Your phone buzzes with another methane alert. Your operations manager dispatches a crew to the site. They spend two hours investigating and find... nothing. The compressor was running a scheduled blowdown. The satellite saw the plume. Your system flagged it as a leak. But it was never a leak.
This scenario plays out thousands of times per year across the oil and gas industry. And every false positive costs you money, time, and something harder to measure: your team's trust in the monitoring system itself.
This guide explains why false positives happen, what they actually cost you, and practical strategies to reduce them without missing real emissions events.
A false positive methane alert occurs when a detection system flags an emissions event that either does not exist or does not require action. This includes:
Research from continuous monitoring studies shows false positive rates typically range from 3% to 5.5% depending on the detection technology and environment. A validation study of continuous laser monitoring at 46 oil and gas sites found false positive rates of 3%1, while a separate study using point-in-space monitoring systems reported 5.5% of estimated events were false positives2. In practice, these rates can be even higher. That may sound small, but at scale, it translates to hundreds or thousands of unnecessary investigations per year.
A single-blind test of satellite-based methane detection found that teams correctly identified 71% of all emissions ranging from 0.20 to 7.2 metric tons per hour3. The challenge lies not in false positives but in the operational interpretation of what those detections mean.
The real problem is not the sensor. The real problem is context.
Every false positive that triggers a site visit costs money. Industry estimates for a single field crew dispatch range from $150 to over $1,000, depending on4:
For operations with hundreds or thousands of sites, even a 5% false positive rate can mean hundreds of unnecessary site visits per year. If your average field crew dispatch costs $500 and you send crews 20 times per week on false alarms, that is $520,000 per year in wasted operational expense.
The hidden cost is harder to quantify but potentially more damaging. Alert fatigue occurs when operators receive so many notifications that they become desensitized to them.
When personnel investigate alert after alert and repeatedly find nothing wrong, they lose confidence in the monitoring system. This leads to:
Every hour your team spends investigating a false alarm is an hour not spent on productive work. Field personnel could be conducting preventive maintenance, optimizing production, or addressing known issues. Instead, they are driving to sites to verify that a scheduled vent was, in fact, scheduled.
Understanding the root causes helps you address them systematically.
Most methane detection systems operate in isolation. A satellite sees a plume. A continuous monitor detects elevated concentrations. An OGI camera captures an image. But none of these systems know whether:
Without operational context, every detected emission looks like a potential leak.
Methane detection technology has improved dramatically, but increased sensitivity creates new challenges. Systems designed to catch small leaks will also catch authorized small releases, atmospheric fluctuations, and background noise.
Research shows that adjusting alarm thresholds can help reduce nuisance alerts, but setting thresholds too high risks missing real emissions. The goal is not to detect less but to interpret better.
Airborne detection faces challenges from:
Ground-based sensors face their own challenges in offshore and industrial environments, including corrosion, vibration, and confined layouts that affect accuracy.
Many emissions are intermittent. A 2025 study using the GHGSat satellite constellation found that oil and gas sites emit detectable methane in only about 16% of satellite observations on average, compared to 48% for coal facilities5. A satellite might pass during a scheduled blowdown that lasts 30 minutes, flag it as an emission, and generate an alert that arrives hours or days later.
By the time the alert reaches your team, the operational context is lost under mountains of data.
The most effective way to reduce false positives is to automatically cross-reference emissions alerts with operational data from your SCADA system.
When an alert comes in, the system should check:
If SCADA data shows a scheduled operation that explains the detected emission, the alert can be automatically classified as "authorized vent" rather than "suspected leak."
This approach has been shown to reduce unnecessary site visits by up to 35% for operators who implement it effectively6.
Not every emission is a leak. Your monitoring system should distinguish between:
Classification requires combining detection data with operational rules. For example:
Automated classification reduces the volume of alerts that require human investigation.
Single-source detection is prone to errors. Correlating data from multiple sources improves accuracy:
Research shows that reconciling "boots-on-the-ground" surveys with advanced detection technologies provides increased accuracy on emissions as well as improved monitoring for unplanned events.
Rather than setting a single detection threshold, implement contextual thresholds based on:
A 500 ppm reading might be alarming at a normally quiet wellsite but could be routine at a compressor station during blowdown.
Many false positives stem from scheduled activities. Integrating your maintenance management system with your emissions monitoring enables:
This prevents your monitoring system from alerting on activities you already know about.
Not all alerts deserve equal attention. Prioritize based on:
Smart prioritization ensures your team addresses the most important issues first, rather than working through alerts chronologically.
Here is a practical workflow for implementing these strategies:
Before improving, measure your baseline. Track:
Calculate your false positive rate: (False Positive Site Visits / Total Site Visits) x 100
Analyze your false positives by:
Connect your emissions monitoring platform to your SCADA historian. This requires:
Note that SCADA systems are not standardized across the industry, so this step requires customization for your specific infrastructure.
Configure your monitoring platform to automatically classify alerts based on operational context. Start with the most common false positive scenarios:
Even with automation, your operators need to understand:
Track your false positive rate over time. Aim for continuous improvement:
Operators who implement comprehensive false positive reduction strategies typically see:
One major operator achieved a 35% reduction in site visits and 45% faster resolution of actual emissions events after implementing SCADA-correlated alert management6.
Reducing false positives requires technology that can:
The goal is a unified platform that provides operational context, not just detection data.
Industry estimates range from $150 to $1,000+ per site visit, depending on location, labor rates, and investigation time4. For a mid-size operator with 500 sites receiving weekly monitoring, even a 5% false positive rate can cost $250,000 to $500,000 per year in unnecessary dispatches.
No detection system achieves zero false positives without also increasing false negatives (missed real emissions). The goal is to reduce false positives to an acceptable level while maintaining high detection sensitivity. Most operators target false positive rates below 2-3%.
SCADA systems record operational parameters like valve positions, compressor status, flow rates, and pressures. When an emissions alert arrives, the system checks whether current operational conditions explain the detected emission. If a vent valve is open during a scheduled blowdown, the system classifies the emission as "authorized" rather than flagging it as a suspected leak.
Alert fatigue occurs when personnel receive so many notifications that they become desensitized and may miss or ignore real issues. Studies show that operators who repeatedly investigate false alarms lose confidence in monitoring systems and may delay or skip investigations, increasing the risk of missing genuine emissions events.
In controlled tests, purpose-built methane satellites like GHGSat achieved quantification accuracy better than plus or minus 20%, with three-quarters of all satellite estimates falling within plus or minus 50% of actual values3. Camera-based continuous monitoring systems have demonstrated "no false detections" in validation testing. However, real-world performance depends heavily on operational context and integration with other data sources.
Implementation timelines vary based on existing infrastructure. Operators with modern SCADA systems and accessible historians can typically implement basic correlation within 60-90 days. More complex deployments with legacy systems may take 6 months or longer.
False positive methane alerts are not just an annoyance. They cost money, waste time, erode trust in monitoring systems, and can ultimately compromise your emissions management program.
The solution is not to detect less. The solution is to interpret better.
By correlating detection data with operational context from your SCADA system, implementing automated leak vs. vent classification, and deploying smart alert prioritization, you can reduce false positives by 30-40% while actually improving your response to real emissions events.
The operators who succeed at emissions management are not the ones with the most sensors. They are the ones who can distinguish signal from noise and act on the right alerts at the right time.
Stop chasing ghosts. Start fixing leaks.
Ready to reduce your false positive rate? SensorUp's Methane Operations module correlates satellite and sensor alerts with your SCADA data to automatically filter noise and prioritize real issues. Contact us to see how SensorUp can help your operations and how much you could save.
1 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/16/12/1409
2 https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/12/1/00110/200346/
3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-30761-2
4 https://sightcall.com/blog/how-to-reduce-truck-rolls/; https://blitzz.co/blog/customer-service/truck-rolls-reducing-costs-and-boosting-efficiency
5 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adv3183
6 SensorUp field deployment data. Results based on enterprise customer implementations with SCADA-correlated alert management. Individual results may vary based on operational conditions and implementation scope.
Copyright © 2025 SensorUp Inc. All Rights Reserved
Follow Us On:
.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=spacer}
