Comparing airborne algorithms for greenhouse gas flux measurements over the Alberta oil sands

Authors

Broghan M. Erland, University of Alberta
Cristen Adams, Alberta Environment and Parks
Andrea Darlington, Environment and Climate Change Canada
Mackenzie L. Smith, Scientific Aviation, Inc.
Andrew K. Thorpe, California Institute of Technology
Gregory R. Wentworth, Alberta Environment and Parks
Steve Conley, Scientific Aviation, Inc.
John Liggio, Environment and Climate Change Canada
Shao-Meng Li, Environment and Climate Change Canada
Charles E. Miller, California Institute of Technology
John A. Gamon, University of Alberta, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow

Date of this Version

7-27-2022

Citation

Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 5841–5859, 2022 https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-5841-2022

Comments

Used by permission.

Abstract

To combat global warming, Canada has committed to reducing greenhouse gases to be (GHGs) 40 %–45 % below 2005 emission levels by 2025. Monitoring emissions and deriving accurate inventories are essential to reaching these goals. Airborne methods can provide regional and area source measurements with small error if ideal conditions for sampling are met. In this study, two airborne mass-balance box-flight algorithms were compared to assess the extent of their agreement and their performance under various conditions. The Scientific Aviation’s (SciAv) Gaussian algorithm and the Environment and Climate Change Canada’s top-down emission rate retrieval algorithm (TERRA) were applied to data from five samples. Estimates were compared using standard procedures, by systematically testing other method fits, and by investigating the effects on the estimates when method assumptions were not met. Results indicate that in standard scenarios the SciAv and TERRA mass-balance box-flight methods produce similar estimates that agree (3%–25%) within algorithm uncertainties (4%– 34%). Implementing a sample-specific surface extrapolation procedure for the SciAv algorithm may improve emission estimation. Algorithms disagreed when non-ideal conditions occurred (i.e., under non-stationary atmospheric conditions). Overall, the results provide confidence in the box-flight methods and indicate that emissions estimates are not overly sensitive to the choice of algorithm but demonstrate that fundamental algorithm assumptions should be assessed for each flight. Using a different method, the Airborne Visible InfraRed Imaging Spectrometer – Next Generation (AVIRIS-NG) independently mapped individual plumes with emissions 5 times larger than the source SciAv sampled three days later. The range in estimates highlights the utility of increased sampling to get a more complete understanding of the temporal variability of emissions and to identify emission sources within facilities. In addition, hourly on-site activity data would provide insight to the observed temporal variability in emissions and make a comparison to reported emissions more straightforward.