Methane Emissions Monitoring with AI: How Mid-Size Operators Can Meet 2026 Regulations Without Breaking the Budget

Editorial disclosure: This article reflects the independent analysis and professional opinion of the author, informed by published research, regulatory filings, vendor documentation, and practitioner experience. No vendor reviewed or influenced this content prior to publication. Product capabilities described are based on publicly available information and may not reflect the latest release.

A mid-size Permian operator with 800 wells recently told me that their emissions compliance costs had tripled in two years -- and they still were not confident their numbers were accurate. They had quarterly OGI camera surveys, a spreadsheet-based reporting process, and a growing stack of state and federal filing requirements that their two-person environmental team could not keep up with.

They are not unusual. Mid-size E&P operators -- the 500 to 2,000 well range -- are caught in an uncomfortable middle ground on methane emissions. They have enough assets to face serious regulatory exposure, but not enough staff or budget to build the kind of emissions monitoring infrastructure that the majors deploy. The result is a compliance posture that amounts to hoping nothing goes wrong between quarterly inspections.

That approach is becoming untenable. The regulatory landscape for methane emissions has shifted dramatically between 2024 and 2026, with overlapping federal, state, and international requirements creating a compliance environment that is more complex and more expensive than anything the upstream sector has faced. At the same time, AI-powered monitoring technologies have matured to the point where a mid-size operator can build a credible, continuous emissions monitoring program at a fraction of the cost of traditional approaches.

This article lays out the regulatory landscape, compares monitoring technologies and their real costs, explains where AI adds genuine value (and where it does not), and provides a practical implementation roadmap for operators in the 500 to 2,000 well range.

---

The Regulatory Landscape: What Has Actually Changed

The Federal Methane Charge: Dead Rule, Live Tax

The single most important regulatory development for methane emissions is also the most confusing.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 established a Waste Emissions Charge (WEC) for methane from oil and gas facilities that report more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The charge was set at $900 per metric ton of methane for calendar year 2024, $1,200 for 2025, and $1,500 for 2026 and beyond.

In November 2024, the EPA finalized a detailed rule specifying how the charge would be calculated, what exemptions and netting provisions would apply, and how facilities would report and pay. That rule was struck down on March 14, 2025, when President Trump signed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution disapproving the EPA's implementing regulation. On May 12, 2025, the EPA formally removed the WEC regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Here is what confuses most operators: the implementing rule was eliminated, but the underlying tax was not. The CRA resolution disapproved the EPA's regulation -- not the statutory provision in the IRA that created the charge itself. Section 136(e) of the Clean Air Act, as amended by the IRA, still imposes a fee on applicable methane emissions. Without the implementing rule, there is currently no defined mechanism for calculating or paying the charge. But the legal obligation remains on the books.

Congressional efforts to repeal the underlying statutory provision are underway through budget reconciliation, but as of March 2026, the tax has not been formally repealed. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 rescinded certain unobligated funds under Section 136 and amended some provisions, but the fee authority itself is in regulatory limbo.

What does this mean for operators? Three things:

1. 1.The charge could be reinstated with a future administration or judicial action. The statutory authority exists. A future EPA could issue a new implementing rule that the CRA cannot block (the CRA prohibits "substantially similar" rules, but the boundaries of that restriction are untested in this context).
2. 2.State-level regulations are not affected. The CRA action was federal. Colorado, New Mexico, and other states have their own methane rules that remain fully in force.
3. 3.ESG-conscious buyers and lenders still care. Whether the federal charge is actively collected or not, methane emissions intensity is a metric that affects asset valuations, insurance costs, and access to capital.

Operators who assume the methane charge issue is permanently resolved are making a bet. That may be the right bet. But smart operators are building monitoring infrastructure regardless, because the other regulatory drivers have not gone away.

EPA Clean Air Act Standards: OOOOb and OOOOc

Separate from the Waste Emissions Charge, the EPA's final rule under the Clean Air Act (finalized March 2024) established two sets of standards for methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from oil and gas operations:

• •Subpart OOOOb applies to new, modified, and reconstructed sources. It requires comprehensive monitoring, enhanced leak detection and repair (LDAR), and zero-emissions pneumatic controllers at new facilities.
• •Subpart OOOOc (Emissions Guidelines) applies to existing sources and requires states to develop implementation plans. These guidelines require operators of designated facilities to eliminate routine flaring from new wells, phase out high-bleed pneumatic controllers, and implement monitoring programs.

The current administration has signaled interest in revisiting these standards, but as of March 2026, they remain in effect. State implementation plans under OOOOc are in varying stages of development.

For mid-size operators, the practical implication is that continuous monitoring or approved alternative monitoring is increasingly becoming the baseline expectation, not just for new facilities but for existing ones.

State-Level Regulations: The Real Compliance Burden

For many operators, state regulations are more immediately consequential than federal rules. Three states deserve particular attention:

Colorado has the most aggressive methane regulatory framework in the country. SB 181 (2019) directed the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) to adopt more stringent emissions rules for oil and gas. The resulting Regulation 7 revisions established:

• •Continuous monitoring requirements at facilities with large emissions potential, multi-well facilities, and facilities near occupied dwellings
• •A 50% phase-out of high-emitting pneumatic devices by May 2026, with full elimination by May 2027
• •A Greenhouse Gas Intensity Program requiring operators to report and reduce their GHG emission intensity

In September 2025, the AQCC agreed to schedule a rulemaking hearing in February 2026 to further align Colorado's rules with federal OOOOb/OOOOc standards. When these rules are finalized, Colorado operators will face some of the most prescriptive monitoring and reporting requirements in the country. The expected impact: elimination of approximately 16,000 metric tons of methane per year.

New Mexico has adopted its own comprehensive methane rules, including an industry-leading requirement to capture 98% of produced natural gas by 2026. The New Mexico Environment Department and Oil Conservation Division jointly regulate emissions, creating a dual-oversight framework that demands careful compliance management. Operators in the Permian (New Mexico side) and San Juan basins face inspection and reporting requirements that in some cases exceed federal standards.

Pennsylvania has finalized rules targeting VOC and methane emissions from both conventional and unconventional oil and gas operations. For Marcellus and Utica operators, the requirements include quarterly LDAR inspections, limits on storage vessel emissions, and reporting obligations that add to the already complex multi-state compliance picture.

The critical point: state-level methane regulations are not contingent on federal policy. Even if the federal Waste Emissions Charge is permanently repealed and OOOOb/OOOOc are weakened, operators in Colorado, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania will still face rigorous emissions monitoring and reporting requirements.

EU CBAM: Not Immediate, But Worth Watching

The European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) entered its definitive phase on January 1, 2026. In its current scope, CBAM applies to imports of cement, iron and steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity, and hydrogen -- not to crude oil, refined products, or LNG.

However, the EU has signaled intent to expand CBAM scope. Organic chemicals and polymers -- which would bring many petroleum-derived products into scope -- are slated for inclusion, with some discussions targeting 2030 for broader energy sector coverage. The EU's separate Methane Regulation (effective August 2024) already requires methane intensity reporting for fossil fuel imports, and by 2030 will impose methane intensity standards on imported oil and gas.

For US operators exporting LNG or supplying feedstock to European buyers, the direction of travel is clear: methane emissions intensity will increasingly affect market access to EU customers, even if CBAM does not directly tax oil and gas imports in 2026.

---

Monitoring Technologies: What Actually Works and What It Costs

Mid-size operators evaluating emissions monitoring technology face a bewildering array of options. The right approach depends on portfolio size, basin, regulatory jurisdiction, and budget. Here is an honest comparison.

Optical Gas Imaging (OGI) Cameras: The Incumbent Approach

OGI cameras use infrared imaging to visualize gas plumes, allowing trained technicians to identify leaks during site inspections. This has been the standard LDAR approach for over a decade.

Costs:

• •Camera equipment: $80,000 to $120,000 per unit
• •Trained operator: $60 to $150 per hour, depending on region and certification
• •Quarterly survey cost per site: $500 to $2,000, depending on facility complexity and location
• •Annual cost for 1,000 well sites (quarterly inspections): $2M to $8M

Strengths: Mature technology, widely accepted by regulators, well-understood detection thresholds, visual confirmation of leak location.

Critical limitations: OGI provides only a snapshot. Between quarterly surveys, emissions events go undetected. The EPA's methodology for the Waste Emissions Charge assumed that a super-emitter event detected during a quarterly OGI program began 91 days before detection. At 2026 rates, that assumption would have valued a single super-emitter event at approximately $327,600 in charges. More practically, the quarterly gap means that a tank hatch left open or a failed pneumatic controller can emit for months before anyone knows.

Continuous Monitoring Systems (CMS): The New Standard

Continuous monitoring systems use fixed sensors at well sites to detect methane in real time. Several vendors now offer solutions:

• •Qube Technologies -- Point-in-space methane and VOC detection using metal oxide sensors, with automated alerting
• •Kuva Systems -- Infrared camera-based continuous monitoring with automated scanning
• •Project Canary -- Continuous monitoring combined with a responsible energy certification program
• •LongPath Technologies -- Open-path laser-based detection capable of monitoring multiple emission points across a facility from a single sensor

Costs:

• •Equipment and installation: $5,000 to $25,000 per site, depending on technology and facility size
• •Annual subscription/maintenance: $3,000 to $8,000 per site
• •Annual cost for 1,000 well sites: $8M to $33M (first year including equipment); $3M to $8M ongoing

Strengths: Detects emissions events within hours or days instead of months. Under the EPA's methodology, a continuous monitoring system reduced the assumed time-to-detection from 91 days to 7 days, cutting potential charges by approximately 92%. Continuous data feeds are increasingly required by state regulators and expected by ESG-focused investors.

Limitations: Sensor-based systems require maintenance and calibration. Coverage varies: point sensors may miss emissions from sources not in the direct detection path. Environmental conditions (wind, temperature) affect accuracy. Initial deployment cost is significant for large portfolios.

Satellite Monitoring: Basin-Scale Visibility

Satellite-based methane detection has matured rapidly, with three platforms of particular relevance:

MethaneSAT (Environmental Defense Fund / New Zealand Space Agency) provides wide-area methane mapping with a 200+ km swath width and 100m x 400m spatial resolution. Detection threshold is approximately 3 parts per billion. Data is publicly available, meaning operators cannot control when or whether their facilities are observed.

Carbon Mapper is a nonprofit satellite mission focused on point-source detection. Its satellites can identify individual facility-level emissions, complementing MethaneSAT's basin-wide view. Data is also publicly available.

GHGSat operates the largest commercial constellation of high-resolution GHG monitoring satellites. Unlike MethaneSAT and Carbon Mapper, GHGSat is a commercial service: operators (or regulators, or investors) can commission targeted observations of specific facilities.

Costs:

• •MethaneSAT / Carbon Mapper: Free (public data). The flip side: your competitors, regulators, and investors can see the same data.
• •GHGSat commercial monitoring: Pricing varies, but typical engagement for a mid-size operator runs $50,000 to $200,000 per year for targeted monitoring.

Strengths: Coverage of entire basins. No on-site equipment. Ability to detect large emissions events (super-emitters) that might be missed by site-level monitoring. Increasingly used by regulators and EPA's Super-Emitter Program.

Limitations: Satellites detect large plumes, not small leaks. Revisit times range from days to weeks, so they are not continuous. Cloud cover, atmospheric conditions, and satellite geometry create data gaps. Spatial resolution cannot pinpoint the specific equipment source within a facility. Satellite data tells you there is a problem; ground-level investigation is needed to find and fix it.

The Hybrid Approach: What Actually Makes Sense

No single monitoring technology is sufficient. The most cost-effective approach for a mid-size operator combines:

1. 1.Continuous monitoring sensors at the highest-risk sites (high-volume production facilities, facilities near communities, sites with tank batteries and pneumatic equipment)
2. 2.Periodic OGI surveys at lower-risk sites, supplemented by aerial surveys using drone-mounted sensors
3. 3.Satellite data as a basin-level check and early warning system for super-emitter events
4. 4.AI-driven analytics connecting all three data streams with SCADA and production data

This hybrid architecture reduces cost while providing the detection coverage that regulators increasingly expect.

---

Where AI Actually Adds Value

AI has become a marketing buzzword in emissions monitoring. Every vendor claims AI capabilities. Here is where AI genuinely helps, and where the claims outrun the reality.

Predictive Emissions Modeling from Production Data

This is the highest-value AI application for mid-size operators, and it requires no new hardware.

Every operator has SCADA data: wellhead pressures, flow rates, separator levels, compressor run times, tank levels. This data already exists in your production monitoring systems. Predictive emissions models analyze patterns in SCADA data to identify conditions that correlate with emissions events -- a pressure drop pattern that precedes a tank venting event, a compressor cycling pattern that indicates seal degradation, a flare pilot temperature drop that signals incomplete combustion.

Envana Software Solutions is the most prominent example. Their platform ingests SCADA data from existing sensors, applies physics-based models and AI pattern recognition to estimate methane emissions at the site level, and flags conditions likely to produce emissions events. Envana received a $5.2 million DOE grant in 2025 specifically for their "Software for Methane Leak Detection Using SCADA Data to Guide Mitigation" project -- a validation that this approach has technical merit.

The key insight: SCADA-based predictive modeling turns your existing production monitoring infrastructure into an emissions monitoring system at marginal cost. You do not need to install new sensors. You need software that can read the signals already there.

Automated Leak Detection from Sensor Networks

When continuous monitoring sensors are deployed, AI adds value through:

• •Anomaly detection: Machine learning models trained on baseline emissions patterns can identify deviations that indicate a new leak, equipment malfunction, or process upset. This is more reliable than simple threshold-based alarms, which generate excessive false positives.
• •Source attribution: When multiple potential emissions sources exist at a facility (wellhead, separator, tank battery, pneumatics), AI models that correlate sensor readings with wind direction, equipment status, and process conditions can identify the most likely source without requiring a site visit.
• •Emission rate quantification: AI models can estimate emission rates from sensor data, converting raw concentration readings into mass flow estimates that feed into compliance reporting.

Results from field deployments show that AI-augmented continuous monitoring systems achieve greater than 92% classification accuracy in distinguishing real emissions events from sensor noise or environmental interference.

Satellite Imagery Analysis

AI is essential for processing the massive volumes of satellite data generated by MethaneSAT, Carbon Mapper, and GHGSat. Key capabilities:

• •Plume detection and quantification: Deep learning models (CNN-GRU and LSTM-CNN architectures) process spectral data to identify methane plumes and estimate emission rates. The MARS system, deployed globally at over 2,300 sites, processes approximately 26,000 images per month.
• •Change detection: AI models compare satellite observations over time to identify new or growing emission sources.
• •Attribution: Matching satellite-detected plumes to specific facilities using geospatial data and facility databases.

For operators, the practical value is less about running these models yourself (the satellite data providers do that) and more about integrating satellite-derived alerts into your operational workflow so that when MethaneSAT or Carbon Mapper flags a plume over one of your facilities, you know about it before the regulator does.

Automated Compliance Reporting

This is the least glamorous but most immediately valuable AI application. Mid-size operators with two-person environmental teams spend enormous time on manual data compilation for:

• •EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (Subpart W)
• •State-level emissions inventories (COGCC, NMOCD, PA DEP)
• •Voluntary frameworks (OGMP 2.0, ONE Future)
• •Investor ESG disclosures

AI-powered platforms can automate the data pipeline from monitoring systems to regulatory reporting templates, reducing manual effort by 60-80% and improving data consistency. This is not flashy, but for a VP of Operations watching their environmental team drown in spreadsheets, it may be the most compelling argument for investing in AI-powered emissions management.

Where AI Falls Short

Honesty requires noting what AI cannot do:

• •AI does not replace physical repairs. Detecting a leak is step one. Sending a crew to fix it is still required, and for many mid-size operators, the bottleneck is repair crew availability, not detection.
• •AI models require training data. Predictive emissions models based on SCADA data need labeled examples of emissions events to train on. If your historical data does not include tagged emissions events, the models start with limited accuracy and improve over time.
• •AI does not solve data quality problems. If your SCADA data has gaps, calibration issues, or inconsistent tagging, the AI layer will inherit those problems. Data infrastructure comes first; AI comes second.
• •Regulatory acceptance varies. Not all state regulators accept AI-modeled emissions estimates in lieu of direct measurement for compliance reporting. Check your specific jurisdiction before relying on modeled data for regulatory filings.

---

Data Infrastructure: The Foundation That Makes Everything Work

Connecting Emissions Data to Production Data

The single biggest barrier to effective AI-powered emissions monitoring is not technology -- it is data fragmentation. A typical mid-size operator has:

• •SCADA data in one system (or several, if acquisitions have not been integrated)
• •OGI survey reports in PDF or spreadsheet form
• •Continuous monitoring data in a vendor-specific cloud platform
• •Production data in an ERP or production accounting system
• •Regulatory filings in yet another system

These data sources are rarely connected. An emissions event detected by a continuous monitor cannot be automatically correlated with the production conditions at that site because the data lives in different systems with different identifiers, different time stamps, and different access methods.

Solving this requires a data integration layer that can:

1. 1.Ingest data from heterogeneous sources (SCADA historians, sensor APIs, satellite data feeds, production databases)
2. 2.Normalize identifiers (matching well API numbers across systems)
3. 3.Align time series data across different sampling intervals
4. 4.Provide a unified query interface for analytics

MCP for Unified Emissions and Production Analysis

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) provides a standardized way for AI agents and applications to access operational data across systems. For emissions monitoring, MCP is relevant because it allows AI tools to query both production data and emissions data through a single interface, without requiring operators to build custom integrations for each data source.

We built petro-mcp as an open-source MCP server specifically for petroleum engineering data. It provides tools for accessing well production data, decline curve analysis, and operational metrics -- the same data that predictive emissions models need as input. Connecting an emissions monitoring layer to production data through MCP means that an AI agent can answer questions like "which wells with declining pressure and increasing water cut are most likely to have tank venting events this month?" by pulling from both production and emissions data in a single query.

This is not theoretical. The infrastructure pattern -- MCP server connecting to SCADA, production accounting, and emissions monitoring systems -- is deployable today and eliminates the spreadsheet-bridging that most mid-size operators rely on.

---

Cost-Benefit Analysis: A 1,000-Well Operator in the Permian

Let us make this concrete. Consider a mid-size operator with 1,000 producing wells in the Permian Basin, split between Texas and New Mexico.

Current State (Typical)

Estimated Undetected Emissions Exposure

Under the quarterly OGI model, the average time to detect a super-emitter event is 45.5 days (half the 91-day inspection interval). For an operator reporting to GHGRP, even a handful of super-emitter events per year could represent significant liabilities -- whether from reinstated federal charges, state penalties, or ESG-related financial impacts.

Studies consistently show that a small percentage of sites (roughly 5-10%) account for the majority (50-80%) of total emissions from oil and gas operations. For a 1,000-well operator, that means 50 to 100 sites are responsible for most of the emissions -- and quarterly OGI may not catch them in time.

Proposed Hybrid Monitoring Architecture

The Math

In Year 1, the hybrid approach costs roughly the same as the current OGI-only model (and potentially less, depending on current OGI costs). By Year 2, ongoing costs drop to $2.9M to $3.3M -- a 40-55% reduction from the OGI-only baseline.

But cost savings are only part of the equation. The hybrid approach delivers:

• •Faster detection: Hours/days instead of months. This matters for both regulatory compliance and operational efficiency (methane lost is revenue lost -- natural gas has a commodity value).
• •Better data: Continuous monitoring generates the time-series emissions data needed for accurate GHGRP reporting and voluntary disclosure frameworks.
• •Reduced regulatory risk: In New Mexico, meeting the 98% gas capture requirement is nearly impossible without continuous monitoring at high-production facilities.
• •Methane as lost revenue: For a 1,000-well operator producing 100 MMcf/d, even a 0.5% methane loss rate represents roughly $500,000 to $1,000,000 in lost gas revenue per year at $2-4/Mcf. Better detection and faster repair recovers a portion of that.

---

Implementation Roadmap: 12 Months to Compliance-Ready

For a VP Operations or HSE Manager at a mid-size operator, here is a practical implementation sequence.

Months 1-3: Foundation

Audit and Prioritize

• •Conduct a baseline emissions inventory across all sites using existing data (GHGRP reports, OGI survey records, production data)
• •Risk-rank all sites by emissions potential: production volume, equipment type (pneumatics, tanks, compressors), proximity to communities, regulatory jurisdiction
• •Identify top 100-200 sites that account for the majority of emissions risk

Data Infrastructure

• •Assess SCADA data availability and quality across the portfolio. Key question: can you pull wellhead pressure, flow rate, separator level, and compressor status for every site?
• •Identify data gaps that would prevent AI-based predictive modeling
• •Evaluate MCP-based integration architecture for connecting SCADA, production accounting, and emissions data

Months 3-6: Deploy Continuous Monitoring

Technology Selection

• •Issue RFPs to continuous monitoring vendors (Qube, Kuva, Project Canary, LongPath) for the high-risk site cohort
• •Evaluate based on: detection threshold, false positive rate, integration with your SCADA/data infrastructure, regulatory acceptance in your jurisdictions, total cost of ownership

Pilot Deployment

• •Deploy continuous monitoring at 20-30 high-risk sites
• •Run in parallel with existing OGI program for 60-90 days to validate detection performance
• •Use pilot data to calibrate AI anomaly detection models

SCADA Analytics

• •Deploy SCADA-based predictive emissions software on full portfolio
• •Begin building the training dataset by correlating SCADA patterns with known emissions events from OGI surveys and continuous monitoring alerts

Months 6-9: Scale and Integrate

Full Deployment

• •Roll out continuous monitoring to all high-risk sites (100-200 sites)
• •Transition medium-risk sites from quarterly to semi-annual OGI, supplemented by SCADA-based monitoring
• •Integrate satellite data feeds (MethaneSAT, Carbon Mapper public data; optionally GHGSat commercial monitoring)

AI Analytics Maturation

• •Predictive emissions models should now have 3-6 months of correlated SCADA and monitoring data
• •Begin using AI-flagged alerts to prioritize repair crew dispatch
• •Implement automated data pipelines from monitoring systems to regulatory reporting templates

Months 9-12: Optimize and Report

Compliance Automation

• •Automate GHGRP Subpart W reporting data compilation
• •Automate state-level emissions reporting (COGCC, NMOCD, PA DEP as applicable)
• •If pursuing voluntary frameworks (OGMP 2.0, ONE Future), use continuous monitoring data to support Level 4/5 reporting

Performance Benchmarking

• •Establish internal KPIs: methane intensity (tCH4/BOE), mean time to detection, mean time to repair, false positive rate
• •Compare against industry benchmarks and set reduction targets
• •Use performance data to justify Year 2 budget and expansion

Ongoing Optimization

• •Retrain AI models quarterly as the training dataset grows
• •Adjust site risk rankings based on monitoring data (some sites will prove lower-risk than expected; others will surface as chronic emitters)
• •Evaluate expanding continuous monitoring to medium-risk sites where the data justifies the investment

---

The Strategic Case: Beyond Compliance

For mid-size operators, the case for AI-powered emissions monitoring extends beyond regulatory compliance:

Asset transactions. Methane emissions data is increasingly material in A&D (acquisition and divestiture) evaluations. Buyers discount assets with unknown emissions profiles. Sellers with comprehensive, continuous monitoring data command premiums -- or at minimum, avoid the haircuts that come from uncertainty.

Insurance and lending. ESG-linked financing terms are becoming standard. Operators who can demonstrate continuous emissions monitoring and declining methane intensity access better rates. This is not hypothetical: several Permian operators have reported that their revolving credit facility terms now include emissions-related covenants.

Operational efficiency. Methane monitoring is really production surveillance by another name. The same SCADA anomalies that indicate emissions events -- pressure drops, flow rate changes, compressor failures -- are also indicators of production problems. Investing in emissions monitoring infrastructure creates a dual-use system that improves both environmental performance and production uptime.

Regulatory optionality. The federal regulatory environment will continue to shift. Operators with continuous monitoring infrastructure in place are positioned to comply with whatever requirements emerge, rather than scrambling to retrofit when rules change. This optionality has real value, even if the specific form of future regulation is uncertain.

---

Getting Started

The technology for AI-powered emissions monitoring exists today. The cost curve has come down to the point where it is economically rational for a 500-well operator, not just the supermajors. The regulatory environment -- regardless of federal policy shifts -- demands better monitoring than quarterly OGI surveys can provide.

The practical first step is an emissions data audit: understanding what data you already have, where the gaps are, and which sites represent the highest risk. From there, the technology decisions follow logically.

If you are evaluating emissions monitoring approaches for a mid-size portfolio, or building the data infrastructure to connect emissions and production data, reach out to our team. We work with mid-size operators on the data integration, AI analytics, and implementation planning that turns monitoring technology into an operational system. We also offer petro-mcp as an open-source starting point for connecting production and emissions data through a unified AI-ready interface.