Highwood Emissions | Solutions for Methane Accounting and Reporting

Don’t let reconciliation put your OGMP 2.0 Gold at risk.

70% of operators attempting OGMP 2.0 Level 5 fail at reconciliation. This solution brief explains why — and how to get it right the first time.

What you'll learn

Learn why reconciliation fails — and how to deliver audit-ready results.

…and discover how to turn reconciliation risk into defensible, audit-ready decisions.

Why reconciliation matters

Methane reconciliation is not just about balancing numbers, it’s about proving credibility.

For operators aiming to achieve OGMP 2.0 Gold Standard recognition, the ability to reconcile methane inventories is a decisive benchmark that demonstrates transparency, technical rigor, and environmental responsibility.

Without a strong reconciliation process, companies risk:

Regulatory exposure

Inconsistent data undermines sustainability efforts and the integrity of reporting.

Recognition delays

Failure to meet reconciliation expectations can stall or prevent OGMP 2.0 Gold Standard submissions and recognition.

Erosion of trust

Investors, regulators, and the public lose confidence when reported data doesn’t align.

This guide highlights the core challenges of reconciliation and provides a framework to ensure your results are defensible, repeatable, and aligned with global best practices.

Why Highwood

Highwood Emissions Management helps oil & gas companies navigate OGMP 2.0, EUMR, and other methane frameworks with confidence. Our combination of advanced software, expert consulting, and education accelerates compliance and makes reporting audit-ready from day one.

Proven platform

Built with industry leaders to streamline methane workflows and eliminate data gaps.

Trusted globally

Supporting companies responsible for 10%+ of global oil & gas output.

Gold Standard results

Enabled clients to achieve Level 5 reporting across complex operations.

Deep expertise

Recognized authority in methane reporting, strategy, and compliance.

Strategic advantage

Turn compliance into stronger investor confidence and competitive leadership.

Reconciling methane inventories with scientific rigor and regulatory precision

What’s the most defensible way to reconcile bottom-up inventories with top-down methane measurements?

The most trusted approaches use measurement-informed inventory (MII) frameworks with quantified uncertainty, timestamp alignment, and statistical reconciliation between emissions factors and site-specific observations.

How do OGMP 2.0 Level 4 and 5 protocols affect how I build and validate my inventory?

These levels require site-level data, source attribution, and integration of measurement campaigns — shifting away from simple emissions factors toward continuous or campaign-based quantification with rigorous QA/QC.

What are common sources of uncertainty in methane inventory calculations — and how do I quantify them?

Variability in emission factors, temporal mismatches, detection thresholds, and atmospheric conditions all contribute. Use Monte Carlo simulations or similar techniques to bound confidence intervals.

How should I structure my inventory to comply with both OGMP and EU Methane Regulation (EUMR)?

Align site-level measurement data with source categories, ensure traceability across detection methods, and prepare defensible documentation on method selection and reconciliation logic.

What’s the best way to manage multiple datasets from handheld, drone, satellite, and continuous monitors?

Standardize inputs via a normalized data model, align measurement timestamps, and apply sensor fusion techniques to prevent data silos and cross-contamination.

How do I know when measurement data should replace default emissions factors in my inventory?

Apply thresholds based on data quality, temporal coverage, and representativeness. Measurement data can displace factors if uncertainty is reduced and documentation supports defensibility.

What are best practices for integrating third-party measurements into our corporate GHG accounting process?

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.

How do I structure a QA/QC process for emissions data that meets audit and investor standards?

Create traceable workflows with log files, versioned inputs, sensor calibration records, and reconciliation steps. Independent validation strengthens credibility.

What metrics or KPIs should I track to evaluate inventory accuracy and improvement over time?

Track uncertainty bands, data completeness scores, percentage of inventory supported by measurements, and reconciliation delta between predicted and observed values.

How do I explain methane inventory updates or revisions to internal stakeholders and regulators?

Anchor explanations in method changes, updated measurement campaigns, or improved uncertainty modeling — and show version comparisons with rationale and impact quantification.

How we've helped
our clients

“EIP’s reconciliation workflow gives us confidence in our ability to achieve the OGMP 2.0 Gold Standard.”

EIP User

“With a comprehensive emissions view, we can better allocate capital, meet targets, and demonstrate progress to stakeholders."

EIP User

Master methane reconciliation — stay on track for gold

Get the clarity you need to confidently reconcile methane inventories, reduce compliance risks, and accelerate your OGMP 2.0 journey.