Invisible plumes and ‘terrible pollution’: the reality of the US gas sites rated ‘grade A’
This longform investigation scrutinises MiQ, a UK‑based non-profit that runs the world’s largest voluntary methane‑certification programme for oil and gas. MiQ is being promoted by BP, ExxonMobil, EQT and others as a way to show compliance with the EU Methane Regulation (EUMR), which requires continuous monitoring, reporting and verification of methane emissions at production sites and will soon cover imports. Reporters partnered with environmental monitoring groups and consultancies, visiting 10 MiQ‑certified sites in the Permian Basin using optical gas-imaging cameras. They documented large, invisible methane plumes, unlit or malfunctioning flares effectively venting gas, and leaking tanks and valves at facilities whose MiQ grades (A–C) imply leakage rates below 0.2% of production. Independent experts, including a former Texas regulator and an atmospheric chemist at Texas A&M, characterised these as “huge emissions” and noted that all “candlestick” flares emit methane, making low-intensity claims in a heavily flaring basin like the Permian hard to reconcile with field evidence. New MethaneSAT satellite data (EDF/Harvard, Feb 2026) showed Permian methane emissions between 2.4–4% of production—among the world’s highest and far above MiQ thresholds and US EPA operator‑reported inventories. Additional aerial surveys from the Global Airborne Observatory found repeated “super‑emitter” events over Exxon’s Poker Lake complex, even as Exxon reported no venting or flaring in state filings. DataDesk cross‑referenced these detections with MiQ‑certified site coordinates, reinforcing a pattern of under‑reporting. The piece then dissects MiQ’s methodology: auditors review operator‑supplied annual emissions inventories and procedures but do not make independent site measurements or calculate emissions themselves. Direct measurement is not required, nor is the use of specific third‑party satellite or aerial datasets, though some operators voluntarily incorporate them. Experts from Colorado State University and Purdue explain that most company inventories rely on short‑duration measurements, engineering factors and statistical extrapolation, which peer‑reviewed studies repeatedly show underestimate actual emissions. The article also probes MiQ’s trading rules: certificates can be “decoupled” from the specific molecules they certify and resold within a country—e.g., deals on CG Hub and Xpansiv allow high‑emitting gas streams to be paired with low‑emission certificates. An EU MEP who helped write the EUMR questions whether such decoupled credits comply with the regulation’s intent that certification reflect the emissions of the actual imported gas. MiQ executives defend their framework as broader than many regulatory regimes and stress controls on cross‑regional transfers, but critics liken certificate trade to “copying homework.” Overall, the investigation combines on‑the‑ground leak imaging, satellite/aerial datasets, regulatory filings, market deals and expert interviews to show a systemic gap between certified “responsible gas” claims and atmospheric reality—raising serious questions about using voluntary certification as a cornerstone of EU methane policy and global gas decarbonisation narratives.
