Oilfield uses power grid instead of generator retrofit project - DEHSt
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
UER Verification Report Oilfield uses power grid instead of generator retrofit project Project ID: XVDG Project Partner: Xinjiang Petrolor Energy Services Co., Ltd No.2286 Jiyuan Road, Economics Development District, Korla City, Bayingol Mongolian Autonomous Prefecture, Xinjiang, China Document provided by Müller-BBM Cert GmbH Accreditation No. D-VS-18709-01-00 (DAkkS) Report No. MC-UER-2021-001 Version No. 1.0 Page 1 of 74
UER Verification Report Title of the project activity Oilfield uses power grid instead of generator (as stated within the application template) retrofit project Project No. XVDG Approval authority of the project activity DEHSt Approval date of the project activity 13/08/2020 Lead Partner of the Project Xinjiang Petrolor Energy Services Co., Ltd Address of the Lead Partner No.2286 Jiyuan Road, Economics Development District, Korla City, Bayingol Mongolian Autonomous Prefecture, Xinjiang, China Approved offsetting period 2020-08-18 to 2021-08-17 (incl. both days) Monitoring/verification period number and duration MP 03 of this monitoring period 2020-12-01 to 2020-12-31 (incl. both days) Version number of the monitoring report to which this V2.0, dated 07/01/2021 report applies Host State P. R. China Scale of the project activity ☑ Large-scale ☐ Small-scale Sectoral scopes linked to the applied methodologies Sectoral scope 1: Energy industries Applied methodologies and standardized baselines AM0045 “Grid Connection of Isolated Electricity Systems” Version 03.0 Standardized baselines: N/A The project site which is the closest to the source of the Substation Yueman Kezier Keshener emissions, by reference to longitude and latitude Longitude 82.8910°E 82.4395°E coordinates to four decimal places [hddd.ddddd°] Latitude 40.6365°N 41.9188°N Estimated amount of GHG upstream emission 9,968,667 reductions during the monitoring period [kg CO2e] Certified amount of GHG upstream emission 11,526,888 reductions during determined monitoring period [kg CO2e] Prepared by Müller-BBM Cert GmbH Contact Heinrich-Hertz-Straße 13 50170 Kerpen Accreditation ID D-VS-18709-01-00 (DAkkS) Verification report ID MC-UER-2021-001 Version number of the verification report 1.0 Issue date of this report 2021-01-08 Verification carried out (from-to) 2020-12-23 to 2021-01-08 Applicable level of assurance Reasonable Name and position of the confirming personnel of the Dr. Stefan Bräker, Dr. Matthias Bender, Managing verification report director Page 2 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Content Section A Executive Summary ............................................................................... 5 A.1 Purpose and general description of project activity ............................................ 5 A.2 Location of project activity ...................................................................................... 6 A.3 Information, in case of project activities associated with oil production ........... 6 A.4 Scope of the verification ......................................................................................... 7 A.5 Preparation and assessment ................................................................................. 8 A.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 9 Section B Verification team, technical reviewer and approver............................... 10 B.1 Verification team member..................................................................................... 10 B.2 Technical reviewer and approver of the verification report .............................. 10 Section C Application of materiality ..................................................................... 11 C.1 Consideration of materiality in verification planning .......................................... 11 C.2 Consideration of materiality in verification activities .......................................... 13 Section D Means of verification ............................................................................ 14 D.1 Desk/document review .......................................................................................... 14 D.2 On-site inspection .................................................................................................. 14 D.3 Interviews ................................................................................................................ 15 D.4 Sampling approach................................................................................................ 15 D.5 Clarification requests (CL) corrective action requests (CAR) and forward action requests (FAR) raised ............................................................................... 16 Section E Verification findings ............................................................................. 17 E.1 Contents of the monitoring report ........................................................................ 17 E.2 Remaining forward action requests from validation and/or previous verifications ............................................................................................................. 18 E.3 Compliance of the project implementation and operation with the registered design document ................................................................................................... 18 E.4 Post registration changes ..................................................................................... 20 E.4.1 Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan, applied methodologies, standardized baselines and other methodological documents ................................................................................................................................. 20 E.4.2 Corrections ............................................................................................................. 20 Page 3 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report E.4.3 Permanent changes from registered monitoring plan, or permanent deviation of monitoring from the applied methodologies, standardized baselines or other methodological documents......................................................................... 21 E.4.4 Changes to the project design ............................................................................. 22 E.5 Compliance of the registered monitoring plan with applied methodologies, applied standardized baselines and other applied methodological documents ................................................................................................................................. 22 E.6 Compliance of the monitoring activities with the registered monitoring plan . 24 E.6.1 Data and parameters fixed ex ante or at renewal of crediting period ............. 24 E.6.2 Data and parameters monitored .......................................................................... 25 E.6.3 Implementation of sampling plan ......................................................................... 25 E.7 Compliance with the calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments ............................................................................................................. 25 E.8 Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions ........................... 26 E.8.1 Calculation of baseline GHG emissions ............................................................. 26 E.8.2 Calculation of project GHG emissions ................................................................ 28 E.8.3 Calculation of leakage emissions ........................................................................ 29 E.8.4 Summary calculation of upstream emission reductions ................................... 30 E.8.5 Comparison of actual of upstream emission reductions with estimates in the approved PDD........................................................................................................ 31 E.9 Approval .................................................................................................................. 32 E.10 Offsetting period..................................................................................................... 32 Section F Internal quality control ......................................................................... 33 Section G Verification opinion .............................................................................. 34 Appendix 1: Abbreviations ...................................................................................... 36 Appendix 2: Certificates of verification team members ............................................ 37 Appendix 3: Documents reviewed or referenced ...................................................... 45 Appendix 4: Clarification requests, corrective action requests and forward action requests .............................................................................................. 45 Appendix 5: Monitored parameters .......................................................................... 55 Appendix 6: Accuracy and Calibration details of monitoring equipment ................... 73 Page 4 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Section A Executive Summary A.1 Purpose and general description of project activity Mabanaft GmbH & Co. KG has commissioned Müller-BBM Cert GmbH to carry out the 3rd verification of the UER project activity Oilfield uses power grid instead of generator retrofit project with regard to the applicable requirements for UER project activities in Germany. Müller-BBM Cert GmbH, an accredited verification body according to DIN EN ISO 14065 including the validation and verification of GHG assertions based on ISO 14064 Part 1 to 3/ISO14064/ and duly authorized to confirm compliance of the monitoring report with requirements as set by ISO 14064 Part 2/ISO14064/. Directive (EU) 2015/652/DEU/ is laying down calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to Directive 98/70/EC (Fuel quality directive) /FQD/ relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuel. Directive (EU) 2015/652 is implemented in Germany by the Upstream Emissions Reduction Ordinance (UERO)/UERO/ thus forms the basis of this verification. The project has been implemented to reduce GHG emissions through switch using diesel generators to supply electricity power to using electricity power from national grid North West Power Grid (NWPG) for drilling machines and auxiliary equipment in western area of Tarim oilfield, which is mainly in Shaya County and Baicheng County in Aksu Region, Xinjiang, P. R. China. The two substations, Yueman 110kV in Shaya County and Kezier Keshener 110kV in Baicheng County are newly built and 29 drilling teams from 3 drilling companies were serviced by the project during the monitoring period, while Yueman 110kV substation connected to 15 drilling teams and Kezier Keshener 110kV substation connected to 14 drilling teams. It will result in significant emission reductions resulting from a measure which would only become reversible with significant efforts. These descriptions are confirmed via site inspection and comparing the MR /MR/ with PDD/PDD/, it is verified that the project is implemented as per the approved PDD/PDD/. Basic technical data is given in the table below. Parameter Description Transformer in Yuman substation Type SFZ11-50000/110 Phase 3 Rated Capacity 50MVA Rated voltage (high voltage winding) 110KV Rated voltage (low voltage winding) 38.5KV Rated frequency 50Hz Manufacturer Baoding Baoling Transformer Co., Ltd. Transformer in Kezier Keshener substation Page 5 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Type SFSZ10-50000/110 Phase 3 Rated Capacity 50MVA Rated voltage (high voltage winding) 110KV Rated voltage (medium voltage winding) 38.5KV Rated voltage (low voltage winding) 10.5KV Rated frequency 50Hz Manufacturer TBEA Xinjiang Co., Ltd. A.2 Location of project activity Parameter Description Host Country People’s Republic of China Region Xinjiang Project location address Shaya County and Baicheng County in Aksu Region Substations Yueman 110kV Kezier Keshener 110 kV Latitude 40.6365°N 41.9188°N Longitude 82.8910°E 82.4395°E A.3 Information, in case of project activities associated with oil production Parameter Unit Value ☐ Not applicable. Oil wells are not within the project boundary ☑ Applicable, as follows: Identification of Oil well - Yueman Block Gas/oil ratio averaged over the preceding five Nm /t 3 665 calendar years 1 Identification of Oil well - Fuyuan Block Gas/oil ratio averaged over the preceding five Nm /t 3 472 calendar years Identification of Oil well - Zhongqiu Block 1 Via site visit, it is verified that the project activity supplies electricity to the oilfield drilling teams which still under drilling, the wells does not start producing oil yet. Thus the project activity not related to the gas/oil ratio in this monitoring period. Gas/oil ratio averaged over the preceding five calendar years in the surrounding block is provided as reference. Page 6 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Gas/oil ratio averaged over the preceding five Nm3/t 3,218 calendar years Identification of Oil well - Keshen Block Gas/oil ratio averaged over the preceding five Nm /t 3 5,875 calendar years A.4 Scope of the verification This verification activity addresses in particular whether: - the preconditions for approval are present in relation to the project activity during the verification period, - the implementation of the project in accordance with the validated project design document; or in case of deviations whether the applicable requirements have been followed, - the monitoring report complies with the applicable requirements, - the monitoring activities are consistent with the monitoring plan esp. if all monitoring parameters have been determined in line with the methodological and, if applicable, other requirements and if all calculations methods have been applied correctly, - the calibration frequency of the respective measuring instruments are met – or in case of deviations whether the applicable requirements have been followed - the amount of emission reductions achieved during the monitoring period is correct - indications for potential double counting of emission reductions have occurred. Müller-BBM Cert GmbH has performed all tasks as specified under ISO 14064 Parts 2 and 3/ISO14064/, thus undertaking a systematic, independent and documented process for the evaluation of a greenhouse gas assertions of the above-mentioned project activity against the agreed verification criteria through this verification report. The main objective of this activity is the use of the verification report by the lead partner for the creation of UERs that are eligible under the German regulation/UERO/. The process of UER creation requires verification. Müller-BBM Cert GmbH has nominated a verification team fulfilling the internal qualification criteria based on ISO 14064 Parts 2 and 3, ISO 14065 and ISO 14066/ISO14064/. The verification process involved an in-depth review of the submitted set of documentation and records as well as background research regarding applied technologies and country-specific circumstances, among others. Following a strategic analysis and the determination of assessment risks, a detailed verification plan has been developed. The verification included a site visit by the local team member, with the participation of all the personnel involved in the GHG emissions reduction project. A finding list has been provided to the lead partner who subsequently revised the documentation. The revised documentation underwent a further review before issuing this final verification report. The verification statement is given at a reasonable level of assurance. When verifying reported data, a 2.0% materiality threshold has been applied with regard to the total amount of emission Page 7 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report reductions and in analogy to the EU ETS scheme (Regulation (EU) No 600/2012 as repealed and replaced by Regulation No 2018/2067 and Regulation (EU) No 601/2012), of which the quality requirements are applicable according to the Fuel Quality Directive /FQD/. In order to fulfil the internal requirements of Müller-BBM Cert GmbH for final appraisal of this report, an independent technical review has been carried out to the ‘final verification report’. This review was done by a lead verifier, which has not been part of the main verification team. The verification has been carried out in the period from 23/12/2020 until 08/01/2021 (incl.) A.5 Preparation and assessment The verification criteria were agreed between the client and Müller-BBM Cert GmbH prior to the assessment as the verification of the monitoring report to meet the requirements under ISO 14064 Parts 2 and 3/ISO14064/, the Council Directive (EU) 2015/652/EUD/ of 20 April 2015 laying down calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to Directive 98/70/EC (Fuel quality directive) /FQD/ of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels having regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC. As preparation for the assessment, the project participant has submitted the project documentation and emissions estimations before starting the verification. By reviewing and evaluating these documents a strategic and risk analysis has been performed in order to develop an assessment plan, that has captured and identified all relevant areas of assessment in order to reduce assessment risks and to enable a statement at a reasonable level of assurance that the project complies with the requirement of ISO 14064 Part 2 (ISO 14064-2) /ISO14064/. Müller-BBM Cert GmbH has been provided with a Monitoring Report/MR/ and underlying data records covering the monitoring period. This document serves as the basis for the assessment presented herewith. On the basis of the assessment plan a site visit has been executed. During the site visit - An opening meeting was held - interviews with key personnel of the project have been held - the physical project implementation has been checked - the monitoring equipment has been inspected - monitoring practices have been observed - on-site available records have been reviewed and - a closing meeting was held where the findings list and, if applicable, required corrective action as respective timelines have been discussed and agreed. This step is followed by the findings resolution. The lead partner identifies and implements corrections which are to be assessed by the verification team. In case of deviant monitoring practices this might require a respective approval from the UER project approval authority. Upon successful closure of the findings the final verification report incl. the verification statement is prepared by the verification team. Page 8 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Finally, the verification report undergoes a technical review, whereby a different verifier or a technical review team the complete verification sequence is reviewed. The personnel used is for TR is has not been involved in any stage of the verification decision making and is duly authorized for the project scope. In case of additional findings these will be addressed by the verification team and, if required, by the lead partner or project owner until full compliance with all applicable requirements is ensured. In case not all findings can be closed out a negative verification opinion will be issued. Upon successful Technical review the final report is then signed and forwarded to the lead partner, who is responsible for submission to the respective state authority being responsible for UER issuance. A.6 Conclusion As a result of this verification it is confirmed that - the preconditions for approval of the UER project activity are still met, - the project has been implemented in accordance with the validated project design document or in case of deviations whether the applicable requirements have been followed, - the monitoring report complies with the applicable requirements, - the monitoring activities are consistent with the monitoring plan - the calibration frequency requirements have been followed - no indications for potential double counting have been identified during this verification. Müller-BBM Cert GmbH confirms that during the above specified verification period the project has achieved UER emission reductions for monitoring period 01/12/2020 to 31/12/2020 (incl.) as follows: 11,526,888 kg CO2e. Page 9 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Section B Verification team, technical reviewer and approver B.1 Verification team member Involvement in Desk/document review Verification findings On-site inspection Type of resource Affiliation Interviews (e.g. name of central or other office of No. Role Name Email VB) 1. Team Leader EI Martin mbeckmann@ N/A ☑ ☐ ☐ ☑ Beckmann 2d-g.com 2. Verifier/ Local EI Xuejiao Zhao fzhao@2d- N/A ☑ ☑ ☑ ☑ Expert g.com B.2 Technical reviewer and approver of the verification report Affiliation (e.g. name of Type of central or other No. Role resource Name Email office of VB) 1. Technical IR Dr. Joerg Zens joerg.zens@mbbm- Müller-BBM Cert Reviewer cert.com GmbH 2. Assistant IR Dr. Matthias matthias.bender@m Müller-BBM Cert Technical Bender bbm- cert.com GmbH Reviewer Page 10 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Section C Application of materiality C.1 Consideration of materiality in verification planning The verification has been planned against the materiality threshold as displayed in the following table. These thresholds have been adopted from UNFCCC Clean development mechanism (CDM) requirements. Category Threshold Applicable for ☐ C 0,5 % UER project activities achieving > 500.000 t of emission reductions ☐ B2 1% Large scale UER project activities achieving > 300.000 t of emission reductions ☑ B1 2% Other large scale UER project activities ☐ A 5% Small scale UER project activities Strategic Analysis: At the beginning of the verification the verification team leader has assessed the nature, scale and complexity of the verification tasks to be done by carrying out a strategic analysis of all activities relevant to the UER PA. The team leader has collected and reviewed the information relevant to assess that the designated verification team is sufficiently competent to carry out the verification and to ensure that it is able to conduct the necessary risk analysis. Risk analysis and detailed audit testing planning: For the identification and assessment of potential reporting risks and to determine the necessary detailed audit testing procedures for residual risk areas the following table is used. Risk that could lead to Assessment of the risk material errors, Risk level Justification Response to the risk in the omissions or verification plan and/or No. misstatements sampling plan 1. Preconditions for approval 1.1 Noncompliance with ☐ low Validation and or Check of validation and binding requirements from ☐ medium approval might approval records validation / registration ☑ high include limitations of ER eligibility 2 Boundaries / completeness 2.1 Completeness of direct and ☐ low Relevant gas flows / Review of network plans indirect emission sources ☑ medium gas qualities may not Interviews ☐ high be considered in input / output balance 3 Implementation of monitoring plan 3.1 Installation of monitoring ☐ low Delayed installation On-site visit and check of equipment ☑ medium of monitoring equipment records ☐ high equipment Check of monitoring records Page 11 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Installation of different equipment 3.2 Exchange of monitoring ☑ low Data gaps, accuracy On-site visit, check of equipment ☐ medium requirements equipment records ☐ high 3.3 Dysfunction of monitoring ☐ low Data gaps On-site visit, check of equipment ☐ medium equipment records ☑ high 3.3 Different monitoring ☑ low Data from deviant On-site visit, check om practices ☐ medium sources might have monitoring records ☐ high been used 4 Parameters 4.1 Different values for non- ☑ low The values for non- Comparison with registered monitored parameters ☐ medium monitored PDD ☐ high parameters which Check of the registered PDD have been fixed ex- and validation report ante might be mon- Check of the ER calculation itored or determined differently 4.2 Wrong values for ☐ low The monitored Comparison with registered monitored parameters ☐ medium parameters might PDD ☑ high have been Check monitoring equipment determined Check of data aggregation incorrectly 5 Calculations 5.1 Calculation mistakes ☐ low Wrong values, Spread sheet walk-throughs ☐ medium different equations, Plausibility checks ☑ high or mistakes in Re-Calculation spreadsheet programming might have occurred 6 Quality assurance / quality control 6.1 Non-fulfilment of ☐ low Calibrations might Check of manufacturer´s calibration requirements ☑ medium not have taken place specifications ☐ high within applicable Check of national time frames requirements Check of calibration data 7 Double counting 7.1 Double use of emission ☐ low ER credits may be Check of project boundaries reduction credits ☐ medium used in other and coordinates ☑ high projects or schemes. Check of other schemes As of 2021 ERs may Check of host country be counted against approvals (post 2020) the Host country NDCs On the basis of the risk analysis the verification has been planned. A detailed audit/verification plan has been prepared and submitted to the Lead Partner due time before the site visit. Page 12 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report C.2 Consideration of materiality in verification activities The verification has basically been carried out as per the verification plan. Errors, mistakes or other nonconformities have been addressed and corrected. The verification team has carried out its verification in a way to be able to confirm, with a reasonable level of assurance, that the collective effect of any omissions or undetected mistakes on the stated emission reductions does not exceed the above specified materiality level. Page 13 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Section D Means of verification D.1 Desk/document review Based on submitted information on the project idea, its location, relevant stakeholders and the ap- plied methodology, it was agreed to execute the project under an extension of the framework con- tract for UER activities closed between the auditors and Müller-BBM Cert GmbH. The scope of accreditation of Müller-BBM Cert GmbH as accredited validation and verification body covers all relevant scopes of this project activity according to AM0045 and the PDD. Müller-BBM Cert GmbH has access to auditors covering the required competences in the sectors related for this activity. The contract complies with the internal requirements of the validation and verification body. The cost estimate ensured that the required personnel and time resources were available for processing. The client confirmed the independence of the verification team members and Müller-BBM Cert GmbH in writing. D.2 On-site inspection Duration of on-site inspection: 23/12/2020 to 26/12/2020 No. Activity performed on-site Site location Date Team member 1. Opening meeting Meeting room in PP company 23/12/2020 Zhao Xuejiao Interview with PP in Shaya County, Aksu Region, Representative and Xinjiang, People’s Republic of Operation Staff China 2 On-site inspection 2 substations and 29 drilling 23/12/2020~ Zhao Xuejiao teams in western area of 26/12/2020 Tarim oilfield in Shaya County and Baicheng County, Aksu Region, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China 3 Documents check Meeting room in PP company 26/12/2020 Zhao Xuejiao in Baicheng County, Aksu Region, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China 4 Finding Summary Meeting room in PP company 26/12/2020 Zhao Xuejiao in Baicheng County, Aksu Region, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China 5 Closing Meeting Meeting room in PP company 26/12/2020 Zhao Xuejiao in Baicheng County, Aksu Region, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China Page 14 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report D.3 Interviews Interviewee Team No. Last name First name Affiliation Date Subject member 1. Shao/I1/ Zhiming PP/Director 23/12/2020 - General aspects of the Xuejiao project Zhao 2 Sun/I1/ Wei PP/ 23/12/2020 - Changes since validation Xuejiao Technical - Calibration procedures Zhao - Project operation situation Staff - Quality management system - Involved personnel and responsibilities - Training and practice of the operational personnel - Implementation of the monitoring plan - Monitoring data management - Data uncertainty and residual risks - Procedural aspects of the verification - Maintenance - Environmental aspects 3 Huang/I2/ Guowei Substation/ 23/12/2020 - Substation Implementation Xuejiao Engineer status Zhao 4 Peng/I2/ Zhenfeng 23/12/2020 - Drilling team connection Xuejiao status Zhao - Technical parameter of 5 Zhao/I2/ Feng Substation/ 23/12/2020 Xuejiao Substation Operator Zhao - Monitoring equipment 6 Liu/I2/ Dazhi 23/12/2020 installation Xuejiao Zhao 7 Wen/I2/ Na 23/12/2020 Xuejiao Zhao 8 Wang/I2/ Jun 23/12/2020 Xuejiao Zhao 9 Li/I2/ Baoguo Drilling 23/12/2020 - Drilling team connection Xuejiao Team/ status Zhao 10 Lin/I2/ Zhongze leader 23/12/2020 - Monitoring equipment Xuejiao installation Zhao - Electricity using and 11 Yin/I2/ Sheng 23/12/2020 Xuejiao purchase status Zhao 12 Li/I2/ Lei 23/12/2020 Xuejiao Zhao 13 Wu/I2/ Yi 23/12/2020 Xuejiao Zhao Page 15 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Interviewee Team No. Last name First name Affiliation Date Subject member 14 Chen/I2/ Jie 23/12/2020 Xuejiao Zhao 15 Liu/I3/ Huanhuan 23/12/2020 Xuejiao Zhao 16 Zhou/I3/ Ziming 23/12/2020 Xuejiao Zhao D.4 Sampling approach There is no Sampling approach has been used by PP and Verification team during this monitoring period. D.5 Clarification requests (CL) corrective action requests (CAR) and forward action requests (FAR) raised Areas of verification findings No. of CL No. of CAR No. of FAR Contents of the monitoring report - CAR 01 - Compliance of the project implementation and - - - operation with the registered PDD Post-registration changes - - - Compliance of the registered monitoring plan with the - methodologies including applicable tools and CL 01 - standardized baselines Compliance of monitoring activities with the approved - CAR 02 - monitoring plan Compliance with the calibration frequency - - - requirements for measuring instruments Assessment of data and calculation of emission CL 02 CAR 03 - reductions CAR 04 Approval of the project - - - Offsetting period - - - Others (please specify) - - - Total 2 4 0 Page 16 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Section E Verification findings E.1 Contents of the monitoring report Description Means of verification The verification team has reviewed the monitoring report against the requirements of § 18 of UERO/§19b of FO. The following is confirmed Findings ☑ The monitoring report clearly specifies the monitoring period. ☑ The monitoring period, which is identical with the verification period fully lies within the approved offsetting period. ☑ The monitoring period relates to a compliance year ☑ The monitoring report references the project number which has been awarded by the DEHSt ☑ The date when the first upstream emission reductions were achieved as a result of the project activity has been specified. This date has been determined ☑ The monitoring report includes a brief description of the upstream emission measures ☑ The monitoring report includes a description of the technology and equipment installed, ☑ The monitoring report includes information about the relevant dates of the project implementation, including information relating to erection and commissioning as well as to the operating periods. ☑ The monitoring report includes the level of emission reductions in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent attainted during the monitoring period as well as the determination thereof. ☐ OK The project is associated with oil production and for every spring gas/oil ☐ N/A ratio during the representative for the (complete) year the monitoring period belongs to has been specified. ☑ The monitoring report includes information regarding the implementation of the project activity during the monitoring period. ☑ For each ex-ante defined parameter the following is included in the monitoring report: ☑ the unit of measurement ☑ the source ☑ the recording frequency ☑ a description of the value ☑ For each monitoring parameter the following is included in the monitoring report: ☑ the unit of measurement ☑ the source ☑ the recording frequency ☑ a description of the value ☑ a description of the quality control procedures Page 17 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Description ☑ the unit of measurement ☑ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☑ CAR CAR 01 was raised. ☐ CL Refer to Appendix 4 for details of finding raised and closed out. ☐ FAR Conclusions ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ The monitoring report complies with § 18 of UERO/19b of FO E.2 Remaining forward action requests from validation and/or previous verifications This is the third periodical verification of the project, via checking the 3rd periodical verification report of the project/VER/, it is confirmed that there were no remaining Forward Action Requests (FAR) from the validation and 2nd periodical verification. E.3 Compliance of the project implementation and operation with the registered design document Description Means of verification The verification team has inspected the project site against the project description in the registered Project design document (PDD)/PDD/. By means of on-site inspection and PDD/PDD/&MR/MR/ review, the verification team can confirm the below, Oilfield uses power grid instead of generator retrofit project is located in western area of Tarim oilfield, which is mainly distributed in Shaya County and Baicheng County, Aksu Region, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China. The location of two substations and relevant service areas are marked in the map of MR/MR/. The map was checked by site inspection by GPS device and also comparing with the description in the PDD and no discrepancy was found. The project is to reduce GHG emissions through switch using diesel generators to supply electricity power to using electricity power from national grid for drilling machines and auxiliary equipment owned by Xinjiang Petrolor Energy Services Co., Ltd.. The two substations, Yueman 110kV in Shaya County and Kezier Keshener 110kV in Baicheng County are newly built and 29 drilling teams were serviced by the project during the monitoring period, while Yueman 110kV substation connected to 15 drilling teams and Kezier Keshener 110kV substation connected to 14 drilling teams. which has been confirmed by site inspection comparing with the PDD and MR. The project boundary covers all the diesel generating units on the oilfield exploration area, two new substations and all power plants physically connected to the electricity system NWPG which has been clearly defined as per the applied methodology/AM0045/. Page 18 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Description The baseline scenario is the same as the status prior to the implementation of the project, i.e. continuation of the current practice of using diesel generators to supply electricity power for drilling machines and auxiliary equipment which has been determined in the registered PDD/PDD/. The project activity generates GHG emission reductions by fuel switch from petroleum fuel to electricity, thus not only generating GHG emission reductions but also produce financial, social and environmental benefits, which has been verified by checking the Feasibility Study Report /FSR/ and Environment Impact Analysis/EIA/ and interview with PP representatives/I1/ and operation staffs/I2/. The construction of the Yueman Substation started on 07/03/2020 and construction of the Keshen Substation started on 02/03/2020 which has been verified by checking the Substations construction start notice/SCSN/. The Keshen substation has been completed and started to operation on 03/07/2020 and the Yueman substation has been completed and started to operation on 06/07/2020, which has been verified by checking the Substations acceptance sheet/SAS/. And all the drilling teams connected to grid were all in July 2020 that is confirmed in the Grid connection acceptance report/GCAR/. Via checking the nameplate of Transformers by site inspection/NE/, it is verified that the technical data of the main equipment provided in the MR are correct. Further is has been checked if relevant technical equipment of the project activity has been exchanged or modified during the monitoring period and consistent notations of key equipment (meters etc.) in PDD, MR and calculation spreadsheet are applied. Interviews with operational personnel have been carried out, QMS records, maintenance records, instrument specifications were checked in this context. Thus based on the site inspection of the project implementation, it is verified that the implementation and operation of the project is in compliance with the registered PDD/PDD/, there was no any events or situations, which may impact the applicability of the methodology, occurred during this monitoring period was observed by verification team. In particular, it is confirmed that, Findings ☑ The physical project boundary complies with the description in the registered PDD. ☑ The project has been implemented as described in the latest version of the PDD as well as in section B.1 of the monitoring report. ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusions ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ The project implementation is in full compliance with the registered PDD. Page 19 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report E.4 Post registration changes E.4.1 Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan, applied methodologies, standardized baselines and other methodological documents ☑ No temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan, applied methodologies, standardized baselines or other methodological documents have been identified ☐ The following temporary deviations have been identified: #1 Description of deviation Approved ☐ Date of approval Comment: #2 Description of deviation Approved ☐ Date of approval Comment: Findings ☑ No findings have been raised in this context ☐ The following findings have been raised: #1 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR #2 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR E.4.2 Corrections ☑ No need for corrections of the registered monitoring plan, or other methodological documents have been identified ☐ The following corrections have been applied: #1 Description of deviation Comment: #2 Description of deviation Comment: Page 20 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Findings ☑ No findings have been raised in this context ☐ The following findings have been raised: #1 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR #2 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR E.4.3 Permanent changes from registered monitoring plan, or permanent deviation of monitoring from the applied methodologies, standardized baselines or other methodological documents ☑ No permanent deviations from the registered monitoring plan, applied methodologies, standardized baselines or other methodological documents have been identified. ☐ The following permanent deviations have been identified: #1 Description of deviation Approved ☐ Date of approval Comment: #2 Description of deviation Approved ☐ Date of approval Comment: Findings ☑ No findings have been raised in this context ☐ The following findings have been raised: #1 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR #2 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR Page 21 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report E.4.4 Changes to the project design ☑ No changes to the project design from the registered monitoring PDD have been identified ☐ The following design changes have been identified: #1 Description of deviation Approved ☐ Date of approval Comment: #2 Description of deviation Approved ☐ Date of approval Comment: Findings ☑ No findings have been raised in this context. ☐ The following findings have been raised: #1 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR #2 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR E.5 Compliance of the registered monitoring plan with applied methodologies, applied standardized baselines and other applied methodological documents Description Means of verification The verification team has analyzed the content to the approved monitoring plan against the requirements of the applied methodology and the applicable methodological tools (at verification stage) and came to the following conclusions: For monitoring structure, the details of roles and responsibilities for the monitoring is provided in the MR/MR/ and is in line with the information provided in the PDD/PDD/. The responsibilities as listed in the Management Structure of the project is verified by on-site interview with the project owner and checking the monitoring manual/MM/. All required equipment and procedures are available and implemented in an appropriate manner. All necessary monitoring instruments are installed. The measuring devices are well known and state-of-the-art. All required instruments Page 22 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Description including stand by and operating procedures for the same have been implemented in an appropriate manner. For the metering purpose, according to the PDD /PDD/, the monitoring produces a continuous measurement of the quantity of electricity consumed by the drilling teams on the oilfield (EGy) by meters (appropriately numbered), which readings are recorded for every drilling team. Refer to Appendix 5 for detail assessment. The monitoring of the leakage of SF6 from switches is measured at the two newly- built substations through the Circuit breaker inspection record /CBIR/, via checking the records, it is confirmed that there is no leakage of SF6. Refer to Appendix 5 for detail assessment. Neither failure nor exchange of meters was detected during this monitoring period. The verifier has checked all related calibration certificates and confirms that the calibration of each meter is valid for the entire 3rd monitoring period/CAL/. For data collection, the quantities of electricity supplied to the project activity from NWPG EGy are measured continuously by meters. Data is recorded and stored in the computer electronically. The computer records the readings of meters for each meter of drilling team, which has been verified by checking the Daily power consumption records exported from computer/DPCR/. The monthly Electricity Transaction Notes including the data of electricity consumption for each drilling team/ETN/ during this monitoring period are used for cross-check which have been verified by the verification team, and it is confirmed that the monthly data on receipts/ETN/ are consistent with the total daily electricity consumption records/DPCR/. QA/QC procedure for meter calibration and data measurement and recording; procedure for monitoring staff training/TRR/ and competence/EQC/ were established and implemented. The data flow and emergency procedure were observed during the on-site verification. In case the monitoring equipment are out of order, no emission reductions will be claimed. Data management and archive procedures are confirmed provide in the MR and have been applied by the project implementation which has been verified by site inspection and checking all the related monitoring records. Findings ☑ The registered monitoring plan is in full compliance with the applied methodology AM0045 version 03.0/AM0045/ ☑ The registered monitoring plan is in full compliance with TOOL 07: “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” Version 07.0/TEF/ ☑ The registered monitoring plan is in full compliance with TOOL 05: “Baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption and monitoring of electricity generation” version 3.0/TBPL/ ☑ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR CL 01 was raised. ☑ CL Refer to Appendix 4 for details of finding raised and closed out. ☐ FAR Conclusions ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. Page 23 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Description ☑ The monitoring plan complies with the applied methodology and the monitoring system and all applied procedures are completely in compliance to the latest approved monitoring plan and the methodology AM0045 version 03.0 and related tools. E.6 Compliance of the monitoring activities with the registered monitoring plan E.6.1 Data and parameters fixed ex ante or at renewal of crediting period Description Means of verification The verification team has checked all ex-ante determined parameters for correct application in the MR and the ER calculation. The following results have been obtained. Findings Parameter Value Unit Correct application COEFi,j 3.09591 tCO2e/mass or ☑ volume unit COEFi Refer to Appendix 1 of MR tCO2e/mass or ☑ volume unit GENj,bl Refer to Appendix 1 of MR MWh ☑ Fi,j,bl Refer to Appendix 1 of MR mass or volume ☑ LTavg, 5.48 years ☑ EFBAT, 0.5138 tCO2e/MWh ☑ EFbl,ini 0.8283 tCO2e/MWh ☑ Adef 0 hectares ☑ TL 0.91 for Yueman Substation % ☑ 2.57 for Kezier Keshener Substation Sini 150.406 MW ☑ LTi,ini 5.48 years ☑ Lc, 0 tCO2/hectare ☑ ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ All ex ante defined parameters have been applied correctly throughout the Monitoring report and the emission reduction calculation. Page 24 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report E.6.2 Data and parameters monitored Description Means of verification The verification team has checked all monitored parameters and the required monitoring equipment. For each equipment it has been checked whether the accuracy requirements have been met and whether all applicable QA/QC requirements incl. calibration have been met. It has further been checked whether the parameter description in the monitoring plan corresponds with the actual situation. Finally, the data aggregation from the original data to the reported value has been checked and recalculated, where applicable. Findings Please refer to table A5-1 in Appendix 5 ☑ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☑ CAR CAR 02 was raised. ☐ CL Refer to Appendix 4 for details of finding raised and closed out. ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ All monitored parameters have been determined correctly. Where data gaps have occurred, accuracy or QA/QC requirements have not been met appropriate conservative compensations have been applied. E.6.3 Implementation of sampling plan Description Means of verification No sampling has been carried out during this verification Findings N/A ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ No sampling has been carried out during this verification E.7 Compliance with the calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments Description Means of verification The verification team has checked the calibration data and calibration certificates/CAL/ for all implemented monitoring equipment. Findings Please refer to table A6-1 in Appendix 6 ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL Page 25 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Description ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ All calibrations have been carried out in line with the requirements of the registered monitoring plan. No delays in calibration have occurred. E.8 Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions E.8.1 Calculation of baseline GHG emissions Description Means of verification The verification team has checked the calculation of baseline emissions in the monitoring report/MR/ and the related ER calculation spread sheet/ER/. In detail it has been checked whether • all underlying non monitored parameters have been considered correctly • All monitored parameters have been considered correctly • The calculations are in line with the approved monitoring plan • The ER calculation spread sheet is free of material errors • The calculation of the energy related baseline emissions has been done correctly The formula used for the determination of baseline emissions is consistent with the registered PDD/PDD/ and applied methodology AM0045/AM0045/, BEy = EGy EFbl , yp (1) Where for the calculation of EFbl,yp, below formular need to be used according to the PDD/PDD/ and applied methodology AM0045/AM0045/, If S yp 0 and Dyp S yp : EFbl , yp = EFbl ,ini (2) yp (3) S yp = Sini − Sini , if yp 2 LTavg ( 2 LTavg ) Where: BEy = Baseline emissions during the year y in t CO2e EGy = Electricity supplied to the isolated system by the grid in the year yp (MWh) EFbl,yp = Baseline emission factor (in tCO2e/MWh) of the project (previously isolated system at year yp) Syp = Power that would be supplied in the baseline scenario to previously isolated system in project year yp (MW) if the equipment in the system were not replaced at the end of their lifetime Dyp = Power electricity demand in MW of the project (previously Page 26 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Description isolated system at year yp) EFbl,ini = Baseline emission factor of the isolated system (tCO2e/MWh) at the time of the interconnection to the grid Sini = Equipment power supply capacity in the isolated system (in MW) at the time of the interconnection to the grid yp = Number of years since the isolated system was interconnected to the grid (project year) LTavg, = Average remaining lifetime of the equipment used in the isolated system at the time of the interconnection, weighted with the supply capacity of the equipment at the beginning of the project activity Based on the ex-ante determined value of LTavg and monitoring result of yp, as assessed in Appendix 5 of this report, for this monitoring period, yp=1 is less than 2×LTavg,= 10.96, So based on the ex ante determined value of Sini , Syp = 150.406 - 150.406 × 1 / (2 × 5.48) = 136.682 MW Thus Syp >0 and based on the monitoring result of Dyp as assessed in Appendix 5 of this report, Syp > Dyp, then EFbl,yp = EFbl,ini which has been ex ante determined as 0.8283 tCO2/MWh. Finally, for this monitoring period, based on the monitoring result of EG y as assessed in Appendix 5 of this report, the baseline emission is calculated as below BEy = EGy EFbl , yp = 55,159.701MWh×0.8283 tCO2/MWh =45,688.780 tCO2 The total baseline emissions for this project is the sum of two months values which the calculation results have been listed clearly in the ER sheet /ER/ and MR/MR/ and have been verified and re-calculated by verifier. Findings ☑ All required calculations have been demonstrated by the project proponents ☑ The calculation of baseline emissions is fully traceable and transparent ☑ No mistakes have occurred to calculate the baseline emissions ☑ The final baseline emissions value reported is deemed to be correct ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ The calculation of baseline emissions has been done correctly. This also includes the energy related baseline values. Page 27 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report E.8.2 Calculation of project GHG emissions Description Means of verification The verification team has checked the calculation of project emissions in the monitoring report and the related ER calculation spread sheet /ER/. In detail it has been checked whether • all underlying non monitored parameters have been considered correctly. • All monitored parameters have been considered correctly • The calculations are in line with the approved monitoring plan • The ER calculation spread sheet is free of material errors. • The calculation of the energy related project emissions has been done correctly. The formula used for the determination of project emissions is consistent with the PDD/PDD/ and applied methodology/AM0045/: = ( × , ) × ( + 1) + 6, (4) 6, = 6, × 6 (5) Where: PEy = Project emissions during the year y in t CO2e EFp,y = The project emission factor as given in the methodology is equivalent to the combined margin of the NWGP as determined with the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system”/Version 7.0 (tCO2/MWh) TL = Incremental transmission losses (1.0 ≥ TL ≥ 0.0) of the project activity over and above those in the isolated area PESF6,y = SF6 used in the new equipment of the project activity during the year y in tonnes of CO2e MSF6,y = Average quantity of SF6 leaks in the equipment during year y in tonnes of SF6. The value shall be determined using the equipment manufacturer’s information and/or amount of SF6 injected in the equipment during maintenance to maintain their operation standards GWPSF6 = Global warming potential of Sulphur hexafluoriode (22,800 is the value for first commitment period) As per the PDD/PDD/ and “Tool to calculate emission factor for an electricity system” (Version 07.0)/TEF/, EFp, y = EFgrid ,CM , y = 0.5 EFgrid ,OM , y + 0.5 EFgrid ,BM , y (6) Where EFOM , y is same as EFgrid ,OM , y and EFBM , y is same as EFgrid , BM , y Via checking the calculation process of EFgrid,OM,y, EFgrid,BM,y and EFp,y in MR, it is verified that the process is in line with the tool/TEF/ and based on the results of monitoring parameters EFOM,y, EFBM,y and EFp,y as assessed in the Appendix 5 of this report, it is confirmed that EFp,y =0.6087 tCO2e/MWh Page 28 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
UER Verification Report Description While for PESF6,y, based on the monitoring result of MSF6,y as assessed in the Appendix 5 of this report, for this monitoring period, no SF6 was added to the project, thus the Project emissions from SF6 leaks is calculated as 0. In conclusion, for this monitoring period, based on the different TL value for two substations based on the results of monitoring parameter TL as assessed in the Appendix 5 of this report, the project emission is calculated as below, = ( × , ) × ( + 1) + 6, = (27,385.456MWh × 0.6087 tCO2/MWh) × (0.91%+1)+ (27,774.245MWh × 0.6087 tCO2/MWh) ×(2.57%+1)+0 = 34,161.892 tCO2e The total Project emissions from the consumption of electricity by drilling teams for this project is the sum of two substations and two months values which the calculation results have been listed clearly in the ER sheet /ER/ and MR/MR/ and have been verified and re-calculated by verifier. Thus, for this monitoring period, PEy= 34,161.892 tCO2e. Findings ☑ All required calculations have been demonstrated by the project proponents ☑ The calculation of project emissions is fully traceable and transparent ☐ No mistakes have occurred to calculate the project emissions ☐ The final project emissions value reported is deemed to be correct ☑ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☑ CAR CAR 03 was raised. ☐ CL Refer to Appendix 4 for details of finding raised and closed out. ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ The calculation of project emissions has been done correctly. This also includes the energy related project values. E.8.3 Calculation of leakage emissions Description Means of verification No leakage calculation has been presented in the MR according to the registered PDD/PDD/ and EIA/EIA/. Findings ☑ No leakage has been considered to calculate the UER emission reductions. The verification team confirms that no leakage effects need to be considered for this project during the current monitoring period ☐ All required calculations have been demonstrated by the project proponents ☐ The calculation of leakage emissions is fully traceable and transparent Page 29 of 74 MC-UER-2021-001
You can also read
