Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Research (GJETR) · Research article · Open access

Field Reliability of Advanced Leak Detection and Repair Technologies: A Technical Analysis of Optical Gas Imaging Against Instrument-Based Screening for Fugitive Emission Identification

Oghenekaro Ekelemu, Oluwaseyi Ayotunde Akano, Friday Emmanuel Adikwu

5 September 2026 · Vol. 2, Issue 9, pp. 448-464

DOI: 10.65150/EP-gjetr/V2E9/2026-06

Download full text (PDF)Cite this article

Abstract

Optical gas imaging replaced instrument-based component screening in much of the hydrocarbon sector on the argument that it surveys more components per hour and therefore finds more of what matters. The argument is sound and is frequently made without the qualification that determines whether it holds, namely that detection probability for optical imaging is strongly conditional on emission rate, distance, wind and operator technique, whereas instrument screening is comparatively insensitive to all four. This paper analyses the two approaches as a survey design problem rather than as a technology comparison, on the argument that the relevant question is not which instrument detects better under controlled conditions but which programme finds more of the total emission under field conditions and available resource. Four positions are developed. First, the case for optical imaging rests principally on the extreme skew of the emission distribution across components, which makes coverage rather than per-component sensitivity the dominant determinant of programme performance. Second, the empirical evidence on optical imaging detection probability establishes that manufacturer sensitivity figures describe controlled conditions and that field detection thresholds are substantially higher and highly variable. Third, the two approaches fail in different directions, optical imaging missing small persistent emissions and instrument screening missing large emissions from components not on the survey list, and a programme using either alone inherits its blind spot. Fourth, the quantification problem is common to both and is the reason emission inventories built from component surveys have repeatedly diverged from measurements made at facility scale. The paper closes with implications for survey design in liquefaction facilities and identifies where the evidence base remains thin.

Keywords: leak detection and repair, optical gas imaging, Method 21, fugitive emissions, methane, detection probability, survey design, emission distributions, liquefaction

Oghenekaro Ekelemu, Oluwaseyi Ayotunde Akano, & Friday Emmanuel Adikwu (2026). Field Reliability of Advanced Leak Detection and Repair Technologies: A Technical Analysis of Optical Gas Imaging Against Instrument-Based Screening for Fugitive Emission Identification. Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Research, 2(9), 448-464. https://doi.org/10.65150/EP-gjetr/V2E9/2026-06

@article{Oghenekaro2026,
  title   = {Field Reliability of Advanced Leak Detection and Repair Technologies: A Technical Analysis of Optical Gas Imaging Against Instrument-Based Screening for Fugitive Emission Identification},
  author  = {Oghenekaro Ekelemu and Oluwaseyi Ayotunde Akano and Friday Emmanuel Adikwu},
  journal = {Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Research},
  year    = {2026},
  volume  = {2},
  number  = {9},
  pages   = {448-464},
  doi     = {10.65150/EP-gjetr/V2E9/2026-06},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.65150/EP-gjetr/V2E9/2026-06}
}

← All articlesAbout GJETR and how to submit