For our application, the Gaussian puff model strikes a balance as it provides higher fidelity than the plume model while being much faster than a CFD model. Compared to the plume model, the puff model is still not widely used in this study area. This could be due to a lack of evidence of its better performance or the unavailability of easy-touse implementations; both of which we address in this work. Existing implementations of the Gaussian puff model, e.g., CALPUFF and SCIPUFF , are designed for meso-scale applications and require special expertise to implement. They typically require detailed meteorological data such as vertical wind profiles or turbulent length scales, which are not commonly available in practice on oil and gas sites. These factors would make routine deployment across many different sites challenging. Moreover, the spatial and temporal resolution of these models may not be sufficient for use on the relatively small oil and gas production sites discussed in this work which often require dispersion modeling well below the meter-scale. To the best of our knowledge, the finest spatial resolution investigated in publicly available research using CALPUFF is about 100 meters , which is too coarse for many methane mitigation applications.