ࡱ> 3 ibjbj &bvbvFcl\\\\8\b6MZR!(z!z!z!"R3%T&CCCC>/D`G`J$M  PdK3'"""3'3'Km)\\z!z!ELm)m)m)3'\8z!z!Cm)3'Cm) m)2?|@z!N XZ9(S@@$M06Mo@\pP)jpP@m)Br\\\\ Name of person / organization responsible for completing and submitting this formShell International Renewables B.V. Contact information (address, phone, e-mail )Carel van Bylandtlaan 23, 2596 HP The Hague, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 70 377 2915, Fax: +31 70 377 2900, Bill.Spence@shell.com Related F-CDM-NM document ID number167Based on an assessment of the CDM-NMB and CDM-NMM and their application in sections A to E of the draft CDM-PDD, evaluate the proposed new baseline and /or monitoring methodologies. A. Comment on the proposed new methodologies:I. Comments on the proposed new baseline methodology: Title of new baseline methodology: Recovery of anthropogenic CO2 from large industrial GHG emission sources and its storage in an oil reservoirConditions under which this methodology is applicable to other potential projects (e.g. project type, region, data availability): Restricted to CO2-based enhanced oil (EOR) recovery processes but could be broadened to include non-EOR storage in oil reservoirs. Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology: Insufficient treatment of long-term liability for stored CO2 beyond crediting period. Insufficient distinction between seepage from the primary subsurface storage (which, because of possible overburden secondary storage processes, might not automatically create project emissions) as opposed to ultimate escape of CO2 to the atmosphere. - Any changes needed to improve the methodology: Minor changes: Correct formulae and include all relevant emission sources. Major changes: The methodology should only be applicable under the condition that remediation plans and allocation of liability in the event of seepage have been specified by the project developer in the context of a CCS project approvals process, e.g. a permitting/licensing regime for CO2 storage operations. The methodology should include a scientific assessment of how the CO2 behaves in the subsurface and how it interacts with the storage formation in the long term through appropriate core testing and simulations. These should address fluid transport, chemical reactions, thermal and geomechanical aspects. II. Comments on the proposed new monitoring methodology:Title of new monitoring methodology: Recovery of anthropogenic CO2 from large industrial GHG emission sources and its storage in an oil reservoirConditions under which this methodology is applicable to other potential projects (e.g. project type, region, data availability): >> FORMTEXT       ii. Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology: The value of 0.1% per annum as  permissible seepage rate appears to be based on a mistranslation of a statement in the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (IPCC SRCC) pertaining to seepage from well-selected, designed and managed storage reservoirs. For these reservoirs, the IPCC SRCCS suggests that the fraction of CO2 retained over 1000 years is likely to exceed 99%. This translates into an annual seepage rate of 0.001%, which is two order of magnitudes smaller than the seepage rate employed in the methodology. From the description of monitoring methodology it is unclear how seepage will be quantitatively determined. Furthermore, it is unclear how seepage to the surface will be differentiated from natural CO2 fluxes. iii. Any changes needed to improve the methodology: Minor changes:>>include pre-project baseline CO2 flux measurements Major changes:>> FORMTEXT       B. Details of the comments on the proposed new methodology:I. Proposed new baseline methodology (specify title here): Recovery of anthropogenic CO2 from large industrial GHG emission sources and its storage in an oil reservoir(1) Short description of the methodology, including an assessment of which approach from paragraph 48 of the CDM modalities and procedures was used: a) Describe the methodology: >> FORMTEXT       b) State the approach selected: >> FORMTEXT       c) Indicate (in summary form) why the approach selected is the most appropriate. Please provide your expert judgement on the appropriateness of the selected approach to the project category: (2) Basis for determining the baseline scenario: a) State whether the documentation explains how the baseline scenario is to be chosen and identified: >> FORMTEXT       b) State the basic underlying rationale for algorithms/formulae used (e.g. marginal vs. average basis) (see also section 4 below): >> FORMTEXT       c) State whether the documentation explains how, through the use of the methodology, it can be demonstrated that a project activity is additional and therefore not the baseline scenario. If so, what are the tools provided by the project participants? >> FORMTEXT       d) State whether the basis for determining the baseline scenario and for assessing additionality is appropriate and adequate: >> FORMTEXT      (3) Assessment of the description of the proposed methodology and its applicability a) State whether the methodology has been described in an adequate manner: The methodology should include a narrative description of the medium and long-term fate of the injected store to ensure geological sequestration. b) State whether the proposed methodology is appropriate for the referred proposed project activity and the referred project context (described in Sections A - E of the draft CDM-PDD and submitted along with CDM-NMB): In general, the choice of geophysical monitoring techniques is crucially dependent on the specific rock and fluid properties of the storage site and its overburden and should be supported by simulation of subsurface scenarios. Specifically, 4D seismic may not provide in all instances an effective geophysical monitoring tool.. Furthermore, it should be demonstrated that the proposed monitoring strategy for project emissions due to seepage from the primary storage reservoir is indeed capable to detect potential seepage for the relevant leakage scenarios. c) State whether the application of the methodology could result in a baseline scenario that reasonably represents the anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases that would occur in the absence of the proposed project activity. Not necessarily Please explain: Baseline scenario development should also assess any existing oil production facilities that are currently operating as well as those operated in the past.(4) Assessment of algorithms/formulae and type of data needed: State whether the description of the methodology includes algorithms and generic formulae that can be applied to other potential project activities (if not, the proposed new methodology will be considered as a project-specific methodology): There is a general issue with the way the baseline methodology calculates Baseline Emissions (Section F). As proposed, the baseline methodology accounts for emissions captured rather than emissions avoided, which is inconsistent with the definitions for emissions captured and emissions avoided as proposed by the IPCC SRCCS. This is because, whilst eq. E.9 (in Section G) does take account of the energy penalty of CO2 capture as Project Emission, eqs. E.1 and E.2 (Section F) actually measure the amount of CO2 produced by the power plant, rather what the emissions would be from a power plant without CO2 capture (e.g. a reference plant applicable to region in which the proposed project will take place). For the purpose of transparency, a portion [or all] of emissions calculated in eq. E.9 that are associated with capture and compression of CO2 should be netted out from the overall Baseline Emissions (power plant emissions calculated in eqs.E.1 and E.2 in Section F) rather than subtracted as Project Emissions; this is more consistent with the definition of Baseline Emissions (and also easier to determine than attempting to use a local reference plant emissions factor). More careful consideration is needed for eqs. E.13-16 where the breakthrough CO2 from the EOR operation is accounted for as Project Emissions. Remerging CO2 which is sent for flaring is likely to be co-mingled with natural reservoir CO2 (especially in CO2 rich oil reservoirs), and the methodology should account for some level of natural CO2 emissions in the baseline scenario and methodology. In addition, the overall CO2 balance equation (E7), when expanded using E3, E4, E5 and E6, does not give the correct mathematical expression of the CO2 balance. Equation E5 should read: Loss = B  C + E b) Explain the spatial scope of data used to determine the baseline and whether the scope is appropriate: >> FORMTEXT       c) Explain the vintage of data used (in relation to the duration of the project crediting period) and whether the vintage of data is appropriate, indicating the period covered by the data: >> FORMTEXT      (5) Definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology: a) State how the project boundary is defined in terms of: i) Gases and sources >> FORMTEXT       ii) Physical delineation >> FORMTEXT       b) Indicate whether this project boundary is appropriate: The boundary is generally appropriate. Project boundaries for a CCS project in the CDM should include the full range of operations taking place across the CCS chain (capture>transport>injection>storage). Project boundaries should extend well beyond the edge of the injected CO2 plume in the subsurface, and also the region around the plume for the purpose of monitoring. Characterisation of the lateral spread of the plume of stored CO2 should form a critical part of the site selection, monitoring and performance assessment process.(6) Key assumptions/parameters (including emission factors and activity levels) and data sources: a) List the implicit and explicit key assumptions. Identify those, if any, which are problematic and explain: >> FORMTEXT      There seems to be the implicit assumption (as indicated from description of column heights on page 4 of the PDD) that the sealing formation for the oil phase will seal equally well for CO2. This is, however, a questionable assumption considering differences between CO2 and methane in both buoyancy and capillary entry pressure, and notwithstanding possible chemical changes to the sealing formation under the action of CO2. b) State whether the key assumptions are arrived at in a transparent manner: >> FORMTEXT       c) Give your expert judgement on whether the assumptions/parameters are adequate: >> FORMTEXT       d) Indicate which data sources are used and how the data are obtained (e.g. official statistics, expert judgement): >> FORMTEXT       e) Give your expert judgement on whether the data used are adequate, consistent, accurate and reliable: >> FORMTEXT       f) State possible data gaps: All relevant emission sources should be covered. The methodology on accounting for flared/vented gas streams only deals with methane and CO2. Other hydrocarbons should be included here. The power/fuel gas requirements for 1. CO2 capture 2.compression and 3. the new facilities at the EOR site should be split out for clarity.(7) Assessment of uncertainties: a) State whether the methodology includes an assessment of uncertainties regarding: i) The basis for determining the baseline scenario: >> FORMTEXT       ii) Algorithms/formulae: >> FORMTEXT       iii) Key assumptions: >> FORMTEXT       iv) Data: >> FORMTEXT       b) State whether the uncertainties presented are reasonable: >> FORMTEXT      (8) Leakage: a) State how the baseline methodology addresses any potential leakage due to the project activity: >> FORMTEXT       b) Indicate whether the treatment for leakage is appropriate and adequate: During the Crediting Period If seepage (release of CO2 from the reservoir to the atmosphere) occurs during the crediting period, these emissions have to be monitored as project emissions. The PDD accompanying the methodology proposes cancellation of CERs in case of leakage >0.1% per year. However, cancellation of CERs ex post is not possible under CDM rules. Hence, it should be made clear that the project developer/operator must deliver a volume of CERs to the Executive Board equal to the volume of any seepage once the seepage has been verified. There should certainly not be any cancellation of CERs that have already been issued. After the Crediting Period Seepage beyond the crediting period, ie after the CCS site has been closed and sealed, should be managed by defining a subsequent period of time for which the project developers/operators will remain liable for any seepage. Hence, if any seepage happens during this time period then the project developer/operator must deliver a volume of CERs to the Executive Board equal to the volume of verified seepage. The developer/operator will also remain responsible for providing the relevant monitoring and third party verification of seepage during this time period. It will be critical to define the time period during which the project developer/operator will remain liable subsequent to sealing the site. In order for the operator/developer to manage this liability commercially the time period must be constrained, we would recommend a period of some years. After this period the liability for seepage would be removed from the project developer/operator and transferred to another (governmental or intergovernmental) entity. (9) Transparency and  conservativeness : a) Indicate whether the baseline methodology was developed in a transparent way: >> FORMTEXT       b) State whether the baseline methodology is conservative: >> FORMTEXT      (10) Potential strengths and weaknesses of the proposed baseline methodology (please explain): >> FORMTEXT      (11) Other considerations, such as a description of how national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances have been taken into account (please explain): >> FORMTEXT      (12) Applicability of the proposed methodology across project types and regions (please indicate): The methodology should only be applicable if remediation plans and allocation of liability in the event of seepage are specified in the PDD.(13) Any other comments: a) State whether any other source of information (i.e. other than documentation on this proposed methodology available on the UNFCCC CDM web site) has been used by you in evaluating this methodology. If so, please provide specific references: >> FORMTEXT       b) Indicate any further comments: >> FORMTEXT      II. Proposed new monitoring methodology (specify title here): Recovery of anthropogenic CO2 from large industrial GHG emission sources and its storage in an oil reservoirIn respect of the proposed new monitoring methodology, evaluate each section of CDM-NMM to the draft CDM PDD. Please provide your comments section by section:(1) Brief description of new methodology: Describe new methodology: >> FORMTEXT      (2) Key assumptions/parameters: a) List the implicit and explicit key assumptions. Identify those, if any, which are problematic and explain: >> FORMTEXT       b) State whether the key assumptions are arrived at in a transparent manner: >> FORMTEXT       c) Give your expert judgement on whether the assumptions/parameters are adequate: The aspects of the monitoring methodology related to seepage from the storage reservoir are not aligned with statements in the IPCC SRCCS. In fact, permissible seepage rates under the proposed monitoring methodology are order of magnitudes larger than what may be achieved according to the IPCC SRCCS for appropriately selected and managed reservoirs/. The methodology does not specify criteria proving long-term sequestration. (3) Data sources and data quality: a) Indicate which data sources are used and how the data are obtained (e.g. official statistics, expert judgement): >> FORMTEXT       b) Give your expert judgement on whether the data used are adequate, consistent, accurate and reliable: Regarding Section B subsection III, soil gas analysis and direct water sample analysis are not effective methods of measuring leakage from wells. We would recommend regular and accurate monitoring of the gas phase close to the well outer casing for onshore wells. Furthermore, subsea wells would need some kind of bubble formation monitoring to monitor for leakage. c) State possible data gaps: Fuel gas being used in the onshore and the offshore facilities should be metered. (4) Assessment of the description of the proposed methodology and its applicability: a) State whether the proposed methodology has been described in an adequate manner: >> FORMTEXT       b) State whether the proposed methodology is appropriate for the referred proposed project activity and the referred project context (described in Sections A - E of the draft CDM-PDD and submitted along with CDM-NMM): >> FORMTEXT       c) State whether this proposed monitoring methodology is compatible with the proposed baseline methodology described in CDM-NMB: >> FORMTEXT      (5) Leakage (please elaborate, if appropriate): >> FORMTEXT      (6) Quality assurance and control procedures (please explain): >> FORMTEXT      (7) Potential strengths and weaknesses of the proposed monitoring methodology (please explain): >> FORMTEXT      (8) Applicability of the proposed methodology across project types and regions (please indicate): >> FORMTEXT      (9) Any other comments: a) State whether any other source of information (i.e. other than documentation on this proposed methodology available on the UNFCCC CDM web site) has been used by you in evaluating this methodology. If so, please provide specific references: >> FORMTEXT       b) Indicate any further comments: >> FORMTEXT      Information to be completed by the secretariatF-CDM-NMpu doc id number Date when the form was received at UNFCCC secretariatDate of transmission to the Meth Panel and EBDate of posting in the UNFCCC CDM web site     F-CDM-Nmpu ver04 Version 04/ 04 February 2005 Page  PAGE 6 of  NUMPAGES 9 CDM: Proposed new methodology - public comment form (version 04) (Available electronically on the UNFCCC CDM web site. The layout may differ from this hardcopy form) (version 02) (To be used by methodology panel to make a recommendation regarding a proposed new methodology) W{|}./SVXABxz{  A  " x ~  L M p`LNpr 2Gϴ֥ϴ֖jB*CJUphj,B*CJUphjB*CJUph5CJOJQJ5CJCJ CJOJQJ B*CJph56CJOJQJ\]65 j5UjUmHnHu;W{|}.ZO$$If4\0b&bn  4 a8 x$If^ xx$If5$$If84&& 4 8a8 V$If^V hehi./SWXx$If x$If^ xx$IfO$$If4\0b&bn  4 a8ABz<$Ifx$Ifc$$If4&&  0 4 a8z{  D<0 & F<$IfY$$If&&0 4 a8<$Ifb$$If&&  0 4 a8@A  { } ~ <$If^ & F<$If & F<$If 8<$If^8 ~  L M :L|c$$If4&&  0 4 a8<$IfY$$If&&0 4 a8M p]`P h<$If^h & F<$If!<$If^`!;<$If^`; 8<$If^8 & F<$If   8. $If^c$$If4&&  0 4 a8 $x$IfY$$If&&0 4 a8KLiR~ h<$If^h$Ifb$$If&&  0 4 a8 GKLklvw VXln| ln>@TVdtv۽ۦۗ{i#j 6B*OJQJUph6B*OJQJphj6B*OJQJUph6jz B*CJUphj B*CJUph5CJOJQJjB*CJUphjB*CJUph B*CJphjB*CJUph6CJOJQJ CJOJQJ5( ln:fpIJ $If h<$If^h $e<$If^eZ$$If4&&0 4 a8IJ%() 6"*#:#;#K####'$%8,:,---(-*-8-:-........z/$0&0:0<0J0~00000ɺɺɺɺ«œֺ޺j B*CJUphjR B*CJUphj B*CJUph6CJOJQJ B*CJph56CJOJQJ\]5CJOJQJ CJOJQJjB*CJUphjf B*CJUph1J() L!6"7")#:#;#K###'$($$&Z$$If4&&0 4 a8$If h<$If^h$If($%)Q+:,-:-...z/|//0 zzzz $e<$If^eZ$$If4&&0 4 a8$If h<$If^h  & F$If 0L000"133444:778889,Z$$If4&&0 4 a8 h<$If^h$If 8<$If^80000"133344455 5977777 88888899999:::p^#j6B*OJQJUph#j 6B*OJQJUph#j* 6B*OJQJUph 5\]#j 6B*OJQJUph6B*OJQJphj6B*OJQJUph56 CJOJQJ56CJOJQJ\]6CJOJQJjB*CJUphj> B*CJUph 99::*;<<==U==>B>p>>>> h<$If^hZ$$If4&&0 4 a8$If:::*;<<<====== >D>H>J>^>`>n>>>>>>>>??????ǻǯǯpǯaǯjdB*CJUphjB*CJUphjxB*CJUph B*CJphjB*CJUphB*CJmHphsHjB*CJUph6CJOJQJmHsH6CJOJQJ5CJOJQJ6 5\]j6B*OJQJUph#j6B*OJQJUph >??????@@nAA7D8DSDTDy $L$If^La$ & F<$If$IfZ$$If4&&0 4 a8 h<$If^h???????@@@@@nA/DsEHHHHI IIIIIILJRJTJhJjJxJzJ|JKK6K:K@K±٤p݇aj<B*CJUphjB*CJUph5CJOJQJ CJOJQJ B*CJph56CJOJQJ\]^J56CJOJQJ\] jPB*OJQJUphB*OJQJphjB*OJQJUph656CJOJQJjB*CJUphjB*CJUph&TDFFHHHHI IIINJzJ|J`j` $IfY$$If&&0 4 a8 h<$If^h [[[\\0]4]6]J]L]Z]\]__*_,_:_B`D`X`Z`h`j`l``````````RaTatavaxa|a~aaaaa@bbbdbjblbbָ֚֩ևj:B*CJUph65jB*CJUphjNB*CJUphjB*CJUphjbB*CJUph B*CJphjB*CJUph6CJOJQJ5CJOJQJ CJOJQJ1j`l````1XY$$If&&0 4 a8 h<$If^h $e<$If^eZ$$If4&&0 4 a8`xaaafbbbZccccceef>fp h<$If^hY$$If&&0 4 a8 <$If^$Ifbbbb2c4cVcXc^c`ctcvcccceeeeefff,f.ff@ffff9p/ xx$Ifc$$If4&&  0 4 a8 $$Ifa$Y$$If&&0 4 a8fffDgFgv xx$Ifv$$If40&  0 4 a8<$IfFgHggg~v<$If xx$Ifv$$If40&  0 4 a8gggh~v<$If xx$Ifv$$If40&  0 4 a8hhhhhhh h h hh!h"h#hx z<# !Q'v$$If40&  0 4 a8 GhMhNhOhPhThUh_h`hahbhchehh i iiizi{i|i}iiiºº56OJQJ5CJOJQJ5CJOJQJ56CJOJQJ 5OJQJ5CJmH sH 0J5CJmHnHuj0J5CJU 0J5CJ#hchdheh ii{i|i}iiiiii$a$$a$ !5& $&P /R . A!n"#$%,Dd-d  c @AunfccctrsmallRt\~DmtKPD]FH\~DmtKJFIFddC   %# , #&')*)-0-(0%()(C   (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((4\"7 1!QAaq"2Rr#BSb)!"1AQaqB ?MQRHR1GK?nJ-7 JAQy*ޅ,7?y=)G@p=Gu-*E1$oJb|@NzlXK#vM/c+~$:zY&qfl8iY5)z :+&G黻,[nHy9)4r)i=RlJ-ձG# (4ny5BeIX*ix@H>[V%7ۍ*LbM]yJ=)A<08G4DZڝ@z\ 4rG"|1Ndh"OZ$ 8@P<G[IvD;sZr8-6SxV M Ql:? (f.[S(m#*RIT|Թk`=|8p߭Hu8Ƽ2a xHλbۢ"4GBR>B0v:CSwQAW+W)()9Cj*J†AN^U?- ƭkqw 24lfoAt)u؜yiW"3=LiO2}t%pTOUӹސM^rZ,!X5-*B*phHH !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+ +[>"+4>@@FH0  W{|}./SWXABz{  @A{}~L M  ;  B )*G]YZ[ 4JK~Z=>}~o s!!!"""##N#e#|####%%a&b&&(((E)[)))N*d**++++A,v,,,,,,,-O-j-k-x-y---=.Y.000444 5 5\5r5555$6:6;6666R7777789&9<9=999::::::;;v;;;;A<==>>>> ?z@@@@@AAAAABBC2C3CcCyCzCCCC0DFDGDDDDDDEEFFFLFMFgFhFiFFFFFFFFFFF GGG G`GbG H HxHyHzH|H}HH000000000000000000000 0000 00000 0 0 00000000 000000 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000 0@00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@00@0@00 000000000 !!bbbeG0:?@KS[bGhi>IKOQSUY\_e.z~ M J($09>TDjKZNQS}[j``>ffFggh#hi?ABCDEFGHJLMNPRTVWXZ[]^`abcdfi@ IU[6BH!!!"""h#t#z####&&&(((G)S)Y))))P*\*b*y,,,,,,,,,, --V-b-h----^5j5p5555&62686666889(949:9:::x;;;;;;>>>AAABBBC*C0CeCqCwCCCC2D>DDDDDDEEEFFFHFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTDKMR]_e!8@(  b  C " B S  ?HJ &t*Text10Text13Text15Text16Text18Text19Text20Text21Text27Text28Text29Text30Text32Text33Text34Text35Text36Text38Text39Text40Text41Text42Text43Text45Text46Text47Text48Text50Text51Text53Text54Text55Text57Text60Text61Text62Text63Text64Text65Text66Text67Text68 J7!"i##&(H))Q*z,,,,W--_55'668)9:y;;>ABCfCC3DDE FH  !"#$%&'() \I!"{##&(Z))c*,,,-i--q559669;9:;;>AB1CxCCEDDEFHkucp 8;BEP#Q#B,C,,,,,,,0166!@'@SFWFFFF GGbGHW^L Y  f+|+++/181<<IDLDFbG HHH:::::::::::::::34FFGGGGGGGG G GaGbGH roon.osmanlC:\Documents and Settings\Roon.Osman\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 167-F_comments.asd roon.osmanlC:\Documents and Settings\Roon.Osman\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 167-F_comments.asd roon.osmanlC:\Documents and Settings\Roon.Osman\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 167-F_comments.asd roon.osmanlC:\Documents and Settings\Roon.Osman\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 167-F_comments.asd roon.osmanlC:\Documents and Settings\Roon.Osman\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 167-F_comments.asd roon.osmanlC:\Documents and Settings\Roon.Osman\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 167-F_comments.asd roon.osmanlC:\Documents and Settings\Roon.Osman\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 167-F_comments.asd roon.osmanlC:\Documents and Settings\Roon.Osman\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 167-F_comments.asd roon.osmanlC:\Documents and Settings\Roon.Osman\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 167-F_comments.asd roon.osmanD\\LONSTR-S-058\Roon.Osman$\cached\My Documents\PX\167-F_comments.doc$ph[0F;I%&0O=3rIPQ fl=E_{c hh^h`OJQJo(^`.h^`.h$ $ ^$ `.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.0^`0o(.pp^p`.@ L@ ^@ `L.^`.^`.L^`L.^`.PP^P`. L ^ `L.pp^p`o(.@ @ ^@ `.L^`L.^`.^`.L^`L.PP^P`.  ^ `.L^`L.^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.0^`0o(.pp^p`.@ L@ ^@ `L.^`.^`.L^`L.^`.PP^P`. L ^ `L.^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L. f;I%0O=E_{IReg2                  W|}./SWXABz{  ~L M Z[JK=>""%%++j-k-4455:6;66677<9=999::::==@@2C3CyCzCCCFDGDDDFFLFMFgFhFiFFFFFFFFFFFGGG GaGH@\\LonStr-s-058\LONSTR0P086Ne02:winspoolHP LaserJet 8150 PS\\LonStr-s-058\LONSTR0P086S 4dXXA4PRIV0''''\KhC1\\LonStr-s-058\LONSTR0P086S 4dXXA4PRIV0''''\KhC1 33$33& VVVVVV!V"V#V$V&V'()*,-.456789:;=>@ABCDEFH@ @(@<@,.0d@4l@8:x@>@@HJL@PRT@X@\^`bdf@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial"qh; ( 9 {$20dnLD0P2qHX ABBREVIATIONSUNFCCC roon.osmanOh+'0   < H T `lt|ABBREVIATIONSoBBRUNFCCCANFCNFC Normal.dotN roon.osmanN3onMicrosoft Word 9.0@@}r @,DZ@F2WZ  =>՜.+,D՜.+,< hp  UNFCCCnL ABBREVIATIONS Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSATunfccctrsmall  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefgijklmnopqrstuwxyz{|}~Root Entry F XZData h1TablevpPWordDocument&SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPool XZ XZ  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q