 13 October
2017. It is a push broom imaging spectrometer in a sun-
synchronous orbit providing daily global methane columns
(XCH4) with a local overpass time at 13:30.
16
The daily global
coverage combined with a ne spatial resolution of 7 ×7km
2(7
×5.5 km2since August 2019) of TROPOMI enables the
detection of superemitters of methane in a single over-
pass.
12,14,17
In this study, we quantify fugitive methane plumes from coal
mines observed with TROPOMI over Queensland state in
Australia (Figure 1). We use two years (20182019) of clear-
sky column-averaged methane (XCH4) observations with the
data-driven cross-sectional ux method (CSF) to estimate
emissions. This method has been used in previous studies to
quantify emissions from point sources using satellite observa-
tions.
12,14,15
We compare our estimates with coal mine
Received: June 16, 2021
Revised: October 25, 2021
Accepted: October 26, 2021
Articlepubs.acs.org/est
© XXXX The Authors. Published by
American Chemical Society A
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03976
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXXXXX
Downloaded via INDIAN INST OF TECH BOMBAY on November 29, 2021 at 14:22:50 (UTC).
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
emissions from a global inventory and those ocially reported
by Australia to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC).
18
The study highlights the
superemitter behavior of three coal mines or coal mine clusters.
The identication and quantication of integrated overall
methane uxes from coal production sites using satellite
observations can help to further improve the national inventory
and prioritize emission reduction targets.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
TROPOMI Observations. The TROPOMI scientic data
product used here was retrieved using the RemoTeC full-physics
algorithm with improvements that resulted in a more stable
retrieval and correction for surface albedo biases.
20
Total
column methane (XCH4) is retrieved with nearly uniform
sensitivity in the troposphere from its absorption band around
2.3 and 0.7 μm using earthshine radiance measurements from
the shortwave infrared (SWIR) and near-infrared (NIR)
channel of TROPOMI.
2022
This new dataset has shown
good agreement with the measurements from the well-
established Total Carbon Column Observing Network
(TCCON)
23
and with the Greenhouse gases Observing
SATelliteGOSAT.
24
The TROPOMI XCH4measurements
used in this analysis were screened for cloud-free coverage and
low aerosol content using the quality ag provided in the data
products (we use qa = 1). Data quality qa = 1 signies XCH4is
ltered for solar zenith angle (<70°), viewing zenith angle
(<60°), smooth topography (1 standard deviation surface
elevation variability <80 m within a 5 km radius), and low
aerosol load (aerosol optical thickness <0.3 in the NIR band).
The TROPOMI data was corrected for XCH4variations due to
surface elevation by adding 7 ppb per km surface elevation with
respect to the mean sea level.
25
TROPOMI XCH4data show
articial stripes in the ight direction, most probably due to
swath position-dependent calibration inaccuracies, which were
corrected by applying a xed mask destriping approach to the L2
data developed for the TROPOMI XCO retrieval.
26,27
For emission quantication from TROPOMI-detected
plumes, orbits from 2018 and 2019 were screened with >500
individual observation pixels in the domain of 20°24°S and
146°150°E(Figure 1a). To ensure that emission quantica-
tions are not inuenced by systematic surface albedo or aerosol
bias, we reject orbits that show a high correlation (|R|> 0.5) of
XCH4with surface albedo or aerosol optical thickness. Seventy-
ve orbits containing a total of 124 clear-sky observations over
the three sources were thus selected and used for emission
quantication. The temporal spread shows most observations in
the months of JulyDecember in both 2018 and 2019 (Figure
Figure 1. TROPOMI observations and methane emissions over the study domain. Panel (a) shows a 0.1 ×0.1°gridded map of reconstructed bottom-
up methane emissions from coal mines in Queensland, Australia (19). The blue square ranging from latitude 20°24°S and longitude 146°150°E
indicates the domain containing the three source locations of our study. The inset panel shows the map of Australia and the relative location of the
study domain, which lies in the northeast. Examples of the persistent XCH4plumes observed are shown for dierent TROPOMI orbits over the study
domain (bf) during 2018 and 2019. The surface mine at source 1 is identied by the square at the origin of the top plume, and the underground mines
at sources 2 and 3 are indicated with triangles near the middle and the bottom plumes. Cloud-free observations are mostly found during the months of
June until November in both years. TROPOMI methane column (XCH4) is given in ppb, and the gridded methane emissions inside the study domain
are given in Gg a1.
Environmental Science & Technology pubs.acs.org/est Article
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03976
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXXXXX
B
2). The presence of clouds during January until June limits the
availability of TROPOMI during these months. However,
quarterly raw coal production numbers in 2018 and 2019 show
variations of less than 5%, so we expect only minor dierences in
emission rates over the year.
Cross-Sectional Flux Method. We quantify methane
emissions from TROPOMI observations using the cross-
sectional ux method,
28
as shown in eq 1.
=̅ ̅ =× ΔΩ
=
Q
CU C nxy ywhere, 1(,)d
j
n
jeff
1(1)
where the source rate Q(t h1) is calculated as the product of the
integrated methane column enhancement C̅and the eective
wind speed Ueff. The methane column enhancement ΔΩ (xj,y)
is computed by sampling the plume using transects orthogonal
to the plume direction (y-axis) in the downwind of the source
(x-axis) (Figure S1). The sampled observations are integrated
across each transect within limits dened by the length of the
transect. For a daily source rate, we take the mean of all of the
emission estimates calculated for individual transects (j= 1,..., n,
where nis the number of transects) between the source and the
end of the plume. For deriving the eective wind speed (Ueff), we
use the pressure-weighted average boundary layer wind speed
Ublh from ERA5 meteorology. Varon et al.
14
derived a
relationship between Ueff and Ublh for TROPOMI observations
as Ueff = (1.05 ±0.17) Ublh using the Weather Research and
Forecasting model coupled with chemistry (WRF-Chem),
where modeled methane emissions were compared with the
cross-sectional ux estimates. For our case, we have assumed Ueff
=Ublh.
Transects across the plume have been dened for each source
by estimating the downwind direction and dimensions of the
plume. We start with a smaller rectangular mask of dimension
(length ×breadth) 0.4 ×0.2°placed at the source in the
downwind direction inferred from boundary layer average ERA5
meteorology to dene the area containing the plume (Figure
S1). Next, we rotate this mask from 40 to +40°at 5°intervals
around the inferred ERA5 wind direction such that the average
XCH4enhancement in the rectangular mask is maximal. After
we set the new wind direction, the length of the rectangular mask
in the downwind direction (along the x-axis) is varied to dene
the end of the plume. This end is xed by incrementing the
length of the rectangular mask by 0.1°intervals until the
dierence between methane enhancement of two consecutive
increments is less than 5 ppb. Similarly, the width of the
rectangular mask (along the y-axis) was xed by incrementing
the width in the lateral direction of the plume at an interval of
0.05°until the incremental change in methane enhancement is
less than 5 ppb.
We dene 15 equally spaced transects between the source and
the end of the rectangular mask for calculating the source rates.
We ignore the rst three transects due to their close proximity to
the source, where XCH4may be underestimated due to partial
pixel enhancement.
12,14
To avoid underestimation of emissions
due to incomplete sampling of the plume by a transect due to
missing pixels, we only consider transects that have more than
75% overlap with TROPOMI pixels. With this requirement, we
only calculate the source rate from plumes with at least three or
more transects. The methane enhancement for each pixel along
the transects is dened relative to the background XCH4, which
is calculated as the average of 0.5 ×0.5°area centered at a
distance of 0.1°upwind from the source. If the number of
background observations is less than 20, we use the median
XCH4of all pixels in the domain (20°24°S, 146°150°E) as
background XCH4. To account for other emissions in the
downwind plume, we subtract the contributions from
surrounding coal mines
18,19
(Figure S2b), the other anthro-
pogenic sources from EDGARv4.3.2 global emissions
5
(Figure
S3b) and emissions from oil and gas
29
(Figure S3c) within the
plume for each source. In some cases, we estimate small negative
emissions as shown in Figure 2, possibly due to high XCH4
values in the background. As the location of the background and
source regions are shifting around the source with changes in
daily wind directions, we expect this error to average out in the
mean source rate. We compute the uncertainty in the daily
emission rate by accounting for the uncertainty in the mean
enhancement, the pressure-weighted average boundary layer
ERA5 wind speed, and the uncertainty derived from Ueff and Ublh
equation (see Supporting Information, Section S1).
Bottom-Up Emission Estimates. The bottom-up emis-
sions from the global inventory of EDGARv4.3.2
5
(most recent
year 2012) and the Australian national inventory reporting
30
(for 2018) were used in this study to compare with the
TROPOMI emission estimates. EDGARv4.3.2 uses tier-1
(global default emission factors) and some tier-2 (region-
specic) information to estimate national emissions from all
anthropogenic sources. These emissions are available on a 0.1 ×
Figure 2. Methane emission uxes quantied from individual TROPOMI observations. Daily methane ux estimates derived from TROPOMI
observations for the three sources that were used for the annual quantication. A total of 124 clear-sky scenes spanning over the source areas from 75
orbits are shown here. The methane source rate for each XCH4plume is given with its uncertainty (1σ).
Environmental Science & Technology pubs.acs.org/est Article
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03976
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXXXXX
C
0.1°grid, allowing comparison with the observations. For this
purpose, the 2012 EDGAR emissions from coal mines were
scaled to 2018 using the ratio in coal production from 2012 to
2018 of Queensland state (the derived 2018 emissions are
referred to as EDGARv4.3.2*). As the location of EDGAR
emissions for coal mines does not exactly match the locations of
the sources studied here, the emissions in the grid cell closest to
the source locations were chosen as representing these coal mine
locations (Figure S3a). The Australian national inventory report
(NIR) utilizes more detailed tier-2 and tier-3 (facility-specic)
methodologies but is not available at a resolution beyond the
state level. The national inventory provides methane emissions
from coal for the categories of surface mines and underground
mines at the state level.
30
For the emissions associated with the
coal mines of study, we use gridded emissions from Sadavarte et
al.
19
These emissions were estimated using grouped emissions in
the surface and underground category at the state level from the
national inventory and distributed these to the respective surface
and underground coal mines within the state using coal
production of individual mines as a distribution proxy along
with the gas content proles of the coal basins.
19
Section S2 of
the supporting information provides the link to access the data
used in the analyses.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TROPOMI Localization of Emission Sources. For the
three distinct plumes that are consistently visible in the
TROPOMI methane data over the Bowen Basin in Queensland
state, we use the wind-rotation technique described by
Maasakkers et al.
31
combined with the reconstructed high-
resolution bottom-up inventory by Sadavarte et al.
19
(Figure S2)
to determine which sources are responsible for the enhance-
ments. The wind-rotation method (see Supporting Information,
Section S3) traces the location of a source by averaging
TROPOMI data after aligning the observations from individual
days with the local wind vector (from GEOS-FP 10 m).
32
The
source location is then determined by comparing the resulting
averaged rotated downwind plumesfor a full grid of rotation
points. For the most northern plume seen in TROPOMI, we
identify the emission source to be the Hail Creek surface mine.
The middle plume originates from the underground mines of
Broadmeadow, Moranbah North, and Grosvenor, and for the
most southern plume, the Grasstree and Oaky North under-
ground mines are responsible (see Supporting Information,
Section S3). Given the limited spatial resolution of the
TROPOMI observations and the close vicinity of the coal
mines at the second and third source locations, we could not
further distinguish the contributions of the individual mines.
Table 1 summarizes the details about the geographical location,
mining type, and production. Supporting Information, Figure S4
shows the satellite imagery of the source locations.
TROPOMI Methane Emission Quantication and
Uncertainty Estimate. For the emission quantication, we
screen individual TROPOMI orbits for sucient spatial
coverage over the region (20°24°S and 146°150°E), source
locations, data-quality indicators, and favorable wind speed
conditions. Figure 1 shows a few typical observations with
signals from the three source locations clearly visible in the data.
For each selected orbit, methane emissions are quantied for
each source location using the cross-sectional ux method.
28
In
this method, emissions are calculated by taking the product of
line integrals of methane enhancements and wind speed,
perpendicular to the downwind direction of the methane
plume, similar to Varon et al.
14
A total of 124 plumes from 75
screened orbits have been quantied for the period 20182019
(Figure 2). We use the average boundary layer ERA5 wind speed
for the TROPOMI overpass time of 04:00 UTC. Figure 2 shows
the temporal variability in the methane ux from the three
source locations with the uncertainty of one standard deviation
on each source rate. We estimate relative uncertainties of 55% on
average (range of 1898%) on the daily emission source rates
for non-negative enhancements. These uncertainties include the
standard deviation in the dierent transects used in the CSF; the
uncertainty in the background by varying the area it is calculated
over; and the uncertainty in the wind speed using wind speeds
within ±2 h of the overpass time (see Supporting Information,
Section S1). The largest uncertainties are caused by the presence
of high methane in the background, making it dicult to isolate
the mines signal and cases with low wind speeds as inuences
from turbulent transport become important, which are not
accounted for in our method.
28
Therefore, estimates at wind
speeds below 2 m s1are excluded. The number of days with
emission quantications is mainly limited by the presence of
cloud cover but although there is quite some variation in the
daily estimates and the error on each methane ux, the number
of observations in combination with the random sampling over a
2 year period is representative of the methane source and
sucient to quantify annual emissions.
15
The combined annual methane emission from the three
persistent (more than 75% of the 124 screened orbits had high
Table 1. Source Location Details and Methane Emission Quantication Using TROPOMI Observations
details source 1 source 2 source 3
location Hail Creek Broadmeadow, Moranbah North, and
Grosvenor Grasstree and Oaky North
mine type surface underground underground
mining method Dragline, truck and
shovel longwall longwall
total raw coal production in million tonnes 201819: 7.7 201819: 19.2
a
201819: 13.7
b
201920: 5.8 201920: 19.0
a
201920: 12.4
b
longitude, latitude 148.380°E, 21.490°S 147.980°E, 21.825°S 148.579°E, 22.988°S 148.486°E, 23.072°S
147.967°E, 21.885°S
147.996°E, 21.962°S
number of clear-sky observations in TROPOMI 32 54 38
annual emissions using the CSF method
(Gg a1)[μ±2σ]230 ±50 190 ±60 150 ±63
a
Includes raw coal production from Broadmeadow, Moranbah North, and Grosvenor underground coal mines.
b
Includes raw coal production from
Grasstree and Oaky North underground coal mines.
Environmental Science & Technology pubs.acs.org/est Article
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03976
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXXXXX
D
methane enhancements downwind of the source locations)
sources is estimated at 570 ±98 Gg a1(Figure 3). Multiple
sensitivity tests conrm the robustness of our emission estimate
within its uncertainty (see Supporting Information, Section S1,
Figure S5, Table S1). Together, the three sources emit a factor of
7 more than their bottom-up estimates in the global
EDGARv4.3.2*emission inventory (84 Gg a1).
5
Our estimate
is also higher by a factor of 2 compared to the reconstructed
high-resolution bottom-up (RBU) emissions from the national
inventory report (250 Gg a1)
18,19
There is reasonable
agreement between the national methane emission from coal
mines reported by EDGARv4.3.2 (1228 Gg a1for 2012) and
the national inventory report for 2018 (972 Gg a1). The large
dierence in emissions between the three sources in these two
inventories (Figure 3) is most likely explained by the dierent
spatial proxies used for the disaggregation of national methane
emissions (Figures S2b and S3a). The EDGARv4.3.2 global
inventory
5
uses coal production activity from the World Coal
Association and spatial proxies from the Global Energy
Observatory for all countries other than the United States
(USGS coal mines), Europe (EPRTRv4.2), and China
33
while
the Sadavarte et al.
19
inventory uses Australian UNFCCC NIR
reported emissions at the state level and spatially distributes
these emissions using coal mine locations from the Queensland
state web portal.
34
In short, EDGAR distributes the emissions
over a much larger number of locations, and it is not surprising
that for the individual locations, a discrepancy is found. Since the
coal mine locations of the Queensland state web portal were also
veried from the mining operation reports of coal mine
companies, we believe these locations to be the most reliable.
Focusing on the individual sources, our estimate for Hail
Creek is more than 35 times the reconstructed bottom-up
emission
19
(RBU: 6 Gg a1, TROPOMI: 230 ±50 Gg a1) and
15% higher than the reported methane emission from all surface
mines in Queensland state combined (196 Gg a1)(Table S2).
Our Hail Creek estimate accounts for 88% of Australias total
reported surface coal mine emissions, suggesting a large
underreporting of methane emissions in the national inventory
reporting for surface mines (Figure 3,Table S3). Similarly,
emissions from Grasstree and Oaky North underground mines
are a factor of 2 higher
19
(RBU79 Gg a1, TROPOMI150
±63 Gg a1), while emissions from the Broadmeadow,
Moranbah North, and Grosvenor mines are consistent with
the reconstructed estimate
19
(RBU165 Gg a1, TROPO-
MI190 ±60 Gg a1).
Comparing Emissions with National Estimates. Apply-
ing the cross-sectional ux method to 2 years of TROPOMI
observations, we estimate a total methane source strength of 570
±98 Gg a1for the three source locations, equivalent to an
average methane ux of 65 ±11 t h1. This can be broken down
to 230 ±50 Gg a1CH4emissions from source 1 (a single
surface mine) and 340 ±86 Gg a1CH4from sources 2 and 3
(ve underground mines). To put these emissions in the
national context, we compare them to Australian methane
emissions from other source sectors. Our estimate for these
three coal mine sources represents over 10% of the total
reported methane emission from Australia in 2018 and exceeds
the emission from the oil and gas industry sector (512 Gg a1),
as well as the entire waste sector (480 Gg a1)(Figure 3 and
Table S3). The six mines produce only 7% of the national raw
coal production (41 million tonnes) but represent 55% of the
national methane emissions from coal production reported for
2018 (Tables S2 and S3). The Hail Creek mine alone emits 20%
of the national CH4emission from coal mining while accounting
for only 1% of the national coal production.
Analyzing the TROPOMI-Derived Emission Factor for
Australian Coal Mines. Australia, and in particular the state of
Queensland, is known for its production of liquied natural gas
(LNG) by extracting coal seam gas (CSG) from the methane-
rich Bowen and Surat basins, which is also being exported
internationally since 2015.
35
The gassy nature of the under-
ground mines in Queensland state is well established and
allowed the infrastructure not only to release methane to the
atmosphere through ventilation shafts but also to capture and
utilize it for power generation or are or transfer o-site (see
Supporting Information, Section S4). Australia reports methane
emissions from underground mines using a tier-3 Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) accounting
method, using country-specic methodologies and respective
mine-specic measured emissions factors (see Supporting
Information, Section S5). These tier-3 emissions are not
disclosed publicly for individual mines but grouped and reported
at the state level in the national inventory report
18,30
(Queensland state produced 51% of the raw coal and emitted
56% of the national fugitive methane from coal mines
18,30
(Supporting Information, Table S2)). This hampers direct
verication of mine-specic emissions using atmospheric
measurements, like those from TROPOMI. In the case of
surface mines, methane emissions are likely unabated and escape
to the atmosphere throughout the mining operations. Although,
as per NGER guidelines, venting or aring of in situ gas can also
Figure 3. Annual methane emissions for three coal mine sources.
Annual methane emission estimates for the coal mine sources of the
persistent plumes observed in TROPOMI data. The left bar shows the
annual methane emissions from the global inventory of EDGARv4.3.2
available for 2012. EDGARv4.3.2*indicates the projected emissions for
2018 calculated after accounting for the change in coal production in
Queensland state in 2018 relative to 2012. The middle bar shows the
reconstructed bottom-up emissions from Sadavarte et al.
19
for the three
sources using national emissions communicated to UNFCCC for 2018
and proxies such as coal production for individual mines and the gas
content prole. The right bar shows the total annual emissions
estimated using TROPOMI observations for the period 20182019.
The error bar represents 2σuncertainty (95% condence interval).
Total emissions from TROPOMI are also compared with nationally
reported greenhouse gas emissions from selected sectors and categories
of Australia for 2018 using the dashed horizontal lines on the
TROPOMI bar.
Environmental Science & Technology pubs.acs.org/est Article
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03976
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXXXXX
E
occur from open-cut coal mines, it is less common and less
ecient since the coal seam is in direct contact with the
atmosphere, providing a diusion pathway that is dicult to
capture. Moreover, the combustion of large gas volumes with a
low CH4content is more expensive than with higher
concentrations. For national inventory reporting, these
emissions are calculated using a mix of tier-2/tier-3 emission
factors and coal production data.
30
The tier-3 emission factors in
Australia are measured following the National Greenhouse and
Energy Report guidelines
36
for each surface mine in the
Gunnedah, Western, Surat, Collie, Hunter, and Newcastle
basins only. The surface mines in the Bowen basin, including
Hail Creek, use a tier-2 basin-average emission factor (1.2 m3
CH4/tonne of raw coal) from William et al.
37,30
It is dicult to
assess how representative this tier-2 approach is for the local
situation, but our results indicate that it leads to a severe
underestimation in the case of Hail Creek.
The emission factor inferred from TROPOMI data for the
underground mines 2 and 3 amounts to 1011.50 g CH4per kg
raw coal, consistent with emission factors from EDGARv4.3.2,
IPCC default values, and Kholod et al.
6
for mining at 200400
m depth (Table S4), whereas the national and state-level
emission factors for underground mines (for 2017 and 2018) are
2550% lower than TROPOMI-based implied emission factor
(Table S4). Lower country-specic emission factors compared
to IPCC defaults in itself are not surprising as local coal type and
mitigation measures play an important role, but we notice that
especially for the mines of source 3, they are not in line with the
TROPOMI-based observations. For surface mine Hail Creek
(source 1), the TROPOMI-inferred emission factor is 34 g CH4
per kg raw coal, 22 times higher than the average of the IPCC
default for <200 m and Kholod et al.,
6
i.e., 0.2, 0.52, and 2.03
3.38 g CH4per kg raw coal (Table S4).
Understanding the Superemitting Behavior of Hail
Creek. The Hail Creek mine was approved for an extension to
highwall and underground mining activities in 2016.
38
Sentinel-
2 satellite images over Hail Creek for 2018 to 2019 do not,
however, show any signicant change to the Northeast of the
surface mine, where the extension was proposed (see Supporting
Information, Movie S1). The preparatory activities are seen to
the Northeast of the surface mine, suggesting possible premining
degasication, starting before 2018. Typically, the degasication
or predrainage is performed prior to underground mining as a
safety measure against outbursts in the underground mine (see
Supporting Information, Section S4). It involves draining the
seam gas by either natural or active venting, combusting and/or
aring on-site or transferring o-site.
36
We do observe aring
activities over the extended area in JulySeptember 2019
39
(Figure S6). However, no aring activity was observed for the
remainder of the analysis period in 20182019.
39
Most likely,
the TROPOMI-detected emissions at Hail Creek in 2018 and
2019 are due to surface mining and also possibly from
predrainage activities.
In conclusion, to reduce the uncertainty in methane leakage
from fossil fuel production, it is crucial to have accurate
estimates of methane emissions from coal production. The
TROPOMI instrument does not have the granularity of the
ground-based measurements and/or monitoring of individual
shafts as done by the mining companies. However, its
observations provide a useful measure of emissions from the
entire coal mine infrastructure, including emissions from
ventilation shafts and other pre- and post-drainage systems
like underground in-seam (UIS), surface to in-seam (SIS), and
gas wells drilled for underground mines and any other
unforeseen leakage. The good agreement for source 2 with the
reconstructed bottom-up emissions shows that there can be a
good agreement with bottom-up reporting. When applying
exactly the same method and approach to source 3 and source 1,
however, we nd large discrepancies with the reported values.
The TROPOMI-inferred emission factor for source 3 (under-
ground mines) is consistent with global studies and also with the
value derived for source 2. On the other hand, for source 1
(surface mine Hail Creek), we nd unexpected high emission for
a surface coal mine and an implied emission factor that is more
than an order of magnitude higher than any default factor in
current IPCC guidelines for this source type. Overall, we nd
higher amounts of methane emitted, especially from the Hail
Creek surface mine, pointing to the underreporting of Australian
methane emissions to a level that would justify a revision of the
national methane emission reported in the NIR to the
UNFCCC. Our results show that satellite observations can
provide a measurement-based integral quantication of an entire
facility or production site. This is valuable complementary
information next to emission estimates of individual processes or
mine shafts. It can help to further improve national emission
inventories and support the identication of the most promising
targets for mitigation.
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
*
sıSupporting Information
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c03976.
Sections on uncertainty estimate for each source rate,
plume rotation method, and methane emissions reporting
of underground coal mines in Australia along with
supporting tables and gures (PDF)
Supporting animation of Sentinel-2 satellite imagery over
Hail Creek coal mine (Movie S1) (AVI)
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
Pankaj Sadavarte SRON Netherlands Institute for Space
Research, 3584 CA Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of
Climate, Air and Sustainability, TNO, 3584 CB Utrecht, The
Netherlands; orcid.org/0000-0002-7337-683X;
Email: p.sadavarte@sron.nl
Authors
Sudhanshu Pandey SRON Netherlands Institute for Space
Research, 3584 CA Utrecht, The Netherlands
Joannes D. Maasakkers SRON Netherlands Institute for
Space Research, 3584 CA Utrecht, The Netherlands;
orcid.org/0000-0001-8118-0311
Alba Lorente SRON Netherlands Institute for Space
Research, 3584 CA Utrecht, The Netherlands
Tobias BorsdorSRON Netherlands Institute for Space
Research, 3584 CA Utrecht, The Netherlands
Hugo Denier van der Gon Department of Climate, Air and
Sustainability, TNO, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands
Sander Houweling SRON Netherlands Institute for Space
Research, 3584 CA Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of
Earth Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 1081 HV
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ilse Aben SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research,
3584 CA Utrecht, The Netherlands
Environmental Science & Technology pubs.acs.org/est Article
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03976
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXXXXX
F
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03976
Author Contributions
P.S. and S.P. analyzed the TROPOMI data, performed the mass
balance calculation and sensitivity studies with inputs from S.H.
and I.A.; J.D.M. performed localization method for identi-
cation of coal mines; A.L. processed the operational data
product of TROPOMI methane for 2018 and 2019; T.B.
provided the support for de-stripping of TROPOMI orbits; P.S.
and H.D.v.d.G. contributed to the bottom-up inventory analysis.
P.S. wrote the manuscript with inputs from all of the co-authors.
Funding
This work was supported through the GALES project (#15597)
by the Dutch Technology Foundation STW, and the
TROPOMI national program through NSO. P.S. and S.P. are
funded through the GALES project (#15597) by the Dutch
Technology Foundation STW, which is part of the Netherlands
Organization for Scientic Research (NWO). A.L. and T.B.
acknowledge funding from the TROPOMI national program
through NSO.
Notes
The authors declare no competing nancial interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the Earth Science Group team at SRON for
developing the retrieval method for TROPOMI methane
observation and consistent technical support throughout the
period. The authors thank the team that realized the TROPOMI
instrument and its data products consisting of the partnership
between Airbus Defense and Space Netherlands, KNMI, SRON,
andTNO,commissionedbyNSOandESA.Sentinel-5
Precursor is part of the EU Copernicus program, and
Copernicus Sentinel data of Scientic version for 20182019
have been used. The authors thank Prof. Bryce Kelly, University
of New South Wales, for his continuous support and expert
knowledge on coal mines in Australia. The authors acknowledge
the provision of publicly available global bottom-up emission of
greenhouse gases from EDGAR and the meteorology data
product of ERA5.
REFERENCES
(1) Myhre, G.; Shindell, D.; Bréon, F. M.; Collins, W.; Fuglestvedt, J.;
Huang, J.; Koch, D.; Lamarque, J. F.; Lee, D.; Mendoza, B.; Nakajima,
T.; Robock, A.; Stephens, G.; Takemura, T.; Zhang, H. Anthropogenic
and Natural Radiative Forcing. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);
Stocker, T. F.; Qin, D.; Plattner, G.-K.; Tignor, M.; Allen, S. K.;
Boschung, J.; Nuales, A.; Xia, Y.; Bex, V.; Midgley, P. M., Eds.;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, 2013; pp
659740.
(2) Shindell, D.; Kuylenstierna, J. C. I.; Vignati, E.; van Dingenen, R.;
Amann, M.; Klimont, Z.; Anenberg, S. C.; Muller, N.; Janssens-
Maenhout, G.; Raes, F.; Schwartz, J.; Faluvegi, G.; Pozzoli, L.;
Kupiainen, K.; Höglund-Isaksson, L.; Emberson, L.; Streets, D.;
Ramanathan, V.; Hicks, K.; Oanh, N. T. K.; Milly, G.; Williams, M.;
Demkine, V.; Fowler, D. Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate
change and improving human health and food security. Science 2012,
335, 183189.
(3) Nisbet, E. G.; Manning, M. R.; Dlugokencky, E. J.; Fisher, R. E.;
Lowry, D.; Michel, S. E.; Lund Myhre, C.; Platt, S. M.; Allen, G.;
Bousquet, P.; Brownlow, R.; Cain, M.; France, J. L.; Hermansen, O.;
Hossaini, R.; Jones, A. E.; Levin, I.; Manning, A. C.; Myhre, G.; Pyle, J.
A.; Vaughn, B. H.; Warwick, N. J.; White, J. W. C. Very strong
atmospheric methane growth in the 4 years 20142017: Implications
for the Paris Agreement. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2019,33, 318342.
(4) Saunois, M.; Stavert, A. R.; Poulter, B.; Bousquet, P.; Canadell, J.
G.; Jackson, R. B.; Raymond, P. A.; Dlugokencky, E. J.; Houweling, S.;
Patra, P. K.; Ciais, P.; Arora, V. K.; Bastviken, D.; Bergamaschi, P.;
Blake, D. R.; Brailsford, G.; Bruhwiler, L.; Carlson, K. M.; Carrol, M.;
Castaldi, S.; Chandra, N.; Crevoisier, C.; Crill, P. M.; Covey, K.; Curry,
C. L.; Etiope, G.; Frankenberg, C.; Gedney, N.; Hegglin, M. I.;
Höglund-Isaksson, L.; Hugelius, G.; Ishizawa, M.; Ito, A.; Janssens-
Maenhout, G.; Jensen, K. M.; Joos, F.; Kleinen, T.; Krummel, P. B.;
Langenfelds, R. L.; Laruelle, G. G.; Liu, L.; Machida, T.; Maksyutov, S.;
McDonald, K. C.; McNorton, J.; Miller, P. A.; Melton, J. R.; Morino, I.;
Müller, J.; Murguia-Flores, F.; Naik, V.; Niwa, Y.; Noce, S.; ODoherty,
S.; Parker, R. J.; Peng, C.; Peng, S.; Peters, G. P.; Prigent, C.; Prinn, R.;
Ramonet, M.; Regnier, P.; Riley, W. J.; Rosentreter, J. A.; Segers, A.;
Simpson, I. J.; Shi, H.; Smith, S. J.; Steele, L. P.; Thornton, B. F.; Tian,
H.; Tohjima, Y.; Tubiello, F. N.; Tsuruta, A.; Viovy, N.; Voulgarakis, A.;
Weber, T. S.; van Weele, M.; van der Werf, G. R.; Weiss, R. F.; Worthy,
D.; Wunch, D.; Yin, Y.; Yoshida, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, Y.;
Zheng, B.; Zhu, Q.; Zhu, Q.; Zhuang, Q. The Global Methane Budget
20002017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2020,12, 15611623.
(5) Janssens-Maenhout, G.; Crippa, M.; Guizzardi, D.; Muntean, M.;
Schaaf, E.; Dentener, F.; Bergamaschi, P.; Pagliari, V.; Olivier, J. G. J.;
Peters, H. W.; van Aardenne, J. A.; Monni, S.; Doering, U.; Petrescu, A.
M. R.; Solazzo, E.; Oreggioni, G. D. EDGAR v4.3.2 Global Atlas of the
three major greenhouse gas emissions for the period 19702012. Earth
Syst. Sci. Data 2019,11, 9591002.
(6) Kholod, N.; Evans, M.; Pilcher, R. C.; Roshchanka, V.; Ruiz, F.;
Coté, M.; Collings, R. Global methane emissions from coal mining to
continue growing even with declining coal production. J. Cleaner Prod.
2020,256, No. 120489.
(7) Saunois, M.; Bousquet, P.; Poulter, B.; Peregon, A.; Ciais, P.;
Canadell, J. G.; Dlugokencky, E. J.; Etiope, G.; Bastviken, D.;
Houweling, S.; Janssens-Maenhout, G.; Tubiello, F. N.; Castaldi, S.;
Jackson, R. B.; Alexe, M.; Arora, V. K.; Beerling, D. J.; Bergamaschi, P.;
Blake, D. R.; Brailsford, G.; Brovkin, V.; Bruhwiler, L.; Crevoisier, C.;
Crill, P.; Covey, K.; Curry, C.; Frankenberg, C.; Gedney, N.; Höglund-
Isaksson, L.; Ishizawa, M.; Ito, A.; Joos, F.; Kim, H.-S.; Kleinen, T.;
Krummel, P.; Lamarque, J.-F.; Langenfelds, R.; Locatelli, R.; Machida,
T.; Maksyutov, S.; McDonald, K. C.; Marshall, J.; Melton, J. R.; Morino,
I.; Naik, V.; ODoherty, S.; Parmentier, F.-J. W.; Patra, P. K.; Peng, C.;
Peng, S.; Peters, G. P.; Pison, I.; Prigent, C.; Prinn, R.; Ramonet, M.;
Riley, W. J.; Saito, M.; Santini, M.; Schroeder, R.; Simpson, I. J.; Spahni,
R.; Steele, P.; Takizawa, A.; Thornton, B. F.; Tian, H.; Tohjima, Y.;
Viovy, N.; Voulgarakis, A.; van Weele, M.; van der Werf, G. R.; Weiss,
R.; Wiedinmyer, C.; Wilton, D. J.; Wiltshire, A.; Worthy, D.; Wunch,
D.; Xu, X.; Yoshida, Y.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, Q. The Global
Methane Budget 20002012. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2016,8, 697751.
(8) Krings, T.; Gerilowski, K.; Buchwitz, M.; Hartmann, J.; Sachs, T.;
Erzinger, J.; Burrows, J. P.; Bovensmann, H. Quantification of methane
emission rates from coal mine ventilation shafts using airborne remote
sensing data. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2013,6, 151166.
(9) Luther, A.; Kleinschek, R.; Scheidweiler, L.; Defratyka, S.;
Stanisavljevic, M.; Forstmaier, A.; Dandocsi, A.; Wolff, S.; Dubravica,
D.; Wildmann, N.; Kostinek, J.; Jöckel, P.; Nickl, A.-L.; Klausner, T.;
Hase, F.; Frey, M.; Chen, J.; Dietrich, F.; Nȩcki, J.; Swolkień, J.; Fix, A.;
Roiger, A.; Butz, A. Quantifying CH4 emissions from hard coal mines
using mobile sun-viewing Fourier transform spectrometry. Atmos. Meas.
Tech. 2019,12, 52175230.
(10) Kort, E. A.; Frankenberg, C.; Costigan, K. R.; Lindenmaier, R.;
Dubey, M. K.; Wunch, D. Four corners: The largest US methane
anomaly viewed from space. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2014,41, 68986903.
(11) Turner, A. J.; Jacob, D. J.; Wecht, K. J.; Maasakkers, J. D.;
Lundgren, E.; Andrews, A. E.; Biraud, S. C.; Boesch, H.; Bowman, K.
W.; Deutscher, N. M.; Dubey, M. K.; Griffith, D. W. T.; Hase, F.; Kuze,
A.; Notholt, J.; Ohyama, H.; Parker, R.; Payne, V. H.; Sussmann, R.;
Sweeney, C.; Velazco, V. A.; Warneke, T.; Wennberg, P. O.; Wunch, D.
Estimating global and North American methane emissions with high
Environmental Science & Technology pubs.acs.org/est Article
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03976
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXXXXX
G
spatial resolution using GOSAT satellite data. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2015,
15, 70497069.
(12) Pandey, S.; Gautam, R.; Houweling, S.; van der Gon, H. D.;
Sadavarte, P.; Borsdorff, T.; Hasekamp, O.; Landgraf, J.; Tol, P.; van
Kempen, T.; Hoogeveen, R.; van Hees, R.; Hamburg, S. P.; Maasakkers,
J. D.; Aben, I. Satellite observations reveal extreme methane leakage
from a natural gas well blowout. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2019,116,
2637626381.
(13) Zhang, Y.; Gautam, R.; Pandey, S.; Omara, M.; Maasakkers, J. D.;
Sadavarte, P.; Lyon, D.; Nesser, H.; Sulprizio, M. P.; Varon, D. J.;
Zhang, R.; Houweling, S.; Zavala-Araiza, D.; Alvarez, R. A.; Lorente, A.;
Hamburg, S. P.; Aben, I.; Jacob, D. J. Quantifying methane emissions
from the largest oil-producing basin in the United States from space. Sci.
Adv. 2020,6, No. eaaz5120.
(14) Varon, D. J.; McKeever, J.; Jervis, D.; Maasakkers, J. D.; Pandey,
S.; Houweling, S.; Aben, I.; Scarpelli, T.; Jacob, D. J. Satellite discovery
of anomalously large methane point sources from oil/gas production.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 2019,46, 1350713516.
(15) Varon, D. J.; Jacob, D. J.; Jervis, D.; McKeever, J. Quantifying
Time-Averaged Methane Emissions from Individual Coal Mine Vents
with GHGSat-D Satellite Observations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020,54,
1024610253.
(16) Veefkind, J. P.; Aben, I.; McMullan, K.; Förster, H.; de Vries, J.;
Otter, G.; Claas, J.; Eskes, H. J.; de Haan, J. F.; Kleipool, Q.; van Weele,
M.; Hasekamp, O.; Hoogeveen, R.; Landgraf, J.; Snel, R.; Tol, P.;
Ingmann, P.; Voors, R.; Kruizinga, B.; Vink, R.; Visser, H.; Levelt, P. F.
TROPOMI on the ESA Sentinel-5 Precursor: A GMES mission for
global observations of the atmospheric composition for climate, air
quality and ozone layer applications. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012,120,
7083.
(17) Cusworth, D. H.; Jacob, D. J.; Sheng, J.-X.; Benmergui, J.; Turner,
A. J.; Brandman, J.; White, L.; Randles, C. A. Detecting high-emitting
methane sources in oil/gas fields using satellite observations. Atmos.
Chem. Phys. 2018,18, 1688516896.
(18) Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System (AGEIS).
National Greenhouse Gas InventoryUNFCCC classications,
Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. https://
ageis.climatechange.gov.au/ (accessed December 15, 2020).
(19) Sadavarte, P.; Pandey, S.; van der Gon, H. D.; Maasakkers, J. D.;
Houweling, S.; Aben, I. A High-Resolution Gridded Inventory of Coal
Mine Methane Emissions for India and Australia (2021) Submitted to
Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/
2107.10317.
(20) Lorente, A.; Borsdorff, T.; Butz, A.; Hasekamp, O.; aan de Brugh,
J.; Schneider, A.; Hase, F.; Kivi, R.; Wunch, D.; Pollard, D. F.; Shiomi,
K.; Deutscher, N. M.; Velazco, V. A.; Roehl, C. M.; Wennberg, P. O.;
Warneke, T.; Landgraf, J.; et al. Methane retrieved from TROPOMI:
improvement of the data product and validation of the first two years of
measurements. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2021,14, 665684.
(21) Hu, H.; Hasekamp, O.; Butz, A.; Galli, A.; Landgraf, J.; Aan de
Brugh, J.; Borsdorff, T.; Scheepmaker, R.; Aben, I. The operational
methane retrieval algorithm for TROPOMI. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2016,
9, 54235440.
(22) Hu, H.; Landgraf, J.; Detmers, R.; Borsdorff, T.; aan de Brugh, J.;
Aben, I.; Butz, A.; Hasekamp, O. Toward global mapping of methane
with TROPOMI: First results and intersatellite comparison to GOSAT.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 2018,45, 36823689.
(23) Wunch, D.; Toon, G. C.; Blavier, J.-F. L.; Washenfelder, R. A.;
Notholt, J.; Connor, B. J.; Griffith, D. W. T.; Sherlock, V.; Wennberg, P.
O. The Total Carbon Column Observing Network. Philos. Trans. R.
Soc., A 2011,369, 20872112.
(24) Kuze, A.; Suto, H.; Nakajima, M.; Hamazaki, T. Thermal and
near infrared sensor for carbon observation Fourier-transform
spectrometer on the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite for
greenhouse gases monitoring. Appl. Opt. 2009,48, 67166733.
(25) Buchwitz, M.; Schneising, O.; Reuter, M.; Heymann, J.;
Krautwurst, S.; Bovensmann, H.; Burrows, J. P.; Boesch, H.; Parker,
R. J.; Somkuti, P.; Detmers, R. G.; Hasekamp, O. P.; Aben, I.; Butz, A.;
Frankenberg, C.; Turner, A. J. Satellite-derived methane hotspot
emission estimates using a fast data-driven method. Atmos. Chem. Phys.
2017,17, 57515774.
(26) Borsdorff, T.; aan de Brugh, J.; Pandey, S.; Hasekamp, O.; Aben,
I.; Houweling, S.; Landgraf, J. Carbon monoxide air pollution on sub-
city scales and along arterial roads detected by the Tropospheric
Monitoring Instrument. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2019,19, 35793588.
(27) Borsdorff, T.; García Reynoso, A.; Maldonado, G.; Mar-Morales,
B.; Stremme, W.; Grutter, M.; Landgraf, J. Monitoring CO emissions of
the metropolis Mexico City using TROPOMI CO observations. Atmos.
Chem. Phys. 2020,20, 1576115774.
(28) Varon, D. J.; Jacob, D. J.; McKeever, J.; Jervis, D.; Durak, B. O. A.;
Xia, Y.; Huang, Y. Quantifying methane point sources from fine-scale
satellite observations of atmospheric methane plumes. Atmos. Meas.
Tech. 2018,11, 56735686.
(29) Scarpelli, T. R.; Jacob, D. J.; Maasakkers, J. D.; Sulprizio, M. P.;
Sheng, J.-X.; Rose, K.; Romeo, L.; Worden, J. R.; Janssens-Maenhout,
G. A global gridded (0.1 ×0.1°) inventory of methane emissions from
oil, gas, and coal exploitation based on national reports to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Earth Syst. Sci.
Data 2020,12, 563575.
(30) National Inventory Report 2018Volume 1, Australian National
Greenhouse Accounts, The Australian Government Submission to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May
2020.
(31) Maasakkers, J. D.; Varon, D. J.; Elfarsdóttir, A.; McKeever, J.;
Jervis, D.; Mahapatra, G.; Pandey, S.; Lorente, A.; Borsdor, T.;
Foorthuis, L. R.; Schuit, B. J.; Tol, P. J. J.; van Kempen, T. A.; van Hees,
R. M.; Aben, I. Using satellites to uncover and evaluate large methane
emissions from landlls, 2021. In preparation.
(32) Molod, A.; Takacs, L.; Suarez, M.; Bacmeister, J.; In-Sun, S.;
Eichmann, A. The GEOS-5 Atmospheric General Circulation Model:
Mean Climate and Development from MERRA to Fortuna; Technical
Report Series on Global Modeling and Data Assimilation, Volume 28,
2012.
(33) Liu, Z.; Guan, D.; Wei, W.; Davis, S. J.; Ciais, P.; Bai, J.; Peng, S.;
Zhang, Q.; Hubacek, K.; Marland, G.; Andres, R. J.; Crawford-Brown,
D.; Lin, J.; Zhao, H.; Hong, C.; Boden, T. A.; Feng, K.; Peters, G. P.; Xi,
F.; Liu, J.; Li, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zeng, N.; He, K. Reduced carbon emission
estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in China.
Nature 2015,524, 335338.
(34) Strong and Sustainable Resource Communities (SSRC),
Queensland Government. https://dsdip.maps.arcgis.com/apps/
webappviewer/index.html?id=77b3197acf5f415cb6f24553dd16b9dc
(accessed March 21, 2021).
(35) Towler, B.; Firouzi, M.; Underschultz, J.; Rifkin, W.; Garnett, A.;
Schultz, H.; Esterle, J.; Tyson, S.; Witt, K. An overview of the coal seam
gas developments in Queensland. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2016,31, 249
271.
(36) Estimating Emissions and Energy from Coal Mining Guideline;
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER), Clean Energy
Regulator, Australia Government, August 2020.
(37) Williams, D. J.; Sagha, A.; Lange, A. L.; Drummond, M. S.
Methane Emissions from Open-Cut Mines and Post-Mining Emissions from
Underground Coal; Report to Department of Environment, Sports and
Territories, CSIRO Investigation Report CET/IR173, 1993; p 17.
(38) Decision noticeHail Creek Coal Mine Extension Transition
Project; Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE), Australia
Government. https://www.glencore.com.au/operations-and-projects/
coal/current-operations/hail-creek-open-cut (accessed March 21,
2021).
(39) Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS).
https://rms2.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/#d:2021-04-21.2021-04-
22;@0.0,0.0,3z (accessed March 21, 2021).
Environmental Science & Technology pubs.acs.org/est Article
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03976
Environ. Sci. Technol. XXXX, XXX, XXXXXX
H
... Finally, we obtain one global map, in which each detected source region is described by one mask. The masks of some PPSRs are shown in Fig. 8, including some well-known source regions such as the oil and gas fields in the Permian Basin in the USA (Schneising et al., 2020;Zhang et al., 2020;Varon et al., 2023;Veefkind et al., 2023), the natural gas fields Galkynysh and Dauletabad in Turkmenistan (Schneising et al., 2020), and the coal mining area in the Bowen Basin in Queensland in Australia (Sadavarte et al., 2021). ...
... Based on the comparison of the emission databases, the fraction of dominant source types is 7.8 % coal, 7.8 % oil and gas, 30.4 % other anthropogenic sources, 7.3 % wetlands, and 46.5 % unknown. Some of the detected source regions are well-known coal production sites, which already have been subject of several studies, such as the region of Shanxi in China (Chen et al., 2022), the Bowen Basin in Queensland in Australia (Sadavarte et al., 2021) and the Upper Silesia Coal Basin in Poland (Tu et al., 2022). Other PPSRs related to coal mining activities include the Kuznetsk Basin in Russia, regions in and around Johannesburg in South Africa, the Appalachian Coal Basin in the United States, and the Ekibastuz Coal Basin in Kazakhstan. ...
... Another well-known methane source region is the Bowen Basin in Queensland in Australia, which is a coal mining area. Here we detected two PPSRs for which the combined emission estimate is 0.63 ± 0.16 Mt yr −1 for 2018-2021, which also agrees well within the uncertainties with the calculated emissions in Sadavarte et al. (2021) of 0.57 ± 0.10 Mt yr −1 for 2018-2019. ...
Article
Full-text available
Methane (CH4) is an important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, and its rising concentration in the atmosphere contributes significantly to global warming. A comparatively small number of highly emitting persistent methane sources are responsible for a large share of global methane emissions. The identification and quantification of these sources, which often show large uncertainties regarding their emissions or locations, are important to support mitigating climate change. Daily global column-averaged dry air mole fractions of atmospheric methane (XCH4) are retrieved from radiance measurements of the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) on board on the Sentinel-5 Precursor (S5P) satellite with a moderately high spatial resolution, enabling the detection and quantification of localized methane sources. We developed a fully automated algorithm to detect regions with persistent methane enhancement and to quantify their emissions using a monthly TROPOMI XCH4 dataset from the years 2018–2021. We detect 217 potential persistent source regions (PPSRs), which account for approximately 20% of the total bottom-up emissions. By comparing the PPSRs in a spatial analysis with anthropogenic and natural emission databases, we conclude that 7.8% of the detected source regions are dominated by coal, 7.8% by oil and gas, 30.4% by other anthropogenic sources like landfills or agriculture, 7.3% by wetlands, and 46.5% by unknown sources. Many of the identified PPSRs are in well-known source regions, like the Permian Basin in the USA, which is a large production area for oil and gas; the Bowen Basin coal mining area in Australia; or the Pantanal Wetlands in Brazil. We perform a detailed analysis of the PPSRs with the 10 highest emission estimates, including the Sudd Wetland in South Sudan, an oil- and gas-dominated area on the west coast in Turkmenistan, and one of the largest coal production areas in the world, the Kuznetsk Basin in Russia. The calculated emission estimates of these source regions are in agreement within the uncertainties in results from other studies but are in most of the cases higher than the emissions reported by emission databases. We demonstrate that our algorithm is able to automatically detect and quantify persistent localized methane sources of different source type and shape, including larger-scale enhancements such as wetlands or extensive oil- and gas-production basins.
... In contrast, satellite-based remote sensing methods can monitor atmospheric methane on a large scale and over a long period. The main satellite sensors capable of detecting methane are SCIAMACHY carried by ENVISAT, TANSO-FTS carried by GOSAT, AIRS carried by Aqua and the Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) carried by Sentinel-5P [16][17][18][19][20]. Although the product data from these satellites can provide methane column concentrations on a global scale, they all lack spatial coverage. ...
... However, the existing methods for methane concentration estimation do not obtain methane concentration data with good spatial and temporal resolution at the same time [60,61]. In comparison, our results provide better spatial coverage than satellite and ground−based monitoring products [15,18], better temporal continuity than emission inventory acquisition results [62], and the detection of anomalous changes for small regions [34]. Compared with the methane concentration results ...
... However, the existing methods for methane concentration estimation do not obtain methane concentration data with good spatial and temporal resolution at the same time [60,61]. In comparison, our results provide better spatial coverage than satellite and ground-based monitoring products [15,18], better temporal continuity than emission inventory acquisition results [62], and the detection of anomalous changes for small regions [34]. Compared with the methane concentration results simulated by atmospheric chemistry models at the global spatial scale, the research results have a better spatial resolution [32]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Atmospheric methane is one of the major greenhouse gases with a drastic impact on climate change. This study developed a random forest model to obtain a daily 5 km resolution atmospheric methane concentration dataset with full spatial coverage (100%) from 2019 to 2021 in mainland China, thereby filling the gap in the methane product data from the Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI). The coefficients of determination for a sample-based and spatial-based cross-validation are 0.97 and 0.93, respectively. The average deviation of the seamless methane product reconstructed by the random forest model is less than 1%, validated with the measured methane concentration data from the Total Carbon Column Observing Network sites. Methane concentrations in China show a distribution of high in the east and south and low in the west and north. The high-concentration areas include Central China, the Sichuan Basin, the Pearl River Delta, and the Yangtze River Delta. In terms of time scale, the methane concentration has evident seasonal variation, as it is low in spring (average 1852 ppb) and winter (average 1881 ppb) and high in summer (average 1885 ppb) and autumn (average 1886 ppb). This is mainly due to the significant increase in emissions from rice cultivation and wetlands during the summer and autumn. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the methane concentration decreases significantly and then starts to return to normal around 70 days after the Lunar New Year, indicating that the seamless methane product can potentially detect anomalous changes in methane concentration.
... However, significant discrepancies exist between these inventories and measurement-based estimates, both at the national and facility levels (Z. Irakulis-Loitxate et al., 2021;Lu et al., 2023;Sadavarte et al., 2021;Shen et al., 2022;Zhang et al., 2020). Advances in satellite monitoring technologies have enabled the quantification of individual methane emission Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article. ...
... Previous top-down studies typically reveal that emissions inventories are underestimated in most regions (Kort et al., 2014;Sadavarte et al., 2021;Wei et al., 2023). However, in the Shanxi region, our findings contradict this trend. ...
Article
Full-text available
China is likely the world's largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions, with coal mine methane (CMM) being the predominant contributor. Here, we deploy 2 years of satellite observations to survey facility‐level CMM emitters in Shanxi, the most prolific coal mining province in China. A total of 138 detected episodic events at 82 facilities are estimated to emit 1.20 (+0.24/−0.20, 95% CI) million tons of methane per year (Mt CH4/yr) during 2021–2023, roughly equivalent to 4.2 times the integrated flux from the Permian plumes and four times of the integrated flux from the Four Corners plumes, two of the world's largest hotspots for oil and gas methane emissions. This work reveals the heavy‐tailed distribution characteristic of CMM emission sources for the first time, with 20% of emitters contributing approximately 50% of total emissions. Comparison with the Global Energy Monitor (GEM) inventory reveals that the GEM estimate is about 4.1 times our estimate.
... In conclusion, previous studies [26][27][28][29][30] have predominantly relied on traditional methods such as Gaussian plume models and cross-sectional flux approaches to analyse TROPOMI data. However, these techniques are constrained by significant limitations. ...
Article
Full-text available
Human activities have been driving massive greenhouse gas emissions, causing global warming, and triggering increasingly frequent extreme weather events that severely threaten the environment. Power generation is the leading contributor to anthropogenic emissions, making precise, real‐time measurement and monitoring of power plant carbon emissions crucial in reducing climate change. This study uses a new sophisticated pipeline that combines tropospheric monitoring instrument satellite data, power plant attributes, and advanced artificial intelligence algorithms to build a predictive carbon emission model. The approach utilizes multimodal data processing, encoding, and model optimisation. Experimental results confirm that this pipeline can automatically extract and utilize vast amounts of relevant data, thereby enabling the artificial intelligence model to accurately predict power plant carbon emissions and providing a vital tool for reducing global warming.
Article
Full-text available
Methane (CH4) is one of the most significant greenhouse gases responsible for about one-third of climate warming since preindustrial times, originating from various sources. Landfills are responsible for a large percentage of CH4 emissions, and population growth can boost these emissions. Therefore, it is vital to automate the process of CH4 monitoring over landfills. This study proposes a convolutional neural network (CNN) with an Atrous Spatial Pyramid Pooling (ASPP) mechanism, called PRISMethaNet, to automate the CH4 detection process using PRISMA satellite data in the 400-2500 nm spectral range. A total number of 41 PRISMA images from 17 landfill sites located in several countries, such as India, Nigeria, Mexico, Pakistan, Iran, and other regions, were used as our study areas. The PRISMethaNet model was trained using augmented data as the input, and plume masks were obtained from the matched filter (MF) algorithm. This novel proposed model successfully detected plumes with overall accuracy (OA), F1-score (F1), precision, and recall of 0.99, 0.96, 0.93, and 0.99, respectively , and quantification uncertainties ranging from 11 % to 58 %. An unboxing of the ASPP module using Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) algorithm demonstrated a strong relationship between larger dilation rates (DRs) and CH4 plume detectability. Importantly, the results highlighted that plume masks obtained by PRISMethaNet provided more accurate CH4 quantification rate compared to the statistical methods used in previous studies. In particular, the mean square error (MSE) for PRISMethaNet was approximately 1,102 kg/h, whereas the MSE for the commonly used statistical method was around 1,974 kg/h.
Article
Full-text available
Anthropogenic methane (CH4) emissions increases from the period 1850–1900 until 2019 are responsible for around 65% as much warming as carbon dioxide (CO2) has caused to date, and large reductions in methane emissions are required to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. However, methane emissions have been increasing rapidly since ~2006. This study shows that emissions are expected to continue to increase over the remainder of the 2020s if no greater action is taken and that increases in atmospheric methane are thus far outpacing projected growth rates. This increase has important implications for reaching net zero CO2 targets: every 50 Mt CH4 of the sustained large cuts envisioned under low-warming scenarios that are not realized would eliminate about 150 Gt of the remaining CO2 budget. Targeted methane reductions are therefore a critical component alongside decarbonization to minimize global warming. We describe additional linkages between methane mitigation options and CO2, especially via land use, as well as their respective climate impacts and associated metrics. We explain why a net zero target specifically for methane is neither necessary nor plausible. Analyses show where reductions are most feasible at the national and sectoral levels given limited resources, for example, to meet the Global Methane Pledge target, but they also reveal large uncertainties. Despite these uncertainties, many mitigation costs are clearly low relative to real-world financial instruments and very low compared with methane damage estimates, but legally binding regulations and methane pricing are needed to meet climate goals.
Article
Full-text available
A simple and flexible mass balance approach was applied to observations of XCH 4 from TROPOMI to estimate CH 4 emissions over Shanxi Province, including the impacts of advective transport, pressure transport, and atmospheric diffusion. High-frequency eddy-covariance flux observations were used to constrain the driving terms of the mass balance equation. This equation was then used to calculate day-to-day and 5 km × 5 km grided CH 4 emissions from May 2018 to July 2022 based on TROPOMI RPRO column CH 4 observations. The Shanxi-wide emissions of CH 4 , 126 ± 58.8 ug/m ² /s, shows a fat tail distribution and high variability on a daily time scale (the 90th percentile is 2.14 times the mean and 2.74 times the median). As the number of days in the rolling average increases, the change in the variation decreases to 128 ± 35.7 ug/m ² /s at 10-day, 128 ± 19.8 ug/m ² /s at 30-day and 127 ± 13.9 ug/m ² /s at 90-day. The range of values of the annual mean emissions on coal mine grids within Shanxi for the years 2018 to 2022 was 122 ± 58.2, 131 ± 71.2, 111 ± 63.6, 129 ± 87.1, and 138 ± 63.4 ug/m ² /s, respectively. The 5-year average emissions from TROPOMI are 131 ± 68.0 ug/m ² /s versus 125 ± 94.6 ug/m ² /s on the grids where the EDGAR bottom-up database also has data, indicating that those pixels with mines dominate the overall emissions in terms of both magnitude and variability. The results show that high-frequency observation-based campaigns can produce a less biased result in terms of both the spatial and temporal distribution of CH 4 emissions as compared with approaches using either low-frequency data or bottom-up databases, that coal mines dominate the sources of CH 4 in Shanxi, and that the observed fat tail distribution can be accounted for using this approach.
Preprint
Full-text available
This work focuses on Changzhi, Shanxi China, a city and surrounding rural region with one of the highest atmospheric concentrations of methane (CH4) world-wide (campaign-wide minimum/mean/standard deviation/max observations: 2.0, 2.9, 1.3, and 16 ppm) due to a rapid increase in the mining, production, and use of coal over the past decade. An intensive 15-day surface observation campaign of CH4 is used to drive a new analytical, mass-conserving method to compute and attribute CH4 emissions. Observations made in concentric circles at 1 km, 3 km, and 5 km around a high production high gas coal mine yielded emissions of 0.73, 0.28, and 0.15 ppm min-1 respectively. Attribution used a 2-box mass conserving model to identify the known mine’s emissions from 0.042–5.3 ppm min-1, and a previously unidentified mine’s emission from 0.22–7.9 ppm min-1. These results demonstrate the importance of simultaneously quantifying both the spatial and temporal distribution of CH4 to better control regional-scale CH4 emissions. Results of the attribution are used in tandem with observations of boundary layer height to quantify policy-relevant emissions from the two coal mines as 13670±7400 kg h-1 and 5070±2270 kg h-1 respectively. Both mines display a fat tail distribution, with respective 25th, median, and 75th percentile values of [870, 7500, 38700] kg h-1 and [431, 1590, 7000] kg h-1. These findings are demonstrated to be higher than CH4 emissions from equivalent oil and gas operations in the USA, with one about double and the other similar to day-to-day emissions inverted over 5-years using TROPOMI over the same region.
Article
Methane (CH4) is a potent greenhouse gas and the second highest anthropogenic emissions are recorded from CH4 on Earth. Considering its high global warming potential, the monitoring of source locations is inadvertent. The paper presented here is the first attempt (to the best of our knowledge) to comprehensively analyse the methane emissions over multiple Indian locations using satellite data. It outlays a brief background of methane emission sensors and studies carried out worldwide for estimation of the GHG. It further enumerates the potential of Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) and TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) in highlighting the potential point sources of methane emissions and its concentration/emission flux in India. 17 unique plumes were identified using EMIT in the states of Maharashtra (06), Rajasthan (04), Punjab (02), Gujarat (03) and Assam (02). Gujarat, Surat, Assam Uttar Pradesh and Haryana using TROPOMI were also studied. The hotspots showcase emission sources from solid waste landfill sites, sewage treatment plants, wetlands/marshy agriculture, city sewage outlets, oil and gas fields, oil refinery and textile industry. It was observed that EMIT can effectively be used for point source identification, monitoring and enhancement while TROPOMI is best suited for regional level methane monitoring. A sewage outlet plume in Maharashtra produced the maximum emission of 6202.9 ± 691.94 kg/hr followed by solid waste (SW) sites located in Pirana Landfill, Ahmedabad and Khajod Landfill, Surat in Gujarat. Methane monitoring is an important step towards mitigating enormous methane emissions and anomalous methane sources.
Article
Full-text available
As atmospheric methane concentrations increase at record pace, it is critical to identify individual emission sources with high potential for mitigation. Here, we leverage the synergy between satellite instruments with different spatiotemporal coverage and resolution to detect and quantify emissions from individual landfills. We use the global surveying Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) to identify large emission hot spots and then zoom in with high-resolution target-mode observations from the GHGSat instrument suite to identify the responsible facilities and characterize their emissions. Using this approach, we detect and analyze strongly emitting landfills (3 to 29 t hour-1) in Buenos Aires, Delhi, Lahore, and Mumbai. Using TROPOMI data in an inversion, we find that city-level emissions are 1.4 to 2.6 times larger than reported in commonly used emission inventories and that the landfills contribute 6 to 50% of those emissions. Our work demonstrates how complementary satellites enable global detection, identification, and monitoring of methane superemitters at the facility level.
Article
Full-text available
Coal mines are globally an important source of methane and also one of the largest point sources of methane. We present a high-resolution 0.1° × 0.1° bottom-up gridded emission inventory for methane emissions from coal mines in India and Australia, which are among the top 5 coal producing countries in 2018. The aim is to reduce the uncertainty in local coal mine methane emissions and to improve the spatial localization to support monitoring and mitigation of these emissions. For India, we improve the spatial allocation of the emissions (CH4 emissions: 825 [min: 166 – max: 1484] Gg yr−1) by identifying the exact location of surface and underground coal mines and we use a Tier-2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology to estimate the emissions from each coal mine using country-specific emission factors. For Australia (CH4 emissions: 972 [min: 863 – max: 1081] Gg yr−1), we estimate the emission for each coal mine by distributing the state-level reported total emissions using proxies of coal production and the coal basin-specific gas content profile of underground mines. Comparison of our total coal mine methane emission from India with existing global inventories showed our estimates are about a factor 3 lower, but well within range of the national Indian estimate reported to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. For both the countries, the new spatial distribution of the emissions show large difference from the current global inventories. Our improved emissions dataset will be useful for air quality or climate modeling and while assessing the satellite methane observations.
Article
Full-text available
The TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) on board the Sentinel 5 Precursor (S5-P) satellite provides methane (CH4) measurements with high accuracy and exceptional temporal and spatial resolution and sampling. TROPOMI CH4 measurements are highly valuable to constrain emissions inventories and for trend analysis, with strict requirements on the data quality. This study describes the improvements that we have implemented to retrieve CH4 from TROPOMI using the RemoTeC full-physics algorithm. The updated retrieval algorithm features a constant regularization scheme of the inversion that stabilizes the retrieval and yields less scatter in the data and includes a higher resolution surface altitude database. We have tested the impact of three state-of-the-art molecular spectroscopic databases (HITRAN 2008, HITRAN 2016 and Scientific Exploitation of Operational Missions – Improved Atmospheric Spectroscopy Databases SEOM-IAS) and found that SEOM-IAS provides the best fitting results. The most relevant update in the TROPOMI XCH4 data product is the implementation of an a posteriori correction fully independent of any reference data that is more accurate and corrects for the underestimation at low surface albedo scenes and the overestimation at high surface albedo scenes. After applying the correction, the albedo dependence is removed to a large extent in the TROPOMI versus satellite (Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite – GOSAT) and TROPOMI versus ground-based observations (Total Carbon Column Observing Network – TCCON) comparison, which is an independent verification of the correction scheme. We validate 2 years of TROPOMI CH4 data that show the good agreement of the updated TROPOMI CH4 with TCCON (-3.4 ± 5.6 ppb) and GOSAT (-10.3 ± 16.8 ppb) (mean bias and standard deviation). Low- and high-albedo scenes as well as snow-covered scenes are the most challenging for the CH4 retrieval algorithm, and although the a posteriori correction accounts for most of the bias, there is a need to further investigate the underlying cause.
Article
Full-text available
The Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) on the ESA Copernicus Sentinel-5 satellite (S5-P) measures carbon monoxide (CO) total column concentrations as one of its primary targets. In this study, we analyze TROPOMI observations over Mexico City in the period 14 November 2017 to 25 August 2019 by means of collocated CO simulations using the regional Weather Research and Forecasting coupled with Chemistry (WRF-Chem) model. We draw conclusions on the emissions from different urban districts in the region. Our WRF-Chem simulation distinguishes CO emissions from the districts Tula, Pachuca, Tulancingo, Toluca, Cuernavaca, Cuautla, Tlaxcala, Puebla, Mexico City, and Mexico City Arena by 10 separate tracers. For the data interpretation, we apply a source inversion approach determining per district the mean emissions and the temporal variability, the latter regularized to reduce the propagation of the instrument noise and forward-model errors in the inversion. In this way, the TROPOMI observations are used to evaluate the Inventario Nacional de Emisiones de Contaminantes Criterio (INEM) inventory that was adapted to the period 2017–2019 using in situ ground-based observations. For the Tula and Pachuca urban areas in the north of Mexico City, we obtain 0.10±0.004 and 0.09±0.005 Tgyr-1 CO emissions, which exceeds significantly the INEM emissions of <0.008 Tgyr-1 for both areas. On the other hand for Mexico City, TROPOMI estimates emissions of 0.14±0.006 Tgyr-1 CO, which is about half of the INEM emissions of 0.25 Tgyr-1, and for the adjacent district Mexico City Arena the emissions are 0.28±0.01 Tgyr-1 according to TROPOMI observations versus 0.14 Tgyr-1 as stated by the INEM inventory. Interestingly, the total emissions of both districts are similar (0.42±0.016 Tgyr-1 TROPOMI versus 0.39 Tgyr-1 adapted INEM emissions). Moreover, for both areas we found that the TROPOMI emission estimates follow a clear weekly cycle with a minimum during the weekend. This agrees well with ground-based in situ measurements from the Secretaría del Medio Ambiente (SEDEMA) and Fourier transform spectrometer column measurements in Mexico City that are operated by the Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change Infrared Working Group (NDACC-IRWG). Overall, our study demonstrates an approach to deploying the large number of TROPOMI CO data to draw conclusions on urban emissions on sub-city scales for metropolises like Mexico City. Moreover, for the exploitation of TROPOMI CO observations our analysis indicates the clear need for further improvements of regional models like WRF-Chem, in particular with respect to the prediction of the local wind fields.
Article
Full-text available
This paper presents projections of global methane emissions from coal mining under different coal extraction scenarios and with increasing mining depth through 2100. The paper proposes an updated methodology for calculating fugitive emissions from coal mining, which accounts for coal extraction method, coal rank, and mining depth and uses evidence-based emissions factors. A detailed assessment shows that coal mining-related methane emissions in 2010 were higher than previous studies show. This study also uses a novel methodology for calculating methane emissions from abandoned coal mines and represents the first estimate of future global methane emissions from those mines. The results show that emissions from the growing population of abandoned mines increase faster than those from active ones. Using coal production data from six integrated assessment models, this study shows that by 2100 methane emissions from active underground mines increase by a factor of 4, while emissions from abandoned mines increase by a factor of 8. Abandoned mine methane emissions continue through the century even with aggressive mitigation actions.
Article
Full-text available
Satellite observations of atmospheric methane plumes offer a means for global mapping of methane point sources. Here we use the GHGSat-D satellite instrument with 50-m effective spatial resolution and 9-18% single-pass column precision to quantify mean source rates for three coal mine vents (San Juan, United States; Appin, Australia; Bulianta, China) over a two-year period (2016-2018). This involves averaging wind-rotated observations from 14-24 overpasses to achieve satisfactory signal-to-noise. Our wind rotation method optimizes the wind direction information for individual plumes to account for error in meteorological databases. We derive source rates from the time-averaged plumes using integrated mass enhancement (IME) and cross-sectional flux (CSF) methods calibrated with large eddy simulations (LES). We find time-averaged source rates ranging from 2320 to 5850 kg h⁻¹ for the three coal mine vents, with 40-45% precision (1σ), and generally consistent with previous estimates. The IME and CSF methods agree within 15%. Our results demonstrate the potential of space-based monitoring for annual reporting of methane emissions from point sources, and suggest that future satellite instruments with similar pixel resolution but better precision should be able to constrain a wide range of point sources.
Article
Full-text available
Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. Atmospheric emissions and concentrations of CH4 continue to increase, making CH4 the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing, after carbon dioxide (CO2). The relative importance of CH4 compared to CO2 depends on its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger warming potential, and variations in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in reducing uncertainties in the atmospheric growth rate arise from the variety of geographically overlapping CH4 sources and from the destruction of CH4 by short-lived hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to synthesize and stimulate new research aimed at improving and regularly updating the global methane budget. Following Saunois et al. (2016), we present here the second version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal methane budget, integrating results of top-down studies (atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modelling framework) and bottom-up estimates (including process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). For the 2008–2017 decade, global methane emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (a top-down approach) to be 576 Tg CH4 yr-1 (range 550–594, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this total, 359 Tg CH4 yr-1 or ∼ 60 % is attributed to anthropogenic sources, that is emissions caused by direct human activity (i.e. anthropogenic emissions; range 336–376 Tg CH4 yr-1 or 50 %–65 %). The mean annual total emission for the new decade (2008–2017) is 29 Tg CH4 yr-1 larger than our estimate for the previous decade (2000–2009), and 24 Tg CH4 yr-1 larger than the one reported in the previous budget for 2003–2012 (Saunois et al., 2016). Since 2012, global CH4 emissions have been tracking the warmest scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bottom-up methods suggest almost 30 % larger global emissions (737 Tg CH4 yr-1, range 594–881) than top-down inversion methods. Indeed, bottom-up estimates for natural sources such as natural wetlands, other inland water systems, and geological sources are higher than top-down estimates. The atmospheric constraints on the top-down budget suggest that at least some of these bottom-up emissions are overestimated. The latitudinal distribution of atmospheric observation-based emissions indicates a predominance of tropical emissions (∼ 65 % of the global budget, < 30∘ N) compared to mid-latitudes (∼ 30 %, 30–60∘ N) and high northern latitudes (∼ 4 %, 60–90∘ N). The most important source of uncertainty in the methane budget is attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and other inland waters. Some of our global source estimates are smaller than those in previously published budgets (Saunois et al., 2016; Kirschke et al., 2013). In particular wetland emissions are about 35 Tg CH4 yr-1 lower due to improved partition wetlands and other inland waters. Emissions from geological sources and wild animals are also found to be smaller by 7 Tg CH4 yr-1 by 8 Tg CH4 yr-1, respectively. However, the overall discrepancy between bottom-up and top-down estimates has been reduced by only 5 % compared to Saunois et al. (2016), due to a higher estimate of emissions from inland waters, highlighting the need for more detailed research on emissions factors. Priorities for improving the methane budget include (i) a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting methane based on a robust classification of different types of emitting habitats; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of methane observations at local scales (e.g., FLUXNET-CH4 measurements) and urban-scale monitoring to constrain bottom-up land surface models, and at regional scales (surface networks and satellites) to constrain atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) development of a 3D variational inversion system using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane to improve source partitioning. The data presented here can be downloaded from 10.18160/GCP-CH4-2019 (Saunois et al., 2020) and from the Global Carbon Project.
Article
Full-text available
Using new satellite observations and atmospheric inverse modeling, we report methane emissions from the Permian Basin, which is among the world’s most prolific oil-producing regions and accounts for >30% of total U.S. oil production. Based on satellite measurements from May 2018 to March 2019, Permian methane emissions from oil and natural gas production are estimated to be 2.7 ± 0.5 Tg a ⁻¹ , representing the largest methane flux ever reported from a U.S. oil/gas-producing region and are more than two times higher than bottom-up inventory-based estimates. This magnitude of emissions is 3.7% of the gross gas extracted in the Permian, i.e., ~60% higher than the national average leakage rate. The high methane leakage rate is likely contributed by extensive venting and flaring, resulting from insufficient infrastructure to process and transport natural gas. This work demonstrates a high-resolution satellite data–based atmospheric inversion framework, providing a robust top-down analytical tool for quantifying and evaluating subregional methane emissions.
Preprint
As atmospheric methane concentrations increase at record pace, it is critical to identify individual emission sources with high potential for mitigation. Landfills are responsible for large methane emissions that can be readily abated but have been sparsely observed. Here we leverage the synergy between satellite instruments with different spatiotemporal coverage and resolution to detect and quantify emissions from individual landfill facilities. We use the global surveying Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) to identify large emission hot spots, and then zoom in with high-resolution target-mode observations from the GHGSat instrument suite to identify the responsible facilities and characterize their emissions. Using this ‘tip and cue’ approach, we detect and analyze strongly emitting landfills (3-29 t hr−1) in Buenos Aires (Argentina), Delhi (India), Lahore (Pakistan), and Mumbai (India). We find that city-level emissions are 1.6-2.8 times larger than reported in commonly used emission inventories and that the landfills contribute 5-47% of those emissions. Our work demonstrates how complementary satellites enable global detection, identification, and monitoring of methane super-emitters at the facility-level.