Executive summary

Global oil and gas methane emissions remain stubbornly high. Oil and gas activities account for a substantial part of human-caused methane emissions, and these emissions have shown no signs of slowing in recent years. According to IEA analysis, more than 80 million tonnes (Mt) of methane were emitted from oil and gas operations in 2025. Most of these emissions can be avoided with existing technologies (77%), often at no net cost.

Demand for “near-zero” methane fuels could spur emissions reductions while strengthening energy security. Oil and gas are heavily traded commodities. Buyers in major importing economies can influence emissions by prioritising fuels with lower methane intensities. According to IEA analysis, if buyers in major importing economies were to demand fuels with an upstream methane intensity of 0.1% or less – equivalent to around 0.1 kg methane per barrel of oil equivalent (kg CH4/boe) – this could reduce global methane emissions by around 17 Mt, equivalent to one quarter of global upstream oil and gas emissions. These reductions could also unlock an additional 36 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas supply, strengthening energy security in importing countries.

Creating demand signals for near-zero methane fuels starts with a common global framework for assessing upstream methane performance. Transparency on methane emissions has improved in recent years, supported by new technologies and several reporting frameworks. However, many operators still do not quantify their methane emissions, while those that do typically report only company-level totals, with limited asset-level granularity. Buyers often lack sufficient confidence in reported emissions data, as many inventories are neither informed by direct measurement nor subject to third-party verification. Furthermore, differences in the methodologies and approaches used by operators limit comparability across fuel sources. A common global framework for assessing methane performance would enable buyers to better identify lower-intensity supplies and strengthen demand signals for producers to reduce methane emissions.

This report lays out the IEA’s proposed global framework for assessing upstream performance. Thirteen countries have endorsed the Statement on Drastically Reducing Methane Emissions in the Fossil Fuel Sector, which calls for work to be initiated towards the development of the near-zero intensity methane marketplace (NZIMM). At the request of the Statement signatories, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has prepared this report to examine what is needed to develop a global NZIMM.

The IEA conducted extensive consultations throughout July 2026 with a range of stakeholders, including producers, buyers, service providers, governments, international organisations and civil society organisations to inform its recommendations. Informed by feedback received from stakeholders, the IEA’s proposed framework is based on two letter grades, each ranging from A to F, that are assessed at asset level. The first letter grade reflects the asset’s methane intensity, providing buyers with a clear understanding of the asset’s methane performance. The second letter grade reflects the accuracy and reliability of the operator’s quantified emissions, providing buyers with a sense of the degree of trust that can be placed in the disclosed methane intensity. The two letter grades are always to be disclosed together; it is not possible to only disclose one.

Calculating a methane intensity grade requires clear and consistent system boundaries. The IEA recommends that the NZIMM focus first on emissions from production activities, where the greatest potential for emissions reductions lies. Its scope could be extended to gathering, compression and processing and to the downstream sector at a later stage, once the viability of a marketplace for production activities has been well demonstrated.

A common intensity formula is essential to ensure comparability across assets and operators. Methane intensity is recommended to be calculated on an energy basis, expressed as the energy content of methane emissions (in joules) divided by total marketed oil and gas energy (in joules). This approach avoids reliance on a gas-only denominator (as used by several organisations today), which could disadvantage oil-focused assets. It also enables the application of a single formula to calculate the emissions intensity of crude oil and natural gas production.

A grading scheme provides clarity for buyers while creating incentives for operators to improve methane performance. Drawing on approaches used in other sectors, a grading system is recommended to be used to score intensity. A grading system enables buyers to assess the operational methane performance of individual assets, while limiting the need to disclose commercially sensitive information. In parallel, a common near-zero methane intensity benchmark of 0.1% (calculated using the IEA’s recommended definition of intensity) is recommended to be established. This benchmark is informed by IEA analysis regarding the level of emission reductions that are technically feasible today, as well as current company- and country-level performance. Establishing such a benchmark would help build a shared understanding of what constitutes near-zero methane intensity among producers, buyers, governments and investors.

Reporting a data quality score alongside the emissions intensity score provides confidence to buyers on the intensity of the oil and gas they purchase. An A-to-F grading scale is proposed for data quality, based on three indicators: (i) the methodology used to quantify emissions, drawing on the five reporting levels established under UNEP's Oil and Gas Methane Partnership 2.0 (OGMP 2.0); (ii) the frequency of site-level measurements; and (iii) the coverage of site-level measurements. The grading scale has been designed to reflect current industry practices, thus ensuring that the requirements remain practically achievable for operators.

Independent third-party verification is needed to foster trust for buyers. Methane emissions data are currently not systematically subject to independent verification, which can undermine buyers’ confidence in the accuracy and credibility of reported figures. Under the proposed framework, operators that do not undergo independent third-party verification automatically receive an F grade for data quality. To ensure the robustness and credibility of the verification process, verification bodies must be independent from the operator, its equity partners and any service provider involved in the quantification. They must also demonstrate sufficient technical expertise in methane emissions quantification and management. Independence, impartiality and competence can be ensured by requiring verification bodies to hold accreditation from a recognised national accreditation body or government regulator.

Alignment with existing regulatory and voluntary frameworks can accelerate development of the NZIMM. Many frameworks and initiatives have emerged in recent years that require or encourage operators to improve transparency on methane emissions and adhere to high standards of measurement, reporting and verification, including OGMP 2.0 and the European Union Methane Regulation (EUMR). The data quality framework has been designed to foster alignment with existing regulatory and voluntary frameworks, including OGMP 2.0 and the EUMR. To facilitate interoperability between the NZIMM framework and the EUMR, a dedicated data quality pathway is proposed to be created. Operators that comply with EUMR standards on measurement, regulation and verification automatically receive a grade of B for data quality under the NZIMM framework – though operators can always improve this score through the methodology proposed under the IEA’s data-quality framework.

The IEA framework is designed to be voluntary, but government policies can accelerate the development of a global marketplace for near-zero methane fuels. Government support could help broaden market participation and strengthen the marketplace’s potential to drive emissions reductions. At the request of the signatories to the Fossil Fuel Statement, this report presents a range of policy options that governments could implement to support the development of the NZIMM. These options cover measures on both the supply and demand sides, although they remain entirely at the discretion of individual governments, in line with national circumstances and priorities. The policy options are intended to inform government decision making; the development of the NZIMM does not depend on their adoption.

Further work is needed to operationalise the marketplace. This report focuses on the foundational question of how to assess and compare upstream methane performance across assets. It does not address the mechanisms through which market participants could transact, retire and claim volumes of low-intensity oil and gas. Future work can examine how verified performance can be linked to marketed volumes and how performance can be integrated into commercial transactions and pricing structures. Addressing these operational considerations will be crucial for building an effective global NZIMM. To advance this work, the establishment of a Technical Working Group (TWG) is recommended. The TWG would support the finalisation of the proposed framework and examine operational issues in greater detail.