Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines a framework for mobilizing capital to reduce methane emissions and flaring in the oil and gas sector. It details how to structure debt instruments—such as green, sustainable, and sustainability-linked bonds—to prioritize emission reduction projects. The guide provides a comprehensive list of eligible activities, a hierarchy for quantifying emissions, and specific KPI and Sustainability Performance Target (SPT) matrices. It emphasizes the role of National Oil Companies (NOCs) and provides safeguards against 'greenwashing,' including requirements for third-party verification and rigorous reporting standards.

The document argues that while methane abatement is a cost-effective near-term strategy to limit global warming, capital deployment in the oil and gas sector is significantly lagging behind the targets required for the IEA's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario. It proposes a framework for using use-of-proceeds (UoP) bonds, key performance indicator (KPI)-linked bonds, and conventional debt with methane-related covenants to bridge this investment gap. The authors highlight the critical role of National Oil Companies (NOCs) and the need for credible, science-based guardrails to mitigate greenwashing and fungibility risks.

The Guidance for Including Methane Abatement in Oil and Gas Debt Structuring offers a framework for using debt capital markets to fund emissions reductions in the oil and gas sector. It specifically targets National Oil Companies (NOCs) and independent producers, providing detailed criteria for qualifying projects in use-of-proceeds (UoP) instruments and defining core and secondary key performance indicators (KPIs) for KPI-linked instruments. The document emphasizes the need for measurement-based quantification, external verification by subject matter experts, and guardrails to prevent greenwashing and 'transferred emissions' during asset mergers and acquisitions.

In 2021/22, Nigeria received USD 2.5 billion in climate finance, representing a 32% increase from 2019/20 but leaving an annual finance gap of USD 27.2 billion. Public actors provided 70% of this funding, with multilateral development finance institutions (DFIs) as the largest providers at 48%. Mitigation investments (USD 1.2 billion) dominated, primarily driven by solar PV, while adaptation finance (USD 0.74 billion) covered only 6% of estimated needs. The report highlights a heavy reliance on debt for international public finance and identifies critical barriers such as high capital costs, a lack of bankable projects, and limited green fiscal incentives.

In 2021/22, Nigeria received USD 2.5 billion in climate finance, a 32% increase from 2019/20, yet this remains far below the estimated annual need of USD 29.7 billion. Public actors, led by multilateral development finance institutions, provided 70% of the funding, while private contributions reached 30%, primarily driven by corporate investments in solar PV. Mitigation efforts dominated the landscape, particularly in energy systems, while adaptation finance reached only USD 0.74 billion, covering just 6% of estimated needs. The report highlights critical barriers including high capital costs, a lack of bankable projects, and heavy reliance on debt, which is concerning given Nigeria's substantial debt burden. Key recommendations include operationalizing the National Climate Change Fund, prioritizing anticipatory adaptation, and developing a domestic green industry to reduce import dependence.

The document examines the potential for Nigeria to reduce methane emissions in its oil and gas sector, noting that such actions could unlock USD 1.5 billion annually and support the country's commitment to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 under the Global Methane Pledge.

The CoMAT Methodology guide details how the tool calculates methane emissions using a bottom-up equipment-based inventory combined with specific top-down measurements. It outlines the data inputs, emission factors, and abatement strategies for various oil and gas industry segments, including exploration, production, processing, transmission, storage, LNG, and distribution. The tool leverages defaults primarily from the US GHG Inventory (US GHGI) while allowing for country-specific updates to refine emissions inventories and design policy strategies.

The report argues that offshore oil and gas activities pose severe threats to the global commons, specifically the oceans and atmosphere. It details how seismic surveys harm marine life, production leads to catastrophic blowouts and underreported methane emissions, transportation increases the risk of spills and invasive species, and improper decommissioning leaves a legacy of leaking 'orphan' wells. The document emphasizes that these risks are magnified by climate change and that existing legal frameworks, including UNCLOS and the polluter pays principle, should be leveraged to phase out offshore fossil fuel extraction.

The document argues that offshore oil and gas production poses severe risks, including underreported greenhouse gas emissions from flaring and methane leaks, the high potential for devastating well blowouts—especially in deep waters—and chronic marine pollution from produced water. It highlights the failure of current cleanup technologies and the long-term socio-economic damage to coastal communities, concluding that halting offshore expansion is essential to meeting the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The author contends that the green energy transition cannot rely on markets alone or the leadership of fossil fuel producers, who lack the incentive to undermine their core business. Instead, the transition must be driven by consumers reducing global demand through policies like carbon pricing. The text outlines four geoeconomic scenarios for this transition: 'survival of the fittest', 'geopolitical preferences', 'green preferences', and 'development preferences', suggesting that the latter two—which prioritize low-carbon footprints and the socio-economic needs of lower-income producers—are the most just and realistic pathways to meeting Paris Agreement goals.

The report finds that 10 major international oil companies (IOCs) are responsible for 7% of global gas flaring on an equity-weighted basis, with a significant portion occurring at non-operated assets. In 2023, total global upstream flaring was 145 billion cubic meters (bcm), with an average intensity of 5.0 m³/bbl. The analysis highlights a gap between corporate commitments to the World Bank's Zero Routine Flaring (ZRF) initiative and actual performance, noting that non-routine flaring remains largely unabated and that no analyzed company meets the IEA's Net Zero Emissions scenario target of 0.3 m³/bbl by 2030. The report argues that IOCs have a broader influence on up to 40% of global flaring through their partnerships with national oil companies (NOCs) and recommends extending emissions targets to non-operated assets and implementing stricter regulatory and financial levers.

The document identifies operational, financial, and market barriers to gas-capture projects and proposes a framework for the EU's 'You Collect We Buy' initiative to overcome them through better data, risk-sharing financing, and a credible certification system.

In 2021/22, Nigeria received USD 2.5 billion in climate finance, a 32% increase from 2019/20, yet this remains far below the estimated annual need of USD 29.7 billion. Public actors provided 70% of the funding, led by multilateral development finance institutions (DFIs), while private finance accounted for 30%, primarily driven by corporate investments in solar PV. Mitigation efforts, particularly in energy systems, dominated the landscape, while adaptation finance reached only USD 735 million, covering just 6% of annual needs. The report highlights a heavy reliance on debt-based financing, which is concerning given Nigeria's high debt-servicing costs. Key barriers include the high cost of capital, a lack of bankable projects, and data gaps. The authors recommend operationalizing the National Climate Change Fund, prioritizing anticipatory adaptation, and pursuing innovative financing such as green bonds and debt-for-climate swaps.

The report highlights the critical role of methane mitigation in Nigeria's oil and gas sector, noting that methane has over 80 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over 20 years. It details Nigeria's commitment to the Global Methane Pledge and its specific target to reduce oil and gas methane emissions by 61% in its updated NDC. The document identifies key tools like the Nigerian Gas Flare Tracker and the prototype Satellite-based Methane Emission Tracker as essential for measurement and verification. However, it warns that inadequate curbing of gas flaring and new EU regulations on fossil fuel imports by 2030 pose significant risks to Nigeria's LNG exports and economic stability. The authors advocate for enhanced leak detection and repair (LDAR) technologies, robust regulatory enforcement, and international collaboration to meet the national goal of ending gas flaring by 2030.

The OCI+ tool provides data on the methane intensity of global oil and gas resources, highlighting that the sector is responsible for an estimated one-third of global methane emissions. The tool aims to help policymakers, investors, and civil society prioritize the highest-emitting assets for mitigation. The document emphasizes that over half of industry methane emissions can be profitably reduced and notes the role of satellite monitoring in identifying super-emitters. Additionally, the OCI+ includes an environmental justice feature to map the risks posed by gas flaring to nearby communities, specifically utilizing 2022 US flaring data.

The report warns that Nigeria's 'decade of gas' strategy, involving a planned USD 18.5bn investment in LNG infrastructure, risks creating stranded assets as global demand is forecast to fall by 2030. While Nigeria is currently the world's sixth largest LNG exporter, the report argues that prioritizing LNG may hinder economic diversification, increase fossil fuel subsidies, and expose the economy to external price fluctuations and climate-driven demand declines in Europe.

The report evaluates Nigeria's strategy to expand LNG production to offset declining oil revenues, warning that such investments risk becoming stranded assets as global demand shifts toward clean energy after 2030. It highlights that while Nigeria is the world's sixth-largest LNG exporter, the sector has not significantly improved domestic energy access or reduced poverty, and continues to be linked to environmental degradation and social conflict in the Niger Delta.

Nigeria is implementing a variety of regulatory tools and national plans to reduce methane emissions from its oil and gas sector, which accounted for approximately 41% of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions in 2020. While the country has reduced natural gas flaring by about 70% since 2000, it remains among the top 10 global gas flarers. National targets include reducing fugitive methane emissions by 60% by 2031 and achieving a 61% reduction in short-lived climate pollutants by 2030. However, progress is hindered by technical data gaps, inadequate leak detection infrastructure, and high mitigation costs.

The document outlines how every phase of the offshore oil and gas lifecycle—exploration, production, transport, and decommissioning—adversely impacts small-scale fisheries. It highlights specific threats such as seismic noise reducing fish catches, well blowouts causing oil spills, and the creation of exclusion zones. Additionally, it links offshore fossil fuel activity to broader climate impacts like ocean acidification and sea level rise, which further jeopardize food production. The signatories urge the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to recommend that States conduct thorough impact assessments and suspend projects that deprive fisherfolk of their fundamental human rights.

The document highlights a critical lack of tracked financing for oil and gas methane abatement in Southeast Asia, despite the sector being the region's second-largest methane contributor. It identifies key barriers such as limited technical capacity, data gaps, and underdeveloped regulations. The brief argues that methane abatement offers a low-cost, quick-win opportunity for near-term climate mitigation and suggests that state-owned enterprises and international financial institutions play pivotal roles in scaling these efforts.