ADVERTISEMENT
2 /3 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Environment

Southern California methane leak was largest in U.S. history

Scientists have begun quantifying the effects of the Aliso Canyon disaster

by Elizabeth K. Wilson
February 25, 2016 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 94, ISSUE 9

[+]Enlarge
Credit: SoCal Gas
Empleados de la distribuidora de gas Southern California Gas Co. trabajan en un pozo de alivio para detener la fuga de metano del cañón de Aliso. El escape fue detenido el 18 de febrero.
Credit: SoCal Gas
Southern California Gas Co. employees work on a relief well to stop the Aliso Canyon methane leak. The leak was permanently capped on Feb. 18.

Engineers finally capped the massive methane leak in Southern California earlier this month. The leak, at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, had spewed the potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere for more than three months.

Now scientists, engineers, and policy-makers are assessing the disaster’s ramifications, with one research team publishing a report that concludes the methane release was the largest in U.S. history (Science 2016, DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2348).

The team, which was led by University of California, Davis, scientist Stephen Conley and UC Irvine chemistry professor Donald Blake, monitored methane emissions from the facility, both on ground and with aircraft.

Conley, also the team’s pilot, made 13 flights above the site from November to February, sampling methane levels and quantifying the size of the plume with measurements of wind speed and direction at different altitudes.

According to the measurements, the facility leaked a total of 97,100 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere. In 2004, a larger amount of natural gas was released from an underground well in Moss Bluff, Texas. But less of that methane reached the atmosphere because the gas exploded, converting methane to the much less potent greenhouse gas CO2.

The California leak began last year on Oct. 23. Environmental scientists blame poor maintenance of aging infrastructure at the facility as the cause. The Southern California Gas Co., which owns the facility, struggled to cap the leak at first and had to drill a relief well 2,600 meters below the surface. On Feb. 18, they finally stopped the leak by plugging it with cement.

As the facility spewed out natural gas, more than 11,000 people in the surrounding Porter Ranch area fled to motels and temporary housing. Many grew sick from mercaptan and other odorous compounds in the gas.

Residents are now beginning to return to their homes. “We expect air sampling data to show that no emissions are coming from the [facility], and we anticipate the odors will cease,” Jeffrey Gunzenhauser, interim health officer for Los Angeles County, said in a Feb. 18 statement.

The magnitude of this leak may spur some action from the state on methane emissions in general, says Timothy O’Connor, director of the oil and gas program in California at the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group.

For example, the leak is pushing California agencies to consider more seriously the climate impact of methane emissions. Some agencies base the climate effects of methane on what it does over a 100-year period. Because methane is gradually converted to CO2, methane’s warming potential is only 28–35 times as high as that of CO2 over a 100-year period, compared with about 80 times as high over a 20-year period. Thus the 100-year calculation might underestimate the climate-changing potential of methane emissions.


This article has been translated into Spanish by Divulgame.org and can be found here.


Advertisement
X

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Comments
(March 2, 2016 10:24 AM)
I wonder if anyone monitored the radon content of the leak?

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment