Technical Section Editorial Learn more about the SPE Methane Technical Section on the MTS SPE Connect Page. |
Methane management is shifting from a voluntary credibility exercise to a commercial and regulatory requirement. As the EU Methane Regulation introduces phased import obligations tied to measurement, reporting, verification, and methane intensity, operators face growing pressure to produce emissions data that can withstand external scrutiny.
In this interview, Jessica Shumlich and Thomas Fox discuss what separates a defensible methane program from a superficial one: clear governance, fit-for-purpose measurement, traceable data architecture, disciplined reconciliation between top-down and bottom-up estimates, and preparation for independent verification. They also examine how methane programs can evolve beyond reporting to support operational decisions, capital allocation, and market positioning.
The central message is straightforward: In a more demanding global market, methane performance claims will matter less than the ability to prove them.
Jessica Shumlich is co-founder of Highwood Emissions Management, where she leads methane strategy and business growth, helping oil and gas producers build accurate, defensible methane inventories. An Alberta-licensed engineer with more than 15 years of experience, she has worked across technology deployment, policy alignment, and market positioning. Shumlich’s expertise includes OGMP 2.0, EUMR, MiQ, and carbon-market economics.
Thomas Fox is co-founder and CEO of Highwood Emissions Management and an internationally recognized expert in methane emissions management. He holds a PhD degree from the University of Calgary and developed LDAR-Sim, an open-source platform used to optimize methane technology deployment. His work has contributed to major methane frameworks, including North American regulations, MiQ, Veritas, and ISO standards.
From Voluntary Credibility to Commercial Requirement
SPE Methane Technical Section (MTS): The EU Methane Regulation is becoming one of the clearest “prove it” mechanisms in the market. For operators who have not been following it closely, what does it require and what is at stake if they cannot meet it?
Fox: The EU Methane Regulation introduces phased import requirements with implications far beyond Europe. In 2025, importers must begin disclosing information on the origin and transport route of imported oil and gas, along with the methane measurement, reporting, verification, and abatement measures associated with it. Beginning in 2027, importers will need to demonstrate equivalence of MRV [measurement, reporting, and verification] requirements for contracts concluded or renewed on or after 4 August 2024, either through jurisdictional equivalence or through producer-level measurement and reporting supported by independent verification to reasonable assurance. Methane-intensity reporting follows in 2028, with intensity requirements beginning in 2030. For producers, the commercial implication is clear: If their methane data cannot be defended, their buyers inherit compliance risk. That can complicate contracts, delay deals, and weaken access to more demanding markets.
MTS: Beyond the EU regulation itself, buyers, investors, and certification bodies are asking harder questions about methane performance. Where are you seeing the earliest commercial consequences for operators whose claims are not well supported?
Shumlich: One of the earliest consequences is commercial drag. Transactions take longer, diligence becomes more detailed, and unsupported claims carry less weight. Buyers increasingly want methane information they can stand behind externally, whether for compliance, financing, certification, or downstream reporting. Operators may still be able to sell gas without that level of rigor, but often not on the best terms, into the most discerning markets, or with the same flexibility to expand.
MTS: Many companies have treated OGMP 2.0 reporting as the benchmark. Is OGMP Level 5 enough for what the market is likely to require, or is there still a gap?
Fox: OGMP Level 5 is a strong starting point, but it is not the whole answer. It is important because it requires reconciliation of source-level inventories with site-level measurements. But import compliance and market acceptance involve more than inventory maturity alone. Operators may also need contract coverage, supply-chain traceability, clear documentation, and independent verification that can withstand scrutiny. Too many companies hear “Level 5” and assume the work is done. In reality, Level 5 starts the conversation.
What a Defensible Program Actually Looks Like and Where Technical Challenges Persist
MTS: Suppose an operator is starting from scratch today—no mature measurement program, assets with potential exposure to methane-related trade requirements, and leadership asking urgent questions. What should they build first?
Shumlich: Start with governance and scope. Define which assets are in scope, what reporting boundary will apply, who is accountable, who owns the data, and what the reporting deadlines are. From there, build a bottom-up inventory tied to equipment lists and operational data, then develop a focused measurement plan around the highest-risk sources and sites. The goal at the beginning is not perfection. It is to create a repeatable system that can produce a defensible answer when asked.
MTS: Many operators invest in measurement technologies before clarifying what decisions the data needs to support. What questions should be answered before technology selection begins?
Fox: Before choosing a technology, operators need to define the decision context. What question is the data supposed to answer? At what asset level? At what frequency? With what tolerance for uncertainty? They also need to consider whether the intended use is compliance, mitigation, asset screening, reconciliation, or operational response. Practical fit matters as well: safety constraints, weather, site access, source type, data integration, and the limits of the method itself. Technology selection is much more effective when it begins with decision requirements rather than with the instrument.
MTS: Measurement-informed inventories require operational data, measurement records, and engineering calculations, and those inputs are rarely clean or connected. What does a defensible data architecture look like in practice?
Shumlich: It is fundamentally about traceability. Every estimate should be linked to an asset, source, time period, method, assumptions, conversions, uncertainty treatment, and approval history. That requires a governed asset hierarchy, reliable operational master data, event records, measurement records, calculation workflows, and version control. Programs often struggle because equipment IDs do not align, timestamps are missing, spreadsheets are uncontrolled, or assumptions are undocumented. If a verifier cannot trace a reported site total back to the underlying evidence, the system is not ready.
MTS: Reconciliation between top-down and bottom-up estimates is still one of the most contested issues in methane accounting. Some operators see order-of-magnitude differences. Can those gaps be resolved, and should “resolved” even be the goal?
Fox: Reconciliation is essential, but the term is often used too loosely. At its core, it means comparing or combining different estimation approaches in a structured way. Top-down methods can reveal missing sources, abnormal events, or systematic inventory bias. Bottom-up methods provide source-level insight into what equipment and activities are driving emissions. In many cases, the difference can be narrowed and explained. But the objective is not to force perfect agreement. The more useful goal is to understand why estimates differ and apply the best available method for each context.
MTS: What does a strong reconciliation workflow look like at the site or asset level? Where do teams most often get stuck?
Shumlich: It starts with comparability. Before comparing numbers, confirm that the site boundary, operating condition, timing, source categories, and method limitations are aligned. Then test the common causes of divergence: missing sources, outdated emission factors, intermittent events, poor asset mapping, or use of a method outside the conditions where it performs well. Most teams get stuck because they compare results that are not truly comparable.
MTS: There is an ongoing debate about how much standardization methane accounting needs. Some favor rigid protocols for comparability; others emphasize flexibility for learning and operational relevance. What balance makes sense?
Fox: Both are needed. Standardization is important when the objective is disclosure, comparability, or market confidence. Flexibility is essential when the objective is operational learning, technology improvement, or targeted mitigation. The best framework is a standardized reporting foundation with disciplined flexibility around measurement methods.
Preparing for Methane Verification Before the System Is Fully Mature and Translating Data Into Operational Value
MTS: Independent verification is central to where methane regulation is heading, yet the infrastructure is still developing. What should operators be doing now, even while protocols and auditor capacity continue to evolve?
Shumlich: They should prepare as though verification were beginning tomorrow. That means aligning inventories with recognized reporting and measurement frameworks, strengthening documentation, establishing clear data provenance, and implementing QA/QC processes that create traceability from raw inputs to reported totals. It also means testing the system before a formal verifier does. Internal reviews, pilot third-party assessments, and mock audits can expose weaknesses in controls, assumptions, and documentation while there is still time to correct them.
MTS: From your work evaluating methane detection and quantification methods, what does a credible technology assessment look like? What should operators demand from vendors?
Fox: Operators should look for evidence from controlled release testing, representative field performance, known detection limits, quantification uncertainty, false positive behavior, uptime, and clearly stated operating limits. Just as important, vendors should be candid about where the method does not perform well. Every technology has blind spots. The most credible evaluations are the ones that make those limitations explicit.
MTS: Today, much of the effort in methane programs still goes into assembling data and producing reports. Very little goes into analysis. How do operators shift that balance?
Shumlich: The shift begins when methane data is used to support actual decisions. That means ranking sites by avoidable loss, identifying abnormal events, tracking recurring leak mechanisms, evaluating repair effectiveness, and linking those findings to maintenance and capital planning. Once methane work is connected to operational choices, it starts to influence flare reliability, compressor performance, startup procedures, repair prioritization, and capital allocation. That is when the program stops being only a reporting exercise and starts creating business value.
MTS: Methane work often remains siloed within sustainability or environment, health, and safety (EHS) functions. What have you seen work when companies bring it into day-to-day operations?
Shumlich: The strongest programs move accountability closer to the people who control the emissions drivers. Sustainability and EHS teams should still provide governance and reporting discipline, but operations has to own the response. That shift becomes easier when leadership sees methane management not only as a compliance issue but as a business issue tied to market access, product loss, risk reduction, efficiency, and better capital deployment.
Closing Perspective
Fox: Methane management is no longer only about disclosure quality or voluntary leadership. It is becoming part of how operators demonstrate commercial readiness in a more scrutinized market. As methane requirements evolve, the competitive advantage may not go to the company with the strongest claims but to the one with data, systems, and governance strong enough to defend them.
