Success in leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs has typically been defined by compliance.
Operators inspected regulated components, documented leaks, completed repairs and demonstrated they met regulatory requirements. It has been a process for satisfying permits and passing inspections.
Today, environmental teams are expected to reduce methane emissions, improve air quality, provide more transparent reporting for investors and stakeholders, support operational efficiency and maintenance planning, and ultimately, find and repair leaks faster to keep more product in the pipeline.
While still critically important, modern LDAR programs are being built less around compliance obligations and more around visibility, speed and using emissions data to create value for the business.
LDAR is moving beyond compliance
Every leak represents more than a compliance obligation. It also indicates product loss, equipment degradation, maintenance issues or reliability risks. Emissions data can help operators understand where equipment is failing, where product is being lost and where maintenance resources should be focused.
LDAR programs built solely around completing required inspections often leave that value untapped. Modern programs need to maintain compliance while also helping facilities find consequential emissions sooner, prioritize repairs and improve operational performance.
Regulations are beginning to reflect that broader objective. Where Method 21 was once the required standard for many programs, requirements such as NSPS Subpart OOOOb, Appendix K, certain TCEQ regulatory updates, Subpart 6B, Subpart R and Subpart XXa provide additional flexibility to choose a technology or method that best fits the goals for an operation while still maintaining compliance.
This flexibility gives operators an opportunity to make more strategic LDAR decisions, satisfying permit and regulatory requirements while also improving visibility, safety, survey efficiency and repair prioritization.
What OGI adds to a modern LDAR program
Method 21 remains an important compliance tool, providing standardized concentration measurements at individual components. However, concentration does not always equal emission volume, and larger sources can be harder to differentiate, prioritize and repair. In two natural gas facility surveys, Method 21 calculated estimates under reported emissions by 41% compared to the directly measured emissions (1,593.17 g/hr compared with 2,908.61 g/hr and 390.30 g/hr compared with 609.09 g/hr), suggesting that the largest emission sources may not be fully reflected by Method 21 estimates alone.
OGI adds a facility-wide perspective and prioritizes the largest leaks visually. Trained operators can rapidly screen equipment, identify visible emission plumes, prioritize emissions and move sooner to investigation and repair. In the same study of 2 surveys across 85 leak points, just 14% to 26% of detected leaks accounted for 83% to 96% of directly measured emissions, allowing operators to act sooner and repair their highest emitting sources more efficiently.
OGI is not a universal replacement for Method 21. The right method depends on the compounds present, facility conditions and regulatory pathway. OGI can be a strong option for many oil and natural gas operations including bulk gasoline terminals, while Method 21 may remain better suited to some refinery and chemical processes. Selecting the right approach requires a clear understanding of the facility, applicable requirements and the operational outcomes the program is expected to support.
Seeing the whole facility improves decision-making
Taking a facility or scene level approach often identifies emissions sources that would otherwise go undiscovered using a component only approach.
OGI surveys have identified emissions from cracks in welds, underground piping believed to be out of service and equipment that would have been impractical or unsafe to inspect component by component. These findings give operators better information for repair and maintenance planning, help reduce lost product and strengthen the emissions data they may need to report and defend to regulators, investors and the public.
Method 21 can provide component-level measurements up to 5% methane equivalent concentration without an upper limit, OGI can locate visible emissions across a wider scene and quantification tools can determine how much gas is being released when that information is needed.
A modern LDAR program combines the methods that best fit the source, facility and compliance objective. The goal is not to select one technology for every situation. It is to detect emissions quickly and reliably, direct resources toward the most impactful emissions and act sooner.
Building a program that can adapt to whatever comes next
Technology will continue to evolve faster than regulations. Organizations that wait for regulations to prescribe every new approach will always be operating behind what is technically possible.
Operators need a strategy that connects emissions and leak data to broader operational goals, using that information to guide maintenance, reliability, repair planning and emissions reduction. That strategy is built on four core pillars.
People. Well-trained personnel, competency verification and routine audits ensure technologies are applied consistently.
Processes. Standardized procedures and quality assurance systems produce reliable, repeatable results.
Technology. Flexible monitoring approaches allow programs to adapt as regulations evolve.
Data. Digital reporting and emissions tracking transform inspection results into operational intelligence that supports smarter maintenance and planning.
A successful LDAR program depends on more than technology. Strong execution turns better emissions information into better decisions.
The next generation of LDAR is already taking shape
The organizations seeing the greatest return from LDAR are no longer treating emissions as a standalone environmental issue.
Environmental specialists, operations teams, maintenance personnel and engineers are working from the same information because each group sees a different piece of the puzzle.
Environmental teams see regulatory obligations. Maintenance teams identify recurring equipment issues. Operations teams recognize production impacts. Engineering teams uncover opportunities to improve system design.
When emissions data is shared across those disciplines, LDAR programs can drive significant operational improvements, not just tick a compliance box. Ultimately, the strongest LDAR programs need to answer a single question:
What are our emissions telling us about our operation?