Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification report does not state that the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied methodology. (VVS v.2 para 232)
Issue: The methodology requires calculating the energy savings using the metered energy obtained, however neither the monitoring report nor the spreadsheet calculates the energy savings due to the project activity.

2: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified in applied monitoring methodology or EB guidance if applicable, and/or the monitoring plan (VVS v2, para 243)
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it concludes that the frequency of the calibration of gas chormatography has complied with the monitoring plan (i.e. monthly), as there were delays during the monitoring period, i.e.: (a) for ASAB: (1) The first calibration was on 12/03/2011, yet the subsequent was on carried out on 15/04/2011; (2) The second calibration was on 15/04/2011, yet the subsequent was on carried out on 17/05/2011; (3) The fifth calibration was on 12/07/2011, yet the subsequent was on carried out on 17/08/2011; (4) The tenth calibration was on 10/12/2011, yet the subsequent was on carried out on 11/01/2012; (5) The twelfth calibration was on 10/02/2012, yet the subsequent was on carried out on 11/03/2012; (b) for BAB: (1) The second calibration was on 03/03/2011, yet the subsequent was on carried out on 06/04/2011; (2) The third calibration was on 06/04/2011, yet the subsequent was on carried out on 15/05/2011; (3) The fourth calibration was on 15/05/2011, yet the subsequent was on carried out on 24/06/2011; (4) The fifth calibration was on 24/06/2011, yet the subsequent was on carried out on 28/07/2011; (5) The seventh calibration was on 15/08/2011, yet the subsequent was on carried out on 28/09/2011; (6) The eighth calibration was on 28/09/2011, yet the subsequent was on carried out on 30/10/2011.

3: Scope: The verification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved and/or determine that calculations of baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage as appropriate have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document. (VVS v2, para 246 (c), 284 (i))
Issue: The DOE is requested to further verify if the actual emission reductions are only due to the project activity, in particular in light of the leaks that occurred in warm flare and cold flare in BAB, whether the leaks also occur in other flares in BAB and all flares in ASAB.

4: Scope: The verification report does not determine if the assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified and/or emission factors, default values and other reference values have been correctly applied. (VVS v2, para 246 (d))
Issue: The DOE is requested to further explain how parameter VBE,NG (Annual volume of purge gas in baseline at each site) the has been justified, in light of: (i) the difference amount of waste gas flared between the baseline and the project activity, and (ii) the leaks that occurred in warm flare and cold flare in BAB, which may also occur in other lines in BAB and ASAB, whether value of the parameter VBE,NG has taken into consideration these factors.