On July 24th, S&P Global released a press release touting that “methane emissions intensity” has declined by 29% from 2023 to 2024. On July 3rd, the International Energy Agency released a report on natural gas certification claiming that the practice could be “paving the way towards price premiums for low-intensity natural gas.” In April, ExxonMobil published a report touting that they had reduced methane intensity by 60% since 2016. This month, Todd Staples, President of the Texas Oil and Gas association, published an op-ed titled: “Oil & Gas Slash Methane Intensity by 50 Percent Amid Soaring Production.” It appears that methane intensity is the newest buzzword in the oil and gas industry.
The claims made by these organizations are questionable and worth exploring in depth (Oilfield Witness will be writing more about them), but before one can analyze these claims it is important to understand methane intensity. While industry interests often frame reductions in methane intensity as wins for protecting our climate, methane intensity is not equivalent to overall methane emissions, in fact despite widespread claims of improving methane intensity in the United States, International Energy Agency data shows that overall methane emissions in North America have increased from 2020 to 2025. Methane intensity describes the emissions from an operation divided by the operation’s production or throughput. This calculation yields a percentage that represents how much gas is released (both intentionally and as leaks) in the course of the operation.
Importantly, because intensity is both a function of methane emissions and production, altering either variable results in a reduction of methane intensity. For example, an operator may claim a reduction in intensity by reducing methane emissions without changing production, but if an operator increases methane emissions it may also claim an intensity reduction so long as its production has increased by more than its emissions. This phenomenon can lead to an inflated sense of progress in methane emissions when intensities are divorced from their context. For example, from 2023 to 2024 ExxonMobil saw a reduction in its equity basis methane intensity of 33% despite reporting no reduction in methane emissions. Instead, this reduction in intensity was apparently the sole result of increases in production while holding emissions constant. Further, in circumstances where emissions actually have decreased but production has also increased, intensity reductions will be much larger than reductions in total emissions. For example, the S&P report noted above touts a 29% reduction in the Permian Basin’s methane intensity from 2023 to 2024 but the analysis conducted by S&P only shows a 22% reduction in absolute methane emissions. That phantom 7% in emissions intensity reduction is actually the result of increased production, but pro-industry outlets, like World of Oil and the Texas Oil and Gas Association, were quick to claim “Permian methane emissions dropped 50% in two years.” That claim appears deliberately calculated to mislead the public on the actual methane emissions in the Permian Basin.
It is easy to see why the oil and gas industry has gravitated towards this metric as the benchmark to measure methane. Intensity is provided as a percentage, so unit conversions are not necessary which makes comparisons between operators simple and fast. Emphasizing intensity also allows very large companies to shift focus away from their comparatively large gross emissions. For instance, the methane emissions intensity reported in ExxonMobil’s 2024 Climate Solutions report is just .02%. That value sounds great, and much more palatable than their gross methane emissions: 120,000 metric tons of methane which is equivalent to 3.36 million metric tons of CO2. This is more CO2 than the annual emissions of 730,000 cars and only accounts for methane emissions which are just a fraction of ExxonMobil’s overall emissions. It’s no surprise given those numbers that ExxonMobil’s long-term methane goal focuses on intensity.
Industry proponents of intensity metrics have argued that intensity is worthwhile to focus on “because (per ExxonMobil) it is the truest reflection of how manufacturing companies are reducing greenhouse gases associated with each unit of production.” It is not exactly clear what a statement like that means in the context of climate change. It is true that intensity may best reflect the effort exerted by operators to lower emissions. Operators may invest in new technologies to control methane at the same time that their production increases, and intensity may better reflect those investments. However, sustainability is not a participation trophy. The deteriorating climate of our planet does not care that new methane emissions are the result of higher production. All that matters is that there are new methane emissions. Focusing on intensity ignores this reality in favor of a corporatized form of sustainability that pretends that increased production justifies further environmental harm. To put it crudely, imagine a person wants to lose weight. They decide to decrease their dessert intensity compared to their total food intake, so in addition to dessert they also eat more salad. No one would be surprised that that person is not losing weight. Unfortunately, it appears that intensity metrics are here to stay, but still these caveats are worth considering whenever intensity reductions are advertised.
