Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41800980›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2026

Methane by the Numbers: The Need for Clear and Comparable Methane Intensity Metrics.

Matthew R Johnson, Bradley M Conrad, Daniel J Zimmerle, Robert L Kleinberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matthew R JohnsonEnergy & Emissions Research Lab (EERL), Carleton University, Ottawa, ON Canada, K1S 5B6.ORCID 0000-0002-3637-9919
Bradley M ConradEnergy & Emissions Research Lab (EERL), Carleton University, Ottawa, ON Canada, K1S 5B6.ORCID 0000-0003-3678-7434
Daniel J ZimmerleMethane Emissions Technology Evaluation Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2832-048X
Robert L KleinbergColumbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, New York, New York 10027, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3167-0176

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

MethaneAir PollutantsEnvironmental MonitoringNatural GasAir PollutantsMethaneNatural Gasembodied emissionsemissions reportingloss rateMethane intensitymethane metricsMRVoil and gas

Identifiers

PMID41800980
PMCPMC13019660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.