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
Operational Emissions vs. Fugitive Emissions: Understanding the Difference in Methane Reporting
Methane emissions are under increasing scrutiny as the oil and gas industry works to meet global climate targets and align with frameworks such as the Oil and Gas Methane Partnership (OGMP) 2.0. As part of this push, understanding the distinction between operational methane emissions and fugitive emissions is essential for accurate reporting, effective mitigation, and compliance with scope 1 methane emissions requirements.
This article explores the differences between operational and fugitive emissions, how they fit within the OGMP 2.0 reporting levels, and why both must be addressed to meet Level 4 and Level 5 standards.
What Are Operational Emissions?
Operational emissions are planned or expected releases of methane that result from routine processes and procedures in oil and gas operations. These emissions are often considered unavoidable given current technologies but still fall within the scope of regulated and reportable emissions.
Common examples of operational methane emissions include:
- Pneumatic device venting
- Controlled blowdowns
- Compressor seal leaks during normal function
- Emissions from dehydration units
- Maintenance-related venting
These emissions fall squarely under scope 1 methane emissions and are typically estimated using emissions factors. However, as companies strive toward OGMP Level 4 or Level 5, reliance on generalized emission factors must give way to site-specific measurement and quantification techniques.
For more on methane quantification approaches, see our article: Methane Quantification: Why It Matters.
What Are Fugitive Emissions?
Fugitive emissions are unintentional and uncontrolled releases of methane due to equipment failure, wear-and-tear, poor maintenance, or human error. These leaks are not part of planned operations and often go undetected unless operators implement targeted monitoring or Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) programs.
Typical sources of fugitive emissions include:
- Valve and flange leaks
- Pipeline corrosion
- Storage tank thief hatches
- Malfunctioning seals or pressure relief valves
Because these leaks are unscheduled and often intermittent, continuous monitoring solutions are increasingly being used to catch emissions that traditional periodic inspections may miss. For a deeper look at how these systems work, see: How to Detect Fugitive Emissions.
How OGMP 2.0 Addresses Operational and Fugitive Emissions
The OGMP 2.0 Framework places a strong emphasis on capturing all site-level methane emissions, including both operational and fugitive sources. To advance from Level 3 (based on engineering estimates and partial measurement) to Levels 4 and 5, companies must:
- Quantify operational emissions using equipment-level data or direct measurement methodologies
- Detect and mitigate fugitive emissions using advanced technologies like fixed sensor networks, drone surveys, or OGI cameras
This dual-focus approach ensures a more accurate and transparent emissions inventory. To explore the OGMP reporting structure in more detail, visit our article: Achieving OGMP 2.0 Gold Standard
Technologies for Monitoring Both Emission Types
Operators looking to achieve comprehensive methane management should consider technologies that provide real-time visibility into both operational and fugitive emissions. Solutions like MethaneTrack™ and EmissionsTrack™ support OGMP compliance by:
- Offering Close-Proximity Continuous Monitoring™
- Delivering automated emissions inventories
- Providing leak source localization for fugitive emissions
- Generating regulatory-ready reports supporting scope 1 compliance
To see how these technologies compare to traditional methods, read: Continuous Monitoring vs. Periodic Surveys.
Conclusion: A Unified Strategy for Scope 1 Methane Emissions
Differentiating between operational and fugitive emissions is more than a technical exercise—it’s a strategic requirement for regulatory compliance, sustainability reporting, and effective methane management. By investing in continuous monitoring systems and aligning with OGMP 2.0 expectations, companies can reduce emissions, improve efficiency, and position themselves as industry leaders in environmental performance.
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.
