Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to complete all sections of the PDD related to the description of the project activity as per PS version 07 paragraph 36-38.
The PP/DOE are requested to complete all sections of the PDD related to the description of the project activity as per PS version 07 paragraphs 36-38.
In responding to CL08 the PP explained that the project activity consists of retrofit of the Maerz kiln 1 (400 TPH) and installation of the Maerz kiln 2 (600 TPH). Further, in closing CL08, the DOE confirmed that the project starting date is 18/03/2011 based on the “signature of the contract for the construction of the foundations required for the installation of Maerz kiln 2”. The VR (pg. 19) states that “As general data, this plant has an extraction and crushing capacity of 500 tph and three different calcinations areas: the first comprises 8 forced draught traditional kilns (2 of 90 tpd and 6 of 80 tpd), the second area has 2 vertical kilns of 150 tpd each and the third consists in two Maerz kilns (one of 400 tpd and other of 600 tpd)”. The PP/DOE are requested to provide information which clearly identifies

i. The scenario prior to the implementation of the proposed CDM project activity (i.e. a description of the equipment that existed), and
ii. The nature and the implementation of the proposed CDM project activity (in doing so please clarify if the procurement, construction and installation of Maerz kiln 2 are part of the CDM project activity).

2: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the suitability of the input values used in the financial calculations as per VVS version 07 paragraphs 129 b.
(a) The VR (pg. 47) reports that the data source for the project activity costs are:
i. Ref 53: Electric Energy bill (from October of 2010 to September of 2011),
ii. Ref 59: Operational days for the kilns, dated 20/12/2012,
iii. Ref 69: Turnkey project quotation, dated 20/10/2010,
iv. Ref 70: Quotation of alternative fuels, dated 29/04/2011.

Further, it is reported costs were crosschecked with the “Turnkey project quotation, dated 20/10/2010 (Ref 69)” and “Quotation of alternative fuels, dated 29/04/2011 (Ref 70)”.
It is noted that the investment decision was made on 20/10/2010 and data sources (i, ii & iv) above are dated after the investment decision was made; and Ref 69 has been used both as the document for “data source” and “cross-checking”. The DOE is requested to address this inconsistency.


(b) The VR (pg. 48) indicates the data source for the fuel prices as follows:
i. Ref. 36: price of Petcoke, dated 26/10/11,
ii. Ref. 37: price of Fuel oil, dated 09/06/09,
iii. Ref. 79: Price of diesel, dated February 2012.

The VR states “Prices for Pet coke and Fuel oil are valid at the moment of the decision to go-ahead with the project implementation; this is on 20/10/2010”. However, it is noted that two of the above data sources (i & iii) are dated after the investment decision was made. The DOE is requested to address this inconsistency.

(c) The PDD (pg. 23) has listed diesel fuel (0.71 USD/lt) as the only fuel considered for the investment analysis. The VR (pg.48) indicates the fuels (including prices/ton) as follows: Petcoke USD $ 110.50; Fuel oil USD $ 345.39; Diesel USD $ 784.04; Forestry residues USD 41.94; and Agricultural residues USD 41.94. The submitted ER spreadsheet (Appendix 1, workbook “Input data” Row A97) reports these values as follows: Petcoke USD $ 102.75; Fuel oil USD $ 361.10; Diesel USD $ 825.72; Forestry residues USD 43.84; and Agricultural residues USD 43.84. The PP/DOE are requested to address this inconsistency between the PDD, the validation report and ER excel sheet (including ensuring uniformity of the units reported for the similar parameters)

3: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the barrier analysis as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 131.
The PDD (pg. 20) states that “barrier analysis will not be conducted since the investment analysis has been chosen as the appropriate method to prove the additionality of this project activity”. However, the VR (pg. 50, section 3.5.4) has reported a barrier analysis for the project activity. The PP/DOE are requested to address this inconsistency.