Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page 1
Host Party(ies)
Sectoral scope and selected methodology(ies)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 2
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 3
availability of lean gas, LPG, and condensate to various industrial consumers. This will help to secure
supply of reliable and quality energy resources to local industries.
Technological sustainability:
A qualified and experienced technology provider from Annex I country which has been providing
services in oil and gas industry and similar activities is contracted and deployed for the project activity.
The project activity contributes to the technological sustainability through the utilization of a proven
technology and the transfer of knowledge and technical skill to the host country via employee training.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 4
CO2
Flaring
Associated gas
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 5
The average lifetime of the gas processing facility is 20 years. This is in line with the Decree of Ministry
of Finance No 96/2009 which defines the equipment lifetime for Oil and Gas Industry of 20 years, taking
into account the standard of average technical lifetime of equipment in the industry.
By recovery and utilization of associated gas to produce LPG, condensate and lean gas, the project
activity displaces the use of other fossil fuel sources and therefore the CO2 emissions, are reduced. The
project emissions are derived from the lean gas combustion for the process and also for the use of
electricity. Besides the gas generator set as the main electricity generator system, fossil fuel combustion
in the project activity is also envisaged from the emergency diesel generator system located in the project
site as the back-up power. For ex-ante estimations the project emissions from the use of diesel in the
emergency diesel generator system has been considered zero. The parameters for the calculation of same
will be monitored ex-post and the project emissions taken into account as actual.
The detail monitoring equipments and their location in the system are described in the figure below.
users
Gas pipeline
Flaring
Condensate
Pretreatment
Lean gas
Thermal oxidizer
a
Sukowati
Mudi Oil
Field
LPG
compressor
Condensa
te
recov ery
ff
Amine
plant
Generator
set
d
Diesel
e
Generator
Project boundary
Gas
processing
plant
Back up
The project activity is using environmentally safe and sound technology and proven equipments. For
amine plant package, the main equipment to remove CO2 and H2S from the associated gas, the project
activity has chosen Propak, a technology provider which has been servicing the similar project activities
worldwide for years. Similarly, for refrigeration package in the gas processing plant, Austcold is used.
The technology providers will provide training for employees and engineers of GFI the during the
commissioning period to ensure the know-how is transferred to the host party.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 6
No
No
No
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 7
Project Activity
The project activity is the installation of new
facility to recover and utilise associated gas from
oil wells and hence it conforms to this criterion.
In the project activity, after the pretreatment
(compression and phase separation) in a
stationary equipment, the recovered gas is
transported to a processing plant where it is
processed into hydrocarbon products (LPG, lean
gas and condensate). The dry gas then is
transported to a gas pipeline directly. Hence this
criterion is met.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 8
associated gas and/or gas-lift gas or on-site use of infrastructure without any other significant
the partial amount of associated gas and/or gas-lift changes, as detailed in the Section B.4.
gas to meet on-site energy demands and rest of the
gas are either vented or flared (scenario G3); and
The continued operation of the existing oil and gas
infrastructure without any other significant changes
(scenario P4); and
In the case where gas-lift is used under the project
activity: the gas-lift gas under the baseline uses the
same source as under the project activity and the
same quantity as under the project activity
(scenario 01).
The proposed project activity meets the applicability conditions of the tools referred to as follows:
Table B.2-2: Applicability of the Tools
Applicability of the tools
Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions
from fossil fuel combustion version 02
- This tool can be used in cases where CO2 emissions
from fossil fuel combustion are calculated based on
the quantity of fuel combusted and its properties.
Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage
emissions from electricity consumption version 01
- The tool may be used in methodologies where
auxiliary electricity is consumed in the project
and/or the baseline scenario. The tool can also be
applied in situations where electricity is only
consumed in the baseline or in the project or as
leakage source.
- One out of the following three scenarios applies to
the sources of electricity consumption: Electricity
consumption from the grid, Electricity consumption
from (an) off-grid fossil fuel fired captive power
plant(s), Electricity consumption from the grid and
(a) fossil fuel fired captive power plant(s)
- This tool is not applicable in cases where captive
renewable power generation technologies are
installed to provide electricity in the project
activity, in the baseline scenario or to sources of
leakage. The tool only accounts for CO2 emissions.
Project Activity
The project activity calculates the CO2
emissions from lean gas combustion based on
the quantity of lean gas combusted and its
properties. Hence this criterion is met.
GHGs Included?
Justification / Explanation
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Project Activity
Baseline
Page 9
CO2
Combustion of fossil fuels at
end-users that are produced
CH4
from non-associated gas or
other fossil sources
N2O
Yes
CO2
Energy use for the recovery,
pre-treatment, transportation,
and
if
applicable, CH4
compression/decompression,
transportation of the recovered
gas
N2O
Yes
No
No
No
No
users
Gas pipeline
Flaring
Condensate
Pretreatment
Sukowati
Mudi Oil
Field
compressor
LPG
Thermal oxidizer
Condensa
te
recov ery
Gas
processing
plant
Amine
plant
Generator
set
Diesel
Generator
Project boundary
Lean gas
Back up
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 10
According to the approved methodology AM0009 - version 05.0.1, the baseline scenario is identified by
applying the following procedure:
Step 1: Identify plausible alternative scenarios
The project activity involves three components. Plausible alternative scenarios should include alternatives
for the following components:
a. Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for the associated gas from the project oil wells
b. Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for oil and gas infrastructure
c. Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for the use of gas-lift
Table B.4-1: Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for the associated gas from the project oil wells
G1 Release of the associated gas and/or Not plausible.
gas-lift gas into the atmosphere at The associated gas in Mudi Sukowati has high CO2 and H2S
content. Venting of the associated gas is dangerous due to
the oil production site (venting).
likelihood of explosion, life threatening, and environmental
health. Venting of associated gas is not prohibited by
Indonesian Law, however it is restricted under the law 1 .
Alternative (G1) is therefore not a plausible baseline scenario
and will not be considered further.
G2 Flaring of the associated gas and/or Plausible.
gas-lift gas at the oil production Prior to the implementation of the project activity, the
site.
associated gas from Sukowati Mudi oil fields would be
flared. Alternative (G2) is a plausible baseline scenario.
G3 On-site use of the partial amount of Not Plausible.
associated gas and/or gas-lift gas to Without prior processing of the associated gas, it would not
meet on-site energy and rest of the be feasible to use the partial amount of associated gas on-site
gas are either vented (G1) or flared to meet on-site energy, due to its high CO2 and H2S content
(50%). Alternative (G3) is not a plausible baseline scenario
(G2).
and will not be considered further.
G4 Injection of the associated gas Not Plausible.
and/or gas-lift gas into an oil or gas Injection of the associated gas into the oil reservoir is not
reservoir.
required due to sufficient pressure. Furthermore due to its
unpredictable effectiveness 2 , gas injection is considered
costly. Alternative (G5) is not a plausible baseline scenario
and will not be considered further.
G5 The proposed project activity Plausible.
without being registered as a CDM The proposed project activity itself is technically feasible.
project activity.
However, without CDM revenue, this scenario would not be
financially attractive as shown in the step 3 below.
G6 Recovery,
transportation,
and Not plausible.
utilization of the associated gas Recovery, transportation, and utilization of the associated gas
and/or gas-lift gas as feedstock for gas as feedstock for manufacturing of useful products would
manufacturing of useful products.
not be feasible due to high content of H2S and CO2. Without
prior processing, the composition of associated gas which is
lower in methane number is not in preference as feedstock for
manufacturing. Alternative (G6) is not a plausible baseline
scenario and will not be considered further.
Table B.4-2: Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for oil and gas infrastructure
1
2
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
P1
P2
P3
Page 11
Alternatives
Construction of a processing plant for
the purpose of processing the recovered
gas, in the same way as in the project
activity, without being registered as a
CDM project activity.
Construction of a processing plant of a
lower capacity than under the project
activity, which processes only nonassociated gas and does not process
recovered gas.
Supplying recovered gas to an existing
gas processing plant and constructing the
necessary infrastructure, without being
registered as a CDM project activity.
P4
P5
Plausibility/Eligibility
Plausible.
This scenario is technically feasible however it would
not be financially attractive without being registered as a
CDM project activity as shown in the step 3 below.
Not plausible.
There is no non-associated gas in Mudi Sukowati and
therefore alternative (P2) is not a plausible baseline
scenario and will not be considered further.
Not Plausible.
There is no existing gas processing plant on-site before
the implementation of project activiy and therefore
supplying recovered gas to an existing gas processing
plant and constructing the necessary infrastructure is not
an applicable scenario and will not be considered
further.
Plausible.
In the absence of the project activity, the operation of
the existing oil and gas infrastructure would be
continued without any other siginificant changes.
Alternative (P4) is a plausible baseline scenario and will
be considered further.
Not plausible.
Without prior processing, the composition of associated
gas which is high in CO2 and H2S content and lower in
methane number is not in preference to be compressed
directly to the gas pipeline. Alternative (P5) is not a
plausible baseline scenario and will not be considered
further.
Not applicable since no gas-lift system is used under the project activity.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 12
Out of 4 combinations of the plausible alternatives above, the combination of G2 & P4 and G5 & P1 are
deemed realistic and possible. The result of combinations is outlined in the following table as alternative
1 and alternative 2.
Table B.4-4: Realistic combinations of the three components
Alternative 1
G2 Flaring of the associated gas and/or gas-lift gas at the oil production site.
P4 Continuation of the operation of the existing oil and gas infrastructure without any other significant
changes.
Alternative 2
G5 The proposed project activity without being registered as a CDM project activity.
P1 Construction of a processing plant for the purpose of processing the recovered gas, in the same way
as in the project activity, without being registered as a CDM project activity.
Step 2: Evaluate legal aspects
All the realistic and possible alternatives above are in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory
requirements taking into account the enforcement in the region and EB decisions on national and/or
sectoral policies and regulations.
Step 3 and Step 4 of the identification of the baseline scenario and additionality are carried out in the
Section B.5.
B.5. Demonstration of additionality
Step 3: Evaluate the economic attractiveness of alternatives
As recommended in AM0009 version 05.0.1, the identification of the alternative scenarios that are
feasible in technical terms and are permitted by law and applicable regulatory requirements has been
demonstrated in the section B.4. The economic attractiveness is assessed for alternatives (1) and (2) by
determining an expected Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of each alternative scenario based on the latest
approved version of the Tool for demonstration and assessment of additionality.
Alternative 1
G2: Flaring of the associated gas and/or gas-lift gas at the oil production site, and
P4: Continuation of the operation of the existing oil and gas infrastructure without any other significant
changes.
Economic attractiveness evaluation for Alternative 1
This alternative will not require any investment and penalty is not charged for gas flaring in Indonesia.
Gas flaring activity is seen as a normal practice in the oil production industry as a way to dispose excess
gas or to protect vessels or pipes from over-pressuring. Hence this alternative will not create additional
cost nor additional revenue for the project owners. In this case the required return of the alternative refers
to the return of benchmark. As also stated in point 19 of the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment
Analysis version 05:
The benchmark approach is suited to circumstances where the baseline does not require investment or
is outside the direct control of the project developer, i.e. cases where the choice of the developer is to
invest or not to invest.
The benchmark has been based on the average local investment lending rate charged by national private
banks in Indonesia during the investment decision making for the project activity (end of March 2011-
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 13
April 2010)3,i.e. 13.29%, and the IRR of the project will be compared to this. As stated in point 12 of the
Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis version 05: Local commercial lending rates or
Weighted Average Costs of Capital (WACC) are appropriate benchmarks for a project IRR.
The financial information used for benchmark determination is publicly available. The calculation of
benchmark has been detailed in the spreadsheet that will be submitted with the PDD.
Alternative 2
G5: The proposed project activity without being registered as a CDM project activity.
P1: Construction of a processing plant for the purpose of processing the recovered gas, in the same way
as in the project activity, without being registered as a CDM project activity.
Economic attractiveness evaluation for alternative 2
This alternative is the project activity without CDM revenue, and its economic attractiveness is assessed
by the project IRR calculation. The project IRR is determined using the main relevant parameters as
follows:
Table B.5-1: Main Financial Parameters
No.
Parameter
Value
1.
Investment cost
USD 41,759,536
2.
Plant Production rate
Based on 12 MMSCFD
feed gas
- LPG
40 ton per day
- Condensate
600 bbl per day
- Lean gas
4.9 MMSCFD
3
Sales price
- LPG
746 USD per ton
- Condensate
59 USD per bbl
- Lean gas
5.75 - 6.1 USD/MMBTU
4.
5.
6.
6,380,689 USD/year
4.79%
7.
Tax rate
25%
6
4
7
4
8
3
9
3
Source
Feasibility Study Report
Feasibility Study Report
10
3
In compliance with Guidelines on the assessment of investment analysis point 3 that In general a
minimum period of 10 years will be appropriate, the financial analysis projection has been presented for
10 years, taking into account 20 years lifetime and the residual value for the remaining years has been
added back into the cash inflow.
The project IRR for the project activity without taking into account the CERs revenue is 3.32%, lower
than the benchmark (13.29%) and highlights that the project activity is not financially feasible.
3
4
http://www.bi.go.id/seki/tabel/TABEL1_26.xls
Based on Gas availability estimation by BP Migas
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 14
According to the methodology, the alternative scenario that is economically the most attractive course of
action is considered as the baseline scenario; hence the alternative 1, wherein the activities of gas flaring
and the operation of the existing oil and gas infrastructure are continued without any significant changes
(G2 & P4), is considered as the baseline scenario.
Sensitivity analysis
To show that the conclusion regarding the economic attractiveness above is robust and to provide a valid
argument in favour of additionality, a sensitivity analysis has been conducted in accordance with point 20
and 21 of the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis version 05. Variables which
constitute more than 20% of either total project cost or total project revenues, including the initial
investment cost, or have a material impact on the analysis, have been identified below and been subjected
to reasonable variation range of 10%:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Investment cost
Operation & Maintenance Cost
Feed gas amount
Condensate revenue
Lean gas revenue
LPG revenue
The impacts were analyzed in the range of 10% and the corresponding impacts have been highlighted in
the table and graph below:
Table B.5-6: Sensitivity Analysis
Variable
Investment cost
Operation & Maintenance Cost
Feed gas amount
Condensate revenue
Lean gas revenue
LPG revenue
-10%
8.16%
10.51%
-6.01%
-1.07%
-0.24%
-0.09%
-5%
5.58%
7.15%
-1.22%
1.14%
1.56%
1.64%
0%
3.32%
3.32%
3.32%
3.32%
3.32%
3.32%
5%
1.32%
-1.21%
7.58%
5.46%
5.03%
4.96%
10%
-0.44%
-6.81%
11.58%
7.55%
6.69%
6.56%
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 15
The results show that in the absence of CDM revenues, the variations between +10% and -10% of those
parameters consistently support the conclusion that the project activity is unable to pass the benchmark
and is not the most financially attractive alternative.
In accordance with the methodology, if the IRR of the project activity is lower than the hurdle rate of the
project participants and if the most plausible baseline scenario is not the project activity without being
registered as a CDM project activity; the analysis should proceed to the step 4 of Common Practice
Analysis.
Step 4: Common practice analysis
The following section demonstrates that the project activity is not a common practice in geographical area
of Indonesia by drawing on version 06.0.0 of Tool for the demonstration and assessment of
additionality for demonstration of common practice analysis.
Sub-step 4a: Analyze other activities similar to the proposed project activity
In Indonesia, associated gas is considered as a by-product of oil production and is simply flared in order
to minimise costs, as well as due to a lack of regulations5. In 2003, Indonesia has been rated by the World
Bank6 as the third highest country in terms of quantities flared gas per barrel of oil produced, and the fifth
highest country in terms of total annual gas flared.
Additionally, in October 2006, World Bank and GGFR7 reported that in Indonesia, out of 76 blocks
producing oil and gas, 47 blocks flared gas. As mentioned in the report, BP Migas8 data in 2004 indicated
that those 47 onshore and offshore blocks consist of 506 oil fields have flared 358 MMSCFD or
equivalent to 3.7 billion m3 gas per year (4.3% of total gas production), and the production from those
flaring blocks represent 96% of Indonesias oil production and 82% of its gas production, as summarized
in this table below:
Total Production
Oil and condensate (MMBOPD)
Gas (MMSCFD)
1.10
8,302
Production
flaring blocks
1.03
6,827
from Percent
96
82
Turning to LPG supply, to encourage domestic production in 2001 the Indonesian government allowed
the private business entities to participate in the development of oil and gas projects and divided the
business activities into upstream and downstream9. Every downstream business entities whose activity is
gas recovery and processing, is required to obtain a business license from the government to operate.
The identification of similar project activities for the common practice analysis below has focused on the
geographical country of Indonesia as the host country, on the operational project activities which recover
and utilize the associated gas from onshore oilfields and are under the same legal regulatory framework as
5
HWWA Hamburg Report: Gas Flaring Reduction in the Indonesian Oil and Gas Sector Technical and Economic
Potential of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, Gustya Indriani, 2005.
http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/32895/1/497849372.pdf
6
Gas Flaring and Venting - A Regulatory Framework and Incentives for Gas Utilization, Franz Gerner, Bent
Svensson, and Sascha Djumena, The World Bank public policy journal, October 2004.
http://rru.worldbank.org/documents/publicpolicyjournal/279gerner.pdf
7
The World Bank/GGFR (Global Gas Flaring Reduction): Indonesia Associated Gas Survey Screening and
Economic Analysis Report-25 October 2006.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGGFR/Resources/indonesiaassociatedgassurvey.pdf
8
BP Migas is the regulatory body on Oil and Gas in Indonesia Government
9
Government Law in Oil and Gas No. 22 Year 2001: http://www.pwc.com/en_ID/id/energy-utilitiesmining/assets/law22-2001.pdf
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 16
mentioned above. Based on the data from Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources10, there
are 5 entities have been identified as downstream operational activities. To further identify the similar
project activities, the steps in paragraph 47 of Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality
version 06.0.0 have been applied as follows:
Step 1: Calculate applicable output range as +/-50% of the design output or capacity of the
proposed project activity.
The design output of the proposed project activity is up to 42 ton LPG/day and thus the applicable output
range is 21 63 ton LPG/day.
Step 2: In the applicable geographical area, identify all plants that deliver the same output or
capacity, within the applicable output range calculated in Step 1, as the proposed project activity
and have started commercial operation before the start date of the project. Note their number Nall.
Registered CDM project activities and projects activities undergoing validation shall not be
included in this step
The table below has listed all 6 entities operating the downstream actvities in Indonesia, excluding the
registered CDM project activity and projects activities undergoing CDM validation.
Table B.5-4: The License Holders of LPG plants in Indonesia
No. Downstream
Location
Designed
Business Entity
Capacity
1.
PT. Maruta Bumi Langkat, North 47 ton LPG/day
Prima
Sumatera
Commissioning
Year
2001
As shown, all of them have a designed output beyond the applicable output range of 21- 63 ton LPG/day,
except the project of PT. Maruta Bumi Prima. Thus, Nall is 1.
Step 3: Within plants identified in Step 2, identify those that apply technologies different that the
technology applied in the proposed project activity. Note their number Ndiff.
In 2003, Pertamina the State-Owned Enterprise became PT Pertamina (Persero)11, although 100% of its
shares are still state owned, its role changed from that of a regulator to that of a market participant. Due to
this change Pertamina became market oriented 12 which affected its business strategy and commercial
relationships with their partners in downstream business. PT Maruta Bumi Prima was commissioned and
agreed by Pertamina before 2003 and is therefore distinct from proposed project activity in respect to its
investment climate.
Thus Ndiff = 1.
Step 4: Calculate factor F=1-Ndiff/Nall representing the share of plants using technology similar to
the technology used in the proposed project activity in all plants that deliver the same output or
capacity as the proposed project activity. The proposed project activity is a common practice
within a sector in the applicable geographical area if both the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the factor F is greater than 0.2, and
(b) Nall-Ndiff is greater than 3.
10
Annex 5: List of License Holder for Gas Processing in Indonesia Database from Indonesian Ministry of Energy
and Mineral Resources - Directorate General of Oil and Gas
11
Government Regulation No. 31 Year 2003: http://www.anggaran.depkeu.go.id/peraturan/PP%2031%20%202003.pdf
12
http://www.pertamina.com/index.php/detail/read/company_history
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 17
Factor F=1-Ndiff/Nall = 1-1 = 0 and therefore the proposed project activity is not a common practice.
Sub-step 4b: Discuss any similar Options that are occurring
The above analysis illustrates that the above plants are different and distinct from the propose project
activity and it can be concluded that the proposed project activity is not common practice and hence
additional.
CDM consideration
CDM revenue has been a decisive factor in the decision to proceed with the project and the CDM makes
the project feasible for the project owners. Efforts to proceed under CDM were taken by GFI, including
contacts with several CDM consultants and CDM prior notification to UNFCCC and Indonesian DNA on
25/08/2011.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 18
The use of recovered gas in a processing plant can displace the use of non-associated gas in that
processing plant;
In another situation, the recovered gas may be compressed into a natural gas pipeline, thereby
displacing the processing of non-associated gas in a gas processing plant at another site.
The exact emission effects are difficult to determine and would require an analysis of the whole fuel
supply chain up to the end-users for both the project activity and the baseline scenario. This methodology
provides a simplified and conservative calculation of emission reductions, assuming that the use of
recovered gas displaces the use of methane the fossil fuel with the lowest direct CO2 emissions.
Emissions from processing and transportation of fuels to end-users are neglected for both the project
activity and the baseline scenario, as it is assumed that these emissions are similar in their magnitude and
level out.
Baseline emissions are calculated as follows:
(1)
Where:
BE y
VF , y
= Volume of total recovered gas measured at point F in Figure A.3.1 in year y, (Nm)
NCVRG , F , y
= Average net calorific value of recovered gas at point F in Figure A.3.1 in year y,
EFCO 2 Methane
(TJ/Nm3)
= CO2 emission factor for methane (tCO2/TJ)
Project emissions
The following sources of project emissions are taken into accounted in line with the methodology:
CO2 emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels for the recovery, pre-treatment, transportation,
and, if applicable, compression of the recovered gas up to the point F in Figure A.3.1
CO2 emissions due to the use of electricity for the recovery, pre-treatment, transportation, and,
if applicable, compression of the recovered gas up to the point F in Figure A.3.1
Other sources of project emissions such as emissions from leaks, venting and flaring during the recovery,
transportation and processing of recovered gas are assumed to be of similar magnitude in the baseline
scenario.
Project emissions are calculated as follows
(2)
Where:
PE y
PECO 2, fossilfuel , y
= CO2 emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels for the recovery, pretreatment, transportation, and, if applicable, compression of the recovered gas up
to the point F in Figure A.3.1 in year y, (tCO2e)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 19
PECO 2 elec , y
, ,
(3)
Where:
, ,
, ,
,
= The CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process j during the year y (tCO2/yr)
= The quantity of fuel type i combusted in process j during the year y (mass or volume
unit/yr);
= The CO2 emission coefficient of fuel type i in year y (tCO2/mass or volume unit)
= The fuel types combusted in process j during the year y
wC, , x 44/12
wC, , x , x 44/12
(4)
(5)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
EFCO
Page 20
,,
ECPJ, , x EFEL, , x 1
TDL ,
(7)
The determination of the emission factors for electricity generation (EFEL, , ) depends on which scenario
(A, B or C) applies to the source of electricity consumption:
Scenario A: Electricity consumption from the grid.
Scenario B: Electricity consumption from (an) off-grid fossil fuel fired captive power plant(s).
Scenario C: Electricity consumption from the grid and (a) fossil fuel fired captive power plant(s).
Since the project activity is using the electricity from captive power plant, therefore the determination of
the emission factors for electricity generation is calculated based on the scenario B, as follows:
Option B1:
The emission factor for electricity generation is determined based on the CO2 emissions
from fuel combustion and the electricity generation in the captive power plant(s) installed
at the site of the electricity consumption source.
In case where none of the captive power plants is a cogeneration plant or where the heat
generation is ignored (subject to the conditions outlined above), the emission factor of the
captive power plant(s) is calculated as follows:
EFEL, ,
FC , .
Where:
EFEL, ,
=
FC
,.
NCV ,
EG ,
EFCO , ,
(8)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
NCV ,
EFCO
EG
,,
i
t
Option B2:
Page 21
Option B1 is selected to calculate the emission factor for electricity generation and this selected approach
should not be changed during the crediting period.
B
esides the gas generator set as the main electricity generator system, fossil fuel combustion in the project
activity is also envisaged from the emergency diesel generator system located in the project site as the
back-up power. For ex-ante estimations the project emissions from the use of diesel in the emergency
diesel generator system has been considered zero. The parameters for the calculation of same will be
monitored ex-post and the project emissions taken into account as actual.
Leakage
Leakage emission is calculated as follows:
LE y = LE FC , y + LE EC , y
Where:
LEy
LEFC,y
LEEC,y
(8)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 22
approved version of the Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion
where LEFC,y corresponds to PEFC,j,y in the tool and process j corresponds to all sources of fuel
combustion (e.g. compressor, decompressor or trailers/trucks/carriers etc) after point F in Figure A.3.1.
The same formula for PEFC,j,y for project emissions calculation is used.
Leakage emissions due to electricity consumption
Leakage emissions due to electricity consumption in year y (LEEC,y) is calculated applying the latest
approved version of the Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity
consumption where LEEC,y corresponds to PEEC,y in the tool and the electricity consumption sources j in
the tool corresponds to all sources of electricity consumption (e.g. compressor, decompressor or
trailers/trucks/carriers etc) after point F in Figure A.3.1.
LEEC, ,
ECLE, , x EFEL, , x 1
TDL ,
Where:
LE EC ,l , y
ECLE, ,
EFEL, ,
TDL ,
Since there is no electricity consumption after point F therefore no leakage emission due to electricity
consumption is considered.
Emission reductions
Emission reductions are calculated as follows:
ER y = BE y PE y LE y
(10)
Where:
ER y
BE y
PE y
LE y
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 23
EFCO2,Methane
Unit
tCO2/TJ
Description
Source of data
Value(s) applied
54.834
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
As per AM0009 version 05.0.1, the CO2 emission factor for methane is
included in the parameters that are not monitored.
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Data / Parameter
TDLj,y
Unit
Description
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 24
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
67,898,401
67,898,401
67,898,401
45,265,601
33,383,380
24,613,170
19,803,700
15,543,076
15,543,076
15,543,076
NCVRG , F , y
= 0.0000506 TJ/Nm3
EFCO 2 Methane
= 54.834 tCO2/TJ
Baseline emissions
PE y = PE CO 2, fossilfuel , y + PE CO 2 elec , y
Project emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels
, ,
COEF ,
, ,
NCV , x EFCO
,
,,
The quantity of sour gas combusted in process per year are as follows:
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
NCVsourgas,y
EFCO2,natgas,y
Page 25
Based on the formula above, project emissions from fossil fuels combustion for each specific year are
summarized below
Project emissions from fossil fuels combustion
Period y
(PEFC,j,y)
2013
44,721
2014
44,721
2015
44,721
2016
29,814
2017
21,988
2018
16,211
2019
13,044
2020
10,237
2021
10,237
2022
10,237
Project emissions from consumption of electricity
Where:
TDL j , y
=0
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 26
63,360
63,360
63,360
42,240
31,152
22,968
18,480
14,504
14,504
14,504
Quantity of lean gas fired in the captive power plant each year is summarized below:
Quantity of lean gas fired in the captive power
plant (MMSCF/year)( FC leangas ,t )
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
543.6
543.6
543.6
356.4
262.8
193.8
155.9
122.4
122.4
122.4
NCV leangas ,t
= 994.2 GJ/MMSCF
EFCO 2leangas ,t
= 0.058 tCO2/GJ
Based on the formula above, emission factor for electricity generation for each year is 0.489 tCO2/MWh;
and therefore the project emissions from electricity consumption for each specific year are calculated and
summarized as below:
Project emissions from electricity consumption
( PE EC , y )
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
30,986
30,986
30,986
20,657
15,253
11,232
9,038
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 27
2020
2021
2022
7,093
7,093
7,093
Besides the gas generator set as the main electricity generator system, fossil fuel combustion in the
project activity is also envisaged from the emergency diesel generator system located in the project site as
the back-up power. For ex-ante estimations the project emissions from the use of diesel in the emergency
diesel generator system has been considered zero. The parameters for the calculation of same will be
monitored ex-post and the project emissions taken into account as actual.
Total estimation of project activity emissions
PE y in tCO2/year for each specific year are summarized as table below:
Table B.6.3-5: Project Emissions Summary
PE FC , y in
Year
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
tCO2/year
44,721
44,721
44,721
29,814
21,988
16,211
13,044
10,237
10,237
10,237
PE EC , y
PE y
in tCO2/year
30,986
30,986
30,986
20,657
15,253
11,232
9,038
7,093
7,093
7,093
in tCO2/year
75,707
75,707
75,707
50,471
37,223
27,444
22,081
17,331
17,331
17,331
Leakage
Leakage emissions due to fossil fuel consumption in year y (LEFC,y) is calculated corresponds to PEFC,j,y
in the tool and process j corresponds to all sources of fuel after point F in Figure A.3.1. (heat oil heater at
gas processing plant).
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
2020
2021
2022
NCVsourgas,y
EFCO2,natgas,y
Page 28
30
30
30
= 1,139.5 GJ/MMSCF
= 0.058 tCO2/GJ
Based on the formula above, leakage emissions from fossil fuels combustion after point F for each
specific year are summarized below:
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Emission reductions
ER y = BE y PE y LE y
5,846
4,311
3,179
2,558
2,007
2,007
2,007
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 29
8,769
8,769
8,769
5,846
4,311
3,179
2,558
2,007
2,007
2,007
48,222
Emission
reductions
(t CO2e)
104,056
104,056
104,056
69,371
51,161
37,720
30,350
23,820
23,820
23,820
572,230
4,822
57,223
Leakage
(t CO2e)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 30
VF , y
Unit
Description
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Nm
Volume of total recovered gas measured at point F in Figure A.3.1 in year y
On-site measurement using Orifice meter
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Period y
Value
2013
67,898,401
2014
67,898,401
2015
67,898,401
2016
45,265,601
2017
33,383,380
2018
24,613,170
2019
19,803,700
2020
15,543,076
2021
15,543,076
2022
15,543,076
Data should be continuosly measured using calibrated orifice meters.
Measurements should be taken at the point(s) where recovered gas exits the
pre-treatment plant.
Continuosly
Volume of gas should be completely metered with regular calibration of
metering equipment. The measured volume should be converted to the
volume at normal temperature and pressure using the temperature and
pressure at the time to measurement.
The consistency of metered volume of recovered gas at point F in figure
A.3.1 will be cross-checked by Barton Chart recorder. This recorder is used
as the emergency backup measurement.
Calibration will be taken annually or when measuring equipments show
deviation from its tolerated fair value.
Calculation of baseline emissions
-
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 31
Data / Parameter
NCVRG , F , y
Unit
Description
Source of data
TJ/Nm3
Net calorific value of recovered gas at point F in Figure A.3.1 in year y
On site measurement (Chemical analysis of gas samples taken at point F in
Figure A.3.1 using Gas chromatography)
0.0000506
Measurements should be undertaken in line with national or international
fuel standards.
Gas samples should regularly be taken at point F in Figure A.3.1 and the
molar composition of each gas sample should be determined through
chemical analysis following the procedures for QA/QC. Based on the molar
composition, the Net Calorific Value on a volumetric basis should be
determined for each sample in line with ISO 6976 or an equivalent
standard for a combustion reference temperature of 250C and the same
metering reference condition used for parameter VF,y. The average NCV
during the period y is defined as the arithmetic average of NCVs for the
samples taken during the same period.
Sampling and compositional analysis and calculation of net calorific value
at least monthly
Sampling in accordance with ISO 10715 or equivalent standard.
Compositional analysis in accordance with ISO 6974 or equivalent
standard. Routine maintenance and calibration in accordance with ISO
10723 or equivalent standard. GC calibration gases certified to ISO 6141 or
equivalent standard. Annual manufacturer servicing and calibration to
ISO17025 or equivalent standard. In case third party laboratories are used,
these should as a minimum have ISO17025 accreditation or justify that
they can comply with similar quality standards.
Calculation of baseline emissions
For the purpose of this methodology, the qualifier net is synonymous
with lower and inferior, and the term calorific value is synonymous
with heating value.
For the purpose of monitoring plan, the Gross calorific value will be
resulted from the composition analysis using Gas Chromatography and Net
calorific value shall be calculated from data of gross calorific value by
multiplying it with 90% (as per guidelines in the 2006 IPCC Volume 20).
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 32
Data / Parameter
FC sourgas , j , y
Unit
Description
MMSCF/year
Quantity of sour gas combusted in processes before point F of the figure
A.3.1 (heaters at condensate recovery- amine plant, and RTO) during the
year y
The total result of on site measurement using orifice meters
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 33
Data / Parameter
NCV sourgas , y
Unit
Description
GJ/MMSCF
Net calorific value of sour gas combusted in process before point F of the
figure A.3.1 (heaters at condensate recovery- amine plant, and RTO) in
year y
On site measurement (Chemical analysis of gas samples taken at sour gas
production after compression using Gas chromatography)
Source of data
Value(s) applied
1,139.5
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 34
Data / Parameter
EFCO 2 ,natgas , y
Unit
Description
Value(s) applied
tCO2/GJ
CO2 emission factor of natural gas used before point F of the figure A.3.1
(compressor, condensate recovery, amine plant and RTO) in the period y
IPCC default values for CO2 emission factor of natural gas at the upper
limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in table
1.4 of Chapter1 of Vol. 2(Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on
National GHG Inventories
0.0583
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Data / Parameter
EC PJ , j , y
Unit
Description
MWh/year
Quantity of electricity generated and consumed by the project electricity
consumption j in year y.
On site measurements
Source of data
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 35
Data / Parameter
FC generator ,leangas ,t
Unit
Description
m3/year
Quantity of lean gas fired in the captive power plant (gas generator) in the
time period t
Onsite measurements
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Data / Parameter
NCV leangas ,t
Unit
Description
GJ / MMSCF
Average net calorific value of lean gas used in the period t for electricity
consumption
On site collection and laboratory measurement. Calculated using 90% of
gross calorific values provided in the laboratory analysis.
994.2
Monthly measurements should be undertaken in line with national or
international fuel standards.
Monthly
The laboratories should have ISO17025 accreditation or justify that they
can comply with similar quality standards.
Calculation of project emissions
-
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 36
Data / Parameter
EFCO 2,leangas ,t
Unit
Description
t CO2 / GJ
CO2 emission factor of natural gas used in the period t for electricity
consumption
IPCC default values at the upper or lower limit whatever is more
conservative of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided
in table 1.4 of Chapter 1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
on National GHG Inventories
0.0583 t CO2 / GJ
Any future revision of the IPCC Guidelines should be taken into account.
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Data / Parameter
FC generator , dieseloil ,t
Unit
Description
m3/year
Quantity of diesel oil fired in the captive power plant (diesel generator) in
the time period t
Onsite measurements
0
Continuously measured using volume meter.
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Continuously
.
Calculation of project emissions
-
Data / Parameter
EG diese lg enerator ,t
Unit
Description
MWh/year
Quantity of electricity generated in captive power plant (diesel generator)
in the time period t
Onsite measurements
0
Continuously measured using electricity meter
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Continously
Calculation of project emissions
-
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 37
Data / Parameter
NCV dieseloil ,t
Unit
Description
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
GJ / m3
Average net calorific value of diesel oil used in the period t for electricity
consumption
On site collection and laboratory measurement or supplied by the supplier
Calculated using 90% of gross calorific values provided in the laboratory
analysis.
0
Monthly measurements should be undertaken in line with national or
international fuel standards.
Monthly
Calculation of project emissions
-
Data / Parameter
EFCO 2, dieseloil ,t
Unit
Description
t CO2 / GJ
CO2 emission factor of diesel oil used in the period t for electricity
consumption
IPCC default values at the upper or lower limit whatever is more
conservative of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided
in table 1.4 of Chapter 1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
on National GHG Inventories
0.074 1
Any future revision of the IPCC Guidelines should be taken into account.
Source of data
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 38
Data / Parameter
FC sourgas ,l , y
Unit
Description
MMSCF/year
Quantity of sour gas combusted in processes after point F of the figure
A.3.1 (heater at LPG Plant) during the year y
On site measurement using orifice meter.
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 39
Data / Parameter
NCV sourgas ,l , y
Unit
Description
GJ/MMSCF
Net calorific value of sour gas combusted in process after point F of the
figure A.3.1 (LPG plant) in year y
On site measurement (Chemical analysis of gas samples taken at sour gas
production after compression using Gas chromatography)
Source of data
Value(s) applied
1,139.5
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 40
Data / Parameter
EFCO 2, natura lg as ,l , y
Unit
Description
Value(s) applied
tCO2/GJ
CO2 emission factor of sour gas used after point F of the figure A.3.1
(heater at LPG plant) in the period y
IPCC default values for CO2 emission factor of natural gas at the upper
limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in table
1.4 of Chapter1 of Vol. 2(Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on
National GHG Inventories
0.0583
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Source of data
Field Manager
Design, train, establish and manage the system of CDM
Responsible for the implementation and administration of
CDM project activity at the site
Project Supervisor
Aggregate data and report to Assistant of Field Manager
Calibration of equipments (Measure, record, archive)
Project Operators
Daily measurement and recording
(measure, record, archive)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 41
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 42
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 43
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 44
Question
How many employment opportunities PT.
GFI can provide for people from Rahayu
Village? How PT. GFI will conduct a fair
recruitment process?
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Answer
Employees will be recruited accordingly. PT GFI
was referring to the employment recruitment that
was done by JOB PPEJ in Lamongan sub-district.
Employment distribution will be done according to
the percentage and needs of the company after
agreement with the village leader.
Compensation will be given to any faulty that
caused by the company. However the company will
conduct their working procedure in accordance to
the international standard for health, safety and
environmental regulation.
A diagram was used to explain the process flow for
utilizing the gas from JOB PPEJ in a simple way
and also the positive impacts of project activity by
reducing the flaring for surrounding villages.
UKL/UPL is done with the approval from ministry
of environment.
CSR activities are given 2.5% of the company
profits as part of the companys responsibility to
the surrounding villages. CSR will be coordinated
with local government to avoid conflict of interest.
The priority will be given to the nearest village
from the companys location.
CDM is not part of AMDAL. AMDAL is regulated
by Indonesian law, whilst CDM is under the Kyoto
Protocol and regulated by UNFCCC.
The positive impact from the project is the
economic growth for local villagers. The company
will recruit from the surrounding villagers for
employment both for the skilled and non-skilled
labours. The companys employment will increase
the income for the villagers who are employed. PT.
GFI will try to minimize the negative impact by
working in accordance to the international
regulations.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 45
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 46
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 47
yhp_lpg@cbn.net.id
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Organization name
Street/P.O. Box
Building
City
State/Region
Postcode
Country
Telephone
Fax
E-mail
Website
Contact person
Title
Salutation
Last name
Middle name
First name
Department
Mobile
Direct fax
Direct tel.
Personal e-mail
Page 48
Sumitomo Corporation
1-8-11 Harumi, Chuo-Ku
Tokyo
104-8610
Japan
+81-3-5166-4155
+81-3-5166-6444
www.sumitomocorp.co.jp
HU
Manager
Mr.
Hideki
Sawano
Environmental Solution Business Dept.
+81-3-5166-4618
+81-3-5166-6957
cdm-project@sumitomocorp.co.jp
H
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Organization name
Street/P.O. Box
Building
City
State/Region
Postcode
Country
Telephone
Fax
E-mail
Website
Contact person
Title
Salutation
Last name
Middle name
First name
Department
Mobile
Direct fax
Direct tel.
Personal e-mail
Page 49
moc@agrinergy.com
Appendix 2: Affirmation regarding public funding
The project has not received any public funding or official development assistance from Annex I parties.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 50
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 51
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 52
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Page 53