Are we massively under-monitoring methane leaks?

Methane is an invisible and odourless gas, but it punches far above its weight in driving global warming. 

It can trap up to 84 times more heat than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period (about 30 times more over a century). 

That means even relatively small methane releases can heat the planet as much as much larger CO₂ emissions. 

In fact, nearly one-third of the rise in average global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution is due to methane, with about two-thirds of methane emissions coming from human activities like fossil fuel production and cattle farming. 

The flip side is that cutting methane can yield quick climate benefits because it breaks down in the atmosphere much faster than CO₂. 

As a result, reducing methane emissions is widely seen as one of the most effective short-term levers to slow climate change.

If you're looking to measure emissions, find your next instrument in our international directory of companies supplying emissions monitoring technology.

Regulation and deregulation

In 2021, more than 100 countries (including the United States) pledged to cut methane emissions 30% by 2030 compared to 2020 levels.

However, some of the largest emitters – such as China and Russia – have not signed on, and according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) methane emissions from the energy sector are still rising. 

Indeed, atmospheric methane concentration jumped by a record amount in 2021 and continued to climb in 2022. 

Despite methane’s outsized impact, efforts to track and control these emissions remain woefully inadequate. 

Monitoring of methane is far less precise and rigorous than for CO₂, leading to a large gap between what is reported and what is actually emitted. 

As the IEA warns, “little or no measurement-based data is used to report methane emissions in most parts of the world,” and measured emissions tend to be much higher than officially reported. 

Methane is also harder to trace to specific sources (e.g. wetland vs. pipeline leak), adding to the challenge. 

All this raises the question: what are our methane blind spots – and what would a monitoring-led solution look like?

China: do we need to monitor its methane emissions differently?

As global attention intensifies on cutting short-lived climate pollutants like methane (CH₄), a critical question emerges: should China’s emissions be monitored differently than those of othe... Read More

Our methane blind spots 

Many methane releases are unreported, under-detected, or entirely unregulated. 

In the oil and gas industry, for example, it is still common to rely on infrequent inspections or generic “emissions factors” (broad estimates based on equipment type) rather than direct measurements. 

When leak detection does occur, it’s often periodic (quarterly or annual) and done with handheld sensors or infrared cameras during site visits. 

These checks typically focus only on easily accessible or obviously suspect equipment.

Such an approach leaves major gaps: leaks that happen between inspections, in remote sections of pipelines, or from aging components can go unnoticed for months or years. 

Not surprisingly, independent studies using satellites, aircraft, and on-the-ground sensors have repeatedly found that actual methane emissions far exceed official estimates. 

In short, we have been flying half-blind: until recently, little of the methane entering the atmosphere was being directly measured at all.

Under-monitored sources

Abandoned fossil fuel sites are a major methane blind spot. 

Millions of old oil and gas wells still leak methane long after they stop producing, often with no one monitoring or accountable. 

Likewise, methane can seep from closed coal mines for decades once mining ends. 

One analysis found methane from coal mines may be ~60% higher than reported, with yearly coal-mine emissions having the same climate impact as all of India’s CO₂ emissions. 

Abandoned coal mines are especially noxious sources, even exceeding emissions from abandoned wells.

Some of the biggest methane emitters are not the obvious ones. 

It turns out that numerous low-production “marginal wells” (small oil and gas wells) collectively contribute enormous emissions that slip through the cracks. 

Data from the recently launched MethaneSAT satellite revealed that in the U.S., wells producing less than 15 barrels of oil per day (over half a million such wells exist) account for nearly 50% of total oil and gas methane emissions, even though they produce only ~6–7% of the fuel.

These tiny sites are typically exempt from strict oversight and may leak continuously. 

Similarly, methane leaking from coal mining operations has been underappreciated: globally, coal mining emits more methane than the entire oil and gas industry’s operations, yet these emissions have been poorly monitored. 

All these hidden sources, from forgotten wells and mines to countless small-scale facilities, mean we are likely underestimating global methane emissions by a wide margin.

How NASA is advancing post-wildfire air quality forecasting

UTA-led project will advance real-time air quality forecasting and health risk communication toolsAs wildfire events become more frequent and far-reaching across the globe, the University of Texas... Read More

Building a monitoring-led solution

Closing the methane surveillance gap will require a robust, multi-layered monitoring ecosystem. 

This means deploying technology on the ground, in the air, and in orbit to detect methane releases in real time and at scale. 

Key components of a monitoring-led approach include:

Continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) at critical infrastructure points, like compressors, processing plants, wellheads, pipelines, and storage tanks, to provide around-the-clock data on methane flow. 

Fixed sensors can immediately flag abnormalities that signify leaks or venting events, rather than waiting for the next manual inspection.

Mobile monitoring via drones or vehicles equipped with methane detectors for high-resolution leak mapping.

Drones can cover large sites quickly and reach remote or hard-to-access equipment, identifying leaks that ground crews might miss.

Regular drone surveys have proven effective at catching “fugitive” emissions that would otherwise go unnoticed.

Ground-based remote sensors (such as open-path FTIR spectrometers or laser-based methane analysers) positioned around facility perimeters. 

These devices continuously scan the air for methane plumes leaving a site, providing an independent check on facility-wide emissions. 

If methane is escaping anywhere on the site, these perimeter monitors will detect it.

Satellite surveillance of methane plumes on a global scale. New satellite instruments, from government missions and private ventures alike, are game-changers for methane tracking. 

Platforms like GHGSat, MethaneSAT, and Carbon Mapper can pinpoint large leaks (“super-emitters”) from space and quantify their size.

Satellites have already exposed massive methane plumes from oil/gas fields, coal mines, and landfills that were previously undocumented.

They provide a bird’s-eye view of emissions worldwide, including in countries or offshore areas that lack transparency.

To drive accountability, we need open data and leak reporting systems. 

Companies and regulators should establish open-access leak registries where methane releases detected by any of the above methods are logged and shared. 

Crowdsourcing data from satellites, independent researchers, and onsite monitors can create a verified record of methane emissions.

Public transparency puts pressure on operators to fix leaks quickly and rewards those who do. It also allows regulators and financiers to identify bad actors.

Combining these tools would vastly improve our picture of methane emissions. 

For example, continuous sensors could catch day-to-day fluctuations at a facility, while periodic drone and satellite scans pick up any missed leaks or rare events. 

Importantly, better monitoring also means better mitigation: you can’t fix what you don’t measure, and right now too much methane is escaping unnoticed.

Google announces groundbreaking AI-equipped methane leak detection satellite

In an ambitious move to confront the escalating climate crisis, Google has announced a groundbreaking partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to launch MethaneSAT, a pioneering satell... Read More

Why we’re not there yet

If this technology exists, why isn’t it everywhere? Several hurdles are holding back progress. 

First is the issue of cost and incentives. 

Many in industry still perceive continuous monitoring and advanced detection as too expensive to deploy widely.

 Ironically, the value of the gas lost (and the damage it does) often outweighs the cost of the sensors to detect it – yet without regulations or fees, that lost methane is not directly felt on the balance sheet.

Only about 5% of oil and gas operators worldwide currently use emissions control technologies to eliminate methane leaks, despite studies showing ~70% of fossil-sector methane could be avoided with existing tools at low cost. 

In companies driven by profit, if there’s no mandate or price on methane, many will simply choose to do nothing. 

As one scientist noted, operators often require returns of 10–15%, so they won’t invest in better valves or monitoring that might only save a few percent of product.

Another barrier is the regulatory and transparency gap. 

Methane rules in many jurisdictions are weak, outdated, or purely voluntary. 

Business models built on undercounted emissions naturally resist stricter reporting.

Even now, a large portion of methane reporting relies on estimates rather than measurements, allowing companies to downplay or overlook actual emissions.

In some cases, industry lobbying has even pushed backwards: for example, in the United States there have been efforts to roll back methane leak regulations and even undo the methane emission fees introduced in 2022. 

Air India 171: authorities need to prepare urban AQ networks for catastrophes

When news broke that an Air India Dreamliner bound for London had crashed into a residential area shortly after take off, images of the devastation spread quickly. Public attention rightly focused... Read More

Such backsliding undermines the momentum to invest in better monitoring. 

On the other hand, there are positive signs abroad – the European Union recently adopted a Methane Regulation (effective 2024) that requires improved leak detection and repair and bans routine venting and flaring of methane, signalling that mandatory monitoring can be done.

A further challenge is data overload and analysis. 

High-frequency sensors, continuous monitors, and satellites generate enormous streams of data. 

For operators not prepared to handle it, this flood of information can be overwhelming. 

Oil and gas companies aren’t traditionally software firms, and they may lack the analytics infrastructure or expertise to interpret real-time emissions data and quickly pinpoint problems. 

This is where advanced data management and automation tools are needed – otherwise, companies fear being buried in alarms and raw readings that they cannot act on. Lastly, we face the issue of orphaned emissions sources. 

There are millions of abandoned oil and gas wells and tens of thousands of closed mines globally with no owner responsible for them. 

These sites can leak methane unchecked for decades, yet no single company feels accountable for fixing them. Addressing such legacy sources often requires public funding or policy intervention, which has been slow to materialise at the needed scale.

Beating the odds: from AI to accountability

To overcome these obstacles and seize the huge climate opportunity that methane mitigation offers, direct measurement and accountability must become the norm. 

Key steps to achieve a monitoring-led methane reduction strategy include:

Mandate comprehensive monitoring and leak detection in methane-intensive sectors. 

Regulators should require direct methane measurement (not just estimates) at major facilities and frequent leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs. 

For example, the EU’s 2024 methane rules enforce regular LDAR surveys and forbid routine venting/flaring of methane, similar requirements should be adopted globally. 

Mandating measurement creates a level playing field and ensures that emissions cannot be hidden.

Deploy AI-powered detection and alert systems to handle the massive volume of data from continuous monitors and satellites, artificial intelligence can play a crucial role in sifting signals from noise. 

Machine-learning algorithms can be trained to recognise the signature of a methane leak in sensor data or imagery, triggering real-time alerts. 

AI systems can help localise leaks and even predict failures (by spotting abnormal trends), enabling operators to prioritise repairs swiftly. This increases the effectiveness of monitoring by ensuring rapid response, and it reduces the burden on humans to manually parse data.

Make methane emissions data public and transparent by requiring public disclosure of methane emissions from companies and facilities (similar to how CO₂ reporting is handled) would drive accountability. 

This Memphis site proves data centre emissions are under-monitored

Data centres, the physical backbone of the digital world, are often perceived as clean by comparison with other industrial sites. But recent developments in Memphis, Tennessee, suggest a more comp... Read More

When major emitters know their leak rates will be visible to regulators, investors, and the public, they have greater incentive to act. 

Open data also allows third parties, researchers, NGOs, local communities, to help identify problems and verify claims. 

Transparency can be enforced through government reporting programs or voluntary initiatives, but ultimately it should become an expected norm for doing business.

Financial incentives can accelerate adoption of monitoring technology by tying methane monitoring to climate finance and ESG criteria.

Climate finance mechanisms and ESG (environmental, social, governance) investment standards should include methane performance as a key metric. 

Companies that rigorously monitor and reduce methane could receive better financing terms, insurance rates, or ESG scores, whereas those that don’t should face fees or exclusion. 

For instance, the Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. introduced a fee on excess methane emissions (though some are attempting to roll it back) – such pricing mechanisms make the cost of leaking gas tangible. 

By embedding methane accountability into the economic framework, we reward proactive companies and pressure laggards.

Next steps

Governments and industry should accelerate innovation in low-cost detection technology. 

Governments and industry should invest in developing cheaper, more durable, and easy-to-use methane sensors. 

This includes next-generation drone sensors, satellite instruments with higher resolution, and automated analysers that need minimal maintenance. 

Many current tools are available but not widely deployed; boosting their reliability and lowering costs will help scale up monitoring to even small operators. 

Funding R&D, offering tax credits or subsidies for equipment installation, and supporting demonstration projects can all spur tech innovation. 

Over time, the goal is to make continuous methane monitoring as standard (and affordable) as safety alarms or smoke detectors.

By taking these actions, we can shift from today’s patchy oversight to a culture of measure-and-manage for methane. 

The technology and knowledge exist to dramatically cut methane emissions – and doing so buys us crucial time in the fight against climate change.