ࡱ> 3 abjbj &bvbv>dl8LD N4!#($$$%('<(EEEE>E`*I`L$O QdL)c%"%))L+$$EgN+++)8$$E+)E+v+-1@fB$(! 0ZZ*A fB$}N0NA)RM+j)RfB+r 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 number168Based 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: The capture of CO2 from natural gas processing plants and liquefied natural gas plants and its storage in underground aquifers or abandoned oil/gas reservoirsConditions under which this methodology is applicable to other potential projects (e.g. project type, region, data availability): The methodology is generally applicable. Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology: Strengths: Criteria to ensure integrity of the storage site and to achieve minimal seepage are well described. Weaknesses: Treatment of leakage through seepage from the storage reservoir to the surface through cancellation of CERs and discounting is inconsistent with CDM rules. Any changes needed to improve the methodology: Minor changes: 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). 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       Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology: From the monitoring methodology it is unclear how seepage rate will be quantitatively determined. Also, it is unclear how seepage to the surface will be differentiated from natural occurring CO2 fluxes iii. Any changes needed to improve the methodology: Minor changes:>> FORMTEXT       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): The capture of CO2 from natural gas processing plants and liquefied natural gas plants and its storage in underground aquifers or abandoned oil/gas reservoirs(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: The approach in general is appropriate. (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? Yes, through role of economic incentives in the choice of the baseline scenario and application of the consolidated additionality tool. d) State whether the basis for determining the baseline scenario and for assessing additionality is appropriate and adequate: (3) Assessment of the description of the proposed methodology and its applicability a) State whether the methodology has been described in an adequate manner: >> FORMTEXT       The methodology should include a narrative description of the medium and long-term fate of the injected CO2 to ensure that geological sequestration actually will take place. This is specifically relevant when it is unclear, as is the case with Purdina, whether the storage formation comprises a closed trap or container for the injected CO2. 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): >> FORMTEXT      In general, the choice of geophysical monitoring techniques is crucially dependent on the specific rock and fluid properties of the subsurface storage site and its overburden rock formation. The selection of the monitoring strategy should be supported by simulation of subsurface scenarios. Specifically, 4D seismic may not provide in all instances an effective geophysical monitoring tool. Furthermore, the proposed monitoring for project emissions due to seepage from the primary storage reservoir should be shown capable of detecting prognosed seepage 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. Please explain: (4) Assessment of algorithms/formulae and type of data needed: a) 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): Yes. The description of the calculation (eq. 4) to determine CO2_INC is unnecessarily complicated and detailed, and does not provide a definitive basis for the calculation (i.e. ranges of incineration temperature (500-1100 C) and O2 content in flue gas (1-3%) provided has a significant influence of fuel gas rate calculated). This section should be simplified to explicitly specify incineration temperature to be used in the simulation model and excess air used (or % O2 in flue gas). Using these parameters as specifications in the simulation model will be sufficient to produce verifiable and repeatable results. Basic thermodynamic principles do not need to be expounded in this document as they are inherent within the simulation program. b) Explain the spatial scope of data used to determine the baseline and whether the scope is appropriate: Adequate 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 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       The CO2 containment mechanism needs to be explained consistent with regional exploration history and acid gas specific seal limitations. This is particular relevant when, as is the case for Purdina, it is unclear whether the storage structure is sealed and thus can provide a structural trap for long-term CO2 containment. 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: .(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: State how the baseline methodology addresses any potential leakage due to the project activity: Leakage is considered in the calculation of project emissions. 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): The requirements regarding integrity of the storage site are considered sound and will help to minimize seepage.(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): The capture of CO2 from natural gas processing plants and liquefied natural gas plants and its storage in underground aquifers or abandoned oil/gas reservoirsIn 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: List the implicit and explicit key assumptions. Identify those, if any, which are problematic and explain: An implicit assumption is that the long-term fate of the injected CO2 can be simulated so that potential long-term seepage can be quantified. However, as stated in the IPCC SRCCS (p. 228), capabilities for comprehensive and reliable long-term simulations are limited at present, meaning the prediction of long-term storage performance yields ranges of uncertainty. 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: (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: The exclusive use of 4D seismic surveys to monitor seepage to surface may not be warranted. 4D may assist in determining significant movement of CO2 depending on subsurface conditions (see above). Several direct and indirect technologies might be simultaneously required to achieve sufficient degree of confidence in monitoring (see IPCC SRCCS, ch. 5.6 ). c) State possible data gaps: (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 9 of  NUMPAGES 10 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{=>&1 s y  n p ,.BӼݲӨݲӨӡڗݲӡj,CJU jCJU5CJOJQJ\6CJOJQJ]B*CJOJQJph5CJOJQJ5CJ CJOJQJCJ56CJOJQJ\]65 j5UjUmHnHu8W{|}.ZO$$If4\0b&bn  4 a8 x$If^ xx$If5$$If84&& 4 8a8 V$If^V [``a./SWXx$If x$If^ xx$IfO$$If4\0b&bn  4 a8ABz<$Ifx$Ifc$$If4&&  0 4 a8z{=> <0 & F<$IfY$$If&&0 4 a8<$Ifb$$If&&  0 4 a8&3 4 c s <$If^` <$If^ & F<$If & F<$If<$If 8<$If^8  :LH c$$If4&&  0 4 a8<$IfY$$If&&0 4 a8 j  T h<$If^h <$If^ & F<$If!<$If^`!<$IfF<$If^F` 8<$If^8 & F<$If BDRTV >hj.0>~PRfhvT~ 5\]j CJUjz CJU5CJOJQJj CJUjCJU6CJOJQJ565CJjCJU6CJOJQJ]56CJOJQJ\]CJ CJOJQJ jCJUjCJU1 <8p. $If^c$$If4&&  0 4 a8 $x$IfY$$If&&0 4 a8<>hj@ h<$If^h$Ifb$$If&&  0 4 a8 ~LxST\]^@ $If h<$If^h $e<$If^eZ$$If4&&0 4 a8\]^&(joMNXY "">#?#3$C$D$E$$y%_(a())))) ****R+T+h+j+x++++++˾˱j CJUjR CJUj CJU jCJUCJ56CJOJQJ\]jf 5CJU\ 5CJ\j5CJU\56CJOJQJ\5CJOJQJ CJOJQJ6CJOJQJ65noJK"@#3$C$D$E$$$y%a(Z$$If4&&0 4 a8$If$If h<$If^ha((()****+L+z+++(, ~~~~rrr 8<$If^8 $e<$If^eZ$$If4&&0 4 a8 h<$If^h $If$If ++++(,9.;.<..//// 01 111224363J3L3Z34444*455.505>566,6.6<6x6|6~6ýêýýýýrp6j6OJQJUj6OJQJUj 6OJQJUj* 6OJQJU 5\]j 6OJQJU 6OJQJj6OJQJU56 CJOJQJ56CJOJQJ\]6CJOJQJ jCJUj> CJU*(,;.<.../203\34,45@56>6x6|6$IfZ$$If4&&0 4 a8 h<$If^h|6~666l77888f888899999|$If h<$If^hZ$$If4&&0 4 a8~66777778:8>8@8T8V8d8888888888 9999999999O::::R=>|A~AAAAAȾȴȪȠyrr CJOJQJ56CJOJQJ\]^J56CJOJQJ\] 56\]65jCJUjdCJUjCJUjxCJUCJjCJU CJmHsH jCJU6CJOJQJmHsH6CJOJQJ5CJOJQJ,99N:O:::::Z=[=v=w=??{A|A}A~A L<$If^L $L$If^La$ h<$If^h & F<$If  & F$If$If~AAAAA BBBBCChDjDEEELFL$If h<$If^hZ$$If4&&0 4 a8AABBBBBBBBBBB\C^C~CCCdDhDjDzE|EEEEEEEEEEE8F9FJFLFMFFFFFGGGG HRHVHXHlHnH|H~HHHHJJJܽܽ56j(CJUjCJUj<CJU6556CJOJQJ\]5CJOJQJjCJU CJOJQJ6CJOJQJjPCJUCJ jCJU;LFMFFFFFGHRH~Ht <$If^Y$$If&&0 4 a8 h<$If^h ~HHJJJJ|>8>l$Ifb$$If&&  0 4 a8$IfY$$If&&0 4 a8JJJJKKKKK LLLPL,MOOROSO]O^O PPPPPQQQRRRRRTTTTTNUOUUUUUU VVWWWWWͫjvCJUjCJU 56\]jCJUCJ jCJUj6OJQJU 5\]5CJOJQJ CJOJQJj6OJQJU 6OJQJj6OJQJU656CJOJQJ3JJKLLPLRL*M,MOPOPPPPP x  & F$IfY$$If&&0 4 a8$If h<$If^h$IfPPQRRTTTTTNUOUUVWW $IfY$$If&&0 4 a8$If$If h<$If^hWXYY~YY $e<$If^eZ$$If4&&0 4 a8 h<$If^hWXX Y YYYY6YzY|YYYYYYYZZ&Z(Z*Z.Z0ZDZFZTZXZZ[[[[2[4[B[F[[[\ \\\&\(\6\:\j\X^Z^n^p^~^^^^^^^jCJUj:CJUjCJUjNCJUjCJU65jbCJU5CJOJQJ CJOJQJjCJUCJ jCJU6CJOJQJ:YY*ZVZXZ[D[F[ \8\:\j\l\T^^^Xp h<$If^h <$If^$IfY$$If&&0 4 a8^^^P_R_-pc$$If4&&  0 4 a8 $$Ifa$Y$$If&&0 4 a8 h<$If^h^^P_Z`[`\`^`_`a`b`d`e`g`i`{`|```````````````afagahauaaaaaaaʸʸ56OJQJ5CJOJQJ5CJOJQJ56CJOJQJ 5OJQJ0J5CJmHnHu 0J5CJj0J5CJU5CJmH sH  5mHsH 5mH sH  jU CJOJQJ6CJ CJOJQJ(R______vv$$If40&  0 4 a8<$If xx$If__+`,`~v<$If xx$Ifv$$If40&  0 4 a8,`-`X`Y`~v<$If xx$Ifv$$If40&  0 4 a8Y`Z`[`]`^```a`c`d`f`g`z`{`|`x z<# !Q'v$$If40&  0 4 a8 |````gahaaaaaaaaa$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*phD&@D Footnote ReferenceH*OJQJkH  Footnote Text & Fd5$7$8$9D>T () H$Tf CJOJQJ@@ !+!+!+!+!+!+!+!+! +  V#$L.7y8z8@ObS}W{|}./SWXABz{=>&34cs 5KyQ R    B C    ? @ AWST\]^noJK%.NO"56 b!!!"-""" #6#S#U#V#x#y##$$3$J$a$x$$$$$$%%e%f%%%% &q(r(((**,,,,,,,-'-b-x-y---K.L.../c/d/// 0 01181N1O1-2.22223)3*3J3K333%5r5555556t666Y8Z8w8y8z888$9:9:*:::::; ;H;^;_;;;;9<O<P<h<i<]=s=========.>/>0>^>_>`>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??@ @ @ @ @@000000000000000000000 0000 0000000 0 0400 040000000 00 0000 000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000 000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0@0@0@0@000@00 000000000 !!cccfB+~6AJW^a<EILORUY\.z <a((,|69~ALF~HJPWY^R__,`Y`|`a=?@ABCDFGHJKMNPQSTVWXZ[]^_`aa>7CI    COU MY_   !!!"%"+"""""#.#4#$$$6$B$H$d$p$v$$$$$$$--%-d-p-v-...111:1F1L13!3'3t555v666&92989:":(:::::;;J;V;\;;;;;<G<M<_=k=q====@FTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTDKMR]`f!8@(  b  C " B S  ?@J &t'Text10Text12Text13Text15Text16Text18Text19Text22Text23Text28Text29Text30Text32Text33Text34Text35Text36Text38Text39Text40Text41Text42Text45Text46Text48Text50Text51Text53Text55Text57Text60Text61Text62Text63Text64Text65Text66Text67Text688 DN !""##$7$e$$$-e-.1;13u5w6'9:::K;;<<`==@  !"#$%&J   V` !,""5#$I$w$$$&-w-.1M1(35699)::;];;N<r==@ku1> } ##$$$($)$1$((..N8P8==L>P>>>>>@P]~((R8W8;;>>??@::::::::::::::%,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>@ Registered User\\AMSDC1-s-03102\Wolfgang.Heidug$\Cached\My Documents\CDM\Comments_New Methologies\Wolf's comments\final\Bintulu_168-F_CDM_Heidug_060506.docRegistered UserC:\Documents and Settings\Wolfgang.Heidug\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Bintulu_168-F_CDM_Heidug_060406.asdRegistered User\\AMSDC1-s-03102\Wolfgang.Heidug$\cached\My Documents\CDM\Comments_New Methologies\Wolf's comments\final\Bintulu_168-F_CDM_Heidug_060406.docRegistered User\\AMSDC1-s-03102\Wolfgang.Heidug$\cached\My Documents\CDM\Comments_New Methologies\Wolf's comments\final\Bintulu_168-F_CDM_Heidug_060406.doc roon.osmanB\\LONSTR-S-058\Roon.Osman$\cached\My Documents\PX\168-comments.doc $pƧ 7h[0F;I%&o&i0O=3rIPQ fl= hh^h`OJQJo(@ () ^`o()^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`.h^`.h$ $ ^$ `.@ @ ^@ `.^`.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.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. f;I%0O= o&d$Ip$`@ () Reg2                            W|}./SWXABz{=>   B C    ]^56U#V#$$,,x-y-K.L..///N1O1-2.222)3*355y8z8::; ;^;_;;;O<P<=======.>/>0>^>_>`>>>>>>>>>>@@\\LonStr-s-058\LONSTR0P086Ne02:winspoolHP LaserJet 8150 PS\\LonStr-s-058\LONSTR0P086S 4dXXA4PRIV0''''\KhC1\\LonStr-s-058\LONSTR0P086S 4dXXA4PRIV0''''\KhC1,,$5,,& ZZ !"#$%-./12"3"4567393:3;3<3=3>@@ 4@<@ D@*X@02468t@BD@H@L@PR@VXZ\^@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z ArialABook Antiqua"qh;/?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abdefghijklmnoqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FZZData c&1Tablep)RWordDocument&SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPoolZZZZ  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q