Closing the Gaps: Managing Methane Emissions Across the Entire Gas Value Chain

Playing a key role in the energy transition, natural gas and LNG are expected to remain critical to global energy security and economic stability through 2050. However, achieving a low-carbon future requires decisive action to mitigate methane emissions across the entire gas value chain. From production and processing to transportation and end-use, every segment must be scrutinized to minimize leaks and maximize efficiency.

At our recent Methane Mitigation Europe Summit in February, Event Sponsor, Context Labs hosted a panel discussion on Managing Methane Emissions Across the Entire Gas Value Chain with key industry leaders. 

Moderated by Bogdan Simion, Data Analytics Manager, Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE), the panel session featured Nathan Brawn, COO of Context Labs, Mario Vettraino, Project Engineer at Eni, Simon Culkin, Managing Director at National Grid Grain LNG, and Nara Vega Prado, Process and Quality Lead, Reganosa. 

Read as they discuss the complexities of methane emissions management and explore:  

• The diverse sources and challenges of emissions reduction
• Innovative materials and technologies to prevent pipeline leaks
• Strategies for accurate methane quantification across key infrastructure components, from compressors to storage tanks
• The critical role of communication and collaboration in achieving a unified approach to emissions reduction

Bogdan Simion, GIE: Let’s start the discussion directed at a company that encompasses the entire value chain, Eni. Mario, how difficult is it to implement, communicate, and establish standards in a company that covers the entire value chain of the gas industry?

Mario Vettraino, Eni: The starting point is having complete knowledge of the value chain, especially when dealing with a complex organization or a multi-business company like ours. We operate across the entire value chain—upstream, midstream, and even downstream - so the first step is knowing how these sectors interact within the company.

Equally important is the ability to interface and communicate effectively across different departments, as each business unit may have different mindsets, needs, and regulatory targets. This challenge extends not only internally, within the company, but also externally. Service providers, for instance, sometimes struggle to understand what is needed to achieve specific goals, particularly in areas like automation.

Ultimately, strong communication and a solid grasp of the company’s value chain are key.

Bogdan Simion, GIE: Are there any challenges in unifying communication across the value chain?

Mario Vettraino, Eni: There are, because different business units come from diverse mindsets and experiences. As a result, their knowledge and approaches can vary significantly.

Sharing experiences and lessons learned across different business units within the same company can add great value. It allows teams to accelerate activities by leveraging the expertise of other parts of the organization. Instead of starting from scratch, they can benefit from solutions that have already been implemented elsewhere for similar challenges. 

Bogdan Simion, GIE: To expand on that, Reganosa operates numerous terminals across Europe, not only in Spain but also in Germany. Nara, how does this align with the different regulatory and operational setups across Europe?

Nara Vega Prado, Reganosa: It can be quite challenging at times because it depends on the specific context of each site and country. However, we have made significant efforts in internal communication campaigns to establish clear guidelines that we want to implement across all our sites.

As owners, developers, and operators of energy assets, we are involved throughout the entire project lifecycle, from the early engineering phases through construction, commissioning, operation, and maintenance. This makes crucial for us to define strong communication guidelines that not only ensure compliance with regulations but also are aligned with our goals to reduce methane emissions.

At every phase, we emphasize clarity with suppliers and designers, ensuring that our philosophy focuses on minimizing the generation of fugitive emission leak points since the initial design phases and performing site maintenance as straightforward as possible. For example, during the engineering phase, we try to minimize the utilization of flanged connections, preferring welded connection were possible. During the construction phase, we enforce strict quality assurance procedures. Once in operation, we prioritize engaging not only our internal teams but also suppliers and contractors to ensure a complete alignment with our standards.

In some cases, asset engagement has been a challenge. To address this, we involve into the design the operations and maintenance teams from the very beginning, to make them part of the solution, and later during the operational phase, we make efforts to integrate on-site measurements into routine operations. We take a comprehensive approach to maintenance, conducting pre-and post-repair assessments that consider both safety and environmental impact.

Additionally, we perform daily material balance reconciliations on the complete asset and also in different subparts of the facility, ensuring continuous data accuracy across the site. By implementing these structured, day-to-day business routines, we can effectively enforce regulations across all sites, regardless of their differences.

Bogdan Simion, GIE: Have you encountered any communication challenges when comparing Spain with Germany?

Nara Vega Prado, Reganosa: Yes, we do, because cultural differences exist. However, our standards across the entire Reganosa Group remain consistent for all our terminals, whether they are our own or those we operate for third parties.

While communication can be a challenge, I wouldn’t say it’s specific to Germany—it’s something we encounter everywhere. We address it by ensuring clear, fluent communication and maintaining a common objective across all teams.

Bogdan Simion, GIE: What are your thoughts on compliance, Simon? Since the UK is not part of the EU regulation, how do you approach regulation and communicate them within your business? 

Simon Culkin, National Grid Grain LNG: For context, I run an LNG import business on the Isle of Grain in the UK. We handle 33% of the UK’s gas and we do that on behalf of customers which include companies like bp, Verity, Centrica, and others.

In my contracts with these customers, there’s a clause that states I must be a ‘reasonable and prudent operator.’ Other operators have the same clause, which drives us not to lose gas. You can’t be considered reasonable or prudent if you’re letting gas escape from pipes and polluting the atmosphere.

So, whatever standard we choose, we have to be able to demonstrate to our customers that we’re not losing gas, and we also have to show our regulators that we’re doing everything necessary to keep the gas where it’s supposed to be.

Now, we were faced with some decisions about which standards to follow, and our first choice was driven by the fact that Grain has been really successful using a continuous improvement model. We’ve always used ISO standards as the principal driver for our changes along with COMAH in Europe, which is a significant safety standard that drives continuous improvement. 

Then we wanted to find a standard that would audit us, not just self-certify us, so, we chose MiQ and that works for us because we get a physical auditor who comes out to ask questions and drives us to improve. They’re coming back next year, and if we haven’t improved, we will not get the MiQ certification. 

Bogdan Simion, GIE: Talking about certification standards, where do you, Nathan, stand with the measurement and the verification of these standards?

Nathan Brawn, Context Labs: For those reading, Context Labs is an enterprise technology platform focused on carbon management. While we support the certification process, our core focus is helping clients make emissions an operating variable by automating reporting, optimizing performance, and turning data into actionable insights. This enables them to save money, reduce carbon and methane, and ultimately deliver greater value to their customers by productizing carbon.

The approach we take is: We need to stop treating emissions, particularly methane emissions, as just a reporting metric and start treating them as an operating variable - the same way they treat every other operational variable in our systems.

From a measurement perspective, this means increasing the frequency. We need reliable sources of credible data - from sensors, SCADA data, and operational systems. We need to detach from factor-based models, which don't reflect real-world conditions. So at Context Labs, we help our clients access data that represents real-world conditions.

Secondly, the data that informs emissions quantification must be verifiable - not by us or the operator, but by a third party with a reputation and a reason to confirm that the data is accurate, the methodology used was proper, and that it can be presented to the outside world with confidence.

Finally, we believe in having greater transparency around emissions data across the supply chain. It would be great to get verified emissions data from a producer through a gathering and boosting system, then through a transmission asset, to an LNG facility, onto a ship, and finally to a shore-based terminal. These are things we are already doing today in the United States in the upstream, midstream, and soon-to-be LNG sectors.

The approach we take is to work with our clients and the private operational data they produce and then synthesize that data with all the measurement data. We aim to make sense of it, automate the process, and provide faster insights, so clients can report in accordance with regulations or commercial requirements.

Bogdan Simion, GIE: I think we are still in the early stages of developing the technology to accurately measure and quantify emissions. Simon, how important is certification in this process? 

Simon Culkin, National Grid Grain LNG: We've used certification bodies for many aspects of our work, and we've done so successfully. Certification acts as a kind of totem - something tangible to strive for, like earning a badge that helps push us forward.

As an operator, you're often overwhelmed by different standards, measurement methods, and conflicting information. Having an external third-party verification is incredibly helpful in cutting through that complexity.

At the end of the day, beyond all the technology and standards, it’s really about one thing: keeping the gas in the pipe. Fancy standards and advanced technologies for detecting leaks don’t mean much unless you're fixing the leaks.

We have inspectors come in to conduct leak inspections, and they tell us that at other facilities, they see the same leaks quarter after quarter - found, but not fixed. That’s the real issue.

I work with a lot of technical experts, and for them, technology and standards are the most important things. But what truly matters is making sure the gas stays where it’s supposed to be and doesn’t escape. 

Bogdan Simion, GIE: Based on your experience, Nathan, how far do you think we are from having an effective certification in place?

Nathan Brawn, Context Labs: There are a few important things to remember about certification... First, not all certifications are created equal. We tend to use 'certification' as a blanket term, but in reality, different certifications function in very different ways. That’s why I always recommend going beyond just the name and truly understanding what each certification is offering.

For example, some certification bodies conduct an annual analysis based on the previous year’s performance and use that historical data to predict future performance. However, that approach isn’t necessarily connected to what is happening on the ground in real-time. If you're trying to detect and fix leaks, a certification like that is detached from the process.

On the other hand, there are other that calculate methane intensity on an ongoing basis, linking emissions performance directly to the actual throughput of a facility. This allows for time-matched emissions reporting that reflects real operational conditions. Both lead to very different outcomes.

From our perspective, it's important to look beyond just the certification label and focus on the data it produces. There’s also an ongoing debate about the difficulty of different certification approaches; one method may be easier than the other. The energy sector is one of the most well-instrumented industries in the world, with more data available from energy assets today than probably any other industry, and we should be leveraging that data to drive meaningful outcomes.

Another major evolution we’re seeing is in technology where every few months, a new hardware sensor or device enters the market, claiming to provide additional insights. We work with clients to determine the right combination of data sources that they need to achieve their decarbonization goals.

At the end of the day, our goal is simple: keep the gas in the pipe. And we believe the best way to support those efforts is through credible, verifiable data. When certification is backed by rigorous third-party verification, it can be trusted by any buyer or stakeholder.

Bogdan Simion, GIE: Mario, given your broader vision of the entire gas value chain, where do we stand in terms of available and certified technology?

Mario Vettraino, Eni: Technology needs are directly linked to the type of business you run, as different businesses have different technological requirements. In a multi-business company, this becomes even more complex because you must address various challenges across different sectors simultaneously.

There is no silver bullet that works for everything but advancements in available and certified technologies can help provide reliable information based on real-world applications. The main challenge is transitioning from theoretical solutions found in brochures to real-world field conditions, which often differ significantly from controlled laboratory environments.

However, if you have deep technical knowledge of your business, you can understand what you are buying, its intended purpose, and how to use and train staff on it properly to ensure effective implementation in the field. Outsourcing the problem means relying solely on the service provider's expertise, reputation, and capabilities. While this can be beneficial, it also carries risks, as third-party providers are not operators themselves and may lack the hands-on experience and operational knowledge that your team possesses. Leveraging internal expertise remains the most effective way to overcome these challenges.

Bogdan Simion, GIE: Nara, Reganosa recently started operating the terminal in Germany at a time when discussions around methane emissions were already a hot topic. Did you address this issue from the design phase and was it considered when you began developing the project? 

Nara Vega Prado, Reganosa: We do this on every project we are involved in, not just for methane mitigation but as a best practice in the industry. In the past, most of the efforts on LNG or NG new project development where focused on safety and production efficiency, not being the environmental approach in the top three priorities even if it was a relevant concern remaining necessary as part of the regulatory environment of the project.

Now , this approach is changing, and the projects have to be intrinsically compliance with all the environmental issues since the initial concept. In all the projects we take part in; methane emissions are considered from the design phase.

One principle we follow is working closely with engineering teams to minimize potential fugitive emission leak points. For example, we carefully assess to avoid the use of flanged connection, where possible. When this is not possible, we asses on the type of flanged connection and the type of gasket to be used to minimize the potential risk of external leakage of gas.

Our operational procedures and routines are aligned with this approach, as all our sites operate under "no flaring, no venting" policies during normal operations. It’s important that these considerations are embedded in the design phase, otherwise, avoiding unnecessary emissions during operations becomes impossible.

Bogdan Simion, GIE: Nathan, how do you foresee the challenge of unifying standards and achieving a balanced approach between bottom-up and top-down measurement? How far are we from reaching that goal?

Nathan Brawn, Context Labs: We have heard a lot of talk about OGMP and will continue to hear more… and frameworks are great, as they help provide guiding principles. 

As an industry, we need to start moving toward frameworks and processes that involve far less subjectivity. We need a more formal, objective pathway within these frameworks so that decisions are based on real-world, provable outcomes rather than managed outcomes influenced by subjective interpretations.

We’re seeing this play out in the ongoing discussions around EU regulations and in the U.S. through frameworks like MMRV. The question is: How do we design more objective toolsets that can be broadly used as a common lens? The reality is that the industry is still in development across the board, and I wish I could say it is just weeks away, but we are not.

At Context Labs, we help our clients prepare by focusing on their immediate pain points, such as automating reporting and improving access to emissions-relevant data. This same data will be critical for compliance with future MRV standards. Our approach allows clients to adapt proactively rather than just reacting to what's 'good enough'  right now, and we aim to prepare our clients for long-term success and continuous improvement in emissions management.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions from the Audience

How do you see the current landscape regarding methane regulations and emissions, particularly in the context of both regulatory and voluntary programs across different regions and industries?

Nathan Brawn, Context Labs: Isn't that the billion-dollar question! 

I think it depends on who you are in the ecosystem. From what we've seen so far, importers in the EU who are obligated parties under methane regulations are primarily trying to understand what they need to do to comply with the regulation and what that compliance looks like. There’s also an entire voluntary program around this, where potential consumers of gas - whether that’s LNG in the EU, a utility, a data center in the U.S., or fuel from the GCC - are engaged in bilateral discussions, negotiations, and contracting around things like certified gas, verified methane intensity gas, or, more likely, the product carbon footprint of the gas.

From the EU methane regulation perspective, we’re still in a discovery phase, and on a more global level, what we see is that there are leading industries - consumers of gas - that are already focused on understanding their Scope 3 emissions because they have internal goals. These industries are at the forefront of this evolution.

Globally, it’s going to come down to whether there is a way to share data in a way that’s reliable and consumable for stakeholders in this space. From our experience in the U.S., there are certainly consumers of gas who care a lot about quantifying their Scope 3 emissions across the entire value chain, from production all the way to the delivery point. We're also seeing more intense discussions around LNG export, with parties needing to understand emissions from upstream production, the emissions of the facility itself, and even marine emissions during transport overseas. The drivers for these discussions are both regulatory and commercial, and they’re usually framed by whoever is receiving the information.

Do you have any insights to share on how to build a business case for investing in emissions management software?

Nara Vega Prado, Reganosa: Our approach to the business case is fairly traditional. What we perform at our sites is based on daily surveillance routines and we try to take the time to be careful with the data we generate. Of course, we conduct LDAR campaigns and data reconciliation, but for us, we are not yet on a position to think about a completely digital model without field measurements. Even though our digitalization and energy efficiency team is working on different strategies, like creating  digital twins of our sites that will help us a lot and lead to significant cost savings. But to be honest, reconciling data at level 5 without real and reliable site measurements and using only predictive models seems to be challenging, and we do not see it as the best practice today.

Nathan Brawn, Context Labs: We're in the carbon management platform space, not a certification platform. Our approach is to focus on immediate pain points, which can vary depending on the client. I think everyone has, at some point, hired an environmental consultant to help with emissions reporting. You likely have an entire team that spends a significant amount of time every year on manual labor, collecting data into Excel spreadsheets and performing calculations that require a lot of time—time that could be spent on the work they'd prefer to be doing, which is identifying and solving emissions leaks.

The first thing we do when building a business case for a carbon management platform is focus on saving time and money by automating those reporting activities. Let us handle the data ingestion, orchestration, and formulations, allowing your team to focus on doing the good work of actually making improvements and identifying opportunities. 

The second benefit is that because we provide our clients with high-frequency knowledge, we're taking in near real-time data. This means we can provide insights into emissions not just on an annual basis, but a daily basis. It allows you to see better correlations of what may be going wrong in a system of assets, especially if you have a large system. We’ve helped our clients find decarbonization opportunities that require little to no capital, just by changing something as simple as the shutdown condition on a compressor unit, compared to the other 12 units they had just like it. So, there are these nuanced decarbonization activities we can help provide.

The third part of our business case is about saving money on reporting, reducing carbon and methane through operational insights, and then finding ways to commercialize that work for clients. These could be clients or customers who may be sensitive to scope 3 emissions, or for something you may need from a regulatory perspective, as requirements vary across regions. While there’s some global convergence, it’s slow and takes time. Ultimately, it’s all the same data; it's just about pointing that data through a different lens of formulations and outcomes that people are asking for.

How do you ensure that you're accounting for the full emissions profile?

Nathan Brawn, Context Labs: Our approach to verification is not just dependent on where natural gas is produced; it's also dependent on where it's produced and the pathway it took to reach its delivery. By only focusing on production, you're probably dealing with at best 50% of the emissions profile of the natural gas supply chain. 

We've developed a methodology to track the commercial transactions for gas and trace the original production point through gathering and boosting, then through a transmission asset, and on to an LNG facility. Being able to provide that entire pathway's emissions intensity is possible.

In the market design for EU methane regulations, which today focuses on  production, there’s a worthwhile conversation about adding this trace-and- claim concept because it provides a better representation of the real-world conditions and avoids creating misaligned incentives around a particular producer. For example, a producer that may be in a basin with naturally lower methane intensity but that is much further from an export facility, versus a producer that has associated gas with a shorter pathway to an LNG facility.

If you're only considering emissions based on production, you're not necessarily capturing the full emissions picture or potential reductions. This trace-and-claim concept is one we've been implementing in the U.S. and continue to discuss with the EU Commission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Context Labs

Context Labs is dedicated to sourcing, organizing, and contextualizing the world’s climate information. 

Context Labs offers the only carbon management platform that delivers Asset Grade Data (AGD™), or contextualized, third-party verified data generated directly from high-quality, real-world sources, such as equipment, operational systems, and facilities. Asset Grade Data allows organizations to replace imprecise, factor-based models and estimates with trusted, granular insights to track carbon intensity across their value chains with unprecedented accuracy. This empowers them to quantify, reduce, and commercialize their carbon performance. 

Context Labs was founded based on MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) research and is led by an executive team that has been instrumental in the at-scale growth of the Internet over the last 30 years. The company has offices in Amsterdam, Cambridge, Mass., and Houston. Learn more at http://www.contextlabs.com.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article was produced in conjunction with the Methane Mitigation Europe Summit, that took place in February 2025 in Amsterdam. The article was written as a live transcription of a panel discussion hosted by Context Labs with representatives from Eni, Reganosa, National Grid Grain LNG, and Gas Infrastructure Europe. The article has been edited for reading and publication purposes.