ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2026
Methane by the Numbers: The Need for Clear and Comparable Methane Intensity Metrics.
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Aerial LiDAR-Based, Source-Resolved Methane Emissions Inventory: Permian Basin Case Study for Benchmarking U.S. Emissions.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Global efforts to track methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations have recently converged around measures of methane emissions intensity, including emergent requirements for reporting as part of import standards. However, multiple definitions of methane intensity have led to conflicting approaches that hinder clear comparisons among regions and obstruct the development of effective policy. This study analyzes six of the predominant methane intensity metrics and shows how half, by attributing methane exclusively to gas production while overlooking coproduced oil and liquids, can bias comparisons among jurisdictions and have limited practical utility. These simple loss rates are strongly dependent on gas-oil ratios and tend toward meaningless infinite methane intensities in oil-dominant operations. The three remaining metrics overcome this limitation and are recommended as unbiased and directly intercomparable measures of methane performance. We further show how these latter metrics, which effectively benchmark methane emissions against total energy production, are computationally and functionally equivalent when emissions are allocated to oil and gas operations using energy production. Finally, we address the challenge of propagating emissions through the supply chain and demonstrate how, for the recommended intensity metrics, embodied intensities of any facility's outputs can be easily calculated from feeder-facility intensities and energy production.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.