Bridging the Gap: METEC’s Role in Better Methane Inventories and Campaigns
2025 | Madhu Sehrawat and Anna Hodshire | Systems Engineering Department, Colorado State University
Background
- Methane (CH₄) warms 25× more than CO₂ (100 yrs) and
80× more (20 yrs) - Cutting methane = fastest, lowest-cost climate fix
- BU (bottom-up): often misses big leaks
- TD (top-down): can find them, but costly snapshots
- Reconciling BU and TD = MII
Objectives and Methodology
Objectives
- Demonstrate METEC’s role in reconciling BU–TD discrepancies.
- Highlight contributions to MII development and policy integration.
- Show how validated measurement underpins large-scale methane campaigns.
Methods: At METEC, we
- Run controlled release experiments under realistic field conditions.
- Develop process segmentation frameworks (e.g., COBE) to align inventories with observed emissions.
- Validate detection tools ranging from optical cameras to aircraft, drones, and mobile units.
- Pilot and run protocol development testing for continuous monitoring systems (ADED)[8] to assess performance across technologies.
- Provide calibration and validation data to support basin-scale field campaigns [2].[3],[5].
- Redesign facilities through METEC 2.0 [7], [9] to mimic up-to-date real pad complexity (tanks, separators, wellheads, underground pipelines).
- Integrate satellite, mobile, and hybrid monitoring approaches to move toward standardized methods and global alignment.
Results
Selected key contributions (not a complete list)
- Smarter Inventories (MII)
- The COBE project showed how measurement data can update inventories and reduce compliance inefficiencies [1].
- Industry collaborations (ONE Future, API) used METEC’s results to strengthen ESG reporting and lower investor risk [3],[9].
- Large-Scale Campaigns
- SABER (ongoing): Initial results demonstrate that all methane sources must be accounted for in a basin for top-down/bottom-up reconciliation [5]. EDF’s PermianMAP: Confirmed some of the highest methane loss rates worldwide; METEC’s groundwork made the findings credible for regulators and markets [4].
3. Continuous Monitoring. Pilots proved that long-term sensors capture events that snapshot surveys miss [8]. This reduces wasted inspections and allows operators to fix big leaks quickly [6].
- SABER (ongoing): Initial results demonstrate that all methane sources must be accounted for in a basin for top-down/bottom-up reconciliation [5]. EDF’s PermianMAP: Confirmed some of the highest methane loss rates worldwide; METEC’s groundwork made the findings credible for regulators and markets [4].
Impact of METEC’s projects
- Policy & Standards (Supports outcome-based rules and OGMP 2.0 alignment)
- Builds confidence for regulators.
- Informs certification programs (e.g., ONE Future, API).
- Economic Efficiency
- Data-driven inventories reduce over/under-estimation.
- Efficiency gains from fewer wasted inspections.
- ESG & Investor
- Credible reporting.
- Reduced risk for investors.
Insights and Conclusions
Lessons Learned
- Super-emitters often dominate, but new basin-level studies suggest small emitters can collectively drive emissions (e.g. COBE).
- Measurement and method validation is essential: builds confidence for regulators, industry, and investors.
- Better data strengthens economics: Reconciling BU and TD avoids costly misreporting, cuts unnecessary compliance spending, and captures lost gas value [5], [1].
- MII methods developed support outcome-based certification and standards (OGMP 2.0, Colorado COBE), [1], [3] providing regulators with credible, decision-grade data.
Conclusions
- Reconciling BU and TD
- Reconciling BU and TD methane estimates is both a scientific and economic priority.
- Test beds that proves Science and Economics
- Testbeds + field campaigns build credibility and efficiency.
- Next Steps
- Hybrid monitoring, standardized methods, global alignment- strengthened by METEC2.0.
References and Acknowledgements
Some of the references:
- [1] Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, COBE Project Report (2023/2024): Colorado Oil & Gas Benchmarking and Emissions (COBE) Project Findings, 2024.
- [2] T. Zavala-Araiza, D. Zavala-Araiza, D. R. Lyon, et al., “Methane emissions from the natural gas transmission and storage system in the United States,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 49, no. 15, pp. 9374–9383, 2015.
- [3] D. Zimmerle, T. Vaughn, C. Bell, et al., “Methane emissions from gathering compressor stations in the U.S.,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 7552–7561, 2020.
- [4] EDF, PermianMAP: Findings from Independent Methane Studies Across the Permian Basin, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://permianmap.org
- [5] Alvarez, R. A., et al., “Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain,” Science, vol. 361, no. 6398, pp. 186–188, 2018.
- [6] Lyon, D. R., A. R. Zavala-Araiza, S. C. Allen, et al., “Assessing the accuracy of methane detection methods at oil and gas facilities,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 50, no. 20, pp. 10753–10761, 2016. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01810.
- [7] METEC 2.0, Colorado State University, “What is METEC 2.0? Project description and capabilities,” Colorado State University Energy Institute, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://energy.colostate.edu/metec
- [8] D. Zimmerle, T. Vaughn, B. Luck, et al., “Detection limits of optical gas imaging for natural gas leak detection in realistic controlled conditions,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 54, no. 16, pp. 10419–10426, 2020.
- [9] T. Vaughn, C. Bell, and D. Zimmerle, “Facility-scale methane emissions measurement at METEC,” Colorado State University Energy Institute, 2022.
Contact Information
Poster Author:
Madhu Sehrawat
Doctoral Student
Systems Engineering Department
Colorado State University
[email protected]
Project PI:
Anna Hodshire
Assistant Professor
Systems Engineering Department
Colorado State University
[email protected]
