Download your step-by-step guide to OGMP 2.0 Gold Certification
Navigating methane compliance without derailing field operations.
Compliance at these levels requires site-level quantification and source-level attribution — which can be operationally involved. The key is adopting technology and workflows that slot into existing routines with minimal overhead. Sampling strategy optimization (e.g., with LDAR-Sim) can help reduce costs and increase efficiency.
Consistency and scalability are critical. Successful operators use centralized procedures with localized flexibility, backed by automated data handling and standardized reporting templates.
Avoid overload by aligning compliance with existing workflows, focusing on high-priority sites, and phasing implementation. Thoughtful program design, grounded in operational realities, can significantly reduce burden on field teams.
Effective strategies harmonize LDAR and quantification goals across compliance and voluntary frameworks. Prioritization should consider detection frequency, emission duration, and site risk. Most operators benefit from a tiered, hybrid approach combining multiple technologies. Simulation and optimization can be used to refine deployment strategy.
Technology performance in harsh environments is highly context-specific and constantly evolving. O&G companies should use a combination of experience and simulation tools like LDAR-Sim to evaluate options and guide operators toward fit-for-purpose solutions.
Lack of crew buy-in, poor data traceability, and spreadsheet sprawl. Successful programs pilot first, train second, and scale in phases.
Invest early in structured workflows that tag, timestamp, and validate methane data automatically. Build defensibility into the process, not just the report.
Use integrated analytics platforms that automate uncertainty analysis, timestamp alignment, and equipment-level cross-checks — all in one place. Having data readily available is necessary to minimize manual engagement with operations.
Source attribution errors, measurement gaps, missing categories, and time mismatches are common. Site-level reconciliation needs standardized assumptions and active QA/QC.
Watch for reduced leak response time, lower leak counts, fewer super-emitters, improved audit outcomes, and smoother cross-team collaboration — those are your ROI signals.
Reconciling methane inventories with scientific rigor and regulatory precision.
There’s no single “correct” method. Defensibility comes from transparent, well-documented reconciliation that accounts for uncertainty, site-specific context, evidence/justification, and appropriate use of data.
OGMP 2.0 Levels 4 and 5 require integrating measurement data with bottom-up estimates, shifting toward measurement-informed inventories. This demands rigorous documentation, uncertainty quantification, and reconciliation across data sources. Validation may involve internal QA/QC or independent third-party review, so methods must be transparent, traceable, and defensible under audit.
Common sources of uncertainty include emission factors, activity data quality, measurement error, temporal variability, and detection limitations. Quantifying uncertainty typically involves statistical methods, scenario analysis, or Monte Carlo simulation. Transparent assumptions and documentation are essential for defensibility.
That depends on the regulation or voluntary framework. Some require substitution when measurement is material by asset, source category, or subcategory. Others may allow flexibility.
OGMP Level 5 is an explicitly recognized compliance pathway under the EU Methane Regulation. Structure your inventory with source-level and site-level estimates, culminating in a reconciled total for material assets and those implicated under EUMR.
Require method transparency, timestamp and location metadata, and verification protocols. Document how third-party data was reconciled and incorporated, especially if used in public disclosures.
Use a normalized data model with standardized source categories, units, and timestamps. Track metadata and uncertainty, and link each measurement to specific sites and sources. Reconciliation workflows help integrate diverse datasets into a consistent, auditable inventory.
Create traceable workflows with log files, versioned inputs, sensor calibration records, and reconciliation steps. Independent validation strengthens credibility.
Track event counts, data completeness, uncertainty bands, percentage of inventory supported by measurements, and reconciliation delta between predicted and observed values.
Anchor explanations in method changes, updated measurement campaigns, or improved uncertainty modeling — and show version comparisons with rationale and impact quantification.
Aligning methane disclosures with ESG strategy and investor expectations.
Most ESG standards are high-level and don’t specify methane methodologies. To align with investor expectations, ensure your reporting is transparent, consistent, and traceable. Reference credible frameworks like OGMP 2.0, MiQ, and Veritas, use measurement-informed data where material, and clearly document methods, assumptions, and uncertainties. Third-party validation and audit-ready records help build credibility.
Achieving Level 4 or 5 under OGMP 2.0 signals serious commitment to transparent, science-based methane disclosure — a strong signal to investors, regulators, and buyers.
Align methane reporting with OGMP 2.0, which is increasingly expected by investors. Implementing OGMP 2.0 transparently can also satisfy requirements under Veritas, MiQ, the EU Methane Regulation, and other measurement-informed frameworks. Compliance with local regulations is a basic expectation for investors.
Highlight not just absolute emissions, but methodology improvements, audit-readiness, and measurement coverage. Contextualize performance within your peers and show year-over-year improvement.
ESG analysts look for clear, comparable metrics such as methane intensity (e.g., kg CH₄ per BOE), absolute emissions trends, percentage of emissions measured vs. estimated, and alignment with targets. They also value disclosure of reduction plans, reconciliation practices, and adherence to frameworks like OGMP 2.0 or MiQ.
Treat third-party data like any other measurement input: assess its quality, relevance, and uncertainty. Clearly document the data source, methodology, and how it’s integrated into your inventory. Transparency is key—explain how third-party data influences results, especially if it drives significant changes.
Use side-by-side disclosures showing methodological changes, measurement upgrades, or reconciliation improvements. It’s common for estimates to rise as measurement improves, reflecting better data, not worse performance. Transparency about why numbers change builds trust with regulators, investors, and the public.
Focus on trendlines, material risks, and compliance progress. Use plain language summaries with appendices for technical detail.
Investors often look for clarity on long-term risk, strategy, and performance—not just compliance. They want to see credible reduction plans, use of high-quality measurement, trend data over time, and how methane fits into broader climate goals. Transparent assumptions, third-party validation, and alignment with voluntary frameworks like OGMP 2.0 or MiQ can help build trust beyond regulatory minimums.
Inconsistent data, unexplained variances, surprises in public datasets, and late disclosures can erode trust. Mitigate by standardizing across business units, building defensible narratives, and engaging early with key stakeholders.
Staying ahead of methane regulation without exposing the business.
OGMP 2.0 is voluntary and focused on transparency and continuous improvement. The EU Methane Regulation is mandatory with specific requirements domestically and for importers that implicate international producers. OGMP Level 5 is accepted under EUMR, but EUMR’s requirements extend beyond OGMP 2.0.
Subpart W is a federal GHG reporting rule requiring detailed source-level methane data. OOOOb/c are EPA performance standards mandating routine LDAR, monitoring, and timely repairs at new and existing facilities. Both rules increase regulatory oversight and drive more rigorous methane management.
Compliance under EUMR differs for EU’s domestic operators, importers, exporters, and international producers. Necessary steps will depend on where you operate, the nature of your contracts, and other factors.
Harmonize reporting practices using the most stringent applicable standards as a baseline. Centralize workflows and enable modular reporting to address different requirements with shared data.
Legal readiness refers to the ability of oil and gas operators to comply with existing and upcoming regulations regarding methane emissions. This involves having the necessary systems, processes, and technologies in place to accurately measure, monitor, report, and verify methane emissions in a way that stands up to legal scrutiny.
Vet vendors on data methodology, availability of controlled release testing, and regulatory alignment. Ensure contracts cover data ownership, audit access, and legal defensibility in case of discrepancies.
Missing records, inconsistent measurement methods, lack of repair documentation, or underreported emissions. Most enforcement findings stem from weak internal controls — not bad intent.
Document all changes transparently, cite methodological updates, and notify affected stakeholders promptly. Include version control and a signed compliance rationale.
Ongoing engagement ensures industry perspectives are heard and future rules reflect operational realities. Join coalitions, contribute to consultations, and track global alignment trends.
Making the business case for methane and GHG investments.
Regulations like the EU Methane Regulation require verified emissions data for cross-border operations. Non-compliance risks penalties, reputational damage, and restricted market access for exported fuels.
Many institutional investors now screen for OGMP 2.0 participation, methane intensity, and third-party verification. Strong methane controls can unlock ESG-linked financing and lower capital costs.
Reducing emissions captures otherwise lost product, improving sales and operational efficiency. It can also reduce compliance penalties, improve market access, improve access to capital, and improve safety.
Benefits include avoided fines, fewer re-surveys, enhanced asset valuation, and increased investor confidence — all contributing to risk-adjusted financial returns.
It varies widely based on site size, leak frequency, gas value, and operational costs. In high-emitting or remote sites, payback can be under a year. For others, value comes from compliance, safety, and avoided production losses.
Model cost savings by comparing current manual workflows—LDAR, data entry, reconciliation, and reporting—with automated alternatives. Factor in reduced labor, fewer site visits, faster reporting, and improved compliance. Tools like scenario analysis can help quantify long-term value.
Use a capital allocation model that factors in asset value, regulatory risk, emissions intensity, and investor visibility — prioritizing high-ROI, high-exposure basins and sites.
Evaluate vendors by total cost of ownership—hardware, maintenance, data access, and integration. Use simulation tools like LDAR-Sim to model financial impact, including avoided emissions, compliance savings, and reduced labor. Focus on real-world outcomes and ROI, not just technical features.
These include litigation risk, reputational drag on equity valuation, delayed project approvals, potential exclusion from ESG-aligned investment products, and market access.
Use metrics like methane intensity, emissions reductions, avoided product loss, compliance cost savings, and technology payback period. Framing these in financial and operational terms helps boards understand ROI, risk mitigation, and alignment with climate and ESG goals.
Reframe the narrative around risk reduction, capital access, market eligibility, and long-term valuation resilience, all supported by defensible data and financial clarity.
Everything you need to know about methane sources, monitoring, and mitigation.
Methane is crucial for near-term climate action. Reducing methane emissions, especially for O&G producers, offers fast climate benefits and is often one of the most cost-effective steps toward meeting net-zero commitments.
Key sources include well pad equipment, compressors, storage tanks, unlit flares, and gas processing plants. A small number of large leaks from this equipment—so-called “super-emitters”—often dominate total emissions.
Generally, source-level emissions are broken down by component (e.g., tank vent, pneumatic valve). Site-level emissions can be a total emission for an entire facility, or simply top-down measurements at the equipment group scale. Source-level data supports diagnostics and mitigation; site-level supports inventory rollup, regulatory reporting, and identification of missing or unexpected sources.
Materiality refers to whether an emissions source is significant enough to meaningfully impact reported totals or decisions. Small or uncertain sources may be excluded if they fall below an established materiality threshold.
Highwood tracks a database of over 200 commercial technologies, including handheld systems, drones, ground-based vehicles, aircraft, satellites, and continuous monitoring systems. Each offers trade-offs in sensitivity, coverage, and cost.
Yes. Modern satellites (e.g., GHGSat, TROPOMI, Carbon Mapper) can detect and quantify large methane plumes. They are most effective for super-emitter events and regional mapping and may miss small or intermittent leaks.
This is assessed through controlled testing or field validation—measuring how often the tech detects leaks of known size and type under varying conditions.
AI/ML can analyze enhance detection speed and accuracy, improve insights, and identify patterns, but still require robust training data. Reporting cannot be “black box” and AI has important limitations with respect to verifiability.
Poor flare efficiency means that unburned methane escapes during flaring. Ensuring high combustion efficiency is essential to achieve low methane intensity.
Credibility depends on measurement quality, documentation, uncertainty analysis, and alignment with established protocols. Using third-party verification, reconciling estimates with measurements, and ensuring methodological transparency are key indicators.
Verification involves an independent auditor reviewing your emissions data, methods, and assumptions. The goal is to assess credibility and transparency. It’s often required for certification, regulatory compliance, or investor assurance.
Typical gaps include missing activity data, unmeasured intermittent events, outdated emission factors, lack of uncertainty bounds, inconsistent monitoring, or unaccounted sources like episodic venting or combustion slip.
At a minimum, most companies update emissions inventories annually, aligning with most reporting frameworks and regulations. However, some companies opt for monthly or quarterly internal reporting.
Dozens of strategies exist, which include but are not limited to leak detection and repair (LDAR), replacing pneumatic devices, improving compressors, capturing vented gas, installing vapor recovery units, optimizing combustion, and deploying continuous monitoring or other technologies.
Options include using temporary capture systems, reducing blowdowns, routing gas to flare or recovery units, and timing maintenance during low-pressure periods. Planning and equipment upgrades can minimize emissions from scheduled operations.
Costs are typically measured in dollars per tonne of CO₂-equivalent reduced. Many methane mitigation measures have low or even negative costs, meaning the value of the captured gas can offset or exceed program expenses.
Rank by emission magnitude, mitigation cost-effectiveness, regulatory exposure, and reputational or commercial risk. Tools like marginal abatement cost curves and scenario models (e.g., LDAR-Sim) help guide decisions.
Timelines range from several months to years, depending on data availability, measurement needs, and organizational complexity. Early planning and internal alignment accelerate the process. Highwood often helps deliver MIIs ahead of deadlines.
Highwood offers online courses via SAGA Wisdom and live custom sessions covering methane fundamentals, regulations (OGMP, MiQ, EPA), technology, mitigation, and inventory best practices—for both technical and leadership teams.
Answering your questions about OGMP 2.0 requirements, strategy, and implementation.
OGMP 2.0 Gold Standard is the highest achievement level in the UN-led Oil & Gas Methane Partnership framework. It requires Level 5 reporting for all material assets, meaning facility-level, measurement-informed inventories with uncertainty quantification and third-party verification. Gold Standard demonstrates leadership in methane transparency and emissions accuracy.
It requires comprehensive, facility-level inventories informed by measurements (Level 5), plus robust monitoring, uncertainty quantification, and third-party assurance. Challenging but achievable with proper planning, data, and support.
Material assets are those that contribute significantly to a company’s methane emissions. OGMP 2.0 requires operators to identify and report on all material assets, typically defined by emissions volume, production scale, or strategic importance. These assets must meet the framework’s level-specific reporting requirements.
OGMP 2.0 requires clear documentation of inventory scope, methodologies, data sources, assumptions, and uncertainty quantification. For Level 4 and 5, operators must submit facility-level data with evidence of measurement planning, QA/QC processes, and reconciliation steps. Third-party verification requires audit-ready records and transparent traceability.
Compliance at these levels requires site-level quantification and source-level attribution — which can be operationally involved. The key is adopting technology and workflows that slot into existing routines with minimal overhead. Sampling strategy optimization (e.g., with LDAR-Sim) can help reduce costs and increase efficiency.
Lack of crew buy-in, poor data traceability, and spreadsheet sprawl. Successful programs pilot first, train second, and scale in phases.
A Level 5 measurement plan should define target sources and sites, technology selection, measurement frequency, and QA/QC protocols. The plan must support site-level quantification and reconciliation, and should be tailored to asset characteristics. Simulation tools and expert guidance can reduce cost and uncertainty.
OGMP 2.0 is technology-neutral but emphasizes credible, well-documented methods. Accepted technologies include handheld detection tools, drones, aircraft, satellites, and continuous monitors — provided they meet quality thresholds and are supported by uncertainty analysis. Combining multiple methods is often required for Level 4 or 5.
OGMP 2.0 Levels 4 and 5 require integrating measurement data with bottom-up estimates, shifting toward measurement-informed inventories. This demands rigorous documentation, uncertainty quantification, and reconciliation across data sources. Validation may involve internal QA/QC or independent third-party review, so methods must be transparent, traceable, and defensible under audit.
OGMP Level 5 is an explicitly recognized compliance pathway under the EU Methane Regulation. Structure your inventory with source-level and site-level estimates, culminating in a reconciled total for material assets and those implicated under EUMR.
OGMP 2.0 is a UN-led reporting framework for improving measurement and transparency. MiQ is a certification program for marketing low-methane gas. Veritas provides open-source methodologies for calculating methane intensity. Many companies use them in combination for reporting, certification, and internal management.
While frameworks vary in focus, OGMP 2.0 data can often be repurposed for other disclosures. For example, OGMP supports science-based targets under CDP, and measurement-informed data aligns with SEC and TCFD transparency expectations. Standardizing your inventory architecture simplifies cross-framework reporting.
Translating methane complexity into strategic advantage with Highwood.
Highwood specializes in measurement-informed inventories, providing methane strategy consulting, measurement planning, data reconciliation, regulatory navigation, software (EIP), inventory development, training, and voluntary initiative support (e.g., OGMP 2.0, MiQ, Veritas readiness), and harmonization efforts.
Highwood offers both consulting and software services designed specifically for OGMP 2.0. Highwood builds facility-level inventories, develops source-level plans, supports measurement planning, reconciles data, quantifies uncertainty, and generates audit-ready reports that meet OGMP 2.0 Level 5 and Gold Standard expectations.
Clients range from upstream oil producers to LNG exporters, including supermajors, independents, midstream firms, industry associations, and governments. Highwood works globally with clients seeking credible methane data, compliance strategies, or competitive advantage.
Highwood compares bottom-up inventories with top-down measurements, identifies divergence, updates assumptions, quantifies uncertainty, and aligns reported and observed values. The result is a more defensible, audit-ready inventory.
Highwood works with each client to define the right scope, whether that’s building a measurement-informed inventory, supporting regulatory compliance, evaluating technologies, training teams, or all of the above. Some projects are short-term and tactical; others are multi-year partnerships supporting strategy, operations, and reporting across global portfolios.
EIP (Emissions Inventory Platform) is Highwood’s SaaS for building, managing, and reconciling measurement-informed inventories. It streamlines data ingestion, uncertainty quantification, reconciliation workflows, and audit-ready reporting — aligned with OGMP 2.0, EUMR, and other frameworks.
Highwood helps clients meet EU Methane Regulation requirements through inventory readiness, technology planning, recordkeeping workflows, and alignment with OGMP Level 5 — which is an accepted compliance pathway under the regulation.
Highwood offers both online and in-person training tailored to field teams, compliance leads, and executives. Topics include methane science, regulatory frameworks, technology selection, inventory methods, and ESG reporting.
Highwood maintains a technology-agnostic database of over 200 commercial solutions. Using tools like LDAR-Sim, Highwood helps clients simulate, compare, and optimize tech deployment based on asset type, leak profile, and regulatory goals.
Highwood delivers the only solution built with — and for — the oil & gas industry, combining:
That’s why Highwood is trusted by companies responsible for more than 10% of global oil & gas production.
Join our monthly Highwood Bulletin
© Highwood Emissions Management
By downloading this tool, you acknowledge that Highwood and MiQ will have access to your information and may occasionally contact you in reference to your use of the tool. Your email and personal contact information will not be shared beyond Highwood and MiQ.
