 Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and welcome to the launch of our Global Methane Tracker. Today, we're delighted to host you from the IA headquarters. We launched the Global Methane Tracker with the latest figures and data plus policy recommendations on how to tackle this very important issue. We will hear very shortly from our executive director, Dr. Fatih Birol, who will give us some introductory remarks. And this will be followed by a presentation from our chief energy economist, Tim Gould. And after that, we'll have an opportunity for some Q&A for the journalists. You can find all the figures and the analysis on our website. And with that, I would like to turn it to Dr. Fatih Birol. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Mouat. And greetings to all viewers from the International Energy Agency, and welcome to the launch of IA's Global Methane Tracker. Dear colleagues, we believe at the IA that the methane emissions do not always get the attention in the discussion of climate change that it deserves. In fact, there is a disproportionate attention that the methane gets because when we look at the methane's role in the climate change, it's a potent one. First of all, much more potent than CO2. And the early action on methane can help avoiding the first worst effects of climate change. So therefore, we think a tackling methane is among the most important, if not the most important, think that can be done limit the near-term warming. We were, the IA was one of the first who appreciated the importance of methane, focused on the methane issues. And it has been in our radar screen for many years. And as of today, our methane tracker has become the global reference for data on methane emissions from the energy sector. Our estimates that we have in our website, it can be freely accessed in the tracker, incorporate all the latest insights from the scientific studies, measurement campaigns, and satellite data. We have worked closely with the world's methane science community, and we are grateful for this collaboration. I am confident that in our updated tracker, we have the best available data, numbers for methane emissions around the world, covering all sources of methane emissions, including oil, gas, coal, and bioenergy. So I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Gult and Mr. McGlade, and their teams for putting this methane tracker at the service of the international community. Now, what do our numbers show in this year's global methane tracker? They show that there is some improvement in terms of methane emissions, but it is not emissions are not falling fast enough, and not even close to that. And this is happening at a time when we have seen natural gas prices being at very high levels. And our new analysis based on this data shows that well over half of global methane emissions could be reduced at no net cost. Reducing these emissions saves money as well as saving the planet. So we can reduce the emissions by more than 50% at no net cost. I think in terms of economics, in terms of the fight against climate change, this is a very important area that has been identified by my colleagues. What about the investments to make this happen? Is the money available? Absolutely, yes. We have recently showed our analysis that the global oil and gas industry last year, 2022, their total income was about $4 trillion US dollars. On average, on a normal year, the global oil and gas industry makes about $1.4 trillion, $1.5 trillion, and it jumped to $4 trillion. And there's a lot of discussion in almost all the countries within the companies, governments, governments, companies, citizens, what to do with this huge amount of increase in the oil and gas income. So some people talk about the dividends, investment, share buybacks, and I made an international energy agencies point very clear. We would like to see at least a significant chunk of this $4 trillion US dollar goes to clean energy, technology, investment, and solutions in emerging countries. Dear colleagues, when I look at the excellent analysis carried out by my colleagues, there is one number I wanted to bring to your attention, which I found very impressive. Only about this 3% of the $4 trillion, as we call it, a windfall income. You may call whatever you want, but the money is same, the $4 trillion. Only with this 3% of the $4 trillion, we can cut 75% of global methane emissions. This is an excellent opportunity, which means from our point of view, there is no excuse for oil and gas industry to move quickly, and there is no excuse not only for the companies, but for the governments to step in and to make this happen. I believe this issue, I should say, I hope this issue will be one of the key topics to be discussed in the forthcoming COP28 meeting in the United Arab Emirates. Talking about the COP28, the colleagues here, I would like to announce a major study that we are going to come up just before COP28 on the oil and gas industry in net zero transitions. As a follow-up of the IEA work, many of them, including the work we made one and a half years ago, net zero transition of the global energy sector. And the new study I am announcing will look at how the oil and gas industry can respond to the challenge of climate change, and how we can tell if the industry's response is serious, whether company actions are compatible with ambitions, climate goals, and the 1.5-degree target. This study being carried out again under the able leadership of our chief energy economist, Tim Gould, will analyze the implications of energy transitions for major oil and gas producers, both countries and companies will be analyzed here. The very fact that the COP28 takes place in a key Middle East oil producer I think is a good choice to bring this report on a timely basis to provide a roadmap for the countries, for the companies who say that their investment plan, their policies are in line with the Paris targets. So, dear colleagues, this report, this major report, we are going to come up right before the COP28 in order to help to frame the discussion. But now, I would like to pass the floor to my colleague, Mr. Tim Gould, our chief energy economist, who will lead us through some of the findings of our new global methane tracker. Mr. Gould, please. Thank you very much indeed, Executive Director. What I'd like to do now is talk in a little bit more detail about some of the findings from our new work. But exactly as the Executive Director has said, last year was a year of extraordinary pressure on energy markets, and that's raised all sorts of energy security questions. And it's all raised all sorts of questions about the prospects for global clean energy transitions and reaching our emissions reductions and climate goals. And on both of those fronts, both the energy security front and the climate front, methane has to be front and center. And it's more important than ever that we see demonstrable signs of change in the level of those emissions. So where are we? As the Executive Director said, this is our best estimate of where global energy-related methane emissions are. And we've worked very closely with the methane science community in putting these numbers together. And there is some guarded good news in the sense that some of the indicators that we look at show evidence of progress. So satellite detected large leaks fell by almost 10% last year relative to 2021. And preliminary estimates that we have from our collaboration with the World Bank and the Paine Institute show a mixed picture on flaring, but indeed also some reductions. However, the emissions intensity of global oil and gas production and coal production remains far too high. And it's not falling fast enough by any means. So despite those signs of progress, we still estimate that energy-related methane emissions rose in 2022. And that's discouraging for two reasons. It's discouraging because the incentives, the economic incentives to make those reductions were huge last year. We had record natural gas prices in many markets around the world. So there was an extremely strong economic incentive to bring that methane to market. And of course, we also need to be looking at these emissions through the lens of the ever-pressing need to tackle climate change. Let's have in mind that methane is responsible for around 30% of the observed warming so far. And if we are to get on track for net zero emissions and limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees, methane emissions from the energy sector. So those bars you're looking at on the screen, they need to see a 75% reduction by 2030. So that's a very steep decline from where we are today. Now there is momentum in this space. And one of the ways to demonstrate that is just to look at the number of new initiatives, the number of new policies that have come in across the last few years. So at the international level, momentum behind the global methane pledge continues to grow with over 150 countries now in the global methane pledge. And over 50 countries have already released national action plans or have begun work on them. We've seen many countries introduce new regulations for methane over the last year. Colombia and Nigeria, two that we've been following particularly closely. New methane charge was included in the US Inflation Reduction Act and continued progress also in the European policy discussions. And there's also important signs on the industry side where performance is very, very uneven across different companies. But there are some important voluntary industry efforts. Last year, the oil and gas climate initiative announced it's aiming for zero methane emissions initiative, which we think that that needs to gain momentum and it can be an important factor in the future as well. But now is really the time when we need to see much more on the ground action and convert all of those policy and industry initiatives into real deployment. So one of the very promising areas that we've seen in recent years is on the detection and monitoring of methane emissions. And I think many people are now aware that satellites and other continuous monitoring systems are providing a huge boost to methane abatement prospects and bringing much-needed transparency, particularly for the larger leaks. And for the first time, we've seen satellites detecting methane leaks from offshore areas in 2022. That's always been an area where there's been limited visibility up until now. And that includes the major leak from the Nord Stream Pipeline explosion. And different groups are putting that data to good use. We're working closely with the International Methane Emissions Observatory, also known as IMEO. And I would like to thank the IMEO, the science teams, as well as Kairos and GHGSAT for the great collaboration and the discussions that we've been instrumental in helping us bringing together the global methane tracker this year. And one very concrete example of the power of these satellites is their ability to rapidly detect and then help address large leaks. And there's a new initiative called the Methane Alert and Response System, or MAS, which has been put in place by the IMEO, that will use those satellite monitoring capabilities to try and identify those super-emitting events quickly, notify host countries quickly, and operators as well, and then assist governments, companies, and other stakeholders, mitigate and learn from these events. So there's a very dynamic picture there. And if you look at the super-emitting events that we had in 2022, we had more than 500 seen in 20 countries in 2022. And that includes the one at the top of the screen now, the explosion on the Nord Stream Pipeline. And there's also around 100 events at coal mines. Now these super-emitting events are obviously garnering a lot of attention also in the media. And that's rightly so. They deserve to be front and center if we are serious about cutting methane. But we need to put them into context. So emissions from normal oil and gas operations, including vented, fugitive, and flared emissions from some of the highest-emitting countries, they dwarf those from the individual super-emitting events that we had on the previous slide. So when we think about that Nord Stream explosion and the methane that was leaked as a result, let's have in mind also that globally, normal oil and gas operations are responsible for more than one Nord Stream-sized methane event every single day. So efforts to tackle super-emitting events must go hand in hand with measures to reduce emissions from regular operations. Unfortunately, there's a huge range of different options available to cut down on these emissions. And so our latest assessment, as was mentioned, is that we could cut methane from oil and gas operations by around three quarters using existing technologies. And as the executive director was mentioning, a lot of that is extremely cost-effective. Even if we took prices for natural gas and before the global energy crisis, around half of the measures that could be used to abate methane leaks in the oil and gas sector could be deployed at no net cost. In 2022, obviously, around the world, we had much higher gas prices than usual. And if we looked at the different prices that were in play in different parts of the world, that meant that the vast majority of methane emissions could be captured at no net cost. So it is the economic drivers are very strong, but we shouldn't over-focus on the economics of this because methane is such a potent greenhouse gas, no matter the gas price, or even if the gas has no value at all, tackling methane emissions still has to be a top priority. And as the executive director mentioned, it won't be a hugely expensive thing to do. Just 3% of the net income that accrued to the oil and gas industry in 2022 would be enough to take all of those abatement measures. And it was particularly striking for us to see this wasteful leakage of methane in 2022, given not just the price incentives, but also the energy security concerns and the need for additional gas to come to market in the light of the curtailment of Russian deliveries to Europe. So reducing methane leaks and flaring from oil and gas operations could make more than 200 billion cubic meters of gas available to market each year. So that's comparable to the amount that Russia used to export to Europe prior to its invasion of Ukraine. And when you look at the geographical locations of much of this wasted gas, it's often within relatively close proximity of markets. When it comes to flaring, for example, and there's analysis that shows that over half of all flared volumes are within 20 kilometers of an existing gas pipeline. And there are examples, including over the last year, where new infrastructure was put in place quickly. Recently, a dedicated gas pipeline was put in place in less than one year in Egypt to move up to 50 million cubic meters of natural gas per year to an existing gas processing facility rather than flaring it. Before concluding, I'd like to say a few words on coal. I focused a lot on oil and gas methane emissions in this presentation up till now. But let's not forget that there are significant methane emissions also from coal operations. So that's around 40 million tons. So it's similar to the levels of methane emissions both from the oil sector or the gas sector. And indeed, in the world's largest coal producer and consumer, which is China, these are a significant part of the global footprint. So coal-related methane emissions in China, in our view, are equivalent to total CO2 emissions from the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. One of the best ways to cut down on these emissions is simply to use less coal. And in general, tackling methane emissions from coal mines is more challenging than is the case for emissions from oil and gas operations. But there are a number of options available to cut these coal mine methane emissions. And we feel that these should be very much in the minds of policymakers around the world as well. And what we found in this year's analysis was that existing technologies could cut methane emissions in half. And an even greater share can be cut at underground, coking coal mines. Coking coal, as a reminder, is used to produce steel and is generally harder to displace than the steam coal and that's mainly used for power generation. So in addition to the numbers that we've provided in the tracker that we're announcing the update of today, at the IA, we're also keen to push action and implementation. And some of the work that we did last year was very much focusing not just on the environmental case for methane abatement, which is exceptionally strong, but also the energy security case for doing the same. And what we've done is we've produced sort of how-to guides for policymakers, so a regulatory roadmap and a policy toolkit on oil and gas, which has become a sort of go-to source for policymakers and regulators looking to develop new and impactful methane regulation. And today we are releasing also a companion piece on coal, on coal mine methane emissions. So what do policymakers need to have in mind when they are taking steps to bring down emissions also from the coal sector? And finally, just to return to the good collaboration that we have with a number of different international organizations. I've already mentioned the IMEO, there's the World Bank, there's a number of other organizations like the methane guiding principles. And we think there's a number of important initiatives already out there that can improve transparency on emissions and improve emissions management across the fossil fuel industry. But before opening up to your questions, just to return to one of our key messages from this work, despite some signs of progress, overall 2022 was a disappointing year for efforts to tackle methane emissions, especially given those very strong economic drivers and very strong energy security drivers that should have given it a big boost. So we can always point to some individual positive signs and things that give us cause for hope, but there is so much more to do. And as the executive director said, I mean, this is really the entry ticket for oil and gas companies to a meaningful discussion about solutions to climate change. It's not the whole story as we'll discuss in the report that the executive director mentioned that we're preparing for COP28, but it is such an important starting point for that discussion. And we need to see substantial verifiable lasting cuts in methane emissions across the whole energy sector. And with that, I'll be very grateful to get any questions and colleagues together with my colleague, Dr. Christof Maglade, and look forward to the discussion. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Tim, for the presentation and some of the sobering results you've presented. We're going to take a very quick break so that the journalists on the call can send us their question through the Q&A box, and we'll be right back for the Q&A part of our session. Thank you. Welcome back. So we have a number of questions, which we will dive right into. We'll take two rounds of three. And so for the first round of questions, maybe to Dr. Maglade. So how can investor put pressure on oil and gas companies to reduce their methane emissions from Mike Thatcher and NetZero investor? And then second question also perhaps to you, Christof. How could countries be pushed to create a global commitment to reduce methane emissions from coal mines as cutting methane emissions from coal mines is not included in the Global Methane Pledge, Launch and Glasgow, from Erkel from Anandolu, also adding to that, I think, what is the most impactful measure to reduce coal mine methane emissions? And perhaps a third question to yourself. Tim, if this is so cost-effective, why are we not seeing this more? So perhaps over to you, Dr. Maglade. Thank you very much, Chad. As the Executive Director mentioned, this is one of the key questions that we are going to be addressing in the upcoming report looking at the role of the oil and gas industry towards COP28. But there is a lot that the investors can already be doing when discussing climate change and discussing alignment of oil and gas companies with NetZero targets. Alignment is one, understanding what those companies are doing on the ground in terms of their investments, in terms of their investments into new technologies away from traditional operations. But really what is very, very important is that for every single oil and gas company, whether it's an international oil and gas company, a national oil and gas company, a small independent, is that their own emissions are absolutely as low as possible. They need to have this zero tolerance towards methane emissions. Tackling methane emissions is the most important thing that oil and gas companies can do to lower the emissions intensity of their own production. And if we have that pressure coming from investors in helping those companies reduce their emissions, lending to projects that will reduce their own emissions, all of that will help move us on the right path towards getting that substantial reduction in the overall emissions intensity of oil and gas production. On the second question on the Global Methane Pledge, the Global Methane Pledge is a target for all methane emissions from human activity. So it covers emissions from the oil and gas sector, it covers emissions from coal, it also covers emissions from bioenergy as well as agriculture and waste. So it's a target to reduce all of those human-made sources of emissions by about 30% by 2030. So it does include emissions coming from the coal sector. And as we set out in this year's tracker, we have looked for the first time at the different technologies and different options that are available to the coal sector. Some of the most impactful things that we see is, first of all, whenever coal mining companies are opening up new areas within coal mines, they need to decasify those areas before operations can start. And whether that's a surface mine or whether it's an underground coal mine, that can result in a very highly concentrated source of methane emissions. So they decasify those mines, they have a lot of methane that is there, and often they just vent that methane to the atmosphere. But it should be the case that because that methane is so concentrated, it's a cheap source of energy or of heat for their operation. So capturing that methane, using it for power, using it for heat can be a very effective way to reduce emissions from coal mines in a cost-effective way. Another important option is in underground mines. As you may be aware, methane will seep out slowly from coal seams as operations are underway in an underground coal mine. And it's essential for worker safety that those methane emissions don't build up. So they have air that's constantly rotated around coal mines to ensure that there's no risk of explosions. But that ventilation air, as it's called, is then often just vented to the atmosphere. And because that contains a bit of methane, that leads to a large level of methane emissions. The methane concentrations in that ventilation air can be quite low, but there are many examples around the world where operators have introduced measures, introduced techniques to capture that ventilation air methane and then either destroy the methane so that it doesn't go straight to the atmosphere or again to use it to help power their operations. So those two things, using degasification methane and using ventilation air methane are two of the most effective and cost-effective things that operators can do. Maybe I can take the question of if this is so cost-effective, why is it not happening? And indeed that's a great question. It's one we often spend some time discussing amongst ourselves here at DIA. And what we come back to is that there is an information problem. So often a company that is emitting methane is not aware of the level of leaks or it's not aware of the cost-effectiveness of the abatement option. So we need to fill that information gap and many of the things we've discussed today politically in terms of better monitoring technologies will help to do that. I think another important issue is that within any company you've got competition for investment capital. So different parts of the company will be proposing different ways for companies to spend their money. And it's sometimes the case that a methane abatement initiative won't get across the hurdle that is there within the company for investment. We were discussing this issue recently with the methane guiding principles group and one of the, in a sense, the solutions that came up is that this has to be an issue that's not just about the bottom line. You need to make sure that when companies are taking those investment decisions that the head of sustainability is around the table or that there is due weight given to the reputational risks of a failure to act both for the company itself and for the broader industry. And there are also cases where the entity that needs to invest is not necessarily the one that will benefit from the upside in terms of getting additional gas to market. So that's often the case when you have infrastructure. And in some cases, there is just a lack of infrastructure to get that gas to market. And there you have all sorts of local uses of captured gas, particularly captured flared gas that can be quite important there. So we think that there are these different categories of reason why stuff doesn't happen even though it's very cost effective. All of those problems can be resolved. And that's some of the things that we're working on together with different partners is to make sure that we close those gaps. Great. Thank you very much, Tim. Really fascinating. And in fact, just jumping off on something you just said, an interesting question here about technology and how long until satellites and other monitoring technologies can bring full transparency to methane emissions from oil and gas. This is something that we have in the report. And maybe to tag along maybe a policy response in our second round of questions, how important in this situation is the passage of the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act? So maybe I'll take the first of these on the satellites and other monitoring technologies. Indeed, this is a very dynamic area and there's all sorts of advances being made both in terms of the number of observations being made and the detail that they can reveal. So things are getting more promising, more exciting every year. There are still a number of blind spots. So we are not yet in a position where we have a comprehensive view. But initiatives such as the International Methane Emissions Observatory are going to be very, very important in that respect. Also, the Methane SAT initiative from the Environmental Defense Fund is going to help a great deal in improving that transparency. So I think the message there is that it's moving quickly. It will be increasingly difficult for poorly managed operations to hide from the environmental consequences or visibility about the environmental consequences of those operations. So we are going to get much more information about where larger leaks are coming from. But that uncertainty over the data, it's really not an excuse for inaction. We know more than enough to make a very strong case for reducing methane leaks from fossil fuel operations. And there are very tried and tested and effective solutions that have been proven to work in different jurisdictions around the world and in different companies around the world. So in a sense, we shouldn't wait for satellites to provide that last degree of transparency. We know more than enough to make progress with abatement already today. And on the question of the US Inflation Reduction Act, really this is a game changer. It's a game changer for a whole host of different reasons on clean energy technologies, but there's also a number of important elements in the Inflation Reduction Act on methane. Just to mention a few of these. The first is a requirement for oil and gas companies to report their emissions based on empirical and accurate measurements. And this is where, as we've been hearing from Mr. Gould, satellites will have an important part to play, but also on the ground measurement campaigns to have a very important aspect to help boost that empirical and accurate measurement levels. The second element is on financing. The Inflation Reduction Act includes about $1.5 billion in financial and technical assistance to advance quickly methane abatement. And the final element is that there is a new charge that will be introduced at the federal level on methane emissions. It starts at about $900 per tonne next year and will then increase in the years thereafter. And that methane charge is at quite a high level. It really should drive action from operators. If we put it into context, Norway has had a charge on methane emissions for a number of years now at a very similar level to what is going to be introduced in the United States. And Norway has the lowest emissions intensity of oil and gas production of any country in the world. And a large reason for that is because of the methane charge. So there's a huge number of important elements in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, and we're very much looking forward to seeing how that plays out on the ground. Thank you very much, Christof. Thank you very much, Tim. I would like to thank everyone for watching and following us. This is obviously a very important critical topic which we will be following throughout this year and particularly important here for this question. I'd like to thank all your teams who contributed to this report. And you can find all the findings, the data, all of the analysis behind this on our website at ia.org. If you have any more questions, please reach out to press at ia.org. And don't forget to sign up to our newsletter also on the website. Thank you very much.