Amid intensifying efforts to weaken the European Union’s flagship methane regulation, leaning heavily on claims of associated risks to oil and gas supplies, analysts at Oslo-based Rystad Energy say that, while implementation issues do need to be addressed, the regulation poses no risk to security of supply.

On June 26, the EU’s largest energy market, Germany, became the latest country to join mounting resistance to the EU’s efforts to regulate methane emissions from oil and gas imports, reports Reuters. Eleven other EU governments have petitioned EU leadership to delay the regulation by three years.

“We need at least a postponement or a suspension of the methane regulation so that the Federal Republic of Germany can reliably secure its supply of gas imports, as well as petroleum products such as kerosene,” German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche said.

Industry lobby groups are also weighing in.

“Adopt policies that are fully aligned with industry realities and do not create further uncertainty and energy insecurity by deterring investments in gas supply and infrastructure, as investment equals resilience,” writes the International Gas Union in a recent release addressed to the European Commission.

The EU Methane Regulation (EU MER), which came into force in August, 2024, now requires all domestic oil and gas companies in the EU to closely monitor, report, and third-party verify (MRV) all methane emissions. The companies are also required to immediately repair all leaks, and to strictly limit venting and flaring.

As well, as of Jan. 1, 2027, all European oil, gas, and coal importers must demonstrate that all incoming fossil fuels were produced in a jurisdiction with MRV requirements equivalent to those being applied domestically.

News of Germany’s push to weaken the EU’s methane regulation came two days after the United States, Qatar, Nigeria, and Algeria addressed an open letter to EU leadership, urging “swift, necessary actions to clarify and to adopt targeted amendments” to the policy.

The central claim in the open letter is that the EU MER poses an incontrovertible threat to Europe’s energy security because it will undercut supply.

“Nearly all of EU oil imports and a significant quantity of EU natural gas imports will be noncompliant with the EUMR [sic] beginning in January, 2027,” the signatories write, citing an unidentified industry analysis. “Even with adaptive and flexible implementation, significant negative supply and price impacts are a certainty,” the letter adds.

All signatories to the open letter exported significant volumes of oil and gas to the EU in 2025. The U.S. was responsible for 27% of the EU’s fossil imports last year, second only to Norway (a leader in methane emission controls that did not sign the letter), at 30%.

However, a recent series of reports from Rystad Energy, an Oslo-based energy consultancy and analytics firm, contradicts the claims in the letter.

“By 2027, the global supply of gas capable of meeting OGMP2.0 Level 5 standards—the highest level of methane emissions monitoring and reporting—will exceed the EU’s demand,” Rystad wrote in a December, 2025 analysis commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Defense Fund. “This means the EU MER’s MRV requirements can be implemented without tightening the market or creating supply risks.”

Fast forward six months—and four months into an oil-focused war in which the U.S. is a primary aggressor and Qatar collateral damage—Rystad’s position remains the same.

There is “no evidence that the EUMR is contributing to current market instability or undermining European energy security,” Rystad states in a newly-published fact sheet. “Current supply and price pressures are attributable to global geopolitical and market developments, not to the EUMR.”

By 2027, global levels of EU MER-compliant oil and gas are projected to be three times EU demand. The U.S. is “expected to become the largest supplier” of compliant gas, with supply “exceeding historical imports by 5x,” says Rystad in its full June report.

“U.S. exporters will in all plausible scenarios continue to export LNG to monetize existing and emerging LNG facilities, and as an outlet for the structural oversupply of gas,” the consultancy adds.

At the Reuters Global Energy Forum in New York earlier in June, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who personally signed the open letter to EU leadership urging it to weaken the EU MER, described the EU regulation as “crazy” and warned of “meaningful risk of blackouts or heating struggles this coming winter.”

In a recently-released memo, Rystad does remind readers (especially media) that, as per its December, 2025 analysis of the EU’s methane regulations, “implementation challenges” like tracking Scope 3 emissions and securing third-party data verification will need to be addressed to ensure imported fuels are truly compliant.

Again, however, those issues “reflect the normal complexity of introducing transparency requirements and do not undermine supply security.”

As for the pricing impacts conjured by the signatories to the open letter, they look to be trivial. A 2023 study by Rystad found that the fines imposed on non-compliant oil and gas imports would average only US 8 cents per 1,000 cubic metres of gas, or US$1.50 per barrel of oil.

The EU has drafted plans to weaken penalties for non-compliance, but is otherwise standing firm so far.

“I will not reopen it. I’m very proud of our methane regulation,” declared EU Energy ‌Commissioner ⁠Dan Jørgensen, speaking to media before the open letter was published, reports Reuters.

“We will help as much as we can in being pragmatic, but we have to stand guard ⁠over the legislation.”