Written by Esther Bollendorff, Fossil Free Program Manager at Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe.
A recent piece promoted in POLITICO’s pages by ExxonMobil misrepresents the impact of methane rules on the EU’s energy system: far from threatening Europe’s security of supply, methane cuts strengthen Europe’s energy security and competitiveness by driving low-cost emissions reductions and improving market transparency.
The claim that Europe could lose 43 percent of its gas supply is based on flawed premises. It falsely assumes non-compliant gas would automatically be excluded from the EU market, when the regulation offers flexible pathways and clearly does not impose any ban on imports. The argument also ignores market reality. Analysis by Rystad Energy indicates that compliant gas supply is projected to be twice EU gas demand by 2027, creating significant scope to diversify away from higher-risk suppliers without limiting supply availability.
Methane mitigation is central to energy security: reducing methane leaks across global fossil fuel supply chains could recover around 200 bcm of gas each year – nearly double the volume transiting the Strait of Hormuz in 2025. It is also low-cost and profitable: 70 percent of fossil fuel methane emissions can be abated with existing technologies, with over 40 percent of that volume at no net cost, as the value of captured gas exceeds mitigation costs.
Claims of excessive economic burden are overstated. Compliance with monitoring, reporting and verification requirements is estimated at just 0.03 and 0.6 percent of production costs, negligible compared with price spikes driven by geopolitical shocks. Sanctions are proportionate and maximum penalties target only repeated, deliberate non-compliance, not good-faith efforts.
Major US companies such as ExxonMobil are profit-driven businesses that would easily cover the cost of compliance with methane rules. Non-compliance is therefore not a question of economic feasibility, but a deliberate choice to protect those profits and keep business as usual.
The priority now is to ensure the effective implementation of the EU Methane Regulation and provide regulatory certainty. Any weakening of the framework, including delays to penalty provisions for non-compliance, would risk undermining the regulation’s effectiveness. For the EU’s energy security, this debate cannot be won by vested fossil fuel interests; it must be led by those advancing genuine energy independence and a fossil-free energy future.
This letter was first sent to the editors of POLITICO on 28 May 2026.