This article is part of our OGMP 2.0 Educational Series
View all the articles
- What Is OGMP 2.0?
- What Is a Methane Baseline?
- LDAR Programs for OGMP 2.0
- Operational vs. Fugitive Emissions
- Methane Quantification: Why It Matters
- Continuous Monitoring vs. Periodic Surveys
- What Are Fugitive Emissions?
- How to Detect Fugitive Emissions
- Upstream Methane Emissions Sources
- What Are Vented Emissions?
- Understanding Incomplete Combustion Emissions
- Achieving OGMP 2.0 Gold Standard
Understanding the Tradeoffs in OGMP Methane Measurement
Methane emissions from oil and gas operations are a major contributor to climate change. With growing pressure from regulators, investors, and the public, operators are increasingly adopting methane monitoring technologies to meet environmental targets and comply with frameworks like the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP) 2.0. One of the most important strategic decisions is choosing between continuous methane monitoring and periodic surveys—two approaches that play different roles depending on compliance level, risk, and site complexity.
For operators seeking to achieve OGMP 2.0 Level 4 or Level 5 compliance, understanding the tradeoffs between these methods is essential.
What Is Continuous Methane Monitoring?
Continuous methane monitoring uses permanently installed sensors or wireless endpoint networks to deliver real-time data on methane concentrations and leak events. These systems detect and quantify emissions as they happen, giving operators the insight to respond quickly and prevent escalation.
This method supports OGMP 2.0 Level 4 and Level 5 reporting by:
- Capturing measured emissions data over time
- Providing source-level quantification for key emission points
- Supporting site-level reconciliation and inventory generation
Modern systems like the Close-proximity, Continuous Monitoring Sensor Networks deployed in solutions like MethaneTrack™ and EmissionsTrack™ offer low-maintenance, high-uptime performance. With Leak Source Isolation™ and quantification analytics, these technologies deliver continuous monitoring with actionable intelligence.
What Are Periodic Surveys?
Periodic surveys involve scheduled site visits using handheld detectors, OGI cameras, or drone-mounted sensors to detect methane leaks. Often used in early-stage LDAR programs, they offer a relatively low upfront cost and flexible deployment across large areas.
However, there are drawbacks:
- Emissions are only captured at the time of the survey
- Intermittent or short-duration leaks may go undetected
- Response delays can lead to higher environmental and regulatory risks
While periodic surveys can satisfy OGMP Level 3 reporting, operators pursuing Level 4 or 5 need more robust, data-driven approaches.
Comparing Continuous Monitoring and Periodic Surveys
| Continuous Monitoring | Periodic Surveys | |
|---|---|---|
| Detection Frequency | 24/7, real time | Intermittent (scheduled visits) |
| Leak Duration Capture | Yes | No |
| Supports OGMP Level 4 & 5 | Yes | No (Level 3) |
| Operational Burden | Low after install | High labor demand |
| Data Quality | High, timestamped | Limited, often qualitative |
| Cost Over Time | Higher upfront, lower O&M | Lower upfront, high recurring |
| Leak Source Localization | Yes | Often requires follow-up |
Use Cases and Considerations
- Low-risk facilities with few leak sources
- Early-stage OGMP compliance (Level 1–3)
- Supplementing continuous systems for wide-area inspections
- High-risk emission zones (compressor stations, tanks, wellheads)
- Operators targeting OGMP Gold Standard
- Reducing time to repair and prioritizing large, intermittent leaks
The Future of OGMP Methane Measurement
As OGMP 2.0 evolves into a global benchmark for methane emissions, the shift from periodic to continuous monitoring is accelerating. The framework promotes measured, not estimated, emissions reporting—and that requires scalable, high-resolution monitoring technology.
For example, systems like MethaneTrack™ with Close-proximity, Continuous Monitoring™ wireless sensors offer unmatched performance with:
- Real-time quantification
- Continuous emissions inventories
- Integration with regulatory and operational dashboards
These innovations enable operators to meet OGMP Level 4 and Level 5 reporting with greater accuracy, lower risk, and faster remediation timelines.
Conclusion
When it comes to OGMP methane measurement, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. But for companies focused on accuracy, transparency, and compliance with Level 4 or 5 standards, continuous methane monitoring delivers clear advantages over traditional periodic surveys.
As regulations tighten and expectations rise, proactive monitoring will be key to staying compliant, competitive, and climate-aligned.
Want the complete roadmap to OGMP compliance—from Level 1 to Gold Standard?
Achieving OGMP 2.0 Gold Standard Reporting
Read our guide Achieving OGMP 2.0 Gold Standard Reporting to learn the step-by-step framework, best practices, and technology insights you need to progress through every compliance level with confidence.
