Latin America confronts uneven methane challenges as new analysis maps cost‑effective fixes

The report is by the Clean Air Task Force

WHAT Argentina, Brazil and Mexico flare a massive 1,169 kt of methane yearly

WHY Infrastructure is lacking, so gas is purposely flared, and equipment can be old an leaky

WHAT NEXT Low-cost technical abatement is possible for 19-34% of the methane produced

A new technical assessment of methane abatement in the oil and gas sector has laid bare the contrasting realities facing Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, three of the top four of Latin America’s natgas producers.

The report, prepared by Carbon Limits for the Clean Air Task Force, evaluates the cost and feasibility of four core mitigation measures—leak detection and repair (LDAR), improved flaring practices, vapour recovery units (VRUs), and replacement of natural‑gas‑driven pneumatic equipment—across nine countries.

For the Latin American trio, the findings reveal a mix of shared structural hurdles and sharply different national conditions shaping the economics of methane reduction. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is far more potent than carbon dioxide. Methane emissions from oil and gas operations remain one of the most addressable sources of greenhouse gases.

The report stresses that many mitigation options are well‑established and technically straightforward. Yet the costs operators face vary widely, shaped by infrastructure access, gas market conditions, regulatory frameworks and financing constraints. These factors determine whether methane abatement is a low‑cost opportunity or a capital‑intensive undertaking.

Mexico has the most potential for methane abatement of these three major producers, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. For the study, ermissions were guaged from satellite data.

The country has somewhat dilapidated infrastructure, with frequently reported leaks and spills. Mexico and state oil company Pemex flared 5.7bn cubic meters of gas in 2024.

Argentina: high potential, infrastructure gaps

Argentina’s methane profile is marked by significant uncertainty. The report notes that national emission estimates diverge substantially across datasets, sometimes by an order of magnitude. Using International Energy Agency data as a baseline, the study finds that 52% of Argentina’s oil‑and‑gas methane emissions fall within the four categories assessed—flaring, leaks, tanks and pneumatic equipment.

Argentina’s estimated annual emissions are 1,363 kt CH4, or methane,  (or 40.6 Mt CO2e). Technical abatement possible from analysed technologies is 32% of estimated emissions, while low-cost abatement is 30% of estimated emissions.

LDAR stands out as one of the most cost‑effective options for Argentina. With applicability across 95% of sites and reduction potential ranging from 40% to 80% depending on inspection frequency, LDAR offers substantial abatement at relatively low cost. Improved flaring practices also present meaningful opportunities, as baseline destruction efficiencies leave room for improvement.

VRUs, which can eliminate up to 95% of tank emissions, offer high abatement potential but are capital‑intensive. Their feasibility is constrained by Argentina’s uneven gas infrastructure. The ability to monetise recovered gas is a critical determinant of cost‑effectiveness, and many sites lack access to pipelines or processing facilities.

Replacement of gas‑driven pneumatics is fully applicable and offers 100% reduction potential, but again depends on infrastructure and import costs.

Argentina’s regulatory framework for methane remains under development. While discussions are underway, the report notes the absence of comprehensive methane standards. Combined with infrastructure gaps, this limits the economic viability of several mitigation options.

Brazil: large emissions, stronger market conditions

Brazil exhibits some of the largest discrepancies in methane estimates globally. Only 36% of national oil‑and‑gas methane emissions fall within the categories assessed, reflecting both data gaps and the complexity of Brazil’s upstream and midstream systems.

The country has estimated annual emissions of 1,073 kt CH4 (32.0 Mt CO2e). Technical abatement from analysed technologies is 19% as is low-cost abatement.

Despite this, Brazil benefits from relatively well‑developed gas markets and infrastructure, which significantly improves the economics of methane abatement. LDAR again represents a major opportunity, with broad applicability across both onshore and offshore facilities. Improved flaring practices are also relevant, particularly given issues with incomplete combustion and occasional unlit flares.

VRUs face deployment challenges offshore due to space and safety constraints, but remain technically feasible onshore. Pneumatic replacement is fully applicable and offers high abatement potential.

Brazil’s regulatory landscape is complex, involving federal and state agencies such as ANP and IBAMA. While environmental regulations exist, the report notes the absence of dedicated methane standards. However, ongoing gas market reforms are improving conditions for gas monetisation, which can dramatically lower abatement costs. In scenarios where recovered gas can be fully marketed, costs for several measures fall sharply.

Mexico: infrastructure gaps and high emissions

Mexico’s methane profile is shaped by Pemex’s operational footprint and infrastructure limitations. The report finds that 53% of national oil‑and‑gas methane emissions fall within the assessed categories.

Estimated annual emissions are 1,169 kt CH4 (34.8 Mt CO2e), while 34% of estimated emissions while technical abatement and low-cost abatement from analysed technologies are 34%.

LDAR is again a high‑impact option, given widespread fugitive emissions. Improved flaring practices are particularly important in Mexico, where unlit or inefficient flares contribute significantly to methane releases. VRUs offer strong abatement potential but face cost and deployment barriers similar to those in Argentina.

Mexico’s ability to monetise recovered gas is limited at many sites, raising abatement costs. Regulatory fragmentation—particularly between ASEA and other agencies—adds complexity to implementation. Import duties and limited domestic manufacturing capacity further increase capital costs for technologies such as VRUs and pneumatic replacements.

Shared challenges, divergent realities

Across Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, several themes recur. LDAR is consistently the most cost‑effective measure, especially when gas prices exceed roughly $5.50–6.00/MMBtu. Pneumatic replacement offers predictable abatement potential, while improved flaring practices provide universal benefits but do not generate revenue.

VRUs are the most capital‑intensive option across all three countries. Their cost‑effectiveness depends heavily on gas prices and infrastructure access. In most cases, gas prices would need to exceed $9.00–$14.00/MMBtu for VRUs to generate net benefits—levels not met in the majority of assessed contexts.

Infrastructure access is the single most important determinant of cost‑effectiveness. The report’s sensitivity analysis shows that if all sites could market 100% of recovered gas, abatement costs would fall dramatically—sometimes by a factor of eight. In such scenarios, many measures would shift from positive to negative costs, meaning operators would profit from methane reduction.

The report emphasises that methane mitigation represents a major opportunity for climate action in Latin America. While costs vary, many measures offer substantial emissions reductions at relatively low cost. For Argentina and Mexico, improving gas market access and infrastructure could unlock significant economic benefits. For Brazil, regulatory clarity and continued market reforms could accelerate deployment.

Across all three countries, targeted methane regulations, streamlined technology deployment and improved measurement and reporting could help operators capture low‑cost abatement opportunities while addressing data gaps that currently hinder effective policy design.

World Bank, COP 28

According to a recent World Bank report, released in late June, oil and gas producers flared more methane globally 2025 compared with a year earlier.

The volume of gas flared rose 6% last year to 167bn cubic meters and is worth more than $50bn, and is equivalent to around 50% of the annual gas consumption of Europe, releasing more than 500 million tonnes of greenhouse gases.

“The latest trends are disappointing,” James Turitto, a director at the Clean Air Task Force, told the Los Angeles Times. “Flaring associated gas is a waste of useful energy and a nation’s economic resources, especially at a time when the world is reeling from its second energy crisis in four years.”

More than 50 oil and gas companies signed the Oil & Gas Decarbonisation Charter published at COP28 in 2023, including Argentina’s YPF and Brazil’s Petrobras., but not Mexico’s Pemex. The charter committed the signatories to near-zero methane intensity, ending routine flaring and net-zero operational emissions (Scope 1 & 2) by 2050 or even earlier.