Pre-endorsement stage Capabilities described on this site are planned. Nothing here describes a capability that currently exists in operation. See the roadmap.
Talk to Us

Home/Research & Evidence

The claims, and what supports them.

A company selling measurement integrity should be able to show where its own claims come from. Every factual assertion on this site traces to the reference register below.

Evidence base

Five threads.

E-1Single-blind controlled-release satellite testing

Blind controlled-release testing is the only honest check on a quantification method: a known rate is released and the estimate is compared against metered truth, without the operator knowing the answer.

Finding: a single-blind test of nine methane-sensing satellite systems from three continents found only 55% of estimates within ±50% of the metered rate.[6]

Consequence for the architecture: quantification error is material at the scale reconciliation decisions are made, and it defines the benchmark Vemissure intends to be measured against at gate R0.

E-2Empirical coverage of stated intervals

An uncertainty interval makes a frequency claim: a 95% interval asserts that roughly 95 of every 100 such intervals contain the true value.

Finding: intervals reported at a nominal 95% confidence achieved roughly 70% empirical coverage in blind testing, falling to 52% in the second stage of the same campaign. Six of twelve commercially available systems report no uncertainty at all.[6][14]

Consequence: this is the finding the company is built on. Coverage-calibrated uncertainty (I-1) exists to close exactly this gap, with a pass criterion of ≥90%.

E-3Cross-instrument response variation

Finding: cross-instrument response slopes measured at the TotalEnergies TADI controlled-release facility span 0.09 to 1.13 — the same release, measured by different instruments, differing by more than a factor of ten.[15]

Consequence: two apparently defensible numbers can rest on incomparable foundations, and multi-year trends can be sensor artefacts. The cross-instrument transfer standard (I-3) is the intended response.

E-4Detection floors and scope

Finding: published detection floors sit at roughly 99 kg/h (GHGSat), 66–144 kg/h (Tanager-1) and about 1.4 t/h for Sentinel-2 under blind test.[6][16]

Consequence: most site emissions fall below these thresholds. Vemissure therefore does not and will not claim to produce a site's primary inventory — it produces an independent site-level constraint with a calibrated interval, which is what Article 12(3) and OGMP Level 5 require.

E-5Methodological foundations

The approach draws on the GUM framework for expressing measurement uncertainty and Level-4 budget construction,[19] and on conformal prediction as a route to distribution-free coverage guarantees.[20]

Consequence: both are established, externally recognised frameworks. The innovation claimed is their application to satellite methane quantification, together with the calibration corpus that makes it work — not the invention of the underlying statistics.

On the coverage benchmark

The planned published coverage benchmark is comparative in nature. It will be computed on published third-party controlled-release data with published method and code, offer a right of reply to any system assessed, and pass legal review before publication. It is stronger for those constraints, not weaker.

Reference register

Sources & research.

References [1]–[22] as carried in the Vemissure business concept note. In-text markers across the site resolve to these entries.

  1. [1]UNEP — Facts about Methane. unep.orgMethane's near-term warming potency, share of current warming and atmospheric lifetime.
  2. [2]Climate & Clean Air Coalition — Methane. ccacoalition.orgApproximately 35% of human-caused methane comes from fossil fuels.
  3. [3]Global Methane Pledge. globalmethanepledge.orgMore than 150 countries committed to cutting methane 30% by 2030.
  4. [4]Regulation (EU) 2024/1787 on the reduction of methane emissions in the energy sector — Articles 8, 12(3), 28, 29, 30. eur-lex.europa.euPrimary instrument: reconciliation, importer MRV-equivalence, intensity reporting and maximum intensity values.
  5. [5]White & Case — Are you ready for the new EU rules on methane emissions in the energy sector? whitecase.comCompliance dates and penalty exposure summarised on the regulatory context page.
  6. [6]Sherwin et al. — Single-blind test of nine methane-sensing satellite systems from three continents, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 17:765–782 (2024). doi:10.5194/amt-17-765-202455% of estimates within ±50% of the metered rate; empirical coverage of stated intervals; detection floors.
  7. [7]UNEP IMEO — Oil & Gas Methane Partnership 2.0: membership, production share, Level-5 attainment. methanedata.unep.org150+ members (~42% of production); only 6–7% of reported production at Level 5.
  8. [8]Environmental Defense Fund — MethaneSAT Loses Contact with Satellite (2025). edf.orgCited in the concept note's competitive analysis as context on single-mission exposure.
  9. [9]Orbio Earth — Project Eucalyptus: open-source detection and quantification models; non-commercial licence. github.comDetection and quantification open-sourced on free public feeds — the commoditisation argument.
  10. [10]Custom Market Insights — Methane Monitoring Market (~USD 4.49bn 2026 → 8.90bn 2035). custommarketinsights.comThird-party triangulation for the bottom-up TAM estimate.
  11. [11]UK Government — UK Methane Action Plan. gov.ukUK domestic policy context.
  12. [12]North Sea Transition Authority — Emissions Reduction. nstauthority.co.ukOffshore methane and flaring reduction context for the UKCS beachhead.
  13. [13]House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee — Methane: keep up the momentum. publications.parliament.ukUK parliamentary context on methane policy momentum.
  14. [14]Stanford controlled-release campaign (2024–25) — 12 instruments, 16 organisations; empirical coverage of stated intervals.~70% coverage of nominal 95% intervals falling to 52% in stage two; six of twelve systems reporting no uncertainty.
  15. [15]TotalEnergies TADI controlled-release campaign — cross-instrument response slopes 0.09–1.13.Cross-instrument response variation of more than a factor of ten.
  16. [16]GHGSat characterisation, EGUsphere preprint 2026-3662; Tanager-1, EGUsphere preprint 2025-2275 — detection floors.Published detection floors used in the scope-limit statement.
  17. [17]Carbon Limits — methane advisory engagement benchmarks, USD 0.13–0.7m per operator per year.Pricing benchmark underpinning the £49k–£249k tier architecture.
  18. [18]European Commission Recommendations C/2026/5172 and C/2026/5176, 20 July 2026 — transitional application and penalty grace period; independent certification route.Slower but more durable market; the certification channel.
  19. [19]JCGM 100:2008 — Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM); Level-4 uncertainty budget construction.Methodological basis for metrological traceability (I-2).
  20. [20]Vovk, Gammerman & Shafer — Algorithmic Learning in a Random World (2005); conformal prediction and coverage guarantees.Methodological basis for coverage-calibrated uncertainty (I-1).
  21. [21]Kayrros — US Patent 12,270,758 B2, granted 8 April 2025; confidence-interval determination for gas emission estimates.Cited in the concept note's intellectual-property landscape review; informs the planned freedom-to-operate opinion.
  22. [22]UKAS — Validation and Verification Body accreditation; ISO/IEC 17029:2019. ukas.comThe accreditation the verifier holds and Vemissure does not.

References are reproduced as carried in the Vemissure business concept note. Where an entry describes a campaign or dataset rather than a published paper, it is stated that way rather than dressed as a citation. External links are provided for convenience and imply no endorsement in either direction.

Claims policy

What this website will not do.

Standing commitments

  • No planned capability is described as operational.
  • No customer, revenue, deployment, partnership, investor, grant, accreditation or certification is claimed.
  • No patent is described as filed or granted to Vemissure; filings are described as planned.
  • No testimonial, customer logo or case study appears unless it is real and consented to.
  • No organisation named for context is presented as endorsing, partnering with or supplying Vemissure.
  • Financial figures are labelled as business-plan estimates, planning assumptions or indicative pricing.
  • No competitor is disparaged; categories are described objectively and factually.
  • Scope limits — including detection floors — are published rather than buried.

All financial, timing and headcount figures on this site are planning assumptions. No supplier, facility, insurer or salary benchmark has been quoted. Gate thresholds are the founder's proposed criteria, for agreement with the endorsing body. Nothing on this site describes a capability that currently exists.

Start a conversation

Build a defensible measurement basis for methane MRV.

Talk to us about operator workflows, verifier programmes, technical validation or strategic partnerships.

Talk to Vemissure Explore the technology