Satellites are no silver bullet for methane monitoring

Tracking methane emissions accurately is crucial for shaping environmental policies and regulations. This colourless and odourless gas, which is the main component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas, is emitted from a variety of sources, including oil drilling and farming. But finding and quantifying it is inherently challenging.

A reliable system urgently needs to be put in place for methane monitoring. And there has been a lot of buzz lately around using satellites. In March, the MethaneSAT satellite was launched for this purpose. Some are heralding this technology as the next big thing in environmental monitoring.

As someone who has spent decades working on satellite systems, I can appreciate the allure. Satellites offer the ability to cover vast expanses of land, capturing data from regions that are difficult to monitor by other means.

But, before we get too carried away, it’s worth pausing to consider what satellites can — and, more importantly, cannot — do. Although satellites can provide crucial insights into methane releases, they are not a comprehensive solution. Their effectiveness is often hampered by limited spatial resolution, atmospheric interference and the challenge of accurately identifying specific emission sources.

Satellites’ broad spatial coverage tends to come at the cost of precision. Take the Permian Basin — a prolific oil- and gas-producing area in the southwestern United States. Overlapping infrastructure, such as pipeline networks and storage facilities, combined with varying topography, fluctuating weather patterns and diverse land uses, make specific emission sources hard to pinpoint.

Weather patterns can distort satellite readings, and offshore emissions are frequently missed. Given that oceans cover more than two-thirds of our planet, this is no small oversight.

This methane-sniffing satellite will leave climate polluters nowhere to hide

My experience managing large-scale satellite projects has taught me that remote-sensing data can sometimes raise more questions than they answer. This underscores the need for complementary monitoring methods.

To verify findings and identify leaks, satellites must be paired with boots on the ground. Relying too heavily on satellite data without corroborating it risks painting an incomplete — and possibly inaccurate — picture. And modelled data should not replace on-the-ground observations.

Such a multifaceted strategy can enhance the precision of methane monitoring, meaning that decisions are based on accurate and thorough data. More must be done to ensure that global players are investing in and deploying the most accurate methods, and are placing funding intentionally behind the technology that works best.