Skip to main content Skip to journal navigation menu Skip to site footer
contact@ukscip.com
Article

Energy Recovery Potential from Fugitive Methane Emission in the Nigerian Upstream Oil and Gas Sector: An Assessment

Kalu Elizabeth Oyiridiya ORCID ,  Etim Anthony Umoh ORCID ,  Adesina Rukayat Olubunmi ORCID ,  Onyango Benjamin Oduor ORCID ,  Ogundari Ibikunle Olalekan ORCID ,  Momodu Abiodun Suleiman ORCID
    Received: 28 February 2026; Revised: 6 July 2026; Accepted: 8 July 2026; Published: 28 July 2026

    Abstract

    Fugitive methane emissions from Nigeria’s upstream oil and gas sector were quantified to assess their energy recovery potential and the techno-economic and environmental viability of identified methane recovery systems. The study focused on Nigeria’s oil- and gas-producing states, and applied complementary IPCC Tier 1 and Tier 3 methodologies. Tier 1 used activity data and emission factors, while Tier 3 integrated atmospheric methane retrievals from TROPOMI Sentinel-5P satellite with geospatial infrastructure mapping and meteorological data. Potential energy recoverable was estimated from quantified methane emissions using methane’s lower heating value. The techno-economic and environmental viability of the recovery technologies (Vapour Recovery Unit (VRU) and Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA)) were analysed using financial performance indicators and a comparative fuel substitution analysis. Average methane emissions were estimated at 769.64 Gg CH4/year (21.55 Mt CO2e/yr) for Tier 1 and 1,284.90 Gg CH4/year (35.98 Mt CO2e/yr) for Tier 3. The potentially recoverable energy was calculated at 38,482 TJ for Tier 1, and 64,245 TJ for Tier 3. The techno-economic analysis indicates that both recovery technologies are viable under the base CNG price assumption, although PSA systems outperformed VRUs across several financial indicators and demonstrated stronger price resilience. Replacing firewood and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) with recovered methane (Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)) reduced combustion-related CO₂ emissions by approximately 55% and 21%, respectively. The study provides evidence that methane recovery in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry can be economically viable and environmentally beneficial under the stated modelling assumptions. The findings indicate the potential of satellite-enabled methane management systems to support climate mitigation and investment decision-making.

    Keywords

    References

    1. 1. Boothroyd, I.M.; Almond, S.; Qassim, S.M.; et al. Fugitive emissions of methane from abandoned, decommissioned oil and gas wells. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 547, 461–469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.096
    2. 2. Deng, W.; Xie, X.; Guo, Y.; et al. Breakthroughs in CH4 capture technologies: Key to reducing fugitive methane emissions in the energy sector. Carbon Capture Sci. Technol. 2024, 13, 100316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2024.100316
    3. 3. Króliczewska, B.; Pecka-Kiełb, E.; Bujok, J. Strategies used to reduce methane emissions from ruminants: Controversies and issues. Agriculture 2023, 13, 602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030602
    4. 4. Cassia, R.; Nocioni, M.; Correa-Aragunde, N.; et al. Climate change and the impact of greenhouse gasses: CO2 and NO, friends and foes of plant oxidative stress. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00273
    5. 5. Reiter, G.; Lindorfer, J. Global warming potential of hydrogen and methane production from renewable electricity via power-to-gas technology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 477–489. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0848-0
    6. 6. Safari, A.; Das, N.; Langhelle, O.; et al. Natural gas: A transition fuel for sustainable energy system transformation? Energy Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 1075–1094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.380
    7. 7. Naser, H.M.; Nagata, O.; Sultana, S.; et al. Carbon sequestration and contribution of CO2, CH4 and N2O fluxes to global warming potential from paddy-fallow fields on mineral soil beneath peat in Central Hokkaido, Japan. Agriculture 2019, 10, 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10010006
    8. 8. Nunes, L.J. The rising threat of atmospheric CO2: A review on the causes, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Environments 2023, 10, 66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/environments10040066
    9. 9. Balcombe, P.; Speirs, J.F.; Brandon, N.P.; et al. Methane emissions: Choosing the right climate metric and time horizon. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2018, 20, 1323–1339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EM00414E
    10. 10. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane emissions. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/methane-emissions (accessed on 11 June 2025).
    11. 11. Dhali, M.; Hassan, S.; Subramaniam, U. Comparative analysis of oil and gas legal frameworks in Bangladesh and Nigeria: A pathway towards achieving sustainable energy through policy. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115228
    12. 12. Isibor, A.A.; Kehinde, A.A.; Felicia, O.O.; et al. Achieving sustained performance in the Nigerian oil and gas sector despite exchange rate fluctuations: A VAR approach. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2022, 12, 341–351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.12787
    13. 13. Okwilagwe, O.O.; Olubusoye, O.E. Environmental economic impacts and policy pathways of gas flaring in Nigeria from 2002 to 2024. Discover Environ. 2025, 3, 183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44274-025-00332-5
    14. 14. Oruwari, H.; Salihu, A.; Obunwa, Q. The role of natural gas in energy transition in Nigeria. In Proceedings of the SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Lagos, Nigeria, 5 August 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2118/221768-MS
    15. 15. Federal Government of Nigeria. Nigeria’s First Nationally Determined Contribution – 2021 Update; Department of Climate Change, Federal Ministry of Environment: Abuja, Nigeria, 2021. Available online: https://climatechange.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/NDC_File-Amended-_11222.pdf
    16. 16. National Bureau of Statistics. Nigerian Gross Domestic Product Report Q1 2024. Available online: https://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/download/1241506 (accessed on 12 March 2025).
    17. 17. Ogbowuokara, O.S.; Leton, T.G.; Ugbebor, J.N.; et al. Developing climate governance strategies in Nigeria: An emphasis on methane emissions mitigation. J. Eng. Exact Sci. 2023, 9, 17383-01e. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18540/jcecvl9iss9pp17383-01e
    18. 18. Smith, P.; Reay, D.; Smith, J. Agricultural methane emissions and the potential for mitigation. Philos. Trans. A Math Phys. Eng. Sci. 2021, 379, 20200451. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0451
    19. 19. Pratama, I.L.; Andari, N. Feasibility study of implementing vapor recovery unit (VRU) to control evaporation in fuel storage tanks. Int. J. Sci. Manag. Res. 2024, 7, 57–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37502/IJSMR.2024.71005
    20. 20. Liu, H.; Ding, W.; Zhou, F.; et al. An overview and outlook on gas adsorption for the enrichment of low concentration coalbed methane. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2020, 55, 1102–1114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2019.1585454
    21. 21. Kerr, T. Energy Sector Methane Recovery and Use: The Importance of Policy. Available online: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/21233584 (accessed on 18 January 2025).
    22. 22. Rachman, A.F.; Priyono, B. Tekno ekonomi vapour recovery unit (VRU) di SPBU Tanggerang: Techno economics vapor recovery unit (VRU) at SPBU of Tanggerang. MALCOM Indones. J. Mach. Learn. Comput. Sci. 2024, 4, 92–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.57152/malcom.v4i1.1036
    23. 23. Webb, G. Ensuring effective vapour recovery in oilfield storage. World Pumps 2017, 2017, 14–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-1762(16)30394-7
    24. 24. Liang, J.; Sun, L.; Cheng, C.; et al. Advancing gasoline vapor recovery in oil depots: Integrating cooling and adsorption technologies. Energy 2024, 313, 133160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.133823
    25. 25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Vapor recovery units. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/natural-gas-star-program/vapor-recovery-units (accessed on 14 May 2025).
    26. 26. Augelletti, R.; Frattari, S.; Murmura, M.A. Purification of hydrogen-methane mixtures using PSA technology. In Enriched Methane: The First Step towards the Hydrogen Economy; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 129–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22192-2_8
    27. 27. Cooper, J.; Dubey, L.; Hawkes, A. Methane detection and quantification in the upstream oil and gas sector: The role of satellites in emissions detection, reconciling and reporting. Environ. Sci. Atmos. 2022, 2, 9–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EA00046B
    28. 28. Vaughn, T.L.; Bell, C.S.; Pickering, C.K.; et al. Temporal variability largely explains top-down/bottom-up difference in methane emission estimates from a natural gas production region. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2018, 115, 11712–11717. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805687115
    29. 29. Raimi, M.O.; Ezekwe, I.C.; Agusomu, T.D.; et al. Enhancing methane emissions management in Nigeria’s oil and gas sectors: A comprehensive policy and strategic framework. Open J. Yangtze Oil Gas 2025, 10, 31–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojogas.2025.102002
    30. 30. Reshi, A.R.; Pichuka, S.; Tripathi, A. Applications of Sentinel-5P TROPOMI satellite sensor: A review. IEEE Sens. J. 2024, 24, 20312–20321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2024.3355714
    31. 31. Judd, L.M.; Al-Saadi, J.A.; Szykman, J.J.; et al. Evaluating Sentinel-5P TROPOMI tropospheric NO2 column densities with airborne and Pandora spectrometers near New York City and Long Island Sound. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2020, 13, 6113–6140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-6113-2020
    32. 32. Corradino, C.; Jouve, P.; La Spina, A.; et al. Monitoring Earth’s atmosphere with Sentinel-5 TROPOMI and artificial intelligence: Quantifying volcanic SO2 emissions. Remote Sens. Environ. 2024, 315, 114349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2024.114463
    33. 33. Inness, A.; Aben, I.; Ades, M.; et al. Assimilation of S5P/TROPOMI carbon monoxide data with the global CAMS near-real-time system. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2022, 22, 14355–14376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14355-2022
    34. 34. Hu, H.; Landgraf, J.; Detmers, R.; et al. Toward global mapping of methane with TROPOMI: First results and intersatellite comparison to GOSAT. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2018, 45, 3682–3689. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2018GL077259
    35. 35. Shen, L.; Jacob, D.J.; Gautam, R.; et al. National quantifications of methane emissions from fuel exploitation using high resolution inversions of satellite observations. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 4865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40671-6
    36. 36. Ialongo, I.; Virta, H.; Eskes, H.; et al. Comparison of TROPOMI/Sentinel-5 precursor NO2 observations with ground-based measurements in Helsinki. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2020, 13, 205–218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-205-2020
    37. 37. Lindqvist, H.; Kivimäki, E.; Häkkilä, T.; et al. Evaluation of Sentinel-5P TROPOMI methane observations at northern high latitudes. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 2949. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16162979
    38. 38. Yona, L.; Cashore, B.; Bradford, M.A. Factors influencing the development and implementation of national greenhouse gas inventory methodologies. Policy Des. Pract. 2022, 5, 197–225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.2020967
    39. 39. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Handbook on Measurement, Reporting and Verification for Developing Country Parties; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Bonn, Germany, 2022. Available online: https://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/annex_i_natcom_/application/pdf/non-annex_i_mrv_handbook.pdf
    40. 40. Gilreath, J.H.; Wickersham, T.A.; Sawyer, J.E. Comparison of methodologies used to estimate enteric methane emissions and warming impact from 1920 to 2020 for U.S. beef production. Sustainability 2022, 14, 17080. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142417017
    41. 41. Bannink, A.; Van Schijndel, M.W.; Dijkstra, J. A model of enteric fermentation in dairy cows to estimate methane emission for the Dutch National Inventory Report using the IPCC Tier 3 approach. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 603–618. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.043
    42. 42. Eugène, M.; Sauvant, D.; Nozière, P.; et al. A new Tier 3 method to calculate methane emission inventory for ruminants. J. Environ. Manage. 2019, 231, 982–988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.086
    43. 43. Karousakis, K.; Guay, B.; Philibert, C. Differentiating Countries in Terms of Mitigation Commitments, Actions and Support; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2008. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2008/01/differentiating-countries-in-terms-of-mitigation-commitments-actions-and-support_fe03ddb5/f8d7bc60-en.pdf
    44. 44. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Reporting Requirements. Available online: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/transparency-and-reporting/reporting-and-review-under-the-convention/greenhouse-gas-inventories-annex-i-parties/reporting-requirements (accessed on 29 June 2025).
    45. 45. Schuit, B.J.; Maasakkers, J.D.; Bijl, P.; et al. Automated detection and monitoring of methane super-emitters using satellite data. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 2023, 23, 9071–9098. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9071-2023
    46. 46. Khan, M.I.; Yasmin, T.; Shakoor, A. Technical overview of compressed natural gas (CNG) as a transportation fuel. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 785–797. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.053
    47. 47. Black, M.J.; Roy, A.; Twinomunuji, E.; et al. Bottled biogas: An opportunity for clean cooking in Ghana and Uganda. Energies 2021, 14, 3856. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14133856
    48. 48. Ye, W.; Campbell, D.; Johnson, M.; et al. Exposure contrasts of women aged 40–79 years during the household air pollution intervention network randomized controlled trial. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 59, 69–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c06337
    49. 49. Checkley, W.; Williams, K.N.; Kephart, J.L.; et al. Effects of a household air pollution intervention with liquefied petroleum gas on cardiopulmonary outcomes in Peru: A randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2021, 203, 1386–1397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202006-2319OC
    50. 50. Vorwerg, F.C.; Ebadi Torkayesh, A.; Venghaus, S. From fossil fuels to alternative fuels: Strategy development for a sustainable transport sector in Germany. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2025, 15, 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-024-00498-5
    51. 51. Ozoh, O.B.; Okwor, T.J.; Adetona, O.; et al. Cooking fuels in Lagos, Nigeria: Factors associated with household choice of kerosene or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 641. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15040641
    52. 52. Kozłowski, E.; Rimkus, A.; Zimakowska-Laskowska, M.; et al. Energy and environmental impacts of replacing gasoline with LPG under real driving conditions. Energies 2025, 18, 5522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en18205522
    53. 53. Zigabe, S.M.; Tamuzi, J.L.; Toelen, J.; et al. Impact of prenatal and postnatal household air pollution exposure on respiratory morbidity and lung function in sub-Saharan African children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Health 2025, 24, 66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-025-01216-0
    54. 54. Suresh, R.; Singh, V.K.; Malik, J.K.; et al. Evaluation of the performance of improved biomass cooking stoves with different solid biomass fuel types. Biomass Bioenergy 2016, 95, 27–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.08.002
    55. 55. Ahimbisibwe, M.; Rukundo, H.; Oswaldo, B.; et al. Socio-cultural and economic determinants of clean cooking technology adoption in Uganda. Arch. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2025, 10, 421–432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26832/24566632.2025.100305
    56. 56. European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA). General Remarks; European Union Agency for Asylum: Valletta, Malta, 2019. Available online: https://www.euaa.europa.eu/country-guidance-nigeria/general-remarks-0
    57. 57. Nnadi, V.E.; Udokporo, E.L.; Okolo, O.J. Petroleum production activities and depletion of biodiversity: A case of oil spillage in the Niger Delta. In Handbook of Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing; Madu, C.N., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75834-9_9
    58. 58. Edo, G.I.; Samuel, P.O.; Jikah, A.N.; et al. Petroleum discovery, utilization and processing in the World and Nigeria: A comprehensive literature review. Sustainable Chemical Engineering 2024, 5, 191–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37256/sce.5120243970
    59. 59. Kalu-Ulu, T.C.; Okon, A.N.; Appah, D. Marginal fields development in Nigeria: A review of extant strategies. J. Energy Res. Rev. 2023, 15, 1–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/JENRR/2023/v15i1294
    60. 60. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. Available online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/index.html
    61. 61. IPCC. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Hayama, Japan, 2006. Available online: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html
    62. 62. Frankenberg, C.; Thorpe, A.K.; Thompson, D.R.; et al. Airborne methane remote measurements reveal heavy-tail flux distribution in Four Corners region. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2016, 113, 9734–9739. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605617113
    63. 63. Dido, M.S. Use of close-to-nature surfactants and microbiological degradation for improving the remediation of crude oil contaminated soils in the Nigerian Niger-Delta. Res. Gate 2021, 2, 10–20. Available online: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:co1-opus4-57301
    64. 64. Useh, M.U.; Dauda, M.S. Heavy metals contamination and their potential toxicity in petroleum sludge impacted soils from Itsekiri communities, Delta State, Nigeria. Chem. Sci. Int. J. 2018, 24, 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/CSJI/2018/42973
    65. 65. Guerrero-del-Pozo, D.; Velasco-Mata, A.; Espinosa-Aranda, J.L.; et al. A novel georeferencing approach based on onboard insight extraction using Siamese neural networks for comparable embeddings generation. In Proceedings of the SPIE Small Satellites Systems and Services Symposium (4S 2024), Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 21 March 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3061756
    66. 66. Pandey, S.; Gautam, R.; Houweling, S.; et al. Satellite observations reveal extreme methane leakage from a natural gas well blowout. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2019, 116, 26376–26381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908712116
    67. 67. Cusworth, D.H.; Duren, R.M.; Thorpe, A.K.; et al. Multisatellite imaging of a gas well blowout enables quantification of total methane emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2021, 48, e2020GL090864. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090864
    68. 68. Luhar, A.K.; Etheridge, D.M.; Loh, Z.M.; et al. A percentile-based inverse modelling approach for enhanced source quantification using high-frequency concentration measurements. Atmos. Environ. 2026, 368, 121776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2026.121776
    69. 69. Varon, D.J.; Jacob, D.J.; Jervis, D.; et al. Quantifying time-averaged methane emissions from individual coal mine vents with GHGSat-D satellite observations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 10246–10253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c01213
    70. 70. Graziosi, F.; Manca, G. Quantification of Hotspot Methane Emissions Using Sentinel-5P TROPOMI Observations; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg city, Luxembourg, 2025. Available online: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC140914
    71. 71. Kikumoto, H.; Ooka, R.; Sugawara, H.; et al. Observational study of power-law approximation of wind profiles within an urban boundary layer for various wind conditions. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2017, 164, 13–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2017.02.003
    72. 72. Ebrahimi, H.; Zamaniyan, A.; Forsat, K. Improving gas to liquid production by associated gases. J. Pet. Res. Stud. 2017, 7, 211–225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52716/jprs.v7i2.197
    73. 73. Emagbetere, E.; Odia, J.; Oreko, B.U. Assessment of household energy utilized for cooking in Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria. Niger. J. Technol. 2016, 35, 796–804. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/njt.v35i4.14
    74. 74. ECOWAS. Nigeria Residential Energy Demand-Side Survey Report 2024. Available online: https://eis.ecowas.int/assets/front/medias/doc/media_20241108210603.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2025).
    75. 75. Liang, Y. A review of the effect of compressed natural gas (CNG) on combustion and emission performance of internal combustion engines. Trends Renew. Energy 2022, 8, 119–129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17737/tre.2022.8.2.00144
    76. 76. Li, H.; Ai, X.; Wang, L.; et al. Substitution strategies for cooking energy: To use gas or electricity? J. Environ. Manage. 2022, 303, 114135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114135
    77. 77. Mohammad, N.; Mohamad Ishak, W.W.; Mustapa, S.I.; et al. Natural gas as a key alternative energy source in sustainable renewable energy transition: A mini review. Front. Energy Res. 2021, 9, 625023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.625023
    78. 78. Liu, M.; Jacob, D.J.; Sulprizio, M.P.; et al. A new divergence method to quantify methane emissions using observations of Sentinel-5P TROPOMI. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2021, 48, e2020GL090652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094151
    79. 79. International Energy Agency (IEA). Oil 2020: Analysis and Forecast to 2025; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2020. Available online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4884bbba-d393-48b8-a9e9-6c2e002efc55/Oil_2020.pdf
    80. 80. Abd, A.A.; Othman, M.R.; Helwani, Z.; et al. Waste to wheels: Performance comparison between pressure swing adsorption and amine-absorption technologies for upgrading biogas containing hydrogen sulfide to fuel grade standards. Energy 2023, 272, 127060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127060
    81. 81. Kohlheb, N.; Wluka, M.; Bezama, A.; et al. Environmental-economic assessment of the pressure swing adsorption biogas upgrading technology. BioEnergy Res. 2021, 14, 901–909. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-020-10205-9
    82. 82. Edomah, N.; Ndulue, G.; Lemaire, X. A review of stakeholders and interventions in Nigeria's electricity sector. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07956. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07956
    ×