The Challenges of Reconciliation Efforts for OGMP 2.0 Reporting

‍

Bridging Measurement Gaps for Accurate Methane Emissions Reporting

As the oil and gas industry faces mounting pressure to reduce its environmental impact, the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP) 2.0 framework has emerged as a leading initiative for emissions reporting and management. OGMP 2.0 sets an ambitious standard for methane emissions reporting, requiring operators to move beyond traditional estimates and toward more accurate, source-level data. While this framework is vital for improving emissions transparency, it introduces significant challenges—particularly when it comes to reconciliation efforts.

Reconciliation in the context of OGMP 2.0 refers to the process of aligning emissions measurements from different sources and methods, ensuring consistency, and correcting discrepancies across various reporting levels. The complexity of the reconciliation process stems from multiple factors, including the diversity of emissions sources, measurement uncertainty, and the need for integrating data from multiple monitoring methods. This piece explores the technical challenges of reconciliation for OGMP 2.0 reporting and offers insights into how operators can navigate these complexities.

1. Diverse Sources of Emissions and Measurement Methods

OGMP 2.0 requires operators to report methane emissions across five different levels, moving from estimates based on activity data (Tier 1) to measurements at the source level (Tier 5). These tiers involve a range of methods, from traditional emissions factors to direct measurements using advanced technologies like continuous monitoring sensors, aerial surveys, and satellites. Each method presents distinct challenges:

• Discrepancies Between Methods: Emissions measured by on-site sensors often capture real-time data, while aerial or satellite surveys provide periodic snapshots of emissions. These discrepancies in data collection timing can create significant challenges when attempting to reconcile emissions across different measurement methods.
• Varied Emissions Sources: Methane emissions in oil and gas operations can originate from many sources, including pipelines, equipment leaks, and venting activities. The diversity of these sources means that emissions data will vary depending on the type of source being monitored and the method used for detection, complicating efforts to achieve consistent reporting.
• Fugitive vs. Intentional Emissions: OGMP 2.0 requires operators to distinguish between fugitive emissions (unintentional leaks) and intentional emissions (such as venting). These two categories are often measured using different techniques, and reconciling the data between them can be particularly challenging due to the intermittent and sometimes unpredictable nature of fugitive emissions.

2. Measurement Uncertainty and Data Inconsistencies

No emissions measurement technique is without its limitations, and each carries a certain degree of uncertainty. Reconciling emissions data under OGMP 2.0 requires operators to account for these uncertainties and correct any inconsistencies that may arise. Common challenges include:

• Sensor Accuracy: On-site sensors, while valuable for continuous monitoring, can be influenced by environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, or even interference from nearby equipment. These variations can introduce uncertainty into the measurements, making it difficult to reconcile sensor data with other methods like aerial surveys.
• Aerial and Satellite Data Limitations: Aerial surveys and satellite observations are often limited by weather conditions and may have difficulty quantifying emissions accurately at the asset level. Furthermore, they provide only periodic snapshots, which might not align perfectly with the continuous data collected from on-site sensors.
• Data Gaps: Missing or incomplete data—whether due to sensor downtime, incomplete aerial surveys, or gaps in satellite coverage—can lead to large inconsistencies in the data set. Reconciling these gaps requires either estimation techniques or the use of complementary data, both of which introduce further uncertainty.

3. Data Integration from Multiple Monitoring Sources

One of the core goals of OGMP 2.0 is to encourage operators to use a combination of methods to report emissions. This includes data from continuous sensors, intermittent surveys, and advanced technologies like satellite monitoring. However, integrating data from these different sources presents numerous challenges:

• Fragmented Data Sets: Each data collection method may use its own system, resulting in fragmented data sets. Reconciling these sources requires the integration of emissions data into a single platform that can normalize and compare different formats, units, and time intervals.
• Incompatible Reporting Frequencies: Continuous monitoring methods such as ground-based sensors generate data in real time, while satellite or aerial surveys may only provide data once per day, week, or even month. Reconciling emissions across such different time scales is particularly challenging because the timing of emissions events may not align.
• Lack of Standardized Protocols: While OGMP 2.0 provides a framework, there is no universal standard for reconciling emissions data across various monitoring methods. Operators are left to develop their own protocols for aligning emissions data, which can lead to discrepancies in how data is interpreted and reported.

4. Ensuring Consistency Across Multiple Reporting Levels

OGMP 2.0 sets a structured approach for emissions reporting across five tiers, with operators expected to improve the accuracy of their reports over time. Moving between these levels—especially as operators transition from estimates to direct measurements—introduces a need for consistency that can be difficult to achieve:

• Transitioning Between Tiers: As operators move from Tier 1 (based on default emissions factors) to higher tiers with direct measurements (Tier 5), discrepancies can emerge due to the higher accuracy of source-level data. Reconciling emissions data across these tiers requires operators to justify why emissions estimates at lower levels may differ from more accurate measurements at higher tiers.
• Reconciling Temporal Changes: OGMP 2.0 encourages continuous improvement, meaning that operators will likely see their reported emissions fluctuate as they adopt new monitoring methods. Reconciling these temporal changes and ensuring consistency in reporting is particularly challenging, especially when switching between technologies with varying degrees of accuracy.
• Verification by Third Parties: OGMP 2.0 promotes independent verification of emissions reports. This external validation process requires operators to demonstrate the accuracy and consistency of their reconciliation efforts, adding another layer of complexity to the reporting process.

5. Addressing the Challenge of Reconciliation at the Asset Level

One of the primary objectives of OGMP 2.0 is to ensure that emissions are measured and reported at the asset level, providing granular visibility into methane emissions across different facilities. However, achieving this level of granularity brings its own set of challenges:

• Asset-Specific Reconciliation: Different assets within the same operation—such as wells, compressors, pipelines, and storage tanks—may have different emissions profiles and may be monitored using different methods. Reconciling emissions at the asset level requires operators to not only measure emissions accurately but also ensure that each asset’s data is correctly aligned with its operational conditions.
• Operational Context: To fully reconcile emissions data, operators need to account for operational conditions such as equipment failures, maintenance activities, or changes in production. Without this context, it’s difficult to explain the discrepancies between emissions measurements across different assets or methods.

Final Thoughts: Navigating the Complexities of Reconciliation for OGMP 2.0 Reporting

OGMP 2.0 represents a major step forward for methane emissions transparency in the oil and gas industry, pushing operators toward more accurate and granular emissions reporting. However, the path to compliance is not without challenges, especially when it comes to reconciliation efforts.

Operators face significant technical hurdles as they attempt to reconcile emissions data across multiple sources, methods, and time scales. Measurement uncertainties, fragmented data sets, and inconsistent reporting frequencies all contribute to the complexity of reconciliation. Additionally, ensuring consistency across OGMP’s five reporting tiers and reconciling emissions data at the asset level requires careful planning, robust data integration, and an understanding of the limitations of each monitoring technology.

To overcome these challenges, operators will need to invest in emissions management platforms that can aggregate, normalize, and reconcile emissions data from various sources. By strategically approaching the reconciliation process, operators can not only meet OGMP 2.0’s stringent reporting requirements but also gain deeper insights into their methane emissions, ultimately driving meaningful reductions across their operations.

‍