Gold Standard
OGMP 2.0: Achieved

OGMP 2.0 (Oil & Gas Methane Partnership) requires companies to progressively improve the quality of their methane reporting over time. The framework sets annual submission deadlines and a multi-year roadmap to reach “Gold Standard” Level 5 reporting.

Submission timeline and milestones

Annual reporting deadline: Each member must submit updated methane data to UNEP/OGMP 2.0 by 31 May each year, covering the previous calendar year’s emissions.

Progression requirement:
- Within 1 year of joining, companies must deliver a reporting plan (scope, asset list, and roadmap for improvement).
- Within 3 years, operated assets must reach Level 4/5 reporting (measurement-informed, source- and site-level).
- Within 5 years, non-operated assets must also reach Level 4/5 reporting.

Interim years: Companies must demonstrate continuous progress toward higher reporting levels — OGMP calls this the “ambition pathway.”

What data is needed at each milestone

Year 1 – Baseline (Levels 1–2)
- High-level company-wide methane intensity estimate.
- Default emission factors, activity data, and/or regulatory inventory values.
- Asset list with boundaries and materiality assessment.

Year 2 – Improvement (Levels 2–3)
- Facility- or source-type level reporting using more granular emission factors.
- Documentation of methodologies and data sources.
- Identification of material sources and potential gaps.

Year 3 – Measurement-informed (Level 4 for operated assets)
- Source-level methane estimates based on direct measurements (sniffers, FID, OGI, TDLAS, etc.) or measurement-informed emission factors.
- Standardized units (kg/h or tons/year).
- Uncertainty analysis for source-level estimates.
- Transparent documentation (instruments, calibration, operating status, assumptions).

Year 3–5 – Site-level reconciliation (Level 5 for operated assets, Level 4/5 for non-operated assets)
- Independent site-level flux measurements (UAS, airborne spectrometer, continuous monitoring, flux walls).
- Reconciliation between bottom-up source-level totals and top-down site-level measurements.
- Investigation and explanation of discrepancies.
- Uncertainty ranges and detection thresholds clearly reported.

Ongoing – Gold Standard compliance
- Both source-level (Level 4) and site-level (Level 5) data reconciled annually.
- All reporting delivered in UNEP OGMP templates, including uncertainty ranges, data quality notes, and reconciliation details.
- Demonstrated alignment with EU Methane Regulation and emerging international standards.

AIRMO’s support across OGMP 2.0 milestones

Baseline & asset mapping: Our team helps define material assets and establish your reporting plan.
Source-level data (L4): We deploy OGI, sniffers, FID, and closed-path TDLAS for measurement-informed inventories.
Site-level data (L5): We conduct UAV-based TDLAS surveys and airborne spectrometer campaigns for full-facility quantification.
Reconciliation: AIRMO's proprietary software aligns source and site data, quantifies uncertainty, and generates OGMP templates.
Annual submissions: We provide UNEP-ready reporting packages that ensure smooth milestone progression.

Methane can be measured in different ways, and the type of data collected matters. Concentration measurements (like ppm or ppm-m) tell you how much methane is present in air at a point or along a path. Emission rates (like kg CH₄/h or standard cubic feet per hour) describe how much methane is actually being released over time. Regulators and OGMP 2.0 reporting require emission rates, not just concentrations.

Why conversion is so challenging?

Concentration and flow are different types of data. A single concentration reading does not reveal the plume size, shape, or speed — all of which are needed to calculate how much methane is escaping.

Without wind speed, plume geometry, and background levels, concentration data cannot reliably be turned into emission rates.

A single measurement is especially risky: it may capture only part of the plume or a temporary fluctuation, leading to significant over- or underestimation.

What additional data you need for reliable conversion?
‍
- Background methane levels – upwind values must be subtracted to isolate emissions from the source.
- Wind speed and direction – critical for calculating how fast methane passes through a cross-section of air.
- Plume geometry or path length – to know the width, height, and shape of the plume, or the distance across which the laser beam travels.
- Standard conditions – ensure flow rates are corrected for temperature and pressure, so they are comparable across time and sites.
- Temporal coverage – repeated or continuous measurements reduce error from intermittent or variable emissions.

Best practice
‍
- Use concentration data (ppm, ppm-m) for detection and screening.
- Use integrated plume methods (flux walls, UAV transects, spectrometers, or tracer release) to calculate emission rates in kg/h.
- Always include meteorological data, plume coverage, and background subtraction in the calculation.
- Report results in flow units (kg/h, tons/year, or SCFH), as these are the units regulators require for compliance.

AIRMO’s approach
‍
We combine methane concentration measurements with on-board wind sensors, plume mapping, and advanced processing software to calculate emission rates in standardized units (kg/h). Our methodology follows OGMP 2.0 guidance and produces regulator-ready reports, with uncertainties and detection thresholds clearly documented.

OGMP 2.0 requires companies to submit annual methane inventories in a standardized format. To reach the Gold Standard, operators must demonstrate both measurement-informed source-level data (Level 4) and independent site-level reconciliation (Level 5).

Preparing these documents correctly is essential for regulator acceptance and UNEP validation.

1. Structure your submission
- Use the official OGMP 2.0 templates provided by UNEP.
- Report data at both asset level and company aggregate level.
- Include both operated and non-operated assets (with explanations for data gaps or limitations).
‍
2. Prepare Level 4 – Source-level documentation
- Comprehensive source inventory: list all emission sources (fugitive, vented, flaring, combustion, maintenance events).
- Measurement methods: sniffers, FID, OGI, closed-path TDLAS, or other sensors used for direct quantification.
- Emission factors: where direct measurement isn’t possible, show how measurement-informed emission factors were derived.
- Units & normalization: convert all results to standardized units (kg/h, tons/year).
- Uncertainty ranges: provide per-source uncertainty and detection thresholds.
- Documentation: describe equipment, calibration, sampling frequency, operating conditions during measurement.
‍
3. Prepare Level 5 – Site-level documentation
- Site-level measurements: UAV flux walls, airborne spectrometers, LiDAR, tracer release, or continuous monitoring.
- Reconciliation with Level 4: show how the sum of source-level estimates compares with site-level flux.
- Gap analysis: explain discrepancies, identify missing or underestimated sources, adjust emission factors if necessary.
- Uncertainty analysis: provide confidence intervals for both bottom-up and top-down approaches.
- Transparency: explain detection limits, environmental factors (wind, stability), and coverage.

Common requirements for both L4 and L5 documents
- Background methane: define upwind background levels and how they were subtracted.
- Materiality statement: confirm that >90% of emissions are covered or explain exclusions.
- QA/QC procedures: describe data validation, calibration, and verification protocols.
- Alignment with OGMP guidance: ensure methods follow the Technical Guidance Documents (TGD) for measurement and reconciliation.
- Reporting format: submit in UNEP’s official Excel/Word templates with supporting annexes (maps, flight plans, calibration logs).

AIRMO’s role

We provide measurement campaigns (OGI, FID, sniffers, UAV TDLAS, airborne spectrometers) to generate source and site-level data. Our proprietary software reconciles Level 4 and Level 5 data following OGMP TGD methodology. We prepare UNEP-ready templates with uncertainties, reconciliation notes, and supporting evidence for smooth acceptance. Documentation packages include annexes on methodology, instrumentation, flight logs, and QA/QC.

Reconciling bottom-up inventories (source-level data) with top-down measurements (site-level flux) is a central step in OGMP 2.0 Level 5 reporting. The objective is straightforward: the sum of all measured sources in standardized units (e.g., kg CH₄/h) should match the total methane flux measured at facility level, within quantified uncertainty. This ensures methane reporting is both transparent and scientifically robust.

What it requires

Bottom-up (Level 4): build a complete source inventory by measuring emissions at the component or equipment level (valves, tanks, compressors, flares). Use direct measurements where possible (sniffers, OGI cameras, flow meters) rather than generic emission factors.

Top-down (Level 5): perform site-level methane flux measurements using aerial, drone-mounted, or spectrometer-based methods that capture total facility emissions.

Normalization: convert both datasets into the same unit (kg/h) and align them in time and operating conditions (which equipment was active, whether flaring or maintenance occurred).

Gap analysis: compare totals — if flux is higher, investigate missing sources or underestimated factors; if flux is lower, check for inactive equipment or overestimated sources.

Uncertainty analysis: quantify error margins for both approaches (instrument accuracy, detection limits, atmospheric effects, variability of operations).

Adjustment & iteration: refine inventories, update emission factors, and repeat measurements until results converge within agreed confidence ranges.

Reporting: submit reconciled inventories in UNEP OGMP 2.0 templates, with full transparency on methodology and uncertainty.

AIRMO’s approach

For the source-level (bottom-up) reconciliation we use proprietary sensors combined with sniffers and OGI cameras, tailored to facility type (e.g., compressors, storage sites, processing plants).

For the site-level (top-down) reconciliation we use UAS-mounted TDLAS sensors for compact, high-density facilities, and airborne push-broom spectrometers for wide-area upstream fields.

Reconciliation engine here is the proprietary AIRMO software built on OGMP 2.0 guidance to harmonize source- and site-level data, quantify uncertainty, and identify discrepancies.

We also prepare UNEP-ready reporting: automated generation of standardized OGMP templates for Gold Standard submissions.

The role of methane satellites
‍
While reconciliation is performed at source and site level, satellite monitoring provides independent verification. AIRMO’s high-resolution satellites detect super-emitters, flag facilities for targeted reconciliation, and validate reductions at regional or portfolio scale — making your reporting both compliant and future-proof.

Methane detection technologies on UAVs generally fall into two categories: push-broom (imaging) sensors and point sensors. Both are valuable, but they serve different purposes in methane monitoring campaigns.

Push-broom UAV methane sensors (imaging spectrometers)

How they work: Capture methane absorption along a swath (“push-broom”) as the UAV flies, creating a 2D map of methane concentration columns.
Best for:
- Wide-area coverage, especially in upstream production fields or complex sites with multiple plumes.
- Identifying plume shape, extent, and multiple overlapping emission sources.
- Quantification at site level when combined with wind and background data.
Strengths:
- Provides plume imagery and spatial context.
- Detects both concentrated leaks and diffuse emissions.
- Useful for reconciliation with source-level inventories and for OGMP 2.0 Level 5 reporting.
Limitations:
- Heavier, more complex, and power-intensive than point sensors.
- Requires advanced data processing and meteorological inputs.Less practical for very small or component-level leaks.

Point sensors (closed-path TDLAS, FID, sniffers)

How they work: Measure methane concentration directly at the UAV (air drawn into the sensor) or along a laser beam path.
Best for:
- Leak detection and quantification at component or unit level (valves, tanks, compressors).
- Compact, high-density facilities such as compressor stations or storage sites.
- Flux wall methods, where UAVs fly repeated passes downwind to calculate total emission rates.
Strengths:
- High sensitivity, fast response.
- Lightweight, lower power demand, suitable for smaller UAVs.
- Direct quantification possible when combined with wind data.
Limitations:
- Provides only point or path-average data — no spatial plume imagery.
- Coverage is limited; requires careful flight planning to avoid missing emissions.

When to use which

Use point sensors when you need precise, local quantification or are working in dense, compact facilities where plume mapping is less practical. 

Use push-broom imaging sensors when you need wide-area surveys, plume visualization, or facility-scale quantification, especially in upstream fields with multiple, spatially distributed sources.

For OGMP 2.0 compliance, combining both approaches ensures robust results: point sensors for Level 4 source quantification, and push-broom spectrometers for Level 5 site-level reconciliation.

AIRMO’s approach

Point sensors (closed-path TDLAS, FID, sniffers): used in LDAR campaigns for compact sites, providing source-level data in kg/h.

Push-broom UAV spectrometers: deployed over large facilities or production fields, delivering plume maps and site-level emission rates.Integration: both datasets are reconciled in our software, producing UNEP-ready OGMP 2.0 reports with quantified uncertainties.

Effective quantification at these facilities uses a two-layer approach:

Source-level (Level 4) measurements to quantify individual equipment/components, and Site-level (Level 5) measurements to capture total facility flux and reconcile with Level 4.
‍
The exact toolkit depends on facility type, layout, and operating conditions.

Tank batteries (production pads; storage/transfer)

Typical sources
Tanks: flashing, working/breathing losses, thief hatches, pressure-vacuum/relief valves (PVRVs/PRVs), hatch gaskets
Vent/relief lines and vapor recovery units (VRUs)
Flares/combustors (unlit or under-performing)
Dump valves, heater-treaters, associated connectors and seals

Level 4 — Source-level plan
Detect & localize: OGI sweep around tank tops, hatches, PRVs/PVRVs, VRU inlet/outlet, and flare tip.
Quantify components:
- FID/sniffer at hatches, valve stems, connectors
- Closed-path TDLAS for near-source plumes (e.g., tank battery and VRU skid) to convert ppm to kg/h with local wind data
- Engineering methods for flashing/working/breathing losses using measured throughput, temperature, and gas composition (use measured composition where possible)
Record context: tank liquid level, temperature, separator pressure, VRU operating status, flare status, and control setpoints

Level 5 — Site-level plan
- Flux wall / UAV transects downwind using closed-path TDLAS; log concurrent wind (speed, direction, stability)
- Airborne push-broom spectrometer (when area is larger or multiple pads interact) to map full plume and quantify site flux

Reconciliation: compare sum of sources (kg/h) with site flux (kg/h); investigate gaps (e.g., unlit/low-efficiency flare, VRU downtime, intermittent hatch openings)
Common pitfalls & fixesIntermittency (truck loadouts, hatch openings): schedule repeat passes; log operations
‍
Background / co-located pads: measure upwind background; use spectrometer mapping to separate overlapping plumes
‍
VRU/flare dynamics: verify destruction efficiency; log burner status and stack O₂ if available
‍
Compressor stations (gas lift, gathering, transmission)

Typical sources
Compressor seals (wet/dry), packing vents, blowdown valves
Pneumatic devices, fuel-gas systems, dehydration units (glycol still vents)
Intercooler/aftercooler leaks, exchanger tube leaks
Building/yard piping, flares/combustors, emergency relief

Level 4 — Source-level plan
Detect & prioritize: OGI survey of compressor fronts/backs, packing vents, pneumatics, dehydrators, and relief headers
Quantify components:
- FID/sniffer for valves, connectors, regulators
- Closed-path TDLAS for localized plumes at packing vents and dehydrator still vents
- Engineering logs for blowdowns (volume, frequency, pressure)
Operational logging: unit runtime/load, suction/discharge pressures, vent setpoints, dehydrator rates, blowdown history

Level 5 — Site-level plan
UAV flux wall downwind of buildings/yard using closed-path TDLAS (fast response helps in dense yards)
Closed-path TDLAS and/or push-broom spectrometer if buildings/terrain complicate plume capture
Reconciliation: match summed source rates to total flux; resolve gaps (e.g., undercounted pneumatics, hidden yard piping leaks, unaccounted blowdowns)

Common pitfalls & fixes

- Building wakes/recirculation: fly multiple heights/offsets; use on-site anemometry
- Short, high-rate events (blowdowns): rely on logs; bracket events with measurements; repeat visits
- Multiple plumes from parallel units: segment by unit/area/time; coordinate with control room for unit status
‍
Data you must capture (both facility types)
‍
- Concentration data: ppm or ppm-m (path-average) plus upwind background
- Wind & meteorology: 3D sonic anemometer or vetted UAV wind probe; note stability class where possible
- Geometry & coverage: flight paths, flux-wall extents, altitude bands to demonstrate full plume capture
- Operations: equipment on/off, loads, setpoints, events (truck loadout, blowdowns, maintenance)
- Uncertainty: sensor precision, detection limits, wind error, representativeness; report confidence intervals with results
- Units & normalization: convert to kg CH₄/h (and optionally t/y) at defined standard conditions