A leaky endeavor Considerable amounts of the greenhouse gas methane leak from the U.S. oil and natural gas supply chain. Alvarez et al. reassessed the magnitude of this leakage and found that in 2015, supply chain emissions were ∼60% higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency inventory estimate. They suggest that this discrepancy exists because current inventory methods miss emissions that occur during abnormal operating conditions. These data, and the methodology used to obtain them, could improve and verify international inventories of greenhouse gases and provide a better understanding of mitigation efforts outlined by the Paris Agreement. Science, this issue p. 186

Abstract Methane emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas supply chain were estimated by using ground-based, facility-scale measurements and validated with aircraft observations in areas accounting for ~30% of U.S. gas production. When scaled up nationally, our facility-based estimate of 2015 supply chain emissions is 13 ± 2 teragrams per year, equivalent to 2.3% of gross U.S. gas production. This value is ~60% higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency inventory estimate, likely because existing inventory methods miss emissions released during abnormal operating conditions. Methane emissions of this magnitude, per unit of natural gas consumed, produce radiative forcing over a 20-year time horizon comparable to the CO 2 from natural gas combustion. Substantial emission reductions are feasible through rapid detection of the root causes of high emissions and deployment of less failure-prone systems.

Methane (CH 4 ) is a potent greenhouse gas, and CH 4 emissions from human activities since preindustrial times are responsible for 0.97 W m−2 of radiative forcing, as compared to 1.7 W m−2 for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) (1). CH 4 is removed from the atmosphere much more rapidly than CO 2 ; thus, reducing CH 4 emissions can effectively reduce the near-term rate of warming (2). Sharp growth in U.S. oil and natural gas (O/NG) production beginning around 2005 (3) raised concerns about the climate impacts of increased natural gas use (4, 5). By 2012, disagreement among published estimates of CH 4 emissions from U.S. natural gas operations led to a broad consensus that additional data were needed to better characterize emission rates (4–7). A large body of field measurements made between 2012 and 2016 (table S1) has markedly improved understanding of the sources and magnitude of CH 4 emissions from the industry’s operations. Brandt et al. summarized the early literature (8); other assessments incorporated elements of recent data (9–11). This work synthesizes recent studies to provide an improved overall assessment of emissions from the O/NG supply chain, which we define to include all operations associated with O/NG production, processing, and transport (materials and methods, section S1.0) (12).

Measurements of O/NG CH 4 emissions can be classified as either top-down (TD) or bottom-up (BU). TD studies quantify ambient methane enhancements using aircraft, satellites, or tower networks and infer aggregate emissions from all contributing sources across large geographies. TD estimates for nine O/NG production areas have been reported to date (table S2). These areas are distributed across the U.S. (fig. S1) and account for ~33% of natural gas, ~24% of oil production, and ~14% of all wells (13). Areas sampled in TD studies also span the range of hydrocarbon characteristics (predominantly gas, predominantly oil, or mixed), as well as a range of production characteristics such as well productivity and maturity. In contrast, BU studies generate regional, state, or national emission estimates by aggregating and extrapolating measured emissions from individual pieces of equipment, operations, or facilities, using measurements made directly at the emission point or, in the case of facilities, directly downwind.

Recent BU studies have been performed on equipment or facilities that are expected to represent the vast majority of emissions from the O/NG supply chain (table S1). In this work, we integrate the results of recent facility-scale BU studies to estimate CH 4 emissions from the U.S. O/NG supply chain, and then we validate the results using TD studies (materials and methods). The probability distributions of our BU methodology are based on observed facility-level emissions, in contrast to the component-by-component approach used for conventional inventories. We thus capture enhancements produced by all sources within a facility, including the heavy tail of the distribution. When the BU estimate is developed in this manner, direct comparison of BU and TD estimates of CH 4 emissions in the nine basins for which TD measurements have been reported indicates agreement between methods, within estimated uncertainty ranges (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Comparison of this work’s bottom-up (BU) estimates of methane emissions from oil and natural gas (O/NG) sources to top-down (TD) estimates in nine U.S. O/NG production areas. (A) Relative differences of the TD and BU mean emissions, normalized by the TD value, rank ordered by natural gas production in billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d, where 1 bcf = 2.8 × 107 m3). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. (B) Distributions of the nine-basin sum of TD and BU mean estimates (blue and orange probability density, respectively). Neither the ensemble of TD-BU pairs (A) nor the nine-basin sum of means (B) are statistically different [p = 0.13 by a randomization test, and mean difference of 11% (95% confidence interval of −17 to 41%)].

Our national BU estimate of total CH 4 emissions in 2015 from the U.S. O/NG supply chain is 13 (+2.1/−1.6, 95% confidence interval) Tg CH 4 /year (Table 1). This estimate of O/NG CH 4 emissions can also be expressed as a production-normalized emission rate of 2.3% (+0.4%/−0.3%) by normalizing by annual gross natural gas production [33 trillion cubic feet (13), with average CH 4 content of 90 volume %]. Roughly 85% of national BU emissions are from production, gathering, and processing sources, which are concentrated in active O/NG production areas.

Table 1 Summary of this work’s bottom-up estimates of CH 4 emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas (O/NG) supply chain (95% confidence interval) and comparison to the EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI). View this table:

Our assessment does not update emissions from local distribution and end use of natural gas, owing to insufficient information addressing this portion of the supply chain. However, recent studies suggest that local distribution emissions exceed the current inventory estimate (14–16), and that end-user emissions might also be important. If these findings prove to be representative, overall emissions from the natural gas supply chain would increase relative to the value in Table 1 (materials and methods, section S1.5).

Our BU method and TD measurements yield similar estimates of U.S. O/NG CH 4 emissions in 2015, and both are significantly higher than the corresponding estimate in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory (EPA GHGI) (Table 1 and materials and methods, section S1.3) (17). Discrepancies between TD estimates and the EPA GHGI have been reported previously (8, 18). Our BU estimate is 63% higher than the EPA GHGI, largely due to a more than twofold difference in the production segment (Table 1). The discrepancy in production sector emissions alone is ~4 Tg CH 4 /year, an amount larger than the emissions from any other O/NG supply chain segment. Such a large difference cannot be attributed to expected uncertainty in either estimate: The extremal ends of the 95% confidence intervals for each estimate differ by 20% (i.e., ~12 Tg/year for the lower bound of our BU estimate can be compared to ~10 Tg/year for the upper bound of the EPA GHGI estimate).

We believe the reason for such large divergence is that sampling methods underlying conventional inventories systematically underestimate total emissions because they miss high emissions caused by abnormal operating conditions (e.g., malfunctions). Distributions of measured emissions from production sites in BU studies are invariably “tail-heavy,” with large emission rates measured at a small subset of sites at any single point in time (19–22). Consequently, the most likely hypothesis for the difference between the EPA GHGI and BU estimates derived from facility-level measurements is that measurements used to develop GHGI emission factors undersample abnormal operating conditions encountered during the BU work. Component-based inventory estimates like the GHGI have been shown to underestimate facility-level emissions (23), probably because of the technical difficulty and safety and liability risks associated with measuring large emissions from, for example, venting tanks such as those observed in aerial surveys (24).

Abnormal conditions causing high CH 4 emissions have been observed in studies across the O/NG supply chain. An analysis of site-scale emission measurements in the Barnett Shale concluded that equipment behaving as designed could not explain the number of high-emitting production sites in the region (23). An extensive aerial infrared camera survey of ~8000 production sites in seven U.S. O/NG basins found that ~4% of surveyed sites had one or more observable high–emission rate plumes (24) (detection threshold of ~3 to 10 kg CH 4 /hour was two to seven times higher than mean production site emissions estimated in this work). Emissions released from liquid storage tank hatches and vents represented 90% of these sightings. It appears that abnormal operating conditions must be largely responsible, because the observation frequency was too high to be attributed to routine operations like condensate flashing or liquid unloadings alone (24). All other observations were due to anomalous venting from dehydrators, separators, and flares. Notably, the two largest sources of aggregate emissions in the EPA GHGI—pneumatic controllers and equipment leaks—were never observed from these aerial surveys. Similarly, a national survey of gathering facilities found that emission rates were four times higher at the 20% of facilities where substantial tank venting emissions were observed, as compared to the 80% of facilities without such venting (25). In addition, very large emissions from leaking isolation valves at transmission and storage facilities were quantified by means of downwind measurement but could not be accurately (or safely) measured by on-site methods (26). There is an urgent need to complete equipment-based measurement campaigns that capture these large-emission events, so that their causes are better understood.

In contrast to abnormal operational conditions, alternative explanations such as outdated component emission factors are unlikely to explain the magnitude of the difference between our facility-based BU estimate and the GHGI. First, an equipment-level inventory analogous to the EPA GHGI but updated with recent direct measurements of component emissions (materials and methods, section S1.4) predicts total production emissions that are within ~10% of the EPA GHGI, although the contributions of individual source categories differ significantly (table S3). Second, we consider unlikely an alternative hypothesis that systematically higher emissions during daytime sampling cause a high bias in TD methods (materials and methods, section S1.6). Two other factors may lead to low bias in EPA GHGI and similar inventory estimates. Operator cooperation is required to obtain site access for emission measurements (8). Operators with lower-emitting sites are plausibly more likely to cooperate in such studies, and workers are likely to be more careful to avoid errors or fix problems when measurement teams are on site or about to arrive. The potential bias due to this “opt-in” study design is very challenging to determine. We therefore rely primarily on site-level, downwind measurement methods with limited or no operator forewarning to construct our BU estimate. Another possible source of bias is measurement error. It has been suggested that malfunction of a measurement instrument widely used in the O/NG industry contributes to underestimated emissions in inventories (27); however, this cannot explain the more than twofold difference in production emissions (28).

The tail-heavy distribution for many O/NG CH 4 emission sources has important implications for mitigation because it suggests that most sources—whether they represent whole facilities or individual pieces of equipment—can have lower emissions when they operate as designed. We anticipate that significant emissions reductions could be achieved by deploying well-designed emission detection and repair systems that are capable of identifying abnormally operating facilities or equipment. For example, pneumatic controllers and equipment leaks are the largest emission sources in the O/NG production segment exclusive of missing emission sources (38 and 21%, respectively; table S3), with malfunctioning controllers contributing 66% of total pneumatic controller emissions (materials and methods, section S1.4) and equipment leaks 60% higher than the GHGI estimate.

Gathering operations, which transport unprocessed natural gas from production sites to processing plants or transmission pipelines, produce ~20% of total O/NG supply chain CH 4 emissions. Until the publication of recent measurements (29), these emissions were largely unaccounted by the EPA GHGI. Gas processing, transmission and storage together contribute another ~20% of total O/NG supply chain emissions, most of which come from ~2500 processing and compression facilities.

Our estimate of emissions from the U.S. O/NG supply chain (13 Tg CH 4 /year) compares to the EPA estimate of 18 Tg CH 4 /year for all other anthropogenic CH 4 sources (17). Natural gas losses are a waste of a limited natural resource (~$2 billion/year), increase global levels of surface ozone pollution (30), and substantially erode the potential climate benefits of natural gas use. Indeed, our estimate of CH 4 emissions across the supply chain, per unit of gas consumed, results in roughly the same radiative forcing as does the CO 2 from combustion of natural gas over a 20-year time horizon (31% over 100 years). Moreover, the climate impact of 13 Tg CH 4 /year over a 20-year time horizon roughly equals that from the annual CO 2 emissions from all U.S. coal-fired power plants operating in 2015 (31% of the impact over a 100-year time horizon) (materials and methods, section S1.7).

We suggest that inventory methods would be improved by including the substantial volume of missing O/NG CH 4 emissions evident from the large body of scientific work now available and synthesized here. Such empirical adjustments based on observed data have been previously used in air quality management (31).

The large spatial and temporal variability in CH 4 emissions for similar equipment and facilities (due to equipment malfunction and other abnormal operating conditions) reinforces the conclusion that substantial emission reductions are feasible. Key aspects of effective mitigation include pairing well-established technologies and best practices for routine emission sources with economically viable systems to rapidly detect the root causes of high emissions arising from abnormal conditions. The latter could involve combinations of current technologies such as on-site leak surveys by company personnel using optical gas imaging (32), deployment of passive sensors at individual facilities (33, 34) or mounted on ground-based work trucks (35), and in situ remote-sensing approaches using tower networks, aircraft, or satellites (36). Over time, the development of less failure-prone systems would be expected through repeated observation of and further research into common causes of abnormal emissions, followed by reengineered design of individual components and processes.

Supplementary Materials www.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/186/suppl/DC1 Materials and Methods Additional Author Disclosures Figs. S1 to S11 Tables S1 to S12 References (37–77) Databases S1 and S2

http://www.sciencemag.org/about/science-licenses-journal-article-reuse This is an article distributed under the terms of the Science Journals Default License.

References and Notes ↵ G. Myhre et al., 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 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013); www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf ↵ J. K. Shoemaker , D. P. Schrag , M. J. Molina , V. Ramanathan , Climate change. What role for short-lived climate pollutants in mitigation policy? Science 342 , 1323 – 1324 ( ). doi: 10.1126/science.1240162 pmid: 24337280 OpenUrl ↵ U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Annual Energy Outlook 2017” (EIA, 2017); www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ ↵ R. W. Howarth , R. Santoro , A. Ingraffea , Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations . Clim. Change 106 , 679 – 690 ( ). doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ R. A. Alvarez , S. W. Pacala , J. J. Winebrake , W. L. Chameides , S. P. Hamburg , Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 , 6435 – 6440 ( ). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1202407109 pmid: 22493226 OpenUrl U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “Ninety-day report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board’s Shale Gas Subcommittee” (2011); https://energy.gov/downloads/90-day-interim-report-shale-gas-production-secretary-energy-advisory-board ↵ National Petroleum Council (NPC), “Prudent Development: Realizing the Potential of North America’s Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Resources” (NPC, 2011); www.npc.org ↵ A. R. Brandt , G. A. Heath , E. A. Kort , F. O’Sullivan , G. Pétron , S. M. Jordaan , P. Tans , J. Wilcox , A. M. Gopstein , D. Arent , S. Wofsy , N. J. Brown , R. Bradley , G. D. Stucky , D. Eardley , R. Harriss , Energy and environment. Methane leaks from North American natural gas systems . Science 343 , 733 – 735 ( ). doi: 10.1126/science.1247045 pmid: 24531957 OpenUrl ↵ D. T. Allen , Emissions from oil and gas operations in the United States and their air quality implications . J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 66 , 549 – 575 ( ). doi: 10.1080/10962247.2016.1171263 pmid: 27249104 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed P. Balcombe , K. Anderson , J. Speirs , N. Brandon , A. Hawkes , The natural gas supply chain: The importance of methane and carbon dioxide emissions . ACS Sustain. Chem.& Eng. 5 , 3 – 20 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b00144 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ J. A. Littlefield , J. Marriott , G. A. Schivley , T. J. Skone , Synthesis of recent ground-level methane emission measurements from the U.S. natural gas supply chain . J. Clean. Prod. 148 , 118 – 126 ( ). doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.101 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ See supplementary materials. ↵ Drillinginfo, Inc., Drillinginfo Production Query (2015); https://info.drillinginfo.com/ ↵ K. McKain , A. Down , S. M. Raciti , J. Budney , L. R. Hutyra , C. Floerchinger , S. C. Herndon , T. Nehrkorn , M. S. Zahniser , R. B. Jackson , N. Phillips , S. C. Wofsy , Methane emissions from natural gas infrastructure and use in the urban region of Boston, Massachusetts . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112 , 1941 – 1946 ( ). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1416261112 pmid: 25617375 OpenUrl B. K. Lamb , M. O. L. Cambaliza , K. J. Davis , S. L. Edburg , T. W. Ferrara , C. Floerchinger , A. M. F. Heimburger , S. Herndon , T. Lauvaux , T. Lavoie , D. R. Lyon , N. Miles , K. R. Prasad , S. Richardson , J. R. Roscioli , O. E. Salmon , P. B. Shepson , B. H. Stirm , J. Whetstone , Direct and indirect measurements and modeling of methane emissions in Indianapolis, Indiana . Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 , 8910 – 8917 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01198 pmid: 27487422 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ D. Wunch , G. C. Toon , J. K. Hedelius , N. Vizenor , C. M. Roehl , K. M. Saad , J.-F. L. Blavier , D. R. Blake , P. O. Wennberg , Quantifying the loss of processed natural gas within California’s South Coast Air Basin using long-term measurements of ethane and methane . Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16 , 14091 – 14105 ( ). doi: 10.5194/acp-16-14091-2016 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015” (EPA, 2017); www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2015 ↵ D. Zavala-Araiza , D. R. Lyon , R. A. Alvarez , K. J. Davis , R. Harriss , S. C. Herndon , A. Karion , E. A. Kort , B. K. Lamb , X. Lan , A. J. Marchese , S. W. Pacala , A. L. Robinson , P. B. Shepson , C. Sweeney , R. Talbot , A. Townsend-Small , T. I. Yacovitch , D. J. Zimmerle , S. P. Hamburg , Reconciling divergent estimates of oil and gas methane emissions . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112 , 15597 – 15602 ( ). pmid: 26644584 OpenUrl ↵ C. W. Rella , T. R. Tsai , C. G. Botkin , E. R. Crosson , D. Steele , Measuring emissions from oil and natural gas well pads using the mobile flux plane technique . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 4742 – 4748 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00099 pmid: 25806837 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed M. Omara , M. R. Sullivan , X. Li , R. Subramanian , A. L. Robinson , A. A. Presto , Methane emissions from conventional and unconventional natural gas production sites in the Marcellus Shale Basin . Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 , 2099 – 2107 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05503 pmid: 26824407 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed A. M. Robertson , R. Edie , D. Snare , J. Soltis , R. A. Field , M. D. Burkhart , C. S. Bell , D. Zimmerle , S. M. Murphy , Variation in methane emission rates from well pads in four oil and gas basins with contrasting production volumes and compositions . Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 , 8832 – 8840 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00571 pmid: 28628305 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ A. R. Brandt , G. A. Heath , D. Cooley , Methane leaks from natural gas systems follow extreme distributions . Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 , 12512 – 12520 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04303 pmid: 27740745 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ D. Zavala-Araiza , R. A. Alvarez , D. R. Lyon , D. T. Allen , A. J. Marchese , D. J. Zimmerle , S. P. Hamburg , Super-emitters in natural gas infrastructure are caused by abnormal process conditions . Nat. Commun. 8 , 14012 ( ). doi: 10.1038/ncomms14012 pmid: 28091528 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ D. R. Lyon , R. A. Alvarez , D. Zavala-Araiza , A. R. Brandt , R. B. Jackson , S. P. Hamburg , Aerial surveys of elevated hydrocarbon emissions from oil and gas production sites . Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 , 4877 – 4886 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00705 pmid: 27045743 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ A. L. Mitchell , D. S. Tkacik , J. R. Roscioli , S. C. Herndon , T. I. Yacovitch , D. M. Martinez , T. L. Vaughn , L. L. Williams , M. R. Sullivan , C. Floerchinger , M. Omara , R. Subramanian , D. Zimmerle , A. J. Marchese , A. L. Robinson , Measurements of methane emissions from natural gas gathering facilities and processing plants: Measurement results . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 3219 – 3227 ( ). doi: 10.1021/es5052809 pmid: 25668106 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ D. J. Zimmerle , L. L. Williams , T. L. Vaughn , C. Quinn , R. Subramanian , G. P. Duggan , B. Willson , J. D. Opsomer , A. J. Marchese , D. M. Martinez , A. L. Robinson , Methane emissions from the natural gas transmission and storage system in the United States . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 9374 – 9383 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01669 pmid: 26195284 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ T. Howard , T. W. Ferrara , A. Townsend-Small , Sensor transition failure in the high flow sampler: Implications for methane emission inventories of natural gas infrastructure . J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 65 , 856 – 862 ( ). doi: 10.1080/10962247.2015.1025925 pmid: 26079559 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ R. A. Alvarez , D. R. Lyon , A. J. Marchese , A. L. Robinson , S. P. Hamburg , Possible malfunction in widely used methane sampler deserves attention but poses limited implications for supply chain emission estimates . Elem. Sci. Anth. 4 , 000137 ( ). doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000137 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ A. J. Marchese , T. L. Vaughn , D. J. Zimmerle , D. M. Martinez , L. L. Williams , A. L. Robinson , A. L. Mitchell , R. Subramanian , D. S. Tkacik , J. R. Roscioli , S. C. Herndon , Methane emissions from United States natural gas gathering and processing . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 10718 – 10727 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02275 pmid: 26281719 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ A. M. Fiore , D. J. Jacob , B. D. Field , D. G. Streets , S. D. Fernandes , C. Jang , Linking ozone pollution and climate change: The case for controlling methane . Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 , 21-1 – 25-4 ( ). doi: 10.1029/2002GL015601 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), “Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan Revision for the 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Standard” (2010), pp. 3–18; www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/hgb/hgb_sip_2009/09017SIP_completeNarr_ado.pdf ↵ A. P. Ravikumar , J. Wang , A. R. Brandt , Are optical gas imaging technologies effective for methane leak detection? Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 , 718 – 724 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03906 pmid: 27936621 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, (ARPA-E, 2014), “ARPA-E MONITOR Program” (ARPA-E); https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=programs/monitor ↵ Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), “Methane Detectors Challenge” (EDF, 2014); www.edf.org/energy/natural-gas-policy/methane-detectors-challenge ↵ J. D. Albertson , T. Harvey , G. Foderaro , P. Zhu , X. Zhou , S. Ferrari , M. S. Amin , M. Modrak , H. Brantley , E. D. Thoma , A mobile sensing approach for regional surveillance of fugitive methane emissions in oil and gas production . Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 , 2487 – 2497 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b05059 pmid: 26807713 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ D. J. Jacob , A. J. Turner , J. D. Maasakkers , J. Sheng , K. Sun , X. Liu , K. Chance , I. Aben , J. McKeever , C. Frankenberg , Satellite observations of atmospheric methane and their value for quantifying methane emissions . Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16 , 14371 – 14396 ( ). doi: 10.5194/acp-16-14371-2016 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), “Pipeline Data and Statistics” (PHMSA, 2017); https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/data-and-statistics/pipeline/data-and-statistics-overview H. L. Brantley , E. D. Thoma , W. C. Squier , B. B. Guven , D. Lyon , Assessment of methane emissions from oil and gas production pads using mobile measurements . Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 , 14508 – 14515 ( ). doi: 10.1021/es503070q pmid: 25375308 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed X. Lan , R. Talbot , P. Laine , A. Torres , Characterizing fugitive methane emissions in the Barnett Shale area using a mobile laboratory . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 8139 – 8146 ( ). doi: 10.1021/es5063055 pmid: 26148552 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed R. Subramanian , L. L. Williams , T. L. Vaughn , D. Zimmerle , J. R. Roscioli , S. C. Herndon , T. I. Yacovitch , C. Floerchinger , D. S. Tkacik , A. L. Mitchell , M. R. Sullivan , T. R. Dallmann , A. L. Robinson , Methane emissions from natural gas compressor stations in the transmission and storage sector: Measurements and comparisons with the EPA greenhouse gas reporting program protocol . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 3252 – 3261 ( ). doi: 10.1021/es5060258 pmid: 25668051 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed B. W. Yap , C. H. Sim , Comparisons of various types of normality tests . J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 81 , 2141 – 2155 ( ). doi: 10.1080/00949655.2010.520163 OpenUrl CrossRef N. M. Razali , Y. B. Wah , Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests . J. Statist. Model. Anal. 2 , 21 – 33 ( ). OpenUrl U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Public Review of Draft U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016” (EPA, 2018); www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks ). A. Townsend-Small , T. W. Ferrara , D. R. Lyon , A. E. Fries , B. K. Lamb , Emissions of coalbed and natural gas methane from abandoned oil and gas wells in the United States . Geophys. Res. Lett. 43 , 2283 – 2290 ( ). doi: 10.1002/2015GL067623 OpenUrl CrossRef M. Kang , C. M. Kanno , M. C. Reid , X. Zhang , D. L. Mauzerall , M. A. Celia , Y. Chen , T. C. Onstott , Direct measurements of methane emissions from abandoned oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111 , 18173 – 18177 ( ). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1408315111 pmid: 25489074 OpenUrl U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program , (EPA, ); http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do. S. Schwietzke , G. Pétron , S. Conley , C. Pickering , I. Mielke-Maday , E. J. Dlugokencky , P. P. Tans , T. Vaughn , C. Bell , D. Zimmerle , S. Wolter , C. W. King , A. B. White , T. Coleman , L. Bianco , R. C. Schnell , Improved mechanistic understanding of natural gas methane emissions from spatially resolved aircraft measurements . Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 , 7286 – 7294 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01810 pmid: 28548824 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed A. Gvakharia , E. A. Kort , A. Brandt , J. Peischl , T. B. Ryerson , J. P. Schwarz , M. L. Smith , C. Sweeney , Methane, black carbon, and ethane emissions from natural gas flares in the Bakken Shale, North Dakota . Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 , 5317 – 5325 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05183 pmid: 28401762 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed J. Peischl , A. Karion , C. Sweeney , E. A. Kort , M. L. Smith , A. R. Brandt , T. Yeskoo , K. C. Aikin , S. A. Conley , A. Gvakharia , M. Trainer , S. Wolter , T. B. Ryerson , Quantifying atmospheric methane emissions from oil and natural gas production in the Bakken shale region of North Dakota . J. Geophys. Res. D Atmospheres 121 , 6101 – 6111 ( ). doi: 10.1002/2015JD024631 OpenUrl CrossRef B. K. Lamb , S. L. Edburg , T. W. Ferrara , T. Howard , M. R. Harrison , C. E. Kolb , A. Townsend-Small , W. Dyck , A. Possolo , J. R. Whetstone , Direct measurements show decreasing methane emissions from natural gas local distribution systems in the United States . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 5161 – 5169 ( ). doi: 10.1021/es505116p pmid: 25826444 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed J. Peischl , T. B. Ryerson , K. C. Aikin , J. A. de Gouw , J. B. Gilman , J. S. Holloway , B. M. Lerner , R. Nadkarni , J. A. Neuman , J. B. Nowak , M. Trainer , C. Warneke , D. D. Parrish , Quantifying atmospheric methane emissions from the Haynesville, Fayetteville, and northeastern Marcellus shale gas production regions . J. Geophys. Res. D Atmospheres 120 , 2119 – 2139 ( ). doi: 10.1002/2014JD022697 OpenUrl CrossRef M. L. Smith , A. Gvakharia , E. A. Kort , C. Sweeney , S. A. Conley , I. Faloona , T. Newberger , R. Schnell , S. Schwietzke , S. Wolter , Airborne quantification of methane emissions over the Four Corners region . Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 , 5832 – 5837 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b06107 pmid: 28418663 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed J. D. Maasakkers , D. J. Jacob , M. P. Sulprizio , A. J. Turner , M. Weitz , T. Wirth , C. Hight , M. DeFigueiredo , M. Desai , R. Schmeltz , L. Hockstad , A. A. Bloom , K. W. Bowman , S. Jeong , M. L. Fischer , Gridded national inventory of U.S. methane emissions . Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 , 13123 – 13133 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02878 pmid: 27934278 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed D. T. Allen , V. M. Torres , J. Thomas , D. W. Sullivan , M. Harrison , A. Hendler , S. C. Herndon , C. E. Kolb , M. P. Fraser , A. D. Hill , B. K. Lamb , J. Miskimins , R. F. Sawyer , J. H. Seinfeld , Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 , 17768 – 17773 ( ). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1304880110 pmid: 24043804 OpenUrl D. T. Allen , A. P. Pacsi , D. W. Sullivan , D. Zavala-Araiza , M. Harrison , K. Keen , M. P. Fraser , A. Daniel Hill , R. F. Sawyer , J. H. Seinfeld , Methane emissions from process equipment at natural gas production sites in the United States: Pneumatic controllers . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 633 – 640 ( ). doi: 10.1021/es5040156 pmid: 25488196 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed D. T. Allen , D. W. Sullivan , D. Zavala-Araiza , A. P. Pacsi , M. Harrison , K. Keen , M. P. Fraser , A. Daniel Hill , B. K. Lamb , R. F. Sawyer , J. H. Seinfeld , Methane emissions from process equipment at natural gas production sites in the United States: Liquid unloadings . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 641 – 648 ( ). doi: 10.1021/es504016r pmid: 25488307 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “AP-42: Compilation of Air Emission Factors, Volume 1, Section 3.2, Natural Gas-fired Reciprocating Engines” (EPA, 2000); www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors J. Veil, “U.S. Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in 2012” (Groundwater Protection Council, 2015); http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/Produced%20Water%20Report%202014-GWPC_0.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Oil and Gas Emission Estimation Tool 2014 (EPA, 2015); ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2011nei/doc/Tool_and_Report112614.zip U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Natural Gas Consumption by End Use” (EIA, 2017); www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm N. N. Clark , D. L. McKain , D. R. Johnson , W. S. Wayne , H. Li , V. Akkerman , C. Sandoval , A. N. Covington , R. A. Mongold , J. T. Hailer , O. J. Ugarte , Pump-to-wheels methane emissions from the heavy-duty transportation sector . Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 , 968 – 976 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06059 pmid: 28005343 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed T. N. Lavoie , P. B. Shepson , C. A. Gore , B. H. Stirm , R. Kaeser , B. Wulle , D. Lyon , J. Rudek , Assessing the methane emissions from natural gas-fired power plants and oil refineries . Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 , 3373 – 3381 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b05531 pmid: 28221780 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed C. Frankenberg , A. K. Thorpe , D. R. Thompson , G. Hulley , E. A. Kort , N. Vance , J. Borchardt , T. Krings , K. Gerilowski , C. Sweeney , S. Conley , B. D. Bue , A. D. Aubrey , S. Hook , R. O. Green , Airborne methane remote measurements reveal heavy-tail flux distribution in Four Corners region . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 , 9734 – 9739 ( ). doi: 10.1073/pnas.1605617113 pmid: 27528660 OpenUrl T. N. Lavoie , P. B. Shepson , M. O. L. Cambaliza , B. H. Stirm , A. Karion , C. Sweeney , T. I. Yacovitch , S. C. Herndon , X. Lan , D. Lyon , Aircraft-based measurements of point source methane emissions in the Barnett Shale basin . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 7904 – 7913 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00410 pmid: 26148549 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed T. I. Yacovitch , S. C. Herndon , G. Pétron , J. Kofler , D. Lyon , M. S. Zahniser , C. E. Kolb , Mobile laboratory observations of methane emissions in the Barnett Shale region . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 7889 – 7895 ( ). doi: 10.1021/es506352j pmid: 25751617 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed M. Etminan , G. Myhre , E. J. Highwood , K. P. Shine , Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing . Geophys. Res. Lett. 43 , 12614 – 12623 ( ). doi: 10.1002/2016GL071930 OpenUrl CrossRef Z. R. Barkley , T. Lauvaux , K. J. Davis , A. Deng , N. L. Miles , S. J. Richardson , Y. Cao , C. Sweeney , A. Karion , M. K. Smith , E. A. Kort , S. Schwietzke , T. Murphy , G. Cervone , D. Martins , J. D. Maasakkers , Quantifying methane emissions from natural gas production in north-eastern Pennsylvania . Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17 , 13941 – 13966 ( ). doi: 10.5194/acp-17-13941-2017 OpenUrl CrossRef C. S. Foster , E. T. Crosman , L. Holland , D. V. Mallia , B. Fasoli , R. Bares , J. Horel , J. C. Lin , Confirmation of elevated methane emissions in Utah’s Uintah Basin with ground-based observations and a high-resolution transport model: Methane emissions in Utah’s Uintah Basin . J. Geophys. Res. D Atmospheres 122 , 13026 – 13044 ( ). OpenUrl A. Karion , C. Sweeney , G. Pétron , G. Frost , R. Michael Hardesty , J. Kofler , B. R. Miller , T. Newberger , S. Wolter , R. Banta , A. Brewer , E. Dlugokencky , P. Lang , S. A. Montzka , R. Schnell , P. Tans , M. Trainer , R. Zamora , S. Conley , Methane emissions estimate from airborne measurements over a western United States natural gas field . Geophys. Res. Lett. 40 , 4393 – 4397 ( ). doi: 10.1002/grl.50811 OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science G. Pétron , A. Karion , C. Sweeney , B. R. Miller , S. A. Montzka , G. J. Frost , M. Trainer , P. Tans , A. Andrews , J. Kofler , D. Helmig , D. Guenther , E. Dlugokencky , P. Lang , T. Newberger , S. Wolter , B. Hall , P. Novelli , A. Brewer , S. Conley , M. Hardesty , R. Banta , A. White , D. Noone , D. Wolfe , R. Schnell , A new look at methane and nonmethane hydrocarbon emissions from oil and natural gas operations in the Colorado Denver-Julesburg Basin . J. Geophys. Res. D Atmospheres 119 , 6836 – 6852 ( ). doi: 10.1002/2013JD021272 OpenUrl CrossRef A. Karion , C. Sweeney , E. A. Kort , P. B. Shepson , A. Brewer , M. Cambaliza , S. A. Conley , K. Davis , A. Deng , M. Hardesty , S. C. Herndon , T. Lauvaux , T. Lavoie , D. Lyon , T. Newberger , G. Pétron , C. Rella , M. Smith , S. Wolter , T. I. Yacovitch , P. Tans , Aircraft-Based Estimate of Total Methane Emissions from the Barnett Shale Region . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 8124 – 8131 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00217 pmid: 26148550 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed M. L. Smith , E. A. Kort , A. Karion , C. Sweeney , S. C. Herndon , T. I. Yacovitch , Airborne ethane observations in the Barnett Shale: Quantification of ethane flux and attribution of methane emissions . Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 , 8158 – 8166 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00219 pmid: 26148554 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed J. Garratt , Review: The atmospheric boundary layer . Earth Sci. Rev. 37 , 89 – 134 ( ). doi: 10.1016/0012-8252(94)90026-4 OpenUrl CrossRef A. Townsend-Small , E. C. Botner , K. L. Jimenez , J. R. Schroeder , N. J. Blake , S. Meinardi , D. R. Blake , B. C. Sive , D. Bon , J. H. Crawford , G. Pfister , F. M. Flocke , Using stable isotopes of hydrogen to quantify biogenic and thermogenic atmospheric methane sources: A case study from the Colorado Front Range . Geophys. Res. Lett. 43 , 11462 – 11471 ( ). doi: 10.1002/2016GL071438 OpenUrl CrossRef T. N. Lavoie , P. B. Shepson , M. O. L. Cambaliza , B. H. Stirm , S. Conley , S. Mehrotra , I. C. Faloona , D. Lyon , Spatiotemporal variability of methane emissions at oil and natural gas operations in the Eagle Ford Basin . Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 , 8001 – 8009 ( ). doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00814 pmid: 28678487 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed J. D. Goetz et al ., Analysis of local-scale background concentrations of methane and other gas-phase species in the Marcellus Shale . Elem. Sci. Anth. 5 , 1 ( ). doi: 10.1525/elementa.182 OpenUrl CrossRef ↵ M. F. Hendrick , R. Ackley , B. Sanaie-Movahed , X. Tang , N. G. Phillips , Fugitive methane emissions from leak-prone natural gas distribution infrastructure in urban environments . Environ. Pollut. 213 , 710 – 716 ( ). doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.094 pmid: 27023280 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to R. Harriss for support in the design and conduct of studies. We thank D. Zimmerle, A. Robertson, and A. Pintar for helpful discussions, and the scores of researchers that contributed to the body of work assessed here. Funding: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Fiona and Stan Druckenmiller, Heising-Simons Foundation, Bill and Susan Oberndorf, Betsy and Sam Reeves, Robertson Foundation, TomKat Charitable Trust, and the Walton Family Foundation (for EDF authors as well as support of related studies involving D.T.A, S.C.H., A.K., E.A.K., B.K.L., A.J.M., A.L.R., P.B.S., C.S., A.T.-S., S.C.W.); DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory (Z.R.B., K.J.D., T.L., A.L.R.); NASA Earth Science Division (D.J.J., E.A.K., J.D.M.); NOAA Climate Program Office (E.A.K., J.P., A.L.R., C.S.). Author contributions: R.A.A., D.Z-A., D.R.L., and S.P.H. conceived the study; R.A.A., D.Z-A., D.R.L., E.A.K., S.W.P. and S.P.H. designed the study and interpreted results with input from all authors; each author contributed to the collection, analysis, or assessment of one or more datasets necessary to perform this study; D.Z-A, D.R.L, and S.W.P, performed the analysis, with contributions from R.A.A., A.R.B., A.K., and M.O.; R.A.A., D.Z-A., D.R.L., S.W.P., S.C.W., and S.P.H. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors. Competing interests: None declared. Data and materials availability: All data and methods needed to reproduce the results in the paper are provided in the paper or as supplementary materials. Additional author disclosures (affiliations, funding sources, financial holdings) are provided in the supplementary materials.