Oxford Flow: Why the next methane challenge is infrastructure

Neil Jeskins, QHSE Director, Oxford Flow

By Neil Jeskins, QHSE Director, Oxford Flow

The IEA’s Global Methane Tracker 2026 underlines a stubborn problem for the energy sector: despite years of reporting, monitoring and mitigation programmes, methane emissions from fossil fuel operations are still not falling. The IEA estimates that fossil fuel operations emitted 124 Mt of methane in 2025, including 45 Mt from oil and 36 Mt from natural gas.

Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions have become the foundation of sustainability strategies and regulatory frameworks. But they all share a limitation: they only track what’s already happened. The result is a focus on reduction after the fact, rather than prevention by design.

Avoided emissions, sometimes referred to as Scope 4, offer a different way of thinking. Though not formally recognised by the GHG Protocol, they are gaining traction in voluntary disclosures and innovation-focussed climate strategies, especially where infrastructure and product design can drive change. Scope 4 covers the emissions that never occurred, prevented through better design, smarter systems and cleaner technologies.

A methane problem that reporting alone cannot solve

In industrial sectors, especially those involving pressurised systems, one of the most persistent sources of emissions is leaking equipment, with research from University of British Columbia stating that 60% of industrial fugitive emissions come from valves.

This matters because the methane challenge is concentrated in operational infrastructure. The IEA estimates that upstream activities account for 80% of oil and gas methane emissions, making asset-level intervention one of the most important routes to progress.

Valves sit across the oil and gas value chain, from offshore platforms and pipelines to transmission and distribution systems, and they’ve historically lacked innovation. When they fail, they compromise safety and performance and leak emissions into the atmosphere.

These leaks are classified as Scope 1 emissions. For operators, that means every leaking valve adds to mandatory reporting obligations and regulatory scrutiny, not just environmental impact. Eliminating these emissions by design therefore delivers a double benefit: it addresses Scope 1 compliance requirements today and it creates avoided emissions (Scope 4) that represent genuine prevention rather than reactive repair.

Leak detection and repair programmes are essential, but they are still built around finding and fixing emissions after a failure has occurred.

However, the IEA estimates that more than 50 Mt of upstream oil and gas methane emissions could be abated using existing technology. New compact, electrohydraulic systems that reduce moving parts and stress points, make failures far less likely. These valves not only reduce emissions but avoid them altogether. The Oxford Flow ES Valve is one example of a zero fugitive emissions design, operating without a stem, which is the most significant source of valve emissions.

Designing out failure points

Even though Scope 4 is useful in practice, most companies don’t include it in their emissions plans. One reason is the fear of being accused of greenwashing. But instead of avoiding Scope 4, companies should approach it seriously and carefully.

That starts with baselining. When emissions are measured before and after a technology is deployed, as some energy companies are now doing with new valve installations, the avoided emissions become real, reportable data points. With clear methodologies and verified results, Scope 4 can evolve from a concept into a credible part of the net zero toolkit.

For operators, this creates a new lens for evaluating infrastructure investments. If a valve must be replaced, why not choose one that reduces downtime and emissions at the same time? And for OEMs, it provides incentive to develop cleaner, smarter products, not just for regulatory reasons, but because there’s market demand for technologies that deliver both performance and sustainability.

From compliance mindset to innovation opportunity

The prevailing emissions narrative is shaped by reporting frameworks and legislation. Regulations like the EU’s methane reporting requirements are pushing emissions up the priority list and many companies are still playing catch up. But there’s a risk that in focusing solely on what must be measured, the industry overlooks what could be avoided.

The economics are also shifting and estimates show that nearly 30 Mt of upstream oil and gas methane emissions could be reduced at no net cost (based on 2025 prices). That reinforces the point that the sector is increasingly having to confront – methane abatement is not always a trade-off between environmental performance and operational value.

Making Scope 4 part of the conversation

Scope 4 may never become part of formal carbon accounting. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a consideration in the emissions conversation. As technology evolves, so too should the way we measure its impact.

Valves may be a small part of the system, but their impact is significant. By choosing technology that eliminates failure at the source, operators can reduce risk, cut emissions and support long-term sustainability goals in one decision.

Search related valve / actuator articles:   Oxford Flow LtdIssue 105Energy