Detection has been commoditised.
Defensibility has not.
The regulation requires a defensible measurement basis. No independent supplier of one exists. That sentence is the whole company.
Where the market is
Finding methane is no longer the differentiator.
Detection and quantification have been open-sourced on free public feeds, including plume detection and quantification models released for non-commercial use.[9] That is genuine progress for the field.
It also means "we can detect and quantify methane" is becoming a description of a category rather than a competitive claim. Meanwhile only about 6–7% of OGMP 2.0-reported production has reached Level 5, the measurement-based tier that requires exactly the reconciliation the regulation now demands.[7]
The chain today
- Detection — open-sourced on free public feeds
- Quantification — open-sourced on free public feeds
- ? — the defensibility of the number
The gap is not a detection gap. It is an assurance gap in the number.
The evidence
Four findings the market has not priced.
The specific failure is not accuracy. It is uncertainty.
55% within ±50%
Single-blind controlled-release testing of nine satellite systems from three continents found only 55% of estimates within ±50% of the metered rate. That is the accuracy problem, and it is well known.[6]
95% claimed, ~70% delivered — then 52%
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. The estimate was uncertain — and the statement about its uncertainty was also wrong.[6][14]
Six of twelve report no uncertainty at all
Half of the commercially available systems assessed report an emission figure with no uncertainty statement. A figure without an interval cannot be reconciled rigorously — it can only be accepted or disputed.[14]
Response slopes from 0.09 to 1.13
Cross-instrument response slopes measured at the TotalEnergies TADI facility span 0.09 to 1.13 — the same release, measured by different instruments, differing by more than a factor of ten.[15]
The commercial consequence is precise
An operator performing an Article 12(3) reconciliation will find a gap between its bottom-up inventory and its top-down measurement — the literature says so consistently. The operator then faces a question its verifier will certainly ask, and that no commercially available product can currently answer: is this gap real, or is it inside the measurement uncertainty?
Definition
What "defensible" means here.
Not "how much" — that is quantification, and it is commoditising. But: how much, ± how much, tested, traceable, and reproducible in five years' time.
Calibrated
Stated confidence matches observed coverage. The interval means what it says, and the claim is testable.
Traceable
A GUM-form Level-4 budget with SI traceability. Every contribution enumerated and followable.
Reconciled
Compared against the bottom-up inventory as a posterior, with residual and credible interval.
Reproducible
Re-derivable bit-identically from a manifest, years later, by someone else.
The innovation is the calibrated number and its provenance — not a model and not a feature. Vemissure business concept note
The honest competitive read
This is a timing argument, and we say so.
Within roughly thirty-six months, quantification will be a commodity and traceability will be close to a public good. The defensible position exists in the window between those two facts — the period in which uncertainty quantification is required by regulation but not yet available as a standard.
Entering later means entering a commodity market. That timing argument is the core of the case, and it is stated as such rather than dressed up as permanence.
Positioning
Stated as precisely as we can.
- An independent, sensor-neutral quantification-and-uncertainty engine
- A measurement layer sitting above any satellite feed, public or commercial
- A producer of calibrated site-level constraints, GUM-form budgets and re-derivable evidence
- An assurance input to Article 12(3) reconciliation and Article 8 verification
- A pre-endorsement, pre-revenue DeepTech company building toward MVP acceptance at Month 14
- Not a satellite company — it owns no sensors and will not
- Not primarily a detection company; it claims no novelty in retrieval or flux estimation
- Not a certification, verification or assurance body — and not a regulated entity
- Not a producer of a site's primary inventory; detection floors make that claim false
- Not accredited, certified, endorsed or funded by any organisation named on this site
Satellite owners & missions
Own and operate instruments; supply observations.
Detection & quantification
Convert observations into detections and emission rate estimates.
Ground & continuous sensing
Site-level continuous monitoring hardware — complementary to top-down measurement.
Reconciliation platforms
Reconciliation tooling, largely North American in focus.
Vemissure
The independent measurement layer between sensing and assurance: calibrated uncertainty, metrological traceability, reconciliation and re-derivable evidence.
Certification & verification
Accredited verification and certification schemes — the channel, not the rivalry. They need a measurement basis they do not produce themselves.
Standards & metrology
Standardised satellite-methane metrology programmes. Position: adopt, do not compete.
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.
Start a conversation
Build a defensible measurement basis for methane MRV.
Talk to us about operator workflows, verifier programmes, technical validation or strategic partnerships.