Building Defensible Methane Programs
The landscape for emissions management is shifting. Expectations for operators are rising; regulations are evolving, and there’s a lot more scrutiny on the data behind the numbers. To talk through what that looks like in practice, Joel Baller, COO of Bridger Photonics, sat down with Jessica Shumlich, COO of Highwood Emissions Management. They covered how OGMP 2.0 and EU regulations are affecting operators across the globe, where things tend to break down between measurement and reporting, and what it takes to build a methane program you can stand behind.
Jessica: How do you see Highwood capabilities complementing aerial measurement technologies like Bridger’s?
Baller: At Bridger, we’re focused on delivering high-quality, defensible measurements at scale. That means finding and quantifying emissions that operators can trust across large and complex asset bases—both onshore and offshore.
Where Highwood really complements that is what happens next. They take that data and help it fit into inventories, reporting frameworks, and regulatory disclosures. That step sounds straightforward, but in practice it’s where a lot of complexity shows up.
What we’ve seen is that many operators encounter challenges trying to connect that data into reporting in a way that is consistent, repeatable, and defensible. Without that structure, teams end up doing a lot of manual reconciliation, which introduces both inefficiency and risk.
Together, we’re closing that gap. It becomes a more coordinated path from measurement through to disclosure, which is ultimately what customers are trying to achieve.
Jessica: What similarities do you see between Highwood and Bridger in terms of mission and values?
Baller: There’s a strong alignment in how both organizations approach problems.
At a fundamental level, both teams care about technical rigor and independence. We’re not trying to shape the data to fit a narrative. We’re focused on making sure the data is accurate, can stand under scrutiny, and is useful for operators.
There’s also a shared mindset around long-term impact. This isn’t about delivering a one-off result. It’s about helping operators build programs that are durable and scalable as expectations continue to evolve. We want to be able to provide consistent, repeatable programs that deliver consistent results year over year.
That alignment matters. When you’re dealing with something as complex and high stakes as emissions reporting, having partners who approach the work the same way makes a big difference.
Jessica: How do our companies help move the industry from detection to actual reduction?
Baller: Detection alone doesn’t move the needle. Mitigation that leads to reduction does. What operators need is a clear path from data to decisions. If emissions data’s only use is to be put in a report, it doesn’t create enterprise value; it just creates work. Our customers use measurement in the service of mitigation—a pathway that supports both the corporate goals of an operator and improving operational excellence for the field. When you create win-wins within a business, you tend to have programs that stick. That is what we see.
This partnership is focused on making that data usable and transparent. That means connecting measurements directly to inventories, tying that into reporting, and giving operators something they can act on.
By connecting measurements with reconciliation and reporting, we help operators close that loop. The data becomes usable at the enterprise level, not just at the site level.
That’s what enables more targeted mitigation, better resource allocation, and clearer visibility into progress over time. That’s where detection starts to translate into real reduction.
Jessica: What are the common challenges operators are facing?
Baller: The most consistent challenge we see is fragmentation of data after it’s gathered.
The amount of disparate spreadsheets is amazing to witness!
Repairs, mitigation, sustainability reporting, and compliance are often owned by different teams, using different tools, with different priorities. Each group may be doing strong work on its own, but the connections between them are not always well defined.
So, what happens? A lot of manual work. Teams spend time stitching data together, checking for consistency, and trying to ensure everything aligns before it gets reported. As programs scale, that becomes harder to manage.
At the same time, operators are trying to navigate multiple frameworks, including OGMP 2.0, EU requirements, and certification programs. Applying those consistently across assets adds another layer of complexity.
And underlying all of this is increasing scrutiny. Regulators, investors, and commercial partners are asking more detailed questions. Operators want confidence that their data is traceable, documented, and defensible. That’s the gap many are trying to close.
Jessica: What impact does OGMP 2.0 have on operator reporting standards and data expectations?
Baller: OGMP 2.0 has given the industry a valuable tool—a common standard to work from. It moves the industry away from relying on estimates and toward using measured data to inform inventories. Operators are expected to show how their numbers are derived, how measurement is incorporated, and how everything connects through to reported results.
That changes how companies approach methane management internally. Measurement, reporting, and compliance can no longer operate independently. There needs to be alignment across those functions.
It also increases the importance of consistency and traceability. It’s not enough to have good data. You need to be able to explain it clearly and demonstrate that it holds together across your program.
For many operators, that’s less about adding new data and more about building systems and workflows that can support that level of rigor, supporting this standard that can highlight what “good” looks like.
Jessica: Why is a turnkey, fully integrated methane strategy increasingly important for operators?
Baller: Operators have a lot of things requiring their attention—providing a product, meeting investor expectations, reporting, and more. As expectations across the board rise, the cost of a fragmented approach to emissions goes up.
When measurement, reconciliation, and reporting are handled separately without clear coordination, it can create gaps. Those gaps show up as extra work internally and as risk when data is reviewed externally.
A more integrated approach helps reduce that friction. Measurement campaigns are aligned with reporting objectives from the beginning. Data flows more cleanly into inventories, and those inventories connect directly to disclosures and certifications.
It also gives operators more confidence. When everything is connected and traceable, it’s much easier to stand behind the results, whether that’s in a regulatory context or a commercial one.
Jessica: What excites you most about where emissions programs and technology are headed?
Baller: What’s encouraging is how quickly the market is maturing. We’re moving beyond basic detection into more integrated, enterprise-scale emissions management. Operators are thinking more holistically about how measurement, LDAR, reporting, and decision-making fit together. The measurement data is being used in so many different use-cases across the operator’s business, with new value being discovered every year.
One exciting trend we see is the harmonization of efforts within operators to use the same program to meet the requirements of Federal and State regulations, voluntary programs, and market access opportunities. This harmonization allows for less work to accomplish more within a business—something every operator is seeking.
Technology continues to improve, but just as important is the shift in expectations. There’s a stronger focus on accountability, consistency, and defensibility.
As those pieces come together, it becomes easier for operators to make informed decisions and demonstrate real progress. That’s where the industry starts to see meaningful impact, and it’s a direction that benefits everyone involved.
A Clear Direction
Methane programs are moving toward greater integration, higher standards, and stronger accountability.
Operators are being asked to do more than detect emissions. They need to explain them, reconcile them, and stand behind them. That requires a more connected approach across measurement, inventory, and reporting.
Partnerships like Bridger and Highwood are built around that reality. By bringing together high-quality measurements with structured, framework-aligned reporting, we are helping operators move from data collection to defensible outcomes.
That is what the next phase of methane management looks like.
