摘要：

油气系统甲烷排放源项分散，事件性排放突出，不同尺度观测结果难以直接衔接，排放识别、量化核算与减排实施能否贯通，直接影响治理成效。本文以2015—2024年Web of Science核心合集文献为对象，形成5600篇计量样本，并结合主题综述识别年度变化和主题结构，围绕监测、核算与治理比较主要技术路径、适用边界及行业实践问题。研究表明，监测已由设备巡检和单点检测扩展为地面、移动、机载、卫星与连续监测协同的多尺度体系，功能由排放发现延伸至区域筛查、设施定位和现场处置。核算由排放因子与活动数据法拓展至设施过程、供应链及测量信息支撑型排放清单，核算结果也不再局限于排放总量，而是逐步扩展到排放强度和甲烷足迹，并更加重视不确定性范围的报告。治理则由单项工程措施转向工程减排与政策工具协同，并通过监测、报告与核证机制连接责任落实和绩效反馈。进一步分析表明，减排成效还受到跨环节接口约束：监测证据进入核算时涉及尺度转换、源项归属与时间代表性，核算过程需保持边界一致并合理传递不确定性，核算结果进入治理后还需匹配数据质量、结果认定和责任规则。为此，油气企业应以设施台账为基础，贯通异常发现、现场复核、维修处置、修复后复测、年度清单和信息披露；监管与核证机构应进一步明确边界调整及结果核证要求。油气甲烷减排需要形成覆盖排放发现、量化核算、治理响应与结果核证的连续机制，为企业资产管理、行业监管及供应链减排提供可追溯的证据基础。

关键词: 油气甲烷, 排放监测, 排放核算, 减排治理, 监测、报告与核证(MRV)

Abstract:

Methane emission sources across oil and gas systems are widely dispersed, and episodic releases are common. Observations obtained at different spatial and temporal scales are therefore difficult to reconcile. Effective mitigation depends on connecting emission detection, emissions quantification and accounting, and mitigation implementation. This review examines publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection from 2015 to 2024. It combines a bibliometric sample of 5,600 papers with a thematic review. The analysis identifies annual trends and thematic structures and compares major technical pathways, applicability boundaries, and industry practices in monitoring, accounting, and governance. The findings show that monitoring has developed from equipment inspections and point-source detection into a multiscale system integrating ground-based, mobile, airborne, satellite, and continuous observations. Its functions have expanded from emission detection to regional screening, facility-level attribution, and on-site response. Emissions quantification and accounting have progressed from emission-factor and activity-data approaches to facility- and process-based accounting, supply-chain assessment, and measurement-informed inventories. Accounting outputs are no longer limited to total emissions but increasingly include emission intensity and methane footprints, with uncertainty ranges also being reported more explicitly. Governance has moved from individual engineering measures toward coordination between engineering mitigation and policy instruments, with monitoring, reporting and verification mechanisms linking implementation responsibilities to performance feedback. Further analysis shows that mitigation outcomes are also constrained by interfaces among these stages. Incorporating monitoring evidence into accounting requires scale conversion, source attribution, and adequate temporal representativeness. The accounting process also requires consistent system boundaries and appropriate uncertainty propagation. Applying accounting results to governance requires alignment among data-quality requirements, criteria for recognizing reported outcomes, and responsibility rules. Oil and gas companies should therefore use facility registers to connect anomaly detection, field confirmation, repair actions, post-repair measurements, annual inventories, and information disclosure. Regulators and verification bodies should further clarify requirements for boundary adjustments and outcome verification. Effective oil and gas methane mitigation requires a continuous mechanism linking emission detection, emissions quantification and accounting, governance responses, and outcome verification. This mechanism provides a traceable evidence base for corporate asset management, industry regulation, and supply-chain methane mitigation.

Key words: oil and gas methane, emission monitoring, emission accounting, methane governance, monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV)

中图分类号: 

• TE09

• X74