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. It reframes decarbonisation as an opportunity for innovation, rather than yet another compliance challenge.

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 from leaking equipment, with research from University of British Columbia stating 60% of industrial fugitive emissions comes 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 full oil and gas value chain, from offshore platforms and pipelines to transmission systems and even distribution and they’ve historically lacked innovation. Yet when they fail, they don’t just compromise safety and performance; they leak fugitive emissions like methane directly into the atmosphere.

These leaks are classified as Scope 1 emissions, since they are direct releases from owned or controlled equipment. 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.

For decades, this has been accepted as a cost of doing business. Repair cycles, monitoring programmes and emissions-mitigation plans all assume leakage will happen. But that’s a fundamentally reactive mindset. One that adds cost, complexity and emissions all at once. There is a better alternative, engineering the failure point out of the system entirely.

Leak detection and repair programmes are essential, but they are still built around finding and fixing emissions after a failure has occurred. As satellite detection and methane monitoring become more sophisticated, the industry will become better at seeing emissions events. The next challenge is reducing the number of events that need to be found in the first place.

The IEA estimates that more than 50 Mt of upstream oil and gas methane emissions could be abated using existing technology. The latest advances in valve technology mean that 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 a leading 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 theoretical concept into a credible part of the net zero toolkit.

The benefits of this are two-fold. For operators, it 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 and understandably so. 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 energy prices). That reinforces the point the sector is increasingly having to confront, methane abatement is not always a trade-off between environmental performance and operational value.

In reality, some of the most effective emissions strategies are not about offsets or afterthoughts, they’re about removing the cause. The transition from gas-powered actuators to electric valve systems, for example, doesn’t just reduce emissions associated with air compression; it simplifies operations, improves reliability and cuts embedded emissions from supporting infrastructure.

That’s the shift Scope 4 thinking encourages. It moves the conversation from incremental improvements to structural change. From reacting to emissions after they happen, to preventing them from occurring at all.

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. If the end goal is to decarbonise industry, avoided emissions must be recognised and rewarded, not as marketing spin, but as a critical indicator of engineering progress.

The latest methane data makes clear that the industry already has many of the tools it needs. The question is whether those tools are deployed early enough and whether infrastructure decisions are judged not only by what they enable, but by what they prevent.

Valves may be a small part of the system, but their impact is significant. Both when they fail and when they don’t. By choosing technology that eliminates failure at the source, operators can reduce risk, cut emissions and support long-term sustainability goals in one decision.

After all, if we can eliminate a problem before it begins, isn’t that the best outcome of all?