11:21 25 Nov 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The validation report shall determine whether the project participants proposed alternative monitoring arrangements or applied the most conservative values approach referred to in the PS for the non-conforming monitoring period.
Issue: Further information and justification is required regarding the appropriateness and the conservativeness of the proposed approach applied during the temporary deviation period. It is noted that the required “quarterly” sampling of W(steam, co2) and W(steam, CH4) have been established consistently through the averaging of the sampling values collected by analyzers at each of the production wells on various sampling dates whereas it is observed that during the temporary deviation period, the highest values identified during the monitoring period were applied only once to one well (instead of to all the operating wells) in Q1 2015 and the value has not been applied to any wells in Q3 2015 before calculating the average value for 2015 as "most conservative". Please refer to the worksheet “project emissions”, spreadsheet "ER Olkaria IV-V03".
2: The validation report shall contain an assessment regarding whether the changes would adversely affect the conclusion of the validation report in respect of:
(a) the applicability and application of the applied methodologies, the applied standardized baselines and the other applied methodological regulatory documents with which the project activity has been registered;
(b) the project boundary and any associated leakages due to the changes;
(c) the compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodologies, the applied standardized baselines and the other applied methodological regulatory documents;
(d) the level of accuracy and completeness of the monitoring compared with the requirements contained in the registered monitoring plan;
(e) the additionality of the project activity; and
(f) the scale of the project activity.
Issue: It is observed that the the design capacity of each turbo generators has been revised to 74.924 MWh as compared to 70MW in the original PDD, and the overall capacity of project has been revised to 149.848 MW as compared to 140 MW in the original PDD. In addition, the number of production wells have changed from 33 to 21. The DOE should provide information regarding how it has assessed the impact on additionality of the project activity due to any potential difference in capital expenses caused by the change, if any, and potential change to the O&M costs because of significantly smaller number of production wells being put in operation. Kindly please provide the relevant information and validation assessment on these aspects.
1: The validation report shall determine whether the project participants proposed alternative monitoring arrangements or applied the most conservative values approach referred to in the PS for the non-conforming monitoring period.
Issue: Further information and justification is required regarding the appropriateness and the conservativeness of the proposed approach applied during the temporary deviation period. It is noted that the required “quarterly” sampling of W(steam, co2) and W(steam, CH4) have been established consistently through the averaging of the sampling values collected by analyzers at each of the production wells on various sampling dates whereas it is observed that during the temporary deviation period, the highest values identified during the monitoring period were applied only once to one well (instead of to all the operating wells) in Q1 2015 and the value has not been applied to any wells in Q3 2015 before calculating the average value for 2015 as "most conservative". Please refer to the worksheet “project emissions”, spreadsheet "ER Olkaria IV-V03".
2: The validation report shall contain an assessment regarding whether the changes would adversely affect the conclusion of the validation report in respect of:
(a) the applicability and application of the applied methodologies, the applied standardized baselines and the other applied methodological regulatory documents with which the project activity has been registered;
(b) the project boundary and any associated leakages due to the changes;
(c) the compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodologies, the applied standardized baselines and the other applied methodological regulatory documents;
(d) the level of accuracy and completeness of the monitoring compared with the requirements contained in the registered monitoring plan;
(e) the additionality of the project activity; and
(f) the scale of the project activity.
Issue: It is observed that the the design capacity of each turbo generators has been revised to 74.924 MWh as compared to 70MW in the original PDD, and the overall capacity of project has been revised to 149.848 MW as compared to 140 MW in the original PDD. In addition, the number of production wells have changed from 33 to 21. The DOE should provide information regarding how it has assessed the impact on additionality of the project activity due to any potential difference in capital expenses caused by the change, if any, and potential change to the O&M costs because of significantly smaller number of production wells being put in operation. Kindly please provide the relevant information and validation assessment on these aspects.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: