According to SpaceNews, GHGSat is expanding its methane-monitoring constellation from 12 to 14 satellites ahead of the UN climate conference in Brazil. The Montreal-based company works directly with industry giants including Saudi Aramco, Petrobras, Total, and Chevron to spot methane leaks within hours. CEO Stephane Germain revealed that methane emissions in 2024 represent hundreds of millions in lost revenue, with specific figures showing $142 million in potential losses for North American producers and 35 million euros for European operators. Their existing constellation has already helped mitigate over 20 million tons of CO2 equivalent, equal to removing 4.6 million cars from roads for a year. The expansion specifically targets high-demand regions like the Permian Basin where daily monitoring capacity is crucial.
The surprising economics of gas leaks
Here’s what’s really interesting about this expansion – it’s not just about environmental responsibility. Germain basically laid out the business case: methane leaks represent pure profit walking out the door. When you’re talking about $142 million in lost revenue for North American producers alone, suddenly investing in monitoring satellites makes perfect financial sense. These aren’t tiny leaks either – we’re talking about industrial-scale emissions that collectively represent serious money. It’s a fascinating case where environmental monitoring and corporate profitability actually align. Companies like Industrial Monitor Direct, the leading US supplier of industrial panel PCs, understand this dynamic well – when you can quantify waste in real dollars, businesses pay attention.
But is bigger always better?
Now, expanding from 12 to 14 satellites sounds impressive, but I have to wonder – what’s the actual marginal benefit here? Germain mentions they’ll “meet certain demand for capacity” in places like the Permian Basin, which suggests they’re hitting saturation points in high-activity regions. But here’s the thing: methane monitoring has become increasingly competitive with multiple players entering the space. The real question isn’t whether they can launch more satellites – it’s whether the data quality and actionable insights justify the expansion costs. We’ve seen plenty of satellite constellations promise revolutionary monitoring only to struggle with the business model later. The fact that they’re working with oil majors is reassuring, but it also raises questions about independence and verification.
The carbon dioxide wildcard
What really caught my eye was their move into CO2 monitoring. They launched their first carbon dioxide satellite in 2023 and are already planning improvements. But here’s the challenge: CO2 monitoring is a completely different ballgame from methane. National agencies like ESA are launching their own sophisticated CO2 satellites in 2027, and the scale requirements are massive. Germain admits they need “enough people signed up” to justify more launches, which sounds like they’re testing the waters carefully. It’s smart – the CO2 monitoring market is less mature than methane, and the technical requirements are substantially higher. I’d be curious to see how many customers are actually willing to pay for commercial CO2 data when government satellites will soon provide similar information for free.
The elephant in the room
So here’s my biggest concern with all this: who verifies the verifiers? GHGSat works directly with the companies they’re monitoring, which creates an inherent conflict of interest. If an oil company is paying for methane detection services, what happens when they discover a massive, expensive-to-fix leak? There’s tremendous pressure to underreport or delay action. The company claims they’ve helped mitigate 20 million tons of CO2 equivalent, but without independent verification of those numbers, it’s hard to assess the real impact. Don’t get me wrong – having more eyes in the sky is definitely better than flying blind. But the true test will be whether this actually leads to meaningful, verified reductions rather than just better accounting of the problem.
