Suchergebnisse

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±0.2kgCH4s-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 5.5km depth, but more probably from the overlying Hod Formation at 4.2km 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 48h 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.

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.

AbstractDemands to manage the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) are growing. These demands and the government standards arising from them both call for trustworthy AI. In response, we adopt a convergent approach to review, evaluate, and synthesize research on the trust and trustworthiness of AI in the environmental sciences and propose a research agenda. Evidential and conceptual histories of research on trust and trustworthiness reveal persisting ambiguities and measurement shortcomings related to inconsistent attention to the contextual and social dependencies and dynamics of trust. Potentially underappreciated in the development of trustworthy AI for environmental sciences is the importance of engaging AI users and other stakeholders, which human–AI teaming perspectives on AI development similarly underscore. Co‐development strategies may also help reconcile efforts to develop performance‐based trustworthiness standards with dynamic and contextual notions of trust. We illustrate the importance of these themes with applied examples and show how insights from research on trust and the communication of risk and uncertainty can help advance the understanding of trust and trustworthiness of AI in the environmental sciences.