A rapidly expanding certification scheme run by a UK nonprofit and used by major gas companies may be understating the actual methane emissions it purports to certify, a Guardian investigation has found.<\/p>\n
BP, ExxonMobil and EQT are among the producers that have turned to London-based MiQ to demonstrate that their US-produced natural gas complies with the European Union<\/a> Methane Regulation, or EUMR, which aims to curb energy-related emissions.<\/p>\n The findings raise questions about whether third-party certification schemes can credibly demonstrate exporters\u2019 compliance with the bloc\u2019s new methane rules, an approach championed by the gas industry and now supported by the European Commission.<\/p>\n MiQ runs the largest voluntary methane certification programme globally, covering<\/a> about a fifth of US natural gas production and 7% globally. It maintains<\/a> that its framework is specifically designed to comply with the EU methane regulation<\/a>.<\/p>\n The EUMR, in force since August 2024, requires energy firms to monitor, report and verify methane emissions at their drilling sites and conduct regular leak detection surveys. It will also require importers to obtain methane-intensity data from their suppliers starting next year. Penalties for non-compliance include fines and other enforcement measures.<\/p>\n Industry groups that have been lobbying for voluntary certification to suffice for compliance are now lobbying<\/a> to pause implementation of the EUMR for imported gas altogether amid the US-Israel war in Iran<\/a> and resultant destabilisation of the energy markets.<\/p>\n For US companies, the stakes are high. American producers now supply 60%<\/a> of Europe\u2019s LNG, a share that is likely to grow<\/a> as the EU clamps down on Russian gas imports.<\/p>\n \u2018Terrible pollution\u2019<\/p>\n MiQ grades gas production facilities based on methane intensity \u2013 the ratio of methane emissions to total gas produced \u2013 and assigns ratings from A to F. Certification lasts a year and must be renewed annually. MiQ has certified 32 facilities worldwide to date, most of which are in the US.<\/p>\n In July 2025 investigative group Gas Outlook<\/a> travelled with Oilfield Witness, an environmental monitoring group, to 10 MiQ-certified sites across the Permian Basin, the country\u2019s largest oil and gas field, which straddles the Texas-New Mexico border.<\/p>\n Using optical gas imaging cameras that detect methane invisible to the naked eye, they documented what Tim Doty, a former air quality inspector at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality who reviewed the footage, described as \u201chuge emissions\u201d at multiple sites.<\/p>\n At BP\u2019s State Ella Mae Hall gas well, images showed an unlit flare that appeared to be malfunctioning, \u201cacting as a vent pipe rather than a combustion device\u201d, Doty said.<\/p>\n Further south, the camera picked up \u201csignificant emissions\u201d that Doty said were generated by flaring and maintenance issues at the BP-operated Gretchen Northrup well.<\/p>\n BP says<\/a> on its website that all its onshore upstream operations in the US are certified under MiQ. The company does not disclose individual ratings, but available information suggests<\/a> these sites received grades from A to C, implying leakage rates below 0.2% of production.<\/p>\n BP did not reply to requests for comment.<\/p>\n For Gunnar Schade, an atmospheric chemist at Texas A&M University, the process of flaring gas alone makes it exceedingly difficult to limit methane emissions. \u201cAll \u2018candlestick\u2019 flares release some methane,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n While lower intensity gas is possible in some basins, in the oil-rich Permian flaring is rampant.<\/p>\n A February 2026 report<\/a> from MethaneSAT, a methane-monitoring satellite launched by Environmental Defense Fund and Harvard in 2024, found emissions in the Permian Basin from May 2024 to June 2025 to be four times higher than the US Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s official estimates, which are largely based on operator-reported emissions.<\/p>\n Researchers estimate average methane emissions across the basin range between 2.4<\/a>–4%<\/a> of production, among the highest worldwide<\/a> and exponentially higher than even a C grade from MiQ.<\/p>\n Similar patterns emerged across the border in New Mexico, where methane was observed leaking from tanks, inefficient flares and faulty equipment at ExxonMobil\u2019s Poker Lake complex, which has held an A rating<\/a> from MiQ since 2022. At one location, a pressure relief valve was emitting uncombusted gas.<\/p>\n \u201cGiven the scale of this challenge, scrutiny in this area is essential,\u201d Georges Tijbosch, chief executive of MiQ, said. \u201cHowever, it is scientifically impossible to conclude that these plumes are unreported methane emissions.\u201d<\/p>\n DataDesk<\/a>, an oil and gas investigative consultancy, cross-referenced satellite and aerial data from third-party datasets with the coordinates of the visited sites, uncovering additional methane plumes.<\/p>\n The oil-rich shale region of the Permian Basin in Texas. Photograph: Eli Hartman\/Reuters<\/p>\n Aerial surveys conducted by the Global Airborne Observatory in 2024 detected three \u201csuper-emitter\u201d events, rare but extremely large methane releases often caused by equipment failures and responsible for a hefty share <\/a>of total emissions, at the Poker Lake complex.<\/p>\n The gas site produced more than 100 million cubic feet of gas between 2024 and 2025. ExxonMobil reported no venting or flaring in regulatory filings<\/a> with the state of New Mexico over the same period.<\/p>\n Exxon did not reply to requests for comment.<\/p>\n After leaving the well pad, gas often travels just a short distance, sometimes less than 50 metres, to a nearby processing facility that is neither certified nor covered by the EU methane regulation, even though they can generate emissions that can rival those from well sites<\/a>.<\/p>\n Auditing operator-provided data<\/p>\n To earn MiQ certification, operators are evaluated on three main criteria: a site\u2019s methane intensity; the procedures in place to prevent leaks; and the monitoring technologies deployed. Third-party auditors visit facilities to review these factors before recommending a grade, after which MiQ issues certificates that can be attached to gas sold on the market.<\/p>\n Audits take place annually, with advance notice, although MiQ notes that auditors do not necessarily disclose which specific sites they will visit, and do not involve auditors carrying out independent emissions measurements on site.<\/p>\n \u201cAs part of the certification process, auditors do not calculate emissions,\u201d said Elizabeth McGurk, methane sector leader at Montrose Environmental, one of MiQ\u2019s audit firms.<\/p>\n Instead, she said, auditors \u201creview and verify the operator\u2019s emissions inventory\u201d \u2013 an estimate of the total methane emissions from a facility over a year \u2013 assessing whether \u201cintermittent emissions are properly accounted for through personnel interviews, documentation and evaluation of supporting calculations\u201d.<\/p>\n Auditors, added McGurk, \u201cspecifically ask how operators are tracking and responding to intermittent events \u2013 both to mitigate emissions and to ensure they are accurately represented in the annual inventory.\u201d<\/p>\n MiQ maintains it requires operators to report on a broader set of emission sources than many regulatory frameworks.<\/p>\n However, an analysis of its standard shows it does not mandate direct measurement or the use of specific third-party datasets nor does it require measurements to be independently collected, although some operators choose to incorporate these tools into their emissions inventories.<\/p>\n MiQ noted that while direct measurement of methane emissions is not required for certification, auditors will ask to review raw operator data on an as-needed basis.<\/p>\n Dan Zimmerle, director of Colorado State University\u2019s methane emissions programme, said that because emissions occur around the clock and continuous monitoring is costly and technically challenging, measurements capture only a \u201csnapshot\u201d, with the rest inferred through \u201cstatistical extrapolation\u201d.<\/p>\n However, verifying the data remains a challenge. \u201cThe big issue with certification schemes like this is: how does the verifier actually know what was done?\u201d Zimmerle said.<\/p>\n Most energy companies don\u2019t measure their actual methane emissions. Instead, they produce estimates based on how much methane they say typically escapes from their equipment using a combination of short-duration measurements, engineering calculations and statistical methods.<\/p>\n Scientists have found that those estimates are often inaccurate. Using satellite observations and aerial surveys, multiple peer-reviewed studies<\/a> have consistently concluded that nations and companies emit significantly more methane than they report.<\/p>\n In a January study<\/a>, Kevin Kircher, an energy researcher at Purdue University, compared US government estimates of LNG-related methane emissions largely based on self-reported facility data with satellite-based measurements.<\/p>\n His analysis found that emissions linked to the rapid expansion of shale oil and gas production in the Permian Basin have risen well above official estimates over the past two decades.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s actually a pretty stark difference between what companies self-report and what\u2019s there when you actually show up and look at it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n A March report<\/a> by RMI, one of MiQ\u2019s founders, also found that data submitted by operators to the Railroad Commission of Texas vastly understated methane emissions, with actual gas waste in 2024 estimated at three to four-and-a-half times reported levels.<\/p>\n \u2018Copying homework\u2019<\/p>\n MiQ certificates can also be \u201cdecoupled\u201d from the facilities that generated them and traded to other producers as a way to offset emissions. Certificates are sold through platforms such as the CG Hub marketplace, where companies can buy them and attach them to gas with significantly higher emissions.<\/p>\n EU officials have repeatedly voiced concern over whether schemes allowing decoupling credits from physical entities can credibly reflect real emissions reductions.<\/p>\n Jutta Paulus, an MEP on the EU\u2019s committee on environment and climate who helped design the EUMR, said MiQ\u2019s trading rules may not be \u201ctotally compliant with the regulation\u201d because certificates should only be sold with the gas it has certified.<\/p>\n MiQ strategic adviser Axel Scheuer told EU commissioners last April<\/a> that \u201ctransfers from one region to another are controlled and limited to volumes actually exported and imported between those regions,\u201d he said. \u201cThis means an importer bringing in gas from, for example, Nigeria cannot use certificates linked to US production.\u201d<\/p>\n However, certificates can be traded between operators within the same country. In the US, where gas from multiple producers is routinely mixed in pipelines<\/a>, it is often impossible to determine whether \u201ccertified\u201d gas actually comes from lower-emission facilities.<\/p>\n Trading in such certificates is already picking up. In February, British energy trader Centrica Energy signed<\/a> a 10-year agreement to buy certificates linked to natural gas produced by Seneca Resources in the US, whose natural gas production has held an A rating<\/a> from MiQ since 2022. The deal does not include the delivery of physical gas.<\/p>\n A month later, a European energy supplier and a US integrated energy company completed<\/a> what was described as the first trade of certified methane emissions reductions on the Xpansiv CBL spot exchange, with emissions verified under the MiQ standard.<\/p>\n Brandon Locke, a researcher at the Boston-based environmental organisation Clean Air Task Force, said decoupling can discourage gas producers from pursuing the operational changes needed to curb methane emissions. \u201cCompanies can effectively \u2018copy someone else\u2019s homework\u2019 rather than clean up their act,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Unlike many other offsetting certifiers, MiQ does not maintain an open database, with information on buyers of its certificates available only to operators and traders.<\/p>\n When reporters requested access to trading data, they were offered a demonstration but not direct access.<\/p>\n As the EU finalises its new methane requirements, the lobbying battle around certification is intensifying, with gas producers pushing for voluntary certification and EU commissioners under increasing pressure to allow it as gas supply is constrained by the closure of the strait of Hormuz.<\/p>\n The American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobby coalition, announced earlier this year <\/a>that one of its 2026 goals is to \u201censure\u201d EU methane laws do not \u201cdisadvantage US producers\u201d. In January, another lobby group, FuelsEurope, pressed the EU to accept \u201ccertificates transferred independently from the underlying commodity\u201d.<\/p>\n The Partnership to Address Global Emissions, a trade group founded by EQT and representing US gas exporters to Europe, has also lobbied <\/a>for certification as a way to increase US LNG exports to Europe without running afoul of European climate policies. Ben Webster, director of policy for MiQ, sits on the trade group\u2019s advisory board, though MiQ stresses its independence from industry.<\/p>\n Documents obtained through freedom of information requests also show MiQ hired the lobbying firm Energy<\/a> & Climate Policy Advisory Europe to promote its certification framework in Brussels. The firm is led by Scheuer, a former lobbyist for ExxonMobil and the IOGP.<\/p>\n According to the records, Scheuer has pitched MiQ certification to EU lawmakers as a \u201cpragmatic compliance tool\u201d and held meetings with officials overseeing imported energy rules.<\/p>\n In January, Scheuer presented the certification scheme at a workshop organised by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, describing<\/a> MiQ\u2019s standards as \u201clargely equivalent to the EU methane regulation requirements\u201d.<\/p>\n These efforts appear to be gaining traction. In December, the European Council endorsed<\/a> third-party certification as a way to support implementation of the bloc\u2019s methane regulation, a stance the European Commission echoed earlier this year<\/a>.<\/p>\n Tijbosch views certification as progress. \u201cReducing methane emissions from oil and gas is one of the fastest, most cost-effective ways to slow climate change,\u201d he said. And the technology exists today to achieve reductions, he added. \u201cThis means the challenge is not about capability, but accountability.\u201d<\/p>\n For Kircher and many other climate experts, low-emissions gas certification only has credibility if measurement and reporting are \u201cdone by someone independent and neutral, not by the companies themselves\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m not sure who that might be, but it has to be someone with no skin in the game and nothing to gain from lowball estimates,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A rapidly expanding certification scheme run by a UK nonprofit and used by major gas companies may be…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":506740,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[1397,90,56,54,55],"class_list":{"0":"post-506739","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-environment","8":"tag-environment","9":"tag-science","10":"tag-uk","11":"tag-united-kingdom","12":"tag-unitedkingdom"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/506739","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=506739"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/506739\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/506740"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=506739"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=506739"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=506739"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}