The Trump administration’s Unleashing American Energy agenda has resulted in significant deregulation, including the rollback of some requirements for US oil and gas operators to curb their methane emissions – methane being, by some methodologies, 84 times more potent a greenhouse gas (GHG) than CO2. This has raised concerns among environmentalists, who fear that progress in addressing methane emissions may be slowing or even reversing.

However, after speaking with operators and the companies and organisations assisting them with methane monitoring and abatement, NewsBase finds this concern is not borne out in practice. Momentum behind improved methane monitoring, quantification, and mitigation continues to build in the US – even without the same regulatory pressure. This has important implications for the emissions profile of US LNG, which matters greatly given the country’s role as the world’s largest exporter of the fuel.

While the oil and gas industry is not the main source of anthropogenic methane emissions – that distinction belongs to agriculture – there is broad consensus that oil and gas offers the most immediate, cost-effective opportunities for reductions. In contrast, tackling agricultural emissions would require drastic lifestyle changes by food consumers. According to 2021 estimates by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), oil and gas accounts for 23% of human-caused methane emissions, compared with 40% from agriculture, primarily livestock, 20% from waste and 12% from coal mining.

Methane reductions in oil and gas can be achieved through improved monitoring and quantification, using tools such as laser imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR) cameras, sensors mounted on drones, vehicles or aircraft and increasingly advanced satellite technologies. Such monitoring – combined with data analytics and AI – can accelerate leak detection and repairs or enable predictive maintenance to prevent leaks altogether. Equipment design and operational changes can also help minimise emissions, including avoiding routine methane venting.

 

Carrot or stick

When it comes to tackling methane emissions – or any environmental issue – companies typically respond to either regulation (the “stick”) or pressure from investors and customers (the “carrot”).

In the US, regulation of methane emissions has historically been relatively limited, especially compared to other major oil and gas producers such as Canada, Norway or the UK. Yet this did not prevent operators from taking action. Fifteen years ago, methane was barely mentioned in boardrooms, as one executive told NewsBase. That began to change around a decade ago. Ironically, it was during the early years of Donald Trump’s first term, starting in 2016, that methane reduction efforts began to gain real traction. With limited regulatory pressure, operators were instead pushed by environmentally-conscious investors and customers.

In 2019, Denver-based Project Canary launched its TrustWell certification, which assesses natural gas production based on operators’ standards for monitoring and minimising methane emissions. The following year, the non-profit MiQ was launched by the Rocky Mountain Institute and SYSTEMIQ, grading gas on emissions intensity, monitoring frequency and abatement practices. The goal was to create commercial incentives for emissions reduction – certified “cleaner” gas could command a premium in the market. Today, MiQ certifies more than 5% of global gas production, most of it in the US.

Internationally, UNEP and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) launched the OGMP 2.0 framework in 2014, which sets a “gold standard” for transparent methane reporting and targets a 60-75% reduction in oil and gas emissions by 2030. The number of companies achieving this benchmark continues to grow. Then there are industry-led initiatives like the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) – a coalition of 12 major oil and gas producers – has already more than halved its upstream methane emissions. In 2023, OGCI launched the Oil & Gas Decarbonisation Charter (OGDC) to promote this success across the broader global industry. OGCI now has over 55 signatories, including leading national oil companies.

 

Regulatory rollback

Under President Biden, the US introduced a significant regulatory measure: a methane emissions fee applicable to all oil and gas facilities emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2-equivalent methane annually. The fee was set to start at $900 per tonne in 2024, rising to $1,200 in 2025 and $1,500 by 2026.

But in early 2025, the Republican-controlled Congress repealed the EPA’s rule implementing the fee. Combined with further deregulation via executive order, this rollback sparked fears that operators would ease their emissions-reduction efforts.

Yet evidence on the ground suggests otherwise. Companies supporting the industry with methane monitoring and abatement services report that demand remains strong and is even getting stronger. Investor pressure continues – especially from those looking to prepare assets for sale or conducting due diligence prior to acquisition, with emissions profiles remaining a key consideration in the purchase price.

In Europe – the largest market for US LNG – buyers remain highly focused on the methane intensity of imported gas. And with the EU planning to apply methane performance standards to all imported gas in the coming years, this pressure is unlikely to ease. That said, Brussels may ultimately soften its stance on US gas imports, particularly given Trump’s vocal opposition to such regulation.

Japan, the world’s second-largest LNG importer, also remains committed to reducing the emissions footprint of its gas supplies – reinforcing the need for US producers to maintain progress on methane reduction.

US operators are also acutely aware that methane regulations could return if the Democrats regain the presidency in 2028. Continuing voluntary compliance is seen as prudent to avoid costly catch-up measures should regulations be reintroduced.

In summary, US efforts to reduce methane emissions have largely been driven by market and stakeholder pressure rather than regulation to date. And despite the current regulatory rollback, these efforts appear to be holding firm.