As methane monitoring moves from pilot projects into operational deployment, the industry’s central question is changing from “Can the technology detect methane?” to “What decision can this measurement support?” Controlled testing, field validation, and realistic uncertainty treatment are becoming essential to separating promising solutions from overstated claims.
This article from the SPE Methane Technical Section (MTS) features Daniel Zimmerle, director of the Methane Emissions Technology Evaluation Center (METEC) at Colorado State University (CSU). The discussion highlights METEC’s global leadership in advancing methane emissions measurement, monitoring, verification, and reporting, and examines how controlled testing and field validation are helping move methane technologies from the testing ground to practical deployment across the oil and gas industry.
Zimmerle was a principal investigator on seven major studies of methane emissions in the natural gas supply chain, including studies of upstream, midstream, and distribution systems at a national and/or regional scale. His group conducts research on natural gas emissions including studies of equipment and pipeline emissions, field studies, and fundamental investigations of commonly utilized methods. Recent work has branched into agricultural and waste emissions areas.
Zimmerle also works on energy access and development in rural communities in the developing world and the integration of distributed generation into power systems.
An "accidental academic," Zimmerle’s pre-CSU experience is all industrial. He served as the COO at Spirae Inc. and 20 years at Hewlett Packard and Agilent Technologies, including experience as both a division general manager and R&D manager, leading organizations in multiple businesses and organizations that included personnel in the US, Ireland, Singapore, and other countries.
He holds BSME and MSME degrees from North Dakota State University.
MTS: To begin, could you briefly introduce METEC and its facilities and describe its role in advancing methane measurement technologies?
Daniel Zimmerle (DZ): METEC began as a controlled test facility, but over time the name has come to represent a broader research group. Today, our work falls into three main areas. First, we operate one of the world’s largest controlled test facilities for methane detection and quantification technologies, including both aboveground and below-ground emission scenarios. Second, we conduct field programs, typically two to four each year, often with industry partners at operating sites. These programs help collect field data, diagnose emissions issues, and understand how technologies perform under real operating conditions. Third, we work on emissions modeling, including where emissions originate, how they are detected, and how measurement data can be used in reporting and measurement-informed inventories. So, while METEC is widely known as a facility, much of our work now extends beyond the facility itself.
MTS: Before facilities such as METEC were established, what were the major challenges in evaluating methane detection and quantification technologies?
DZ: Methane monitoring now involves two related but distinct objectives: reducing greenhouse gas emissions and detecting operational problems that allow excess gas to escape. Historically, leak detection relied on close-range methods such as audio, visual, and olfactory inspections, gas sniffers, and optical gas-imaging cameras. Newer technologies changed the challenge by detecting methane plumes from downwind or remote positions, requiring sensors and algorithms to interpret atmospheric signals and trace them back to possible sources. Before facilities such as METEC, there was no systematic way to evaluate how well these technologies could perform under realistic conditions. METEC helped fill that gap by providing the testing processes, performance metrics, and technical learning needed to assess this new generation of methane detection solutions.
MTS: Why are controlled-release experiments considered a critical component of validating methane detection and quantification solutions?
DZ: Controlled-release experiments are critical because atmospheric methane detection technologies must be tested under conditions similar to what they will encounter in the field. By releasing gas from a known location and at a known rate, METEC can evaluate whether a system detects the release, identifies its location, and, when relevant, estimates the emission rate. This is especially important for newer technologies that detect methane from downwind or remote positions, where sensors must use atmospheric signals, meteorological data, and algorithms to trace a plume back to its source rather than measuring the leak directly at the equipment.
MTS: How do you determine whether a controlled-release test is sufficiently representative of real-world field operations?
DZ: Technology development typically moves through three stages: laboratory testing, field-laboratory validation, and full-field deployment. The laboratory stage may involve simple early tests, such as releasing gas from a bottle to see whether a system works. METEC fits into the middle stage: it provides a controlled environment that more closely resembles field conditions, but it does not replace actual field deployment, where weather, terrain, facility layout, and operations vary. A recent trend is that operators with field experience are now returning to METEC with targeted operational questions, moving beyond broad generic testing toward focused evaluations of specific gaps and use cases.
MTS: Based on your experience, what common strengths and limitations have you observed among methane-detection technologies tested at METEC?
DZ: Because methane-detection technologies range from early-stage concepts to mature commercial products, it is difficult to generalize across the entire field. However, one clear trend is steady improvement over the past 5 years, both in technical performance and in developers’ understanding of deployment needs, customer expectations, and operational value. At the same time, many solutions are still presented in the marketplace in overly favorable terms, so operators need to carefully evaluate what each technology can realistically deliver, where its limitations are, and how much confidence should be placed in its results.
MTS: What types of emission scenarios are the most challenging to replicate or evaluate through controlled-release testing?
DZ: The most challenging scenarios to replicate and evaluate are hot, diffuse, and buried emissions. Hot emissions, often associated with combustion processes, are difficult to reproduce at realistic scale in a test environment because of high throughput requirements and cost. Diffuse emissions occur when methane is diluted within a large air or gas stream, making detection difficult even when the total emission rate is significant. Buried emissions, or underground releases, are also challenging because gas interacts with soil, spreads differently than aboveground plumes, and is more strongly affected by weather and subsurface conditions.
MTS: How do METEC’s testing and validation efforts support emerging methane-related frameworks such as OGMP 2.0, methane regulations, and certification initiatives?
DZ: METEC’s role is to provide credible technical information rather than to advocate for specific policies or standards. The group has worked with organizations involved in methane regulations, certification programs, and frameworks such as OGMP, but its engagement is driven by technical needs from those groups rather than by a desire to shape policy directly. For these programs, controlled testing can help define detection probability, quantification uncertainty, minimum detectable emission rates, and the operational conditions under which a technology’s data can be used with confidence. Because regulatory and certification frameworks must also consider legal, administrative, economic, and implementation constraints, technical findings may not always be reflected exactly as researchers would prefer. METEC’s focus is to stay technical and provide evidence that others can use in broader decision-making.
MTS: How are lessons learned from METEC influencing commercial methane-monitoring programs and measurement-informed emissions inventories today?
DZ: METEC helps operators and reporting programs better understand uncertainty in methane-monitoring data. Unlike conventional process instruments, which often have accuracy specifications of ±5% or ±10%, methane detection and quantification technologies can have much wider uncertainty ranges. This does not make them ineffective, but it means their results must be interpreted differently. A system may be highly useful for identifying problems, prioritizing response, and improving measurement-informed inventories, even if individual estimates are uncertain. The question is not whether every estimate is exact, but whether the information is reliable enough for the intended decision: dispatching a crew, prioritizing repairs, updating an inventory, or screening assets. The key is to understand what the data can support, how much confidence to place in the results, and where uncertainty remains.
MTS: How does independent controlled testing help build confidence among operators, regulators, investors, and technology developers?
DZ: Controlled testing is one step in a broader testing life cycle. METEC often works with technology developers before formal testing, helping them move beyond the laboratory through ad hoc testing or passive sensor participation during other release programs. Formal controlled-release testing then provides a single-blind assessment: METEC knows the release conditions, but the participant must detect, locate, or quantify the emission without knowing the inputs. This creates a more objective evaluation. The next step is field challenge testing, where a controlled-release system is deployed at an operating site to determine whether the technology responds in the field as it did at METEC.
MTS: As methane measurement technologies continue to evolve rapidly, how can testing protocols remain scientifically rigorous while still encouraging innovation?
DZ: Maintaining scientific rigor depends largely on operators demanding it. Solution providers will generally meet the level of evidence that customers require, so testing results should play a stronger role in procurement and deployment decisions. It is also important to distinguish methane measurement from problem detection. Most operators currently use these technologies primarily to find problems, while quantification is often used to prioritize response rather than as a precise emissions measurement. For most applications today, the main operational value is detecting where action is needed.
MTS: Looking ahead, what gaps remain between laboratory validation, controlled testing, and full-scale operational deployment?
Zimmerle: The main gap now being closed is operationalization. As companies gain field experience with methane technologies, they are moving beyond asking whether a system works to understand how it fits into daily operations. Methane monitoring adds another information stream alongside SCADA data, field inspections, sales meters, and other operational inputs. The challenge is determining how operators, pipeline inspectors, and emissions managers should use these data, prioritize alerts, decide when to act, and communicate uncertainty. Much of today’s innovation is focused on turning methane monitoring from a standalone technology into a practical operational tool.
MTS: What performance metrics should industry stakeholders pay the most attention to when evaluating methane emission measurement solutions in the future?
DZ: The most important metric is fitness for purpose. No single methane-monitoring solution can address every problem, so operators should first define the specific emission source, operational decision, and response need they are trying to address. For example, tank-related emissions may require technologies that provide strong diagnostics near thief hatches, pressure-relief valves, or tank systems, while underground emissions or broad facility-level screening may require different approaches. The industry should move away from seeking a universal solution and instead select technologies based on whether they are appropriate for the specific problem and decision context. The future of methane monitoring will not be defined by a single winning technology, but by matching the right measurement approach to the right source, decision, and operational context.
Haoming Ma, SPE, is a staff research scientist at the University of Wyoming’s School of Energy Resources and Hydrogen Energy Research Center, where he is involved in multiple DOE-funded projects on carbon management, hydrogen production, and geo-energy system analysis. Prior to that, he was a postdoctoral dellow at The University of Texas at Austin. His research leverages artificial intelligence and remote sensing data into physics-based simulation, techno-economic analysis, and life-cycle assessment to evaluate the multi-perspective performance of emerging energy and environmental technologies from process to supply-chain scales. His current work focuses on subsurface carbon capture, utilization, and storage, methane emissions across geo-energy supply chains, underground hydrogen production and storage, and low-carbon fuel innovations. By coupling AI with system-level analysis, his research elucidates the complex environmental and financial trade-offs of geo-energy systems to inform early-stage technology deployment and investment decisions. He has authored over 20 peer-reviewed publications, such as in Environmental Science & Technology, Applied Energy, and Energy Conversion and Management, and serves on technical committees for multiple professional societies, advancing cross-disciplinary collaboration in sustainable geo-energy and environmental systems. Ma holds a PhD in chemical and petroleum engineering from the University of Calgary, an MSc from The University of Pennsylvania, and an MSc and BSc from The University of Pennsylvania.
Thraiya Seif Hemed, SPE, is a junior environmental engineer at Harbour Energy, specializing in emissions measurement, quantification, and reporting. She recently completed the company’s SPEAD Graduate Program, during which she undertook multiple international assignments supporting assets across Norway, Germany, Mexico, and the UK. She holds a BSc in petroleum and natural gas engineering and an MS in sustainable environment and energy systems, giving her a strong foundation in both hydrocarbon operations and sustainability-driven energy systems.