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

Independent methane measurement infrastructure

Making methane measurements defensible.

Vemissure is building an independent, sensor-neutral quantification-and-uncertainty engine. It sits above any satellite feed and converts retrievals into a reconciled, site-level emission figure with a calibrated uncertainty interval and a re-derivable evidence trail.

Talk to Vemissure Explore the technology View the evidence

Not a satellite companyIt owns no sensors. Neutrality is a design decision, not a limitation.

Not a verifierThe accredited verifier verifies. We supply the measurement basis.

Not a detection toolDetection has been commoditised. Defensibility has not.

The Vemissure measurement chain Sensor-neutral satellite feeds pass through retrieval and flux estimation, then calibration and uncertainty, then Bayesian reconciliation, producing a re-derivable evidence pack. The output is shown as a point estimate with a calibrated uncertainty interval whose coverage is stated, contrasted with an uncalibrated interval whose coverage is unknown. SENSOR-NEUTRAL FEEDS · BORROWED, NOT OWNED Sentinel-2 Sentinel-5P Landsat 8/9 EMIT Retrieval, masking, flux estimation Implemented from published methods. No novelty claimed. BUILD, CLAIM NOTHING Wind fields ERA5 / ECMWF ensembles. The novelty is propagating their spread. BORROW Calibration & uncertainty Conformal coverage calibration · GUM-form Level-4 budget · I-1, I-2, I-3 PROPRIETARY Bayesian reconciliation Top-down against bottom-up, with residual and credible interval · I-4 PROPRIETARY Evidence pack & reproducibility ledger Re-derivable bit-identically from its manifest, years later · I-10 PROPRIETARY THE OUTPUT IS A NUMBER YOU CAN DEFEND STATED 95%, UNCALIBRATED COVERAGE ~70% CALIBRATED INTERVAL, COVERAGE TESTED TRACEABLE · RE-DERIVABLE
Planned architecture. Named feeds indicate the classes of public and commercial data the platform is designed to sit above; they do not indicate existing integrations, licences, endorsements or relationships. Interval widths are illustrative.

The problem

Detection is no longer the whole problem.

Regulation has made methane measurement mandatory. But the numbers the regime depends on are not yet trustworthy — and the specific failure is not accuracy. It is uncertainty.

An operator reconciling its inventory against a satellite measurement will find a gap. Its verifier will then ask the question no commercially available product can currently answer: is this gap real, or is it inside the measurement uncertainty?

Reported confidence intervals do not contain the truth

Nominal vs. empirical coverage in blind controlled-release testing

NOMINAL 95% — WHAT IS CLAIMED ~70% STAGE 1 52% STAGE 2 ≥90% METHANELENS GATE R0

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.[6][14] Vemissure sets ≥90% as the pass criterion for its own first gate.

55% of estimates fell within ±50% of the metered rate in a single-blind test of nine satellite systems from three continents. That is the accuracy problem — and it is well known.[6]
6 of 12 commercially available systems report no uncertainty at all. A figure without an interval cannot be reconciled — only accepted or disputed.[14]
0.09 – 1.13 cross-instrument response slopes at a single controlled-release facility. The same release, measured by different instruments, differing by more than a factor of ten.[15]
6–7% of OGMP 2.0-reported production has reached Level 5 — the measurement-based tier that requires exactly this reconciliation.[7]
More Why an uncalibrated interval is worse than no interval

An uncertainty interval is a claim about frequency. If a system says "95% confidence", the honest reading is that roughly 95 out of 100 such intervals should contain the true value. When blind testing shows 70% — and then 52% — the number is not merely imprecise: the statement about its precision is itself wrong.

That matters the moment a figure has to survive challenge. A regulator or verifier is not only asking "what is the emission rate?" but "how much weight can this number carry, and who says so?" An interval that overstates its own reliability offers less protection than no interval at all, because it invites confidence it has not earned.

Read the full problem statement

Regulation is changing the requirement

From "we estimate" to "we can show it".

Regulation (EU) 2024/1787 entered into force on 4 August 2024. From 5 February 2027, Article 12(3) requires operators to reconcile source-level inventories against site-level measurements — the requirement Vemissure is built around.[4][5]

  1. 2024

    4 Aug — Regulation (EU) 2024/1787 enters into force.

  2. 2025

    5 May — LDAR programmes and importer information due.

  3. 2026

    5 Feb — routine flaring and venting prohibited.

  4. 2027

    5 Feb — Art. 12(3) reconciliation, operated assets. 1 Jan — Art. 28 importer MRV-equivalence.

  5. 2028

    5 Aug — Art. 12(3) extends to non-operated assets; Art. 29 methane-intensity reporting.

  6. 2030

    5 Aug — Art. 30 maximum intensity values, with penalties reaching 20% of turnover.

Why this creates a measurement requirement

Reconciling a bottom-up inventory against a top-down measurement is a comparison of two uncertain quantities. Without an honest interval on both sides, "the numbers disagree" cannot be separated from "the numbers are within measurement noise" — and neither the operator nor the verifier has a defensible basis for a conclusion.

Read this as context, not advice

The milestones above summarise the regulatory direction described in the Vemissure business concept note. Requirements vary by jurisdiction and change over time — Commission Recommendations of 20 July 2026 introduced a transitional penalty grace period and an independent-certification route[18] — and nothing on this site is legal or regulatory advice.

Regulatory context & sources

The Vemissure difference

The missing layer between measurement and assurance.

Detection and quantification have been open-sourced on free public feeds.[9] What remains unsolved is the defensibility of the resulting number — and that is the only part of the stack the regulation actually requires and the market has not commoditised.

Where the market stops

  • Detection — something is leaking
  • Quantification — how much
  • ? — defensibility unresolved

What Vemissure is building

  • Detection third party
  • Quantification published methods
  • Calibrated uncertainty — ± how much, tested
  • Metrological traceability
  • Reconciliation
  • Reproducible in five years' time
The innovation is the calibrated number and its provenance — not a model and not a feature. Vemissure business concept note

Sensor neutrality is a design decision, not a gap. Hardware ownership would destroy that neutrality and disqualify Vemissure from the verifier channel that carries roughly a third of the revenue plan.

The product is not data. It is an assurance input — the artefact a verifier attaches to an Article 12(3) reconciliation and an Article 8 verification statement. Everything in the plan follows from that distinction.

Scope limit, stated before you find it

Vemissure does not produce a site's primary inventory.

Published satellite 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] Most site emissions fall below those thresholds.

What Vemissure produces is an independent site-level constraint with a calibrated interval, reconciled against the operator's bottom-up inventory — which is exactly what Article 12(3) and OGMP Level 5 require, and no more.

See the full scope statement

Published detection floors

Indicative, from blind-test characterisation

GHGSAT ~99 kg/h TANAGER-1 66–144 kg/h SENTINEL-2 ~1.4 t/h MOST SITE EMISSIONS SIT BELOW THESE FLOORS

Any material that overstates satellite capability is the single most likely cause of technical rejection. So the limit is published, not buried.

How it works

Borrow, build, or buy — and own only what is defensible.

Select a layer to see the decision and the reasoning behind it.

Why so little of the stack? Owning commodity layers consumes capital without adding defensibility. Two layers — calibration and evidence — are the company.

BorrowPlanned

01 — Satellite feeds

Sentinel-2, Sentinel-5P, Landsat 8/9 and EMIT are free at the point of use; commercial feeds are bought per scene. No feed is privileged.

  • Public retrievals as the default working set
  • Commercial feeds where revisit or sensitivity justifies the cost
  • Operator site data and bottom-up inventory as the reconciliation counterpart

Naming these feeds describes design intent — not an existing integration, licence or relationship.

The innovation register

Eleven entries. One of them is the company.

Each entry is tested against three conjunctive filters — F1 defensible? F2 load-bearing for revenue? F3 delivered in-house? They are not eleven equal claims.

Core innovation

The calibrated number and its provenance. Testable, not asserted.

I-1Coverage-calibrated uncertainty

Distribution-free (conformal) interval calibration against a controlled-release corpus, with scene-conditional covariate adjustment, so a stated 95% interval actually contains the truth 95% of the time. It either achieves ≥90% empirical coverage on held-out controlled-release data at gate R0, or it does not.

I-2Metrological traceability

A GUM-form Level-4 uncertainty budget with SI traceability via a national measurement institute.[19] Traceability is what lets a third party interrogate a number rather than take it on trust.

I-10Reproducibility ledger

Any published figure re-derivable bit-identically from its manifest, years later. Reproducibility is what turns a measurement into evidence — and it means historical continuity stays with the platform.

Supporting technology

The components that make a calibrated interval achievable in real conditions.

I-3Cross-instrument transfer standard

Harmonises response across sensors so multi-year trends are real, not sensor artefacts — a direct response to measured response slopes spanning 0.09 to 1.13.[15]

I-4Bayesian reconciliation

A posterior combining top-down and bottom-up, reported with a residual and a credible interval — so the reconciliation conclusion carries its own uncertainty.

I-5Calibration corpus

The compounding data asset: a growing library of controlled-release and operational tuples against which intervals are calibrated. See the flywheel →

I-7Wind ensemble propagation

Wind is among the largest error sources in satellite flux inference. The ensembles are borrowed; propagating their spread into the interval is the contribution.

I-8Below-detection-limit inference

Given detection floors well above typical site emissions, a non-detection carries information. Handling it explicitly avoids the systematic bias of treating "not seen" as "not emitted".

I-9Intermittency handling

Emissions are episodic and overpasses are sparse. Inferring a reporting-period figure from intermittent observation needs its own treatment and its own contribution to the budget.

Commercial & workflow innovation

How a defensible number reaches the people who need it.

I-6Verifier-embedded licence

The engine licensed inside an accredited body's own assurance product — reaching 8–25 operators per programme rather than one per sales process. See the channel model →

I-11Assurance SLAs

Contractual commitments on turnaround, reproducibility and defensibility support, built for assurance timetables.

What was dropped, and why

An earlier version of the plan claimed novelty in plume-flux inversion, background-artefact discrimination and multi-source reconciliation. Detection and quantification have since been open-sourced,[9] and the third is closer to an open protocol than a proprietary method. Those claims were withdrawn rather than defended.

Status. All eleven register entries describe planned capability. None is operational, granted, tested or independently validated at the date of publication.

The calibration corpus

Every validated site tightens the next interval.

Calibration is not a one-off exercise. The corpus is the compounding asset — and it comes with a single metric that says whether the compounding is real.

VALIDATEDSITES DEEPERCORPUS TIGHTERINTERVALS STRONGEREVIDENCE VERIFIER& REGULATORTRUST MORECUSTOMERS Calibration flywheel

The corpus is a growing library of controlled-release and operational tuples against which intervals are calibrated. Every validated site tightens the interval for every subsequent site — so scale improves the product, not merely the revenue.

One metric runs through the whole plan

Median interval width per site at fixed confidence. If the corpus is working, it falls monotonically. That is the measurable proof that the moat compounds — and it is a number that can be published rather than asserted.

Why this is a moat and not a feature

A competitor can copy a method. A corpus of validated observations accumulated site by site under real conditions is harder to replicate — and it is exactly what a calibrated interval depends on.

The corpus is a planned asset. No claim is made about its current size, contents or validation status.

The product

The MVP is an artefact, not a dashboard.

The smallest thing a verifier will pay for is a per-site Quantification & Reconciliation Evidence Pack for one reporting period. Not an API key. Not a dashboard. Not an alert. A signed-off-able artefact — one site, one year.

What the pack is planned to contain

  • A site-level constraint with a calibrated uncertainty interval
  • A GUM-form Level-4 uncertainty budget showing each contribution
  • Reconciliation against the operator's Level-4 bottom-up inventory
  • A manifest that lets anyone re-derive the figure
  • Stated limitations — detection floors and where the constraint does not apply

Deliberately not

Not just an API. Not just a dashboard. Not just an alerting system. Those are ways of moving data around; none of them is what an operator needs when a figure has to be reconciled and defended in a filing.

Illustrative only. The layout opposite is a design mock-up of the planned artefact; the values shown are placeholders, not measurements.

See the product specification

Who it is for

Two workflows, one measurement basis.

01 / For operators

When bottom-up and top-down disagree.

Every operator carries a bottom-up inventory built from factors, activity data and engineering judgement. From February 2027, Article 12(3) requires it to be reconciled against a site-level measurement. The awkward question is what to do when the two do not agree.

Bottom-up inventoryengineering estimate
Top-down, uncalibratedcoverage unknown
With a calibrated intervalVemissure

Schematic. Illustrates the concept of interval overlap, not measured values.

Vemissure is being built to supply an independent measurement constraint with an honest interval, so an operator can establish whether a difference is material or simply within measurement uncertainty — and can show the reasoning.

The operator workflow

02 / For verifiers & certification bodies

A measurement input, never a competitor.

Assurance work needs inputs that are independent, reproducible and open to challenge. Vemissure is being designed to provide exactly that — and nothing beyond it.

  • An independent, sensor-neutral measurement basis
  • Conformal, coverage-calibrated uncertainty rather than a nominal label
  • Reproducibility: bit-identical re-derivation from the manifest
  • A GUM-form traceable evidence package suited to review
  • Published scope limits, including detection floors

The boundary, stated plainly

The operator carries the Article 12(3) obligation. The accredited verifier carries the ISO/IEC 17029 accreditation.[22] Vemissure supplies an input to both and carries neither. It does not verify, certify or assure.

The verifier proposition

Where Vemissure fits

Not another sensor. Not another verifier.
The layer between them.

The methane ecosystem already has capable participants in several categories. Vemissure is positioned in the space between measurement and assurance rather than in competition with either.

Satellite owners & missions

Own and operate space-based instruments; supply observations.

GHGSatMethaneSAT (EDF)AIRMOPublic missions (ESA, NASA)

Detection & quantification

Convert observations into detections and emission rate estimates.

Orbio EarthKayrros

Ground & continuous sensing

Site-level continuous monitoring — complementary to top-down measurement.

Project CanaryQubeKuva

Reconciliation platforms

Reconciliation tooling, largely North American in focus.

Highwood

Vemissure

Independent, sensor-neutral quantification-and-uncertainty engine. Supplies a calibrated measurement basis and re-derivable evidence.

Calibrated uncertaintyTraceabilityReconciliationReproducible evidence

Certification & verification

Accredited verification and certification schemes — the channel, not the rivalry.

MiQSLRBureau VeritasDNV

Standards & metrology

Standardised satellite-methane metrology. Position: adopt, do not compete.

ESA METRICSEURAMET MetCTGNPLGUMISO/IEC 17029OGMP 2.0

How to read this map. Organisations are named to describe categories of activity in the methane ecosystem, following the Vemissure business concept note. Naming an organisation implies no partnership, endorsement, customer relationship or comparative judgement of quality, and no claim is made about any named organisation's capabilities.

Market & model

A narrow beachhead, then a channel.

Sized bottom-up — reporting entities × achievable annual contract value — and triangulated against third-party market data.[10] All figures are planning assumptions from the business concept note, not independently verified market facts. Vemissure is pre-revenue.

TAM · £75–150m per annum

Global operators and importers subject to measurement-based methane MRV — the quantification-and-uncertainty layer only

SAM · £30–50m per annum

EU-regulation-driven operators and importers, OGMP 2.0 members, certifiers and verifiers

Year-3 SOM · £1.20m / 12 entities

Beachhead operators plus one certifier programme — constrained by fourteen months of build before first revenue

Bar widths are proportional for illustration. All values are planning assumptions.

The beachhead

35–50 UKCS and Norwegian upstream operators with EU market exposure. They inherit the obligation through their offtakers, the reconciliation problem is worst offshore where inventories are weakest, industry bodies put most of them in one room several times a year, and they already spend on methane advisory.

WAVE 1

UKCS & Norwegian operators

Direct engagement, deep workflow integration, design partners.

WAVE 2

Certifier programmes · M14–30

Opens when an evidence pack has been accepted into a real filing.

WAVE 3

EU importers · M24–42

Largest contracts, slowest procurement. Requires three referenceable customers, one live programme and ISO 27001.

WAVE 4

Global OGMP reporters & traders · M36+

Requires the transfer standard shipped and the coverage report published annually.

Each wave opens on an asset, not a date.

Revenue architecture

A £25k platform fee plus £8k per site (£15k for tasked acquisition), packaged as three tiers, with certifier programme licences alongside. Benchmarked against comparable methane advisory engagements.[17]

£49kIndicative annual tier

Entry per-site quantification subscription.

£105kIndicative annual tier

Expanded site coverage and reporting scope.

£249kIndicative annual tier

Enterprise scope across a broader asset base.

£150k–£400kIndicative programme licence

Certifier / verifier programme licence — the channel play.

Five planned revenue streams

  1. Per-site quantification subscription — primary
  2. Certifier / verifier programme licence — primary, channel
  3. Assurance SLAs — retention and upsell
  4. Onboarding and validation services — secondary
  5. Verified-figure data products — future

Pricing status. All prices are planned and indicative figures from the business concept note. Vemissure is pre-revenue; Year 1 has no revenue by design, because the product does not exist until Month 14. No pricing has been transacted and figures are subject to change.

Scalability

Scale through the channel, not headcount.

Direct enterprise sales at £45–60k CAC cannot scale a one-founder commercial function. A verifier-embedded licence reaches 8–25 operators per programme at £8–15k per facility. That is the step from a services-shaped business to an infrastructure-shaped one.

Direct model

One customer, one sales process.

SALES PROCESS 1 OPERATOR n SITES

£45–60k CAC · 6–12 month cycle · effort grows with revenue.

Channel model

One programme, 8–25 operators, many sites.

1 PROGRAMME OPERATOR OPERATOR 8–25 TOTAL MANY SITES

£8–15k per facility · non-linear reach · revenue without proportional headcount.

How the moat is intended to evolve

YEARS 0–1

Innovation differentiation

The calibration method itself.

YEARS 1–3

Workflow integration

Once a verifier has accepted the measurement basis for a filing, switching re-opens a settled methodological question.

YEARS 3–5

Data accumulation

The calibration corpus compounds.

YEARS 5+

Platform effects

Across gases and jurisdictions.

Roadmap & stage gates

Every gate carries a number and a named alternative.

So that failure produces a decision rather than a delay. Vemissure is at pre-endorsement stage: nothing below is complete, granted, contracted or secured.

Pre-endorsement workstream

01Coverage benchmarkPlanned
02Single-site demonstratorPlanned
03Specimen evidence packPlanned
0415 customer interviewsPlanned
052 letters of intentPlanned
061 design-partner MOUPlanned
07Freedom-to-operate opinionPlanned
08GB patent filingPlanned

No item above is complete or secured. No patent has been filed or granted.

Release plan and pass criteria

M4 · R0

Coverage benchmark

Pass: ≥90% empirical coverage of nominal 95% intervals.

M8 · R1

Quantification core

Pass: interval width within 1.5× of the best published system.

M14 · R2

MVP v1.0

Pass: evidence pack accepted into a real filing workflow.

M20 · R3

v1.5 Verifier Edition

Pass: one certifier programme licence signed.

M30 · R4

v2.0 Multi-sensor

Pass: ≥6 paying entities; NRR ≥110%.

M42 · R5

v3.0 Multi-gas

Pass: ≥1 non-methane line at ≥10% of ARR.

If gate R0 fails

The documented response is a pivot to a reconciliation-only product — a smaller business, but a real one. R0 uses published controlled-release datasets and costs nothing but founder time, so the central claim is tested before a facility is booked or a pound of capital committed.

Month numbering is relative to programme start. Gate thresholds are the founder's proposed criteria, for agreement with the endorsing body.

Founder

Built by a scientist who works with satellite data.

Portrait of Vaishali Muthuraman, founder of Vemissure.

Vaishali Muthuraman

Founder
MSc Astrophysics, University of Glasgow Electronics & communication engineering Data analytics

Vaishali Muthuraman is a data and technology professional with a multidisciplinary background in electronics and communication engineering, astrophysics and data analytics. She holds a Master's degree in Astrophysics from the University of Glasgow, where she worked extensively with complex scientific datasets, satellite observations, Python and advanced data analysis.

Her professional experience in data analytics has developed the ability to turn complex data into meaningful insights and practical solutions. Vemissure brings that scientific research background together with applied data and technology work, directed at a single problem: the inconsistencies that arise between company-reported inventories, satellite observations and other monitoring technologies.

To make methane emissions data more reliable, transparent and useful for the organisations that have to meet regulatory and environmental reporting requirements. Vaishali Muthuraman, founder

Founder–market fit, stated accurately

The business concept note is explicit that this background is adjacent to, not identical with, the uncertainty-calibration and metrology claim at the centre of the plan — and that the case must evidence the extension rather than assert it. The coverage benchmark at gate R0 is precisely that evidence. This site states it that way deliberately.

More on the founder

Operating context

The frameworks this work is measured against.

Vemissure is being built to be legible to the institutions and standards that govern methane measurement and conformity assessment. The organisations below are named as context.

UNEP

Policy context

Global Methane Pledge

Policy context

European Commission

Regulatory context

UK Government

Regulatory context

North Sea Transition Authority

Regulatory context

NPL

Metrology context

UKAS

Accreditation context

ESA

Earth observation context

OGMP 2.0

Reporting framework

ISO/IEC 17029

Conformity assessment standard

GUM

Uncertainty framework

What this list is not

None of the organisations or frameworks above is a customer, partner, investor, accreditation body, grant provider, endorser or collaborator of Vemissure. They are listed solely to describe the regulatory, scientific and industry context in which the company intends to operate. Vemissure holds no accreditation or certification, has no disclosed investors, and claims no grants.

Research & evidence

The claims behind the company.

Vemissure rests on a small number of empirical claims about the current state of methane measurement. Each is set out with the reference that supports it.

E-1Single-blind controlled-release testing

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]

E-2Empirical coverage of stated intervals

Nominal 95% intervals achieved roughly 70% empirical coverage, falling to 52% in the second stage of the same campaign; six of twelve commercially available systems report no uncertainty at all.[6][14]

E-3Cross-instrument response variation

Response slopes at the TotalEnergies TADI controlled-release facility span 0.09 to 1.13 — more than a factor of ten between instruments on the same release.[15]

E-4Methodological foundations

The GUM framework for expressing measurement uncertainty[19] and conformal prediction for distribution-free coverage guarantees.[20] The innovation claimed is their application to satellite methane quantification — not the invention of the underlying statistics.

Open the full reference register [1]–[22]

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