11:56 21 Dec 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification report does not list each parameter required by the monitoring plan and does not provide an statement on how the DOE verified the information flow (from data generation, aggregation, to recording, calculation and reporting) for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports (VVS v2, para 236, 284 (e)).
Issue: (a) The DOE has not explained how it has verified the Multiplication Factor of the PP's gas flow meter. Furthermore, the spreadsheet shows that from 13 Feb to 15 Feb 2012, the gas consumption was adjusted in lieu of excess GCV from 24 to 31 January 2012. However, the DOE has not provided any explanation with regard to this excess;
(b) The DOE has not explained why the calculation of parameter LELNG,CO2,y uses NCV of 0.0359 GJ/SCM, whereas the Project Emission calculation uses NCVNG,y of 0.036 GJ/SCM. Furthermore, the DOE is requested to explain how the NCV of 0.0359 GJ/SCM, weighted average NCV throughout the monitoring period, to calculate parameter LE LNG,CO2,y is appropriate, considering the LNG was only used from 1 April 2012 to 18 May 2012;
(c) With regard to parameter EGPJ,y, the DOE noted that the project participant has selected the lower of the two values i.e. as per meter readings and as per invoices. However the spreadsheet shows that for 10 May 2012 the higher value is used;
(d) For parameter FCf LNG,y, the Verification Report states that the PP has considered the maximum of the two values (i.e. based on GAIL’s flow meter and PP’s flow meters). However, the spreadsheet does not show that there are two values for this parameter.
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 needs to justify how the application of the error is correct, in particular how the conversion of accuracy from 0.025 BTU/1000 BTU to 0.000025 kcal/1000 kcal shown in the spreadsheet has been appropriate.
1: Scope: The verification report does not list each parameter required by the monitoring plan and does not provide an statement on how the DOE verified the information flow (from data generation, aggregation, to recording, calculation and reporting) for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports (VVS v2, para 236, 284 (e)).
Issue: (a) The DOE has not explained how it has verified the Multiplication Factor of the PP's gas flow meter. Furthermore, the spreadsheet shows that from 13 Feb to 15 Feb 2012, the gas consumption was adjusted in lieu of excess GCV from 24 to 31 January 2012. However, the DOE has not provided any explanation with regard to this excess;
(b) The DOE has not explained why the calculation of parameter LELNG,CO2,y uses NCV of 0.0359 GJ/SCM, whereas the Project Emission calculation uses NCVNG,y of 0.036 GJ/SCM. Furthermore, the DOE is requested to explain how the NCV of 0.0359 GJ/SCM, weighted average NCV throughout the monitoring period, to calculate parameter LE LNG,CO2,y is appropriate, considering the LNG was only used from 1 April 2012 to 18 May 2012;
(c) With regard to parameter EGPJ,y, the DOE noted that the project participant has selected the lower of the two values i.e. as per meter readings and as per invoices. However the spreadsheet shows that for 10 May 2012 the higher value is used;
(d) For parameter FCf LNG,y, the Verification Report states that the PP has considered the maximum of the two values (i.e. based on GAIL’s flow meter and PP’s flow meters). However, the spreadsheet does not show that there are two values for this parameter.
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 needs to justify how the application of the error is correct, in particular how the conversion of accuracy from 0.025 BTU/1000 BTU to 0.000025 kcal/1000 kcal shown in the spreadsheet has been appropriate.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: