Machine learning for accurate methane concentration predictions: short-term training, long-term results
Open accessAbstract
Although methane emissions from Alberta’s oil and gas sector have decreased in recent years, monitoring these emissions using Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) can be costly. Predictive Emissions Monitoring Systems (PEMS), powered by machine learning, offer an alternative to or can supplement CEMS. However, effective machine learning models for methane emissions prediction rely heavily on the amount of training data. To address this, we compare the prediction performance of different neural network models, including Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Stacked LSTM, Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), and Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM), using varying time intervals for training of methane concentration data from Alberta airshed stations. The results showed that the GRU model performed better with shorter datasets, whereas the LSTM and Stacked LSTM models outperformed the GRU and BiLSTM models when trained with more historical data. However, the study found that more training data did not necessarily result in significantly better prediction models.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) require regular calibration to maintain accurate and reliable measurements, which can be costly to maintain in remote locations like northern Alberta.
“Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) units require regular calibration to maintain accurate and reliable measure- ments of emissions which can be costly to maintain in remote locations like northern Alberta (Luo et al., 2023).”
From Decoding methane concentration in Alberta oil sands: A machine learning exploration (2025) · cites this paper as Luo et al., 2023
Predictive Emissions Monitoring Systems (PEMS) may not always be accurate and have to be used in conjunction with CEMS.
“However, PEMS may not always be accurate in which case they have to be used in conjunction with CEMS (Cheng and Hagen, 2006; Chien et al., 2003; Luo et al., 2023; Rezaei et al., 2020).”
From Decoding methane concentration in Alberta oil sands: A machine learning exploration (2025) · cites this paper as Luo et al., 2023
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 14
- Authors
- Luo, R., Wang, J., & Gates, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Gates, Ian
- Venue
- Environmental Research Communications
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2023-08-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 081003
- ISSN
- 2515-7620 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4385828898
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5
- FWCI
- 1.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Environmental Research Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Canada First Research Excellence Fund (University of Calgary GRI Program)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Hydrological Forecasting Using AI
- Keywords
- methane emissions, methane concentration prediction, continuous emission monitoring, neural network model, LSTM, GRU, bidirectional LSTM, stacked LSTM, training data length, oil and gas industry, short-term training
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review