High potential for CH4 emission mitigation from oil infrastructure in one of EU's major production regions

Ambitious methane (CH4) emission mitigation represents one of the most effective opportunities to slow the rate of global warming over the next decades. The oil and gas (O&G) sector is a significant source of methane emissions, with technically feasible and cost-effective emission mitigation options. Romania, a key O&G producer within the EU, with the second highest reported annual CH4 emissions from the energy sector in the year 2020 (Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - Comparison by Category, 2022), can play an important role towards the EU's emission reduction targets. In this study, we quantify CH4 emissions from onshore oil production sites in Romania at source and facility level using a combination of ground- and drone-based measurement techniques. Measured emissions were characterized by heavily skewed distributions, with 10% of the sites accounting for more than 70% of total emissions. Integrating the results from all site-level quantifications with different approaches, we derive a central estimate of 5.4 kg h-1 per site of CH4 (3.6 %-8.4 %, 95% confidence interval) for oil production sites. This estimate represents the third highest when compared to measurementbased estimates of similar facilities from other production regions. Based on our results, we estimate a total of 120 kt CH4 yr-1 (range: 79-180 kt yr-1) from oil production sites in our studied areas in Romania. This is approximately 2.5 times higher than the reported emissions from the entire Romanian oil production sector for 2020. Based on the source-level characterization, up to three-quarters of the detected emissions from oil production sites are related to operational venting. Our results suggest that O&G production infrastructure in Romania holds a massive mitigation potential, specifically by implementing measures to capture the gas and minimize operational venting and leaks

Bibliometrics of orthopaedic articles published by authors of Germanophone countries

No abstract available

Impact and alternative metrics for medical publishing: our experience with International Orthopaedics

This paper compares the traditional tools of calculation for a journal's efficacy and visibility with the new tools that have arrived from the Internet, social media and search engines. The examples concern publications of orthopaedic surgery and in particular International Orthopaedics. Until recently, the prestige of publications, authors or journals was evaluated by the number of citations using the traditional citation metrics, most commonly the impact factor. Over the last few years, scientific medical literature has developed exponentially. The Internet has dramatically changed the way of sharing and the speed of flow of medical information. New tools have allowed readers from all over the world to access information and record their experience. Web platforms such as FacebookA (R) and TwitterA (R) have allowed for inputs from the general public. Professional sites such as LinkedInA (R) and more specialised sites such as ResearchGateA (R), BioMed CentralA (R) and OrthoEvidenceA (R) have provided specific information on defined fields of science. Scientific and professional blogs provide free access quality information. Therefore, in this new era of advanced wireless technology and online medical communication, the prestige of a paper should also be evaluated by alternative metrics (altmetrics) that measure the visibility of the scientific information by collecting Internet citations, number of downloads, number of hits on the Internet, number of tweets and likes of scholarly articles by newspapers, blogs, social media and other sources of data. This article provides insights into altmetrics and informs the reader about current tools for optimal visibility and citation of their work. It also includes useful information about the performance of International Orthopaedics and the bias between traditional publication metrics and the new alternatives