One of the quickest possible climate wins is still largely being overlooked – methane.
The hydrocarbon traps heat far more effectively than CO2 over shorter periods. Which means that cutting methane emissions is one of the fastest ways to slow near-term global heating.
Methane reduction can also be done relatively cheaply. Malaysia’s upstream oil and gas industry could gain between US$8.2 million to US$11 million in net revenue from combating methane emissions, according to a study published in Environmental Advances – the first abatement cost analysis of methane in Malaysia’s oil and gas sector.
The study, led by Dr Viknesh Andiappan of Swinburne University of Technology’s Sarawak Campus, reveals that up to 63 per cent of methane emissions could be cut at no net cost – and more than 90 per cent could be eliminated for just a few million dollars.
“
Methane reduction is the first step towards decarbonising an economy.
Dr Shareen Yawanarajah, director, global energy transition, Environmental Defense Fund
Aniappan is joined on the Eco-Business Podcast by Dr Shareen Yawanarajah, senior director, global energy transition for Environmental Defense Fund, a United States-based non-profit that funded the research told the podcast: “To meet net zero goals and decarbonise the economy, you’ve got to reduce methane within your energy supply – that’s the first step.”
Viknesh Andiappan of Swinburne University of Technology (left) and Shareen Yawanarajah of Environmental Defense Fund (right)
Tune in as we discuss:
- Methane versus carbon in the climate conversation
- What’s stopping industry players from mitigating methane?
- A study on the cost benefits of methane abatement
- Progress on methane since COP26
- What will the next five years bring?
- The United States’ u-turn on methane
- Who are the leaders in mitigating methane?
The edited transcript:
How aware do you think policymakers, people in business, the man and woman on the street in Southeast Asia are of the significance of methane in the climate conversation?
Viknesh Andiappan: The awareness of methane emissions has been limited to carbon among the general public – people rarely see the connection with methane as a potent greenhouse gas.
From the [oil and gas] operators standpoint, they do understand the idea of methane emissions. But the focus is more towards how they deal with the safety aspect of it.
I think for policymakers, because the dialogue in the world stage, you can see carbon dioxide are the emissions really dominating the space. So they tend to gravitate towards dealing with that.
Shareen, is that your perspective as well – that the climate conversation is still dominated by carbon?
Shareen Yawanarajah: It depends on the region. In Southeast Asia, I tend to agree, particularly from the perspective of the lay person; for all these years we’ve been talking about CO2 and then all of a sudden people are talking about methane.
Oil and gas companies understand that methane is a pollutant that they need to manage, because it is the primary component of natural gas. They understand that eliminating or reducing methane emissions is actually beneficial from a business perspective.
Having said that, Viknesh is absolutely right – it is managed from the perspective of safety.
Awareness among policymakers in Malaysia is probably the highest regionally in Southeast Asia – and momentum is building.
For example, the Methane Leadership Programme, which was launched in 2023. It was a collaboration between Petronas and JOGMEC, the Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security. It’s meant to build capacity among Asean national oil companies and policymakers. And just recently we invited Petronas to talk to other national oil companies about how they could replicate the programme in other regions.
There is a commitment amongst the Asean national oil companies to half methane emissions by 2030. Petronas, in effect, has achieved this. It has reported a 62 per cent reduction in emissions. And just recently, the [regional energy think tank] Asean Center for Energy published a roadmap for methane reduction in Asean.
So there is progress. But in terms of your initial question in terms of the lay person, I think a lot more can be done.
Shareen, tell us a bit about the challenges you’re faced in pushing for policies on methane in Southeast Asia.
Shareen Yawanarajah: Cost is the biggest issue that comes up. Companies see this as an investment without cash flow – which is a bit of a red herring because a lot of the abatement options cost nothing to the company. And, some of the measures taken could generate revenue. A lot of these mitigation options is maintenance. You find a leak, you repair the leak, you stop the leak, so you don’t waste that product.
The other pushback is that companies don’t have the resources or know-how. Some of that is valid, because there is a reluctance to reallocate resources to address emissions issues.
Some companies now realise that some workforce redevelopment is needed, as opposed to hiring new staff – and that there needs to be an understanding from top to bottom as to why this is important.
Oftentimes, you will hear companies and countries making commitments. But that’s all that happens, because it doesn’t trickle down to the staff that will have to implement the work – they don’t understand why they’ve got to spend time on addressing emissions, so it just doesn’t get done.
Another challenge is methane reduction projects are still considered as another project, so they have to rank against a company’s existing portfolio of projects – and companies are more likely to choose something that they know is going to generate cashflow.
When we started this work in 2022, the general consensus in industry was, they have this under control. Companies don’t need need policy. They don’t need regulations.
But fast forward to 2025 and in June, there was a roundtable at [Kuala Lumpur energy conference] Energy Asia, attended by all of the national oil companies and other international organisations working on methane reduction, and the consensus was that companies needed government support in the form of policy and regulations to accelerate their own core productions and to justify investments in methane reduction.
I have to emphasise that everything that’s being done in Southeast Asia is voluntary. The Global Methane Pledge [launched at COP26 in 2021 to catalyse action to reduce methane emissions] is voluntary. Petronas’ commitment to reducing 50 per cent by 2025 is voluntary. So, the only way to ensure that reduction continues and commitments are met is to have regulations or policy that mandates these reduction efforts.
Viknesh, talk us through the findings from your study on methane abatement in the oil and gas sector in Malaysia.
Viknesh Andiappan: One of the key findings is that about 57 to 63 per cent of emissions can be mitigated at zero to net negative cost. Net negative here means that some amount must be invested to achieve that abatement, but the savings achieved outweigh that investment.
As Shareen mentioned earlier, a lot of those abatement options are not new technologies that still need further studies, like carbon capture, use and storage. These are established methods, such as repairing a leak, reducing venting, rerouting certain configurations.
It is a very systematic way to say that if companies abate methane, they’re going to see cost benefits. If companies want to go beyond the 63 per cent abatement, of course it will cost a certain amount because it becomes trickier, and in terms of volume, the scale of the cost is going to come into the picture.
What progress has been made since COP26 in 2021, when the Global Methane Pledge – a voluntary framework with countries pledging to take action to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent from 2020 levels by 2030 – was signed?
Shareen Yawanarajah: About 100 countries have signed on to the Global Methane Pledge, and the pledge itself is economy wide. This means that, for example, Malaysia focused on oil and gas methane reductions, but Indonesia, signed upwith a view towards to reducing agricultural or landfill methane.
A new report that was released by the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative that has been tracking company progress towards to achieving these commitments. It shows that companies are now evolving to measure emissions as opposed to estimating them. In the past, all of these emissions were calculated based on assumptions that were based on United States data. So when you move towards measured data, A, it’s more accurate, and B, you are actually using data that is specific to your assets and your country.
The report found that at least 40 per cent were on track for achieving the highest level in terms of measurement and reporting. However, there are still a lot of challenges. For example, countries that are suffering from war – it makes measuring methane impossible.
The larger national oil companies, and therefore countries, have made more progress. But the smaller ones with less resources, not just financial, but staff and therefore training – they’re lagging behind.
COP 30 perhaps didn’t achieve all that it was meant to achieve, but it did help advance efforts to address short-lived climate pollutants – methane is one of them. This includes a new initiative that was announced by Brazil and the United Kingdom. It’s called the Super Pollutant Country Action Accelerator. It was launched to fast track deep reductions in methane and to cover 30 developing countries by 2030. The first group of countries includes two from Southeast Asia, Cambodia and Indonesia; the others being Brazil, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa.
They will collectively receive an initial US$25 million support package. And overall the initiative aims to mobilise US$150 million over its first phase. The financial support is really important for developing countries and also smaller companies. These are really critical steps towards meeting the Global Methane Pledge.
Over the next five years, what do you see as the most impactful steps that can be taken in Southeast Asia to abate methane emissions?
Shareen Yawanarajah: Methane reduction is the first step towards decarbonising an economy. From a Southeast Asia perspective, there are a lot of big oil and gas producers and big energy exporters.
So, in order to meet net zero goals and decarbonise the economy, you’ve got to reduce methane within your energy supply – that’s the first step. And industry action is paramount. Because industry owns these assets. They also have the capital and the know-how to abate these emissions.
I also mentioned the fact that all of these actions are voluntary. So the most important step that Southeast Asian governments can take is to introduce policy and regulations that become the law of the land.
For example, in Malaysia, the National Climate Change Bill 2.0 included a target for methane reduction from various sectors, including the oil and gas sector. EDF and our local partners have been advocating for the Climate Change Act, which is still being drafted in Malaysia to include reduction targets.
The other aspect that countries can do is to recognise that reducing methane is not just for the climate. There are huge economic benefits that are also health benefits. Reducing methane by 30 per cent prevents 180,000 premature deaths each year.
Also, methane has a role to play in generating ozone. And everybody knows that ozone is something that you don’t want to increase.
Finally, from an economic perspective, there are jobs to be created among businesses that provide solutions to curb methane. A lot of the attention at the moment is on technologies that measure emissions, because mitigation is not rocket science.
The novel aspect is how quickly and accurately you can measure your emissions to prioritise where to mitigrate first.
Viknesh, any thoughts on the next five years in terms of ways we can tackle methane?
Viknesh Andiappan: I think policy is critical. We can’t be assuming that voluntary measures are going to help in the long term.
What I’d like to see in the next few years is massive measuring campaigns – especially in this region.
The next step would be to see oil and gas companies, or companies outside this sector, looking at measuring their emissions, reporting and verifying their emissions. Because you can’t manage what you’re not measuring.
The major challenge in this region is the availability of this data. A lot of these emissions are estimated, based on calculations, on engineering knowledge and so on.
It’s always important to verify that with measurements on the ground. This will help inform policy as well. Policies aren’t much good if they’re not based on science-informed data and information.
I would also like to see how this compliments innovative emerging technologies to abate methane. We are seeing a number of interesting technologies coming up that can help with general emissions reduction.
But the question now is, what else can be done? We can push it up to 63 per cent [methane abatement], but when you want to reduce to a 100 per cent, that’s when we have to look at technologies that might not exist yet. Without innovation I’m not so sure whether we can achieve our targets [for methane reduction].
Shareen Yawanarajah: It is very likely that companies are conducting their own [methane] measurements, but because they’re not sharing their data, it is impossible for organisations like the UN, to verify the accuracy of the reported data.
Independent measurements are needed because companies are not sharing their emissions data, unless they’re compelled by law to do so. At the moment that sort of transparency is non-existent.
Therefore, organisations like Swinburne and EDF have to conduct independent measurement studies to apply pressure on the system so that we can verify and validate actual progress that’s being reported. Without that there’s no way of really knowing whether we’ve reduced emissions by 30 per cent or 3 per cent.
A big shadow hanging over [methane] measurement is the United States. The retraction of the US from that climate and measurement conversation has had an impact on methane abatement, hasn’t it?
Shareen Yawanarajah: Absolutely, because there was a lot of financial support behind that commitment [from the US]. So now other countries have to step in; the EU, the UK, China.
Was it a setback? Absolutely. But every time I come to Asia, I am encouraged by the conversation around climate change and the urgency to do something about it. And the understanding that emissions have to be cut – that the energy systems have to transition to cleaner energy. And that this is a collective effort.
Is there a gold standard that countries or companies to follow on methane regulation?
Shareen Yawanarajah: From a regulations perspective, it would be Canada – the Canadian oil and gas methane regulations are probably best in class. From the US it would be the state of Colorado. That was the state that first enacted methane regulations for the oil and gas sector.
As for companies, Petronas is a leader in this space – and, by extension, Malaysia. There is also Woodside Energy in Australia. And Shell has had a lot of experience in this space. They may have pulled back a little bit from public commitments, but a lot of their investments have already been made.
