the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
MEthane Tracking Emissions Reference (METER): A global database of methane-emitting infrastructure
Abstract. Methane (CH4) is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas for warming after carbon dioxide (CO2). Methane is also more potent than CO2 ton for ton, with a global warming potential (GWP) > 80-times higher than CO2 over the first two decades after release and ~30-times greater over a century. Currently, approximately 160 countries and the European Union are attempting to reduce global methane emissions through the Global Methane Pledge. Accurate assessments of methane emissions are needed to track progress and verify emission reductions. Satellites are one of the tools being used to do this work, but satellites require accurate counts and locations of infrastructure types for tasking their imagers. Here, we introduce the first version of the MEthane Tracking Emissions Reference (METER) database. METER is a publicly available, global database of methane-emitting infrastructure, designed as a platform to be updated with new datasets identified by users. We combined public datasets and machine-learning (ML) identifications based on satellite imagery. We processed public databases of a given infrastructure type, using the collected databases as training and validation data to ML models on multiple sources of remotely sensed data to detect infrastructure globally. This synergy of ML with earth observation enabled a substantial increase in the completeness of multiple types of facilities represented in METER. It contains more than 12.3 million locations of methane-emitting infrastructure in more than 200 countries globally. The locations represent most major methane-emitting infrastructure types, from the fossil fuel industry (including oil and gas wells and wellpads, pipelines, refineries, terminals, and compressor stations) and from additional methane-emitting sources that include landfills, power plants, and coal mines. For some infrastructure types, most of the locations were made using ML. These determinations include to our knowledge the first global estimate of landfill locations (~13,000 landfills >2.5-ha in size), three-quarters of which came from ML approaches, storage tanks on oil and gas well pads (100 % ML determinations for both storage tanks and well pad determinations). We identified >170,000 new well pads globally, including ~40,000 well pads in Russia, one of the world’s largest oil and gas producers, where to our knowledge no prior sources or public data existed previously. METER is already playing an important role in satellite tracking of methane emissions, providing satellite providers with infrastructure locations such as landfills to track. It should also prove useful for updating bottom-up inventories of methane emissions through more accurate infrastructure counts or “activity factors.”
- Preprint
(2758 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- CC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-124', Thomas Barchyn, 26 Mar 2026
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-124', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Apr 2026
This work introduces METER‑v1.0, a global database that maps more than 12.3 million methane‑related infrastructure sites across over 200 countries and territories. Notably, it includes the first global map of landfills. This is a timely and useful contribution, especially for methane mitigation studies and satellite‑based research.
The authors note that the data are not evenly distributed across regions. However, it remains unclear from the paper where METER should not be treated as representative, and which sectors or regions are more suitable for quantitative analysis. The heavy use of commercial high‑resolution imagery (PlanetScope, SPOT, Google Earth/Esri) may also strengthen existing regional differences, since image quality and update frequency vary widely by country.
Given that METER is likely to be used as an input for emissions estimation and satellite‑based source attribution, it would benefit from clearer guidance on how data quality metrics and facility completeness should be propagated into downstream analyses. Such as several points on “common misuse”.
A brief and direct comparison with other global infrastructure datasets (such as OGIM or Climate TRACE) would make it clearer what makes METER distinct.
METER is a “living database,” however, the update process remains vague. It would be useful to learn how often updates are expected, what types of new data are priorities, and how users can meaningfully contribute corrections or new datasets.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-124-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2026-124', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Apr 2026
The manuscript by Jackson et al. presents a very valuable and timely dataset for methane emission tracking, with clear potential significance for the atmospheric science and emissions research community. In particular, the development of a global infrastructure database using both public data sources and machine-learning-based identification is a meaningful contribution. However, because the ML component appears to play an important role in identifying the infrastructure inventory, the manuscript currently lacks sufficient transparency in demonstrating how the ML approach was implemented and how well it performed.
At present, the description provided in the Appendix is still too limited and mainly descriptive. I would recommend that the authors include additional materials, either in the Appendix or in the Supplementary Information, to better document the ML methodology and its performance. For example, the authors should consider adding schematic figures of the ML workflow, model structure, training/validation procedure, and representative examples of input data and classification outputs. It would also be helpful to include more satellite image examples showing how different types of methane-emitting infrastructure are identified by the ML approach, including both successful detections and challenging or ambiguous cases. Such examples would help readers better understand the visual basis of the classification and the practical capability of the method.
In addition, more quantitative evaluation metrics should be reported, such as training and validation performance, accuracy-related indicators, bias statistics, precision, recall, F1 score, and, where relevant, information on model convergence (e.g., epoch-dependent behavior or loss curves). These additions would help readers better understand the reliability, robustness, and reproducibility of the ML-based facility identifications.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-124-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-124', Robert B. Jackson, 14 Jul 2026
We thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. In the file attached below, we respond to each reviewer point by point, with our response comments shown in blue and revised or newly added text shown in red. Reviewer comments are shown in black text.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 709 | 669 | 57 | 1,435 | 84 | 51 |
- HTML: 709
- PDF: 669
- XML: 57
- Total: 1,435
- BibTeX: 84
- EndNote: 51
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
This is an extremely welcome paper as precise locations of oil and gas infrastructure has been a persistent limiter for science work in the space. This issue directly limits our research.
However, the true utility of the project cannot be effectively assessed from a paper alone, the data must be reviewed to understand the issues, successes of the approach, and to base a reasonable assessment of where the methods succeed or would benefit for improvement. This assessment is also critical to guide the next set of work on the topic, which we hope can closely address shortcomings of this work. None of this is reasonably possible without reviewing the actual data.
Are there options for the public to obtain access to the data for the purposes of public review? I have been unsuccessful to date through the recommended processes.