Flow rate and source reservoir identification from airborne chemical sampling of the uncontrolled Elgin platform gas release. / Lee, James D.; Mobbs, Stephen D.; Wellpott, Axel; Allen, Grant; Bauguitte, Stephane; Burton, Ralph R.; Camilli, Richard; Coe, Hugh; Fisher, Rebecca; France, James L.; Gallagher, Martin; Hopkins, James R.; Lanoiselle, Mathias; Lewis, Alastair C.; Lowry, David; Nisbet, Euan; Purvis, Ruth; O'Shea, Sebastian; Pyle, John A.; Ryerson, Thomas B.

In: Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, Vol. 11, No. 3, 27.03.2018, p. 1725-1739.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Flow rate and source reservoir identification from airborne chemical sampling of the uncontrolled Elgin platform gas release. / Lee, James D.; Mobbs, Stephen D.; Wellpott, Axel; Allen, Grant; Bauguitte, Stephane; Burton, Ralph R.; Camilli, Richard; Coe, Hugh; Fisher, Rebecca; France, James L.; Gallagher, Martin; Hopkins, James R.; Lanoiselle, Mathias; Lewis, Alastair C.; Lowry, David; Nisbet, Euan; Purvis, Ruth; O'Shea, Sebastian; Pyle, John A.; Ryerson, Thomas B.

In: Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, Vol. 11, No. 3, 27.03.2018, p. 1725-1739.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Lee, JD, Mobbs, SD, Wellpott, A, Allen, G, Bauguitte, S, Burton, RR, Camilli, R, Coe, H, Fisher, R, France, JL, Gallagher, M, Hopkins, JR, Lanoiselle, M, Lewis, AC, Lowry, D, Nisbet, E, Purvis, R, O'Shea, S, Pyle, JA & Ryerson, TB 2018, 'Flow rate and source reservoir identification from airborne chemical sampling of the uncontrolled Elgin platform gas release', Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1725-1739. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-1725-2018

APA

Lee, J. D., Mobbs, S. D., Wellpott, A., Allen, G., Bauguitte, S., Burton, R. R., Camilli, R., Coe, H., Fisher, R., France, J. L., Gallagher, M., Hopkins, J. R., Lanoiselle, M., Lewis, A. C., Lowry, D., Nisbet, E., Purvis, R., O'Shea, S., Pyle, J. A., & Ryerson, T. B. (2018). Flow rate and source reservoir identification from airborne chemical sampling of the uncontrolled Elgin platform gas release. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 11(3), 1725-1739. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-1725-2018

Vancouver

Lee JD, Mobbs SD, Wellpott A, Allen G, Bauguitte S, Burton RR et al. Flow rate and source reservoir identification from airborne chemical sampling of the uncontrolled Elgin platform gas release. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques. 2018 Mar 27;11(3):1725-1739. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-1725-2018

Author

Lee, James D. ; Mobbs, Stephen D. ; Wellpott, Axel ; Allen, Grant ; Bauguitte, Stephane ; Burton, Ralph R. ; Camilli, Richard ; Coe, Hugh ; Fisher, Rebecca ; France, James L. ; Gallagher, Martin ; Hopkins, James R. ; Lanoiselle, Mathias ; Lewis, Alastair C. ; Lowry, David ; Nisbet, Euan ; Purvis, Ruth ; O'Shea, Sebastian ; Pyle, John A. ; Ryerson, Thomas B. / Flow rate and source reservoir identification from airborne chemical sampling of the uncontrolled Elgin platform gas release. In: Atmospheric Measurement Techniques. 2018 ; Vol. 11, No. 3. pp. 1725-1739.

BibTeX

@article{d1f7c225811b40e490507e4d03141fdf,
title = "Flow rate and source reservoir identification from airborne chemical sampling of the uncontrolled Elgin platform gas release",
abstract = "An uncontrolled gas leak from 25 March to 16 May 2012 led to evacuation of the Total Elgin wellhead and neighbouring drilling and production platforms in the UK North Sea. Initially the atmospheric flow rate of leaking gas and condensate was very poorly known, hampering environmental assessment and well control efforts. Six flights by the UK FAAM chemically instrumented BAe-146 research aircraft were used to quantify the flow rate. The flow rate was calculated by assuming the plume may be modelled by a Gaussian distribution with two different solution methods: Gaussian fitting in the vertical and fitting with a fully mixed layer. When both solution methods were used they compared within 6 % of each other, which was within combined errors. Data from the first flight on 30 March 2012 showed the flow rate to be 1.3 ± 0.2 kg CH4 s−1, decreasing to less than half that by the second flight on 17 April 2012. δ13CCH4 in the gas was found to be −43 ‰, implying that the gas source was unlikely to be from the main high pressure, high temperature Elgin gas field at 5.5 km depth, but more probably from the overlying Hod Formation at 4.2 km depth. This was deemed to be smaller and more manageable than the high pressure Elgin field and hence the response strategy was considerably simpler. The first flight was conducted within 5 days of the blowout and allowed a flow rate estimate within 48 h of sampling, with δ13CCH4 characterization soon thereafter, demonstrating the potential for a rapid-response capability that is widely applicable to future atmospheric emissions of environmental concern. Knowledge of the Elgin flow rate helped inform subsequent decision making. This study shows that leak assessment using appropriately designed airborne plume sampling strategies is well suited for circumstances where direct access is difficult or potentially dangerous. Measurements such as this also permit unbiased regulatory assessment of potential impact, independent of the emitting party, on timescales that can inform industry decision makers and assist rapid-response planning by government.",
keywords = "methane gas Elgin ",
author = "Lee, {James D.} and Mobbs, {Stephen D.} and Axel Wellpott and Grant Allen and Stephane Bauguitte and Burton, {Ralph R.} and Richard Camilli and Hugh Coe and Rebecca Fisher and France, {James L.} and Martin Gallagher and Hopkins, {James R.} and Mathias Lanoiselle and Lewis, {Alastair C.} and David Lowry and Euan Nisbet and Ruth Purvis and Sebastian O'Shea and Pyle, {John A.} and Ryerson, {Thomas B.}",
year = "2018",
month = mar,
day = "27",
doi = "10.5194/amt-11-1725-2018",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "1725--1739",
journal = "Atmospheric Measurement Techniques",
issn = "1867-1381",
publisher = "Copernicus Gesellschaft mbH",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Flow rate and source reservoir identification from airborne chemical sampling of the uncontrolled Elgin platform gas release

AU - Lee, James D.

AU - Mobbs, Stephen D.

AU - Wellpott, Axel

AU - Allen, Grant

AU - Bauguitte, Stephane

AU - Burton, Ralph R.

AU - Camilli, Richard

AU - Coe, Hugh

AU - Fisher, Rebecca

AU - France, James L.

AU - Gallagher, Martin

AU - Hopkins, James R.

AU - Lanoiselle, Mathias

AU - Lewis, Alastair C.

AU - Lowry, David

AU - Nisbet, Euan

AU - Purvis, Ruth

AU - O'Shea, Sebastian

AU - Pyle, John A.

AU - Ryerson, Thomas B.

PY - 2018/3/27

Y1 - 2018/3/27

N2 - An uncontrolled gas leak from 25 March to 16 May 2012 led to evacuation of the Total Elgin wellhead and neighbouring drilling and production platforms in the UK North Sea. Initially the atmospheric flow rate of leaking gas and condensate was very poorly known, hampering environmental assessment and well control efforts. Six flights by the UK FAAM chemically instrumented BAe-146 research aircraft were used to quantify the flow rate. The flow rate was calculated by assuming the plume may be modelled by a Gaussian distribution with two different solution methods: Gaussian fitting in the vertical and fitting with a fully mixed layer. When both solution methods were used they compared within 6 % of each other, which was within combined errors. Data from the first flight on 30 March 2012 showed the flow rate to be 1.3 ± 0.2 kg CH4 s−1, decreasing to less than half that by the second flight on 17 April 2012. δ13CCH4 in the gas was found to be −43 ‰, implying that the gas source was unlikely to be from the main high pressure, high temperature Elgin gas field at 5.5 km depth, but more probably from the overlying Hod Formation at 4.2 km depth. This was deemed to be smaller and more manageable than the high pressure Elgin field and hence the response strategy was considerably simpler. The first flight was conducted within 5 days of the blowout and allowed a flow rate estimate within 48 h of sampling, with δ13CCH4 characterization soon thereafter, demonstrating the potential for a rapid-response capability that is widely applicable to future atmospheric emissions of environmental concern. Knowledge of the Elgin flow rate helped inform subsequent decision making. This study shows that leak assessment using appropriately designed airborne plume sampling strategies is well suited for circumstances where direct access is difficult or potentially dangerous. Measurements such as this also permit unbiased regulatory assessment of potential impact, independent of the emitting party, on timescales that can inform industry decision makers and assist rapid-response planning by government.

AB - An uncontrolled gas leak from 25 March to 16 May 2012 led to evacuation of the Total Elgin wellhead and neighbouring drilling and production platforms in the UK North Sea. Initially the atmospheric flow rate of leaking gas and condensate was very poorly known, hampering environmental assessment and well control efforts. Six flights by the UK FAAM chemically instrumented BAe-146 research aircraft were used to quantify the flow rate. The flow rate was calculated by assuming the plume may be modelled by a Gaussian distribution with two different solution methods: Gaussian fitting in the vertical and fitting with a fully mixed layer. When both solution methods were used they compared within 6 % of each other, which was within combined errors. Data from the first flight on 30 March 2012 showed the flow rate to be 1.3 ± 0.2 kg CH4 s−1, decreasing to less than half that by the second flight on 17 April 2012. δ13CCH4 in the gas was found to be −43 ‰, implying that the gas source was unlikely to be from the main high pressure, high temperature Elgin gas field at 5.5 km depth, but more probably from the overlying Hod Formation at 4.2 km depth. This was deemed to be smaller and more manageable than the high pressure Elgin field and hence the response strategy was considerably simpler. The first flight was conducted within 5 days of the blowout and allowed a flow rate estimate within 48 h of sampling, with δ13CCH4 characterization soon thereafter, demonstrating the potential for a rapid-response capability that is widely applicable to future atmospheric emissions of environmental concern. Knowledge of the Elgin flow rate helped inform subsequent decision making. This study shows that leak assessment using appropriately designed airborne plume sampling strategies is well suited for circumstances where direct access is difficult or potentially dangerous. Measurements such as this also permit unbiased regulatory assessment of potential impact, independent of the emitting party, on timescales that can inform industry decision makers and assist rapid-response planning by government.

KW - methane gas Elgin

U2 - 10.5194/amt-11-1725-2018

DO - 10.5194/amt-11-1725-2018

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 1725

EP - 1739

JO - Atmospheric Measurement Techniques

JF - Atmospheric Measurement Techniques

SN - 1867-1381

IS - 3

ER -