Additionally, multi-source and off-site emissions pose important challenges that are outside the scope of this paper. Addressing these more complex emission scenarios is left to future work, but we briefly discuss some high-level thoughts here. Multi-source emissions could be modeled as the sum of two or more singlesource emissions (as predicted concentrations from the Gaussian puff model are linearly additive), and hence would require no additional simulations to accommodate. However, this will notably increase the search space during localization and quantification and requires further study to assess practical feasibility. Off-site emissions are an important consideration for dense production settings (e.g., the Permian basin) and could be identified by incorporating potential off-site sources during the simulation step. The fidelity of this strategy would need to be balanced against the extra computational cost of simulating from many additional sources. Despite these limitations, the proposed framework in its current form has two clear use cases on relatively simple oil and gas production sites: (1) alerting, where localization and quantification estimates are provided to the operator in near realtime, and (2) inventory development, where quantification estimates are used in aggregate to determine cumulative emissions at a given cadence. The variability of individual rate estimates does not detract from the applicability of the framework in these use cases. For alerting, the ability to generate continuous emission estimates with localization in near real-time is more pertinent than the exact rate estimate, as the main purpose of alerts is to give the operator enough information to decide if further investigation is necessary. If a large rate estimate is consistently localized to a given equipment group every, e.g., 15 minutes, then the operator can be fairly confident that an emission is indeed occurring, regardless of the exact rate estimates that are being generated. For inventory development, the average of many individual rate estimates will be used to produce an overall estimate for the site at a, e.g., monthly or yearly cadence. This means that variability in the individual estimates will be averaged out and the overall bias in the estimates will drive the accuracy of the inventory. The framework is largely unbiased, with quantification estimates having an average percent difference of -3.9% from the true rate for small emissions and 4.3% for large emissions. In fact, the proposed