Back to Resources
Buyer's Guide

Buyer's Guide to Methane Carbon Credits

Independent framework for evaluating methane abatement credits using GWP100 (~28×) framing. Focus on measured fugitive emissions, permanence, and defensible diligence standards.

Executive Summary

Methane abatement credits are framed here on a GWP100 basis, where methane is ~28× CO₂. Early diligence is critical for buyers comparing quality, permanence, and additionality. Independent audits and calibration logs separate high-integrity credits from commodity alternatives.

28×
GWP100 climate impact context vs CO₂
As of Feb 2026
31,000+
wells in active inventory (OK+TX 20,000+; ND 11,000+)
As of Feb 2026
10-Point
Comparison checklist
As of Feb 2026

Key Evaluation Criteria

Four technical criteria backed by ORR Energy Services' plugging expertise and Hetek measurement equipment.

Additionality Assessment

  • Would the methane emissions have continued without the project?
  • Is there a clear counterfactual scenario demonstrating additional impact?
  • Are there regulatory requirements already mandating this activity?
  • Does the project go beyond business-as-usual practices?

Measurement Rigor

  • Are emissions measured directly rather than estimated from factors?
  • Is measurement equipment calibrated and third-party verified?
  • Are multiple measurement campaigns conducted for accuracy?
  • Is baseline data collected over sufficient time periods?

Registry Credibility

  • Is the registry recognized by international standards bodies?
  • Does the methodology undergo independent review?
  • Are credits tracked on blockchain or immutable ledger?
  • Is there transparency in methodology documentation?

Permanence & Verification

  • Are emission reductions permanent and irreversible?
  • Is there ongoing monitoring and verification?
  • Are third-party auditors involved in verification?
  • Is there insurance or guarantee against reversal?

10-Point Comparison Checklist

Use this checklist when evaluating different methane credit providers and projects.

Credit Quality Assessment

Rate each provider on these criteria. Focus on "Critical" items first.

Direct measurement vs. EPA emission factors
Critical
Third-party reviewed registry pathway
Critical
Calibrated equipment with GPS documentation
High
Multiple measurement campaigns per well
High
Permanent physical intervention (plugging)
Critical
Regulatory compliance and permitting
Critical
Blockchain or immutable credit tracking
Medium
Independent auditor verification
High
Baseline vs. post-intervention monitoring
High
Clear additionality demonstration
Critical

Red Flags to Avoid

Warning signs that indicate lower-quality methane credits or potential issues.

Quality Concerns

Credits based solely on EPA emission factors without direct measurement
Methodologies that are not third-party reviewed or approved
Projects with unclear additionality or regulatory requirements
Lack of transparency in measurement data or methodology
No permanent physical intervention to prevent future emissions
Missing third-party verification or audit requirements
Unrealistic pricing that seems too good to be true
Registries with limited transparency or recognition

How CH4mber Credits Measure Up

CH4mber credits exceed all quality criteria with third-party auditors certifying permanent emission reductions. Field measurements verified using Hetek high-flow sampling equipment with calibration logs.

✓ Clear Additionality

Orphaned wells have no responsible party and would leak methane indefinitely. Creates local jobs while reducing state orphan-well lists.

✓ Measurement Rigor

Hetek high-flow sampling equipment with calibration logs, GPS coordinates, and lab results. Raw data files hashed on-chain for anyone to verify.

✓ Registry Credibility

Registry-agnostic issuance posture with complete diligence documentation and third-party verification support.

✓ Permanent + Co-benefits

API-compliant plugging eliminates emissions permanently. Caps wells within critical aquifers, removing surface hazards.