We permit the publication of our auditors’ report, provided the report is published in full only and is accompanied by the full financial statements to which our auditors’ report relates, and is only published on an access-controlled page on your website, to enable users to verify that an auditors’ report by independent accountants has been commissioned by the directors and issued. Such permission to publish is given by us without accepting or assuming any responsibility or liability to any third party users save where we have agreed terms with them in writing.

Our consent is given on condition that before any third party accesses our auditors’ report via the webpage they first document their agreement to the following terms of access to our report via a click-through webpage with an 'I accept' button. The terms to be included on your website are as follows:

I accept and agree for and on behalf of myself and the Trust I represent (each a "recipient") that:

  1. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) accepts no liability (including liability for negligence) to each recipient in relation to PwC’s report. The report is provided to each recipient for information purposes only. If a recipient relies on PwC’s report, it does so entirely at its own risk;
  2. No recipient will bring a claim against PwC which relates to the access to the report by a recipient;
  3. Neither PwC’s report, nor information obtained from it, may be made available to anyone else without PwC’s prior written consent, except where required by law or regulation; and
  4. PwC’s report was prepared with Hermes Property Unit Trust's interests in mind. It was not prepared with any recipient's interests in mind or for its use. PwC’s report is not a substitute for any enquiries that a recipient should make. The financial statements are as at 25 March 2017, and thus PwC’s auditors’ report is based on historical information. Any projection of such information or PwC’s opinion thereon to future periods is subject to the risk that changes may occur after the reports are issued and the description of controls may no longer accurately portray the system of internal control. For these reasons, such projection of information to future periods would be inappropriate.
  5. PwC will be entitled to the benefit of and to enforce these terms.
I accept

1. Select your country

  • United Kingdom
  • Austria
  • Australia
  • Belgium
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Luxembourg
  • Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • USA
  • Other

2. Select your investor type

  • Financial Advisor
  • Discretionary Investment Manager
  • Wealth Manager
  • Family Office
  • Institutional Investor
  • Investment Consultant
  • Charity, Foundation & Endowment Investor
  • Retail Investor
  • Press
  • None of the above

3. Accept our terms and conditions

By clicking Proceed I confirm I have read the important information and agree to the terms of use.


The Hermes Investment Management website uses cookies to remember your preferences and help us improve the site.
By proceeding, you agree to cookies being placed on your computer.
Read our privacy and cookie policy.

The two fallacies of gas Part I


Home / EOS Blog / The two fallacies of gas Part I – Methane

Does the switch from coal to gas facilitate the transition to the low-carbon economy? The commonly accepted answer to this question is yes.

This is because the combustion of natural gas produces 40% fewer emissions than the combustion of coal. Nevertheless, there are two fallacies that are crucial to consider when assessing the decarbonisation strategy presented by oil and gas majors, wherein the percentage of gas in the portfolio is increased relative to other fuel types.

Leakage rates
The first fallacy is about leakage rates. Methane, the main constituent of natural gas, is a colourless, odourless gas that is difficult to detect. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the global warming potential of methane is 84 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year time period. Taking into account feedback loops, such as increased biodegradation or the melting of permafrost, the warming potential increases to 86 times. It is worth noting, however, that a high degree of uncertainty surrounds these feedback cycles, and it could well be the case that they are far greater than the estimates make out to be.

This means that a relatively small amount of leakage can have dramatic climatic effects. In fact, leakage rates that surpass 3.2% of gas volume eradicate the climate benefits of using gas over coal. Due to the wide range of possible points within the value chain through which leakage may occur, this is highly concerning. The magnitude of this issue is contextualised by the International Energy Agency’s estimate that the implementation of abatement efforts in the oil and gas sector to manage methane emissions would be as beneficial for the climate as closing all Chinese coal-fired power plants.

The incentives for reducing leakage go beyond the impact on the climate and the embedded risks that this entails. Leakage represents loss of potential sellable product. This explains why such interest has been granted to the issue by the oil and gas sector. It has become a central investment theme for the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative.

The first step for companies to take is to measure and disclose leakage rates. This poses challenges due to the disparity of leaks and need for continuous measurement. Not enough data has been collected to make claims about the industry as a whole, however, estimates for the industry’s leakage rate range from 1.5%-9%. One company we engaged with in 2017 admitted to a leakage rate of 9%, which it has managed to reduce since to 2%.

While investors continue to pressure oil and gas companies through the Methane Working Group of the Principles for Responsible Investment and a multitude of shareholder resolutions, we are concerned that existing measurement techniques are insufficient. Research shows that 90% of leaks are accountable to human error, which causes brief, intense leakage events.

In addition, large discrepancies exist between bottom-up measurement by companies and top-down measurement by satellites, such as the one under construction by the Environmental Defense Fund. Measurements from satellites show methane emissions from the oil and gas sector to be 90% higher than those estimated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

As the head of the EPA attempts to roll back regulation, it is up to investors to maintain pressure on the continued progress of the industry and help companies piece together the discrepancies between the two measurement techniques.

I will address the second fallacy in my subsequent blog.

By using the links above, you will be leaving the Hermes website. Hermes has no control over the content on third party websites.
Share this post:
Nick Spooner Nick Spooner is an engagement associate supporting the operations of Hermes EOS primarily in the US. He has a particular focus on climate change and the engagement with those sectors that are most affected by it, including energy, agriculture, financial and automotive. Nick joined the team following the completion of his MSc in Climate Change, Management and Finance at Imperial College London. During his Master’s degree he also carried out an internship within the Hermes EOS team, where he produced a report analysing the implications of the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures recommendations for the financial sector. Previously, he worked as a sustainability consultant in the real estate sector.
Read all articles by Nick Spooner

Find posts by author

  • Alex Knox, ACA
  • Andrew Jackson
  • Bill Mackenzie
  • Bruce Duguid
  • Christine Chow
  • Claire Gavini
  • Colin Melvin
  • Darren Brady
  • Dominic Burke
  • Dr Michael Viehs
  • Emeric Chenebaux
  • Emma Hunt
  • Geoffrey Wan, CFA
  • Hans-Christoph Hirt
  • Harriet Steel
  • Jaime Gornsztejn
  • Justine Lutterodt
  • Leon Kamhi
  • Louise Dudley
  • Mark Sherlock, CFA
  • Maxine Wille
  • Michael Russell, CFA
  • Michael Vaughan
  • Michael Viehs
  • Natacha Dimitrijevic
  • Nick Spooner
  • Nina Röhrbein
  • Philip Nell
  • Rochelle Giugni
  • Roland Bosch
  • Sachi Suzuki
  • Saker Nusseibeh
  • Silvia Dall’Angelo
  • Tatiana Bosteels
  • Tim Goodman
  • Tommaso Mancuso

Find posts by category

  • environment
  • eos