Verification Report for: #1902805 Proponent€¦ · Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool...
Transcript of Verification Report for: #1902805 Proponent€¦ · Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool...
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Verification Report for:
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference
#1902805
Proponent:
Bluesource Methane ULC
Prepared by:
RWDI Air Inc.
1000-736 8 Ave SW, Calgary, AB T2P 1H4
Prepared for:
Alberta Climate Change Office
Version:
Final
Date:
June 14, 2019
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 2 of 45
Table of Contents
1.0 Summary – Offset Project ...................................................................................... 4 1.1 Summary – Facility ......................................................................................................... 8 2.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Objective ............................................................................................................. 9 2.2 Scope ................................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Level of Assurance .............................................................................................. 12 2.4 Criteria .............................................................................................................. 12 2.5 Materiality .......................................................................................................... 12
3.0 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Procedures ......................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Team ................................................................................................................. 16 3.3 Schedule ............................................................................................................ 17
4.0 Results .............................................................................................................. 18 4.1 Assessment of Internal Data Management and Controls ........................................... 18 4.2 Assessment of GHG Data and Information .............................................................. 19 4.3 Assessment against Criteria .................................................................................. 21 4.4 Evaluation of the GHG Assertion ............................................................................ 23 4.5 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 23 4.6 Opportunity for Improvement ............................................................................... 26
5.0 Closure .............................................................................................................. 26 5.1 Verification Statement ......................................................................................... 26 5.2 Limitation of Liability ........................................................................................... 26 5.3 Confirmations ..................................................................................................... 27
6.0 References ......................................................................................................... 27 Appendix A: Final Verification Plan and Sampling Plan ............................................................ 29 Appendix B: Statement of Qualifications................................................................................ 31 Appendix C: Findings and Issues .......................................................................................... 33 Appendix D: Statement of Verification .................................................................................. 40 Appendix E: Conflict of Interest Checklist .............................................................................. 42 Appendix F: Supplemental Diagrams/Tables/Figure ................................................................ 44
List of Tables
Table 1: Detailed Scope ...................................................................................................... 10 Table 2: Verification Procedures ........................................................................................... 15 Table 3: Recalculations of Emissions Reduction ...................................................................... 20 Table 4: Offset Criteria Assessment ...................................................................................... 22 Table 5: Summary of Findings ............................................................................................. 24 Table 6: Detailed Findings and Issues Log ............................................................................. 34
Instructions are in italics throughout and should not be deleted when report is complete.
Some instructions are specific to the verification of facilities and for offset projects. The
document is not restricted but do not alter the format, the layout, the headings or the overall
‘look and feel’ of the document. If it is more useful to paste information outside of the text box,
use the empty line just below the text box to drop text or tables int. This should not change the
headings or the formats. There are several dropdown boxes in the document that must be
completed.
• Complete report in Verdana 10pt font (no italics).
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 3 of 45
• After the report is complete, right click the table of contents and ‘update field’ which will
update page numbers in Table of Contents.
• If an instruction only applies to facilities or only applies to offsets indicate ‘not applicable’.
• Appendix F is available for additional tables, diagrams etc.
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 4 of 45
1.0 Summary – Offset Project
Item Description
Project Title
Enter project title (must match the registry
project title)
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program:
Pool Charlie
Project Description
Provide a brief description of the project
and baseline conditions.
The project is an aggregate project
consisting of various facilities, operated by
four different producers. Greenhouse gas
emission reductions are achieved by
reducing the volume of natural gas (mainly
methane) vented to the atmosphere, from
converting high-bleed pneumatic devices to
low-bleed pneumatic devices.
In the baseline condition, existing pressure
controllers, transducers and liquid level
controllers would continue to vent higher
volumes of natural gas (consisting of
primarily methane) to atmosphere, based
on existing designs. In the project
condition, existing high-bleed pneumatic
devices are replaced with lower bleed
devices that have significantly lower
manufacturer’s specified vent rates. The
project and baseline are functionally
equivalent in that the rate of change of the
oil and gas process control measure is
unaffected and independent of the project
activity.
Electrified devices, and vent gas capture
initiatives are not included within the scope
of project technologies presented in this
project.
Bluesource Methane ULC has requested, for
the purposes of the project and verification
reports, that the identity and specific
project location remain confidential.
Project Location
Include the latitude and longitude for each
unique location or installation. Include legal
land location if applicable and other
information identifying the unique location.
Various natural gas facilities in Alberta
operated by four different producers. The
majority of the facilities are located in
central and southern Alberta.
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 5 of 45
Project Start Date
Enter the project start date.
July 3, 2018
Offset Start Date
Enter the start date for offset credit
generation.
July 3, 2018
Offset Crediting Period
Enter the offset crediting period, including
the offset start date. Include day, month
year.
July 3, 2018 – December 31, 2022
Reporting Period
Enter the reporting period being verified.
October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019
GHG Assertion (Actual Emission
Reductions/Sequestration Achieved)
Enter the actual emissions reductions /
sequestration for the reporting period. Enter
serial numbers if available.
24,310 tonnes of CO2e (12,305 tonnes for
the period from October 1, 2018 to
December 31, 2018 and 12,005 for the
period from January 1, 2019 to March 31,
2019).
Protocol
Indicate the relevant protocol (if applicable)
Carbon Competitiveness Incentive
Regulation (AB. Reg. 255/17)
Alberta Emission Offset Program -
Quantification for Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reductions from Pneumatic Devices,
Version 2.0, January 2017.
Ownership
Enter offset project owner.
Bluesource Methane ULC (Bluesource) is
the aggregator and project proponent for
this project. Bluesource is given authority
to aggregate and register the project’s
Offset Credits through agreements with
each producer.
Project Activity
State how the project activity meets the
eligibility requirements
The project activities are eligible under the
Alberta Carbon Competitiveness Incentive
Regulation (CCIR) to generate offsets as
they meet the following conditions:
- Have occurred in Alberta – the project is
physically located in Alberta.
- Not be required by law – the project is
not required by any current law, and is
eligible for emissions offset generation until
December 31, 2022. Alberta Energy
Regulator, Directive 60 mandates that
vent gas releases be limited from
pneumatic devices, compressor seals, and
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 6 of 45
glycol dehydrators starting January 1, 2023
(AER 2023).
- Result from actions taken on or after
January 1, 2002 – the project began in
2018.
- Reduction must be real, demonstrable,
and quantifiable and measurable – the
project has been verified according to the
following Verification Criteria:
• Climate Change and Emissions
Management Act, Statues of
Alberta, 2003
• Carbon Competitiveness Incentive
Regulation (CCIR) – Alberta
Regulation 255/2017
• Standard for Greenhouse Gas
Emission Offset Project Developers,
version 2.0, July 2018
• Standard for Validation, Verification
and Audit, Carbon Competitiveness
Incentive Regulation, version 3.0,
December 2018
• Quantification Protocol for
Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reductions from Pneumatic Devices,
version 2.0, January 2017
• Carbon Offset Emission Factors
Handbook, version 1.0, March 2015
• ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases – Part
2: Specification with guidance at the
project level for quantification,
monitoring and reporting of
greenhouse gas emission reductions
or removal enhancement, ISO, April
2006 (ISO 14064-2)
- owns the offset credits - the project
developer has provided sufficient and
appropriate evidence that Bluesource owns
the offset credits generated by the
respective sub-projects.
- Be counted once for compliance purposes
– the project offset credits are serialized on
the Alberta Emission Offset Registry
(AEOR).
- Be verified by a qualified third party –
RWDI is a qualified third-party verifier as
defined in Section 24 of the CCIR. RWDI is
accredited with the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) in accordance
with ISO 14065 (Accreditation ID #1053).
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 7 of 45
Project Contact
Enter contact name, company name,
mailing address, phone number and email
address.
Kelsey Locke
Bluesource Methane ULC
1605-840 7 Ave SW
Calgary, AB T2P 3G2
403-262-3026
Verifier
Verifier name, verifier’s company name,
address, phone number email etc.
Alena Saprykina
RWDI Air Inc.
1000-736 8 Ave SW
Calgary, AB T2P 1H4
403-232-6771
Verification Team Members
Include verification team members, roles,
training, training dates and qualifications.
Project Manager: Candace Bell, M.Sc.
Lead Verifier: Alena Saprykina, M. Sc.
(completed ISO 14064-3 training course in
2014)
Verifier and Signing Authority: Annik
White, P. Eng., M.A.Sc. (completed the ISO
14064-3 training course in 2018)
Verifier: Thana Boonlert, B. Eng, EIT
(completed the ISO 14064-3 training
course in 2018)
Peer Reviewer: Russ Lewis, M.Eng.,
P.Eng. (completed ISO 14604-3 training
course in 2018)
Designated Signing Authority
Enter the designated signing authority for
this verification.
Annik White, P.Eng.
Verification Strategy
Describe the verification strategy used for
the verification, including rationale for the
approach. Note, if a controls reliance is
used, provide justification for how the
project is able to support this approach.
The strategy was to use almost entirely
substantive testing in order to avoid relying
on the design and operating effectiveness
of internal controls; however, controls-
based testing was used to assess the
accuracy and completeness of primary
data, where original records were not
available or not amenable to substantive
testing, by inquiring about QA/QC
procedures around the data.
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 8 of 45
1.1 Summary – Facility
Item Description
Facility Name and Company Name
List company name and facility name.
N/A – aggregated offset project and
therefore not a facility compliance reporting
verification.
Facility Description
Provide a brief description of the facility.
N/A
Baseline Emissions Intensity
Description
List the approved BEIA and the baseline
years.
N/A
Reporter Contact
Enter contact name, company name,
mailing address, phone number and email
address.
N/A
GHG Assertion
Enter the actual emissions, production,
emissions intensity and the reduction target
being verified.
N/A
Verifier
Verifier name, verifier’s company name,
address, phone number email etc.
N/A
Verification Team Members
Include verification team members, roles,
training, training dates and qualifications.
N/A
Designated Signing Authority
Enter the designated signing authority for
this verification.
N/A
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 9 of 45
2.0 Introduction
Provide an introduction to the facility or project, the verification, and the background.
For Offset Project: summary of offset project baseline, changes to the baseline since project
start date and summary of changes at the project since the offset project start date or baseline
period.
For Facilities: Description of compliance or baseline report, facility/project boundary, facility
identification information, GHG historical performance, summary of changes since the baseline
or since the last compliance report.
RWDI Air Inc. (RWDI) was engaged by Bluesource Methane ULC (Bluesource) to conduct an
independent third-party verification of the greenhouse gas (GHG) assertion for the Bluesource
Methane Reduction Program – Pool Charlie. The verification pertains to the Project emission
reductions for the period from October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 under the Carbon
Competitiveness Incentive Regulation – Alberta Regulation 255/17 for submission to the Alberta
Emissions Offset Registry.
This aggregated project consists of the retrofit of the pneumatic devices from four natural gas
producers with facilities in central and southern Alberta. The greenhouse gas emissions
(specifically methane from natural gas) reduction occurs from the conversion of high-bleed
pneumatic devices to low-bleed pneumatic devices. Bluesource has a signed agreement with
the producers which makes them owners of the devices and offsets that they produce.
Bluesource is responsible for the collection of activity data used in the calculations and data
management for facility specific data. Bluesource is also responsible for the completion of the
calculations and completion of the GHG Assertion, and the Offset Project Report.
Baseline conditions are considered to be the high-bleed pneumatic devices that vent higher
volumes of natural gas under the same operating conditions as the project. The project
conditions are completed once the low-bleed devices have been installed and are operational.
The reductions corresponding to the conversion of pneumatic devices were then calculated and
submitted as the project assertion.
There were no changes in the reporting for this reporting period from October 1, 2018 to March
31, 2019, with respect to when the project started on July 3, 2018.
2.1 Objective
Describe the objective of the verification (should include expressing an opinion).
The objective of this verification was to provide an opinion with a reasonable level of assurance
to the Alberta Climate Change Office (ACCO) as to whether the greenhouse gas emissions
reduction assertion is free from material misstatement, and is presented fairly in accordance
with the program criteria.
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 10 of 45
2.2 Scope
Define the scope in terms of: geographical, organizational, activities and processes, sources,
sinks, categories and greenhouse gases included (considering the completeness of the
inventory), GHG assertion time period.
For offset verifications: include the serial range (i.e. XXXX-XXXX-XXX-XXX-XXX-XXX to XXXX-
XXXX-XXX-XXX-XXX-XXX) if assigned (i.e. in the case of government verification a serial range
will be available, otherwise not applicable).
For Facilities: ensure all specified gases and source categories are evaluated. Include list of
negligible emission sources and justification for Emission Performance Credits (EPCs). Include
listing of end products.
The verification assesses the operations and equipment associated with the project as well as
calculations and supporting information used to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions
reduction assertion for the period from October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019. The detailed scope
is provided in Table 2.
The verification is for Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie (the Project), and
their GHG Assertion for the period from October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019. A total of 984
pneumatic devices were converted from high-bleed to low-bleed pneumatic devices, from four
producers, located at various locations across central and southern Alberta. The pneumatic
device types include pressure controllers, transducers and level controllers. Detailed scope is
provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Detailed Scope
Scope Description
Geographical Scope Bluesource Methane Reduction Program Pool
Charlie comprises of various natural gas
facilities from four producers located across
southern Alberta. The physical and
operational project boundaries include the
pneumatic devices (subprojects) themselves,
as well as the fuel gas supplied to the device.
The pneumatic device may be located on a
single wellsite, battery, satellite, within a
compressor building or dehydration building
etc. The legal land location of each device is
tracked within the Project inventory and the
Aggregated Project Planning sheet.
Organization Scope Direct emissions from regulated sources
within the organization and geographical
boundaries.
Activities and Processes Natural gas processing operations
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 11 of 45
Scope Description
Sources and Sinks, Categories Direct Baseline Emissions:
B7 Vented Gas – Pneumatic control devices in
the oil and gas industry are commonly used
to control pressure flow, levels, and/or
temperature. Natural gas or fuel gas that is
consumed by these devices is vented to the
atmosphere.
B8 Uncaptured Fuel Gas – This source
identification was considered in the
verification assessment, but excluded from
this project.
Direct Project Emissions:
P7 Vented Gas - The low or non-venting
pneumatic devices in the project will reduce
emissions as part of normal operations
compared to high-venting pneumatic devices.
This source will be zero when pneumatic
devices are converted to instrument air or
solar-electric devices. The quantity of gas
vented in the project may have an impact on
the emissions reduction quantification for
controller conversions projects.
P9 Fuel Extraction and Processing - Each of
the fuels used throughout the project will
need to be sourced and processed. This will
allow for the calculation of greenhouse gas
emissions from the various processes
involved in the production, refinement, and
storage of the fuels. The total volumes of fuel
for each of the sources / sinks in this project
are considered in this source / sink. Types
and quantities of fuels used would need to be
tracked.
P6, P8, and P17 (Air Compression, Process
Control Electricity, and Vent Gas Capture,
respectively) were also considered in the
verification assessment, but excluded from
this project.
Emissions Scope CO2, CH4, N2O included in assertion;
however, we also consider any potential
emissions of SF6, HFCs, and PFCs during our
assessment of completeness.
GHG Assertion Time Period October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 12 of 45
Scope Description
Serial range Not available
2.3 Level of Assurance
The verification was conducted to a reasonable level of assurance.
Choose type of verification from the dropdown box above.
Provide explanation on level of assurance.
Achieving the overall objective of this verification involved executing verification procedures
designed to generate evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our
opinion with a reasonable level of assurance. Reasonable-level assurance is required by ACCO
for the purposes of the Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation CCIR. It is a positive, but
not absolute form of assurance that the responsible party’s greenhouse gas assertion is
materially correct.
2.4 Criteria
Outline the program criteria used and relevant supporting documentation (acts, regulations,
protocols, standards, guidance documents, project documentation etc.).
Generating sufficient and appropriate evidence to support the verifying opinion involves
executing verification procedures that assess the assertion against the following criteria:
• Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, Statues of Alberta, 2003;
• Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (CCIR) – Alberta Regulation 255/2017;
• Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers, Version 2.0, July 2018
• Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Carbon Competitiveness Incentive
Regulation, Version 3.0, December 2018;
• Quantification Protocol for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers - Version
2.0, January, 2017;
• Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook, Volume 1.0, AEP – March, 2015; and
• ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases - Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level
for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or
removal enhancement, ISO, April 2006 (ISO 14064-2)*.
*Should any discrepancies exist between ISO and regulatory criteria, the regulatory criteria
shall take precedence.
2.5 Materiality
Define the materiality of the verification.
In accordance with Part 1 Section 5 (e) of the Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit,
Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (version 3.0) – December 2018, the threshold
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 13 of 45
used to determine the materiality of combined misstatements on the overall assertion was 5%
of total reported emission offsets generated for emission offset project report.
3.0 Methodology
Statement that the verification is performed according to ISO 14064-3.
Summary of the assessments/tests/reviews/evaluations that were conducted during the
verification.
The verification will be conducted in accordance with:
• ACCO Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Version 3.0;
• ISO 14064-3:2006 Greenhouse Gases Part 3: Specification with guidance for the
validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions*; and,
• ISO 14065:2013 Greenhouse Gases: Requirements for greenhouse gas validation and
verification bodies for use in accreditation of other forms of recognition*.
*Should any discrepancies exist between ISO and regulatory criteria, the regulatory criteria
shall take precedence.
Verification Plan
The final verification plan has been attached in Appendix A. In developing the plan, a
verification strategy was established, a detailed risk assessment was carried out, and a
sampling plan with accompanying verification procedures was developed. Some of the essential
elements of the plan are presented in this section.
Verification Strategy
The verification strategy shapes the overall approach of the verification by specifying the type
of verification procedures to be used. It affects the verification and sampling plan by defining
the level of testing that will be substantive versus the level that will be controls-based.
Development of the verification strategy is informed by the output of the risk assessment
process, which includes an assessment of the effectiveness of the responsible party’s data
management systems and internal controls.
For this verification, the strategy was to use almost entirely substantive testing in order to
avoid relying on the design and operating effectiveness of internal controls; however, controls-
based testing was used to assess:
The accuracy and completeness of primary data, where original records were not available or
not amenable to substantive testing, by inquiring about QA/QC procedures around the data
3.1 Procedures
Description of how the verification was conducted including: description of the nature, scale and
complexity of the verification activity, confidence and completeness of the responsible party’s
GHG information and assertion, assessment of GHG information system and its controls,
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 14 of 45
assessment of GHG data and information, assessment of GHG information system and controls,
assessment against criteria, evaluation of the GHG assertion.
Describe steps of the verification including planning, assessment, site visit, off-site verification,
and report preparation.
Describe how the risk based approach was implemented in the sampling plan. Identify
categories of risk including inherent risk, and detection risk (organization and verifier). Include
the Verification Plan with the Sampling Plan in Appendix A. Paste the risk assessment table in
this section.
Verification procedures are described in detail in the Verification Plan with the Sampling Plan in
Appendix A. This section describes how the verification strategy and verification plan were
executed through two main components:
A site visit; and,
Desktop review
These activities involved carrying out substantive and controls-based tests (i.e., verification
procedures) as shown in Table 5A of the Verification Plan of Appendix A.
Site Visit
In accordance with Section 4.1 of ACCO’s Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit,
Version 3.0, site visits are a mandatory component of verifications.
The site visit was relied upon within the verification strategy to gain understanding of the
facilities operations, processes and equipment as well as the data management systems used to
track the data used for the purposes of GHG reporting. One of the most important aspects of
the site visit was to test the completeness of the GHG emissions inventory through inspection of
emissions sources on-site.
The site visit consisted of visiting a select number of devices from each producer. The number
of devices visited during the site visit was determined by performing a statistical analysis that
would yield 95% confidence level that not more than 5% of checks would fail. Therefore, 54
devices (subprojects) across the four producers were chosen. Other factors for selections
included: not selecting subprojects that were already visited by a previous verifier, the
geographical location of the sites to avoid excessive driving distances, and a proportional
quantity of subproject visits per producer. The site visit was conducted by Thana Boonlert of
RWDI on May 14, 15 and 17, 2019, at several different locations across central and southern
Alberta. RWDI coordinated the site visit directly with Bluesource staff. RWDI and Bluesource
staff met with Field Operators on-site who facilitated facility tours and escorted the staff to
required locations. The detailed site visit notes are provided in Appendix F. Details regarding
specific site visit checks and comparisons to Bluesource records are available upon request.
It should be noted that since the site visit resulted in one failure (issue 18/19-01 which was
later resolved), the total number of subproject checks was adjusted in order to meet the 95%
confidence level. An additional 32 subprojects were verified using installation records
comparison with primary data exports.
Desktop Review
As shown in Table 2 below, verification procedures executed during the desktop review were
split into three categories: Emissions Estimates, Primary Data and Records, and Data and
Information Management & Controls.
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 15 of 45
Table 2: Verification Procedures
Category Verification Procedures
Emissions Estimates & Primary Data and
Records
Assess completeness of the GHG inventory in
terms of sources and sinks and
appropriateness of inventory boundaries;
Estimate or judge emissions for sources
deemed to be negligible;
Check that the methodologies used to
estimate emissions are consistent with AEP
technical guidance;
Check that the methodologies used to
estimate emissions are appropriate;
Check that emissions calculations were
performed correctly;
Check the availability and reliability of
primary data and records;
Test the assertion through inquiry,
observation, inspection,
Re-performance, analytical procedures, re-
calculation, tracing, and vouching; and,
Test data for extreme high/low values,
spurious values, values recorded during
periods of sensor malfunction or downtime,
and systematic abnormalities.
Data and Information Management &
Controls
Review the data management system to
assess whether it is reliable and transparent;
Review the flow of data and information to
assess whether it is validated, version
controlled and backed-up;
Assess whether monitoring instrumentation
used to generate primary data is maintained
and calibrated to an appropriate standard;
Evaluate the appropriateness of the
standards and procedures implemented and
their ability to ensure the accuracy of the
information provided;
Review relevant quality assurance records;
and,
Assess retention of relevant data and
information and availability of historical data.
Risk Assessment
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 16 of 45
In the context of greenhouse gas assurance, risk assessments involve assessing the risk that
the emissions report presented to the intended user (i.e., the assertion) contains material
misstatements and/or has not been prepared in accordance with program criteria. RWDI uses a
two-tiered risk assessment process: assertion-level risk assessment and source-level risk
assessment.
The results of our assertion-level risk assessment are presented below. Further details
including the rationale for the assigned risk levels are provided in Table 2A of the Verification
Plan that has been attached in Appendix A.
Risk Category Risk Level
Verification Risk Low
Inherent Risk Medium
Control Risk Medium
Allowable Detection Risk Low
Source Level Risk Assessment
The second tier of RWDI’s risk assessment process is a source-level risk assessment. This step
involves assigning a level of risk to each emissions source that has been included in the
inventory in order to inform the design of an effective sampling plan and prioritize verification
efforts. Assignment of risk levels is based on the following risk calculation:
Risk = probability of misstatement x impact of misstatement
For the purpose of the risk assessment, risk is a calculated value ranging from 1 to 15,
probability is a value from 1 to 3 assigned based on the inherent and control risks affecting the
source, and impact is a value from 1 to 5 assigned based on the source’s contribution to total
emissions.
The inherent and control risks affecting each source are determined based on a review of
source contributions as well as the data management systems and controls related to each
source. The results of the source-level risk assessment are presented in Table 4A of Appendix
A. Further details, including rationales for the assigned risk levels, are provided in Tables 3A
and 4A of the Verification Plan that has been attached in Appendix A.
Sampling Plan
Based on the risk assessment, the verification team designed an initial sampling plan that
targeted areas of elevated risk. The initial sampling plan was modified as needed throughout
the verification process when issues were identified or new information was obtained. The
resulting final sampling plan, including details of the verification procedures carried out, is
presented in Table 5A of the Verification Plan that has been attached in Appendix A.
Reporting
The verification report for the project for the period October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019 was
performed using Verification Report Template provided by CCIR (December, 2017).
3.2 Team
List verification team members including peer reviewer(s).
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 17 of 45
Describe the qualifications and training of the team members and peer reviewer(s) including
dates of training and certifications.
For Offsets: fill in the sample Statement of Qualification provided and included in Appendix B.
For Facilities: include the Statement of Qualifications from the facility compliance form in
Appendix B.
Verifier and Designated Signing Authority: Annik White, M.A.Sc P.Eng.
Completed Greenhouse Gas Verification Using ISO 14064-3 Training, October 3-4, 2018
Certificate No. 50064648-50071743
P.Eng. Member No: 100041245
Lead Verifier – Alena Saprykina, M.Sc., RWDI AIR Inc.
Completed Greenhouse Gas Verification Using ISO 14064 Training, January 21-23, 2014
Certificate No. 0000448155
Verifier – Thana Boonlert-Mounarath, EIT, RWDI AIR Inc.
Completed Greenhouse Gas Verification Using ISO 14064 Training, October 3-4, 2018
Certificate No. 50064648-50071743
Peer Reviewer – Russ Lewis, M.Eng., P.Eng., RWDI AIR Inc.
Completed Greenhouse Gas Verification Using ISO 14064 Training, October 3-4, 2018
Certificate No. 50064648-50071743
P.Eng. Member No: 37067
Project Manager – Candace Bell, M.Sc., RWDI AIR Inc.
Statement of qualification is included in Appendix B
3.3 Schedule
Provide a list or table of verification activities and dates. Indicate when the verification was
completed.
Kickoff meeting with Bluesource – April 18, 2019
Initial Verification Plan sent to Bluesource – May 6, 2019
Conduct Site Visits – May 14, 15, and 17, 2019
Verification – May 20 – June 6, 2019
Peer Review – June 6, 2019
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 18 of 45
Draft Report and Verification Statement – June 7, 2019
Final Report and Verification Statement – June 14, 2019
4.0 Results
Add introduction to results section here, if desired.
Our assessment of the GHG information management system and the results of our
independent recalculation of emissions are presented below. These sections are followed by a
summary of the non-compliances and opportunities for improvement, as well as any other
relevant limitations or uncertainties that were identified during the verification and remain
unaddressed. A complete list of errors, omissions, misstatements or non-compliances identified
during the verification is provided in the Issues Log in Appendix C.
4.1 Assessment of Internal Data Management and Controls
Provide a summary the information system(s) and its controls for sources of potential errors.
Include information on the selection and management of data, process for collecting and
consolidating data, data accuracy systems, design and maintenance of the GHG system, the
systems and processes that support the GHG information system and results from previous
assessments if applicable.
Bluesource Canada is the project proponent that provides GHG consulting services and creates
the emission calculation spreadsheet and Offset Project Report. The producers are ultimately
responsible for collection, storage and the data management of the primary data used for the
GHG calculations. The producers are responsible for tracking operations, activity data and
measured data (e.g., run-time hours and gas compositions). The producers provide this
information and other primary data to Bluesource for processing and use in GHG offset credit
calculations. The preparation of the GHG report by Bluesource results in less involvement by
producers’ personnel in terms of defining the GHG inventory boundaries and verifying
completeness and accuracy/relevance of primary data. There are certain risks associated with
this team structure. With four different producers within the Charlie Pool project, and an
additional team of contractors, there is some additional risk due to different staff and their
responsibility of providing Bluesource with the primary data. However, Bluesource has in place
detailed and formalized QA/QC measures to ensure that data is being managed appropriately.
Thus, the risk is managed with the experience and consistency from the Bluesource personnel.
Project data is stored and managed in the cloud-based database called Lukla. Data is uploaded
and managed in this database by the project management contractors that are hired by
Bluesource. The contractors employed by Bluesource are responsible for device replacements
and installation record uploads. These records include photos of decommissioned devices,
photos of the new installed devices, and the field installation form. The following information is
tracked for each installation:
- Surface Legal Subdivision LSD
- Installation date
- Baseline high-bleed manufacturer and model number
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 19 of 45
- Project low-bleed manufacturer, model number, and serial number
- Existing supply pressure (psig)
- Supply pressure following installation (psig)
- Output pressure range (psig)
- Device Characteristics
The installation template requires several field visits to be completed by the device installer
including uploading the pictures of old and new devices. In addition, the installer is then
required to upload an electronic form in Lukla. If pictures are not uploaded or an installation
record is not filled properly the installation is marked as in-complete by Bluesource until
corrected by the installer. Furthermore, access to records is restricted depending on the user
and this is ensured by providing “read and write” or “read-only” access to certain individuals.
Any changes to installed devices are additionally tracked through Control Change Records. After
installs have begun, a Control Record of Change is sent to the main contact at the producer
company. The record is to be filled out and send back to Bluesource any time a pneumatic
device is removed, the fuel gas is altered, or maintenance is required. This record serves as a
control against the removed controllers.
Bluesource performs a weekly formalized internal QA/QC procedure for each device to sample
the accuracy and consistency of manually entered data into Lukla and the installation record.
Bluesource’s contractors also have their own QA/QC process for data that is submitted, and the
project management team meets weekly with Bluesource staff.
Project offset calculations are completed via spreadsheets developed by Bluesource.
Information from the installation records are compiled by the Lukla data management program
and are available for excel export for further analysis and use within Bluesource calculation
spreadsheets (calculator). The calculator undergoes detailed senior review within Bluesource
prior to finalization and issuance to the verifier.
Overall, the GHG data management system is organized and mostly complete. There was some
inconsistency in content that was found to be uploaded by installers into the data management
system, where not all records contained pictures of old devices. Nonetheless, Bluesource
demonstrated that the GHG data management system is frequently accessed by their team and
that QA/QC checks are performed regularly. Thus, the GHG data management system appears
to be robust with the experience and consistency from the Bluesource personnel and the
contractors installing the devices.
4.2 Assessment of GHG Data and Information
Provide a summary of the information found during the verification of the GHG data and a
summary of the GHG Assertion that was assessed.
For Facilities: Confirm that the quantification methodologies that were used in the compliance
report are the same as those reported in the BEIA.
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 20 of 45
For Offset Projects: Confirm that the quantification methodologies that were used by the project
proponent are the same as those described in the project plan. Indicate which quantification
methodologies were used by the project proponent.
One of the verification procedures carried out by the verification team was a recalculation of
emissions for all emission sources. These recalculations were based on the quantification
methodologies specified in the offset project plan and offset project report, and primary data
obtained from Bluesource. This procedure did not directly test the appropriateness of the
methodologies used by Bluesource or the quality (e.g., accuracy, completeness) of the primary
data. This procedure was a test of the mechanics of the calculations completed by Bluesource
(i.e., assuming that methodologies and input data are appropriate, have the calculations been
completed correctly). The appropriateness of the calculation methodologies and the quality of
the primary data were tested through other procedures as summarized in Table 2.
Emissions were recalculated for the following sources:
- Project Vented Gas (P7) (CO2 and CH4): from low-bleed devices
- Project Fuel Extraction/Processing (P9) (CO2, CH4, and N2O): from natural gas extraction and
processing
- Baseline Vented Gas (B7) (CO2 and CH4)
After completing the recalculations, the verification team compared the recalculated results to
those reported by Bluesource in their final submitted OPR and GHG quantification calculator.
For each source, differences between the recalculated emissions and those calculated by
Bluesource have been indicated in Table 3. The recalculated values were compared to the
reported data in the final submitted OPR. There were no material differences found. The GHG
calculations performed by Bluesource appear to be correct based on the recalculations. The
detailed recalculations are available upon request.
Table 3: Recalculations of Emissions Reduction
Producer Recalculated 2018 CO2e emissions
reductions
Tonnes
Reported 2018 CO2e emissions reduction Tonnes
Difference
Tonnes for 2018
Recalculated 2019 CO2e emissions
reductions
Tonnes
Reported 2019 CO2e emissions
reductions
Tonnes
Difference
Tonnes for 2019
Producer 1 3528 3541 13 3451 3463 13
Producer 2 5746 5767 21 5603 5624 21
Producer 3 902 905 3 881 884 3
Producer 4 2084 2093 8 2024 2034 10
Total 12260 12305 45 11958 12005 46
Total % Error 0.4% for 2018 0.4% for 2019
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 21 of 45
4.3 Assessment against Criteria
Provide a description of how eligibility criteria is met or not met.
For Offset Project: Complete Table 1 to indicate if the GHG Assertion conforms to the
Regulation and Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers eligibility
criteria.
For Facilities: Delete Table 1 and Indicate if verification criteria are met or not met and explain.
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 22 of 45
Table 4: Offset Criteria Assessment
Offset Eligibility
Criteria
Assessment
Reduction or
sequestration
occurs in Alberta
The Project is located in Alberta, as described above in Section
1.0 of this report.
Result from actions
not required by
Law at the time the
action is taken
The Project originates from voluntary action, i.e. the Project
activities are not required by law. The Project uses approved
ACCO quantification protocol, which indicates that the activity is
undertaken by less than 40% of the industry and is therefore
not considered to be sector common practice.
Result from Actions
taken on or after
January 1, 2002
and occur on or
after January 1,
2002
The Project began operation on July 3, 2018, i.e. after January
1, 2002.
Reduction or
sequestrations is
real and
demonstrable
The Project is creating real reductions that are not a result of
shutdown, cessation of activity or drop in production levels. The
Project reductions are demonstrable.
Quantifiable and
measureable
This Project and its emission reductions are quantifiable and
verifiable as outlined in this report.
Verified by a third
party verifier that
meets the
requirements in
Part 1 for the
Standard for
Verification.
The Project was verified by a qualified third-party verifier -
RWDI Air Inc.
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 23 of 45
4.4 Evaluation of the GHG Assertion
The verification assessment is that the GHG Assertion meets the requirements of the Carbon
Competitiveness Incentive Regulation
Provide an assessment of the evidence collected during the verification. Determine if the data
and information available support the GHG assertion. Provide a conclusion on whether the
assertion meets the materiality requirements and the level of assurance agreed to at the
beginning of the verification process.
In forming our opinion for the final verification statement, the verification findings presented
below were evaluated in the context of the evidence collected and generated during the
verification process as a whole. To this end, the following factors were taken into
consideration:
The quantification methodologies, data and supporting documentation used for the offset
project are appropriate and reasonably comprehensive and consistent.
Bluesource personnel were knowledgeable of operations and information management systems
and demonstrated competency and care in their work.
The net error of the quantitative issues identified is approximately (details for each error are
provided in Section 4.5 of this report):
Emission Reductions 2018: overstated by 0.4%, absolute error =0.4%.
Emission Reductions 2019: overstated by 0.4%, absolute error =0.4%.
With these considerations in mind, it is our opinion that the opportunities for improvement, and
other limitations or uncertainties presented below do not preclude a positive overall finding for
this reasonable-level assurance engagement. Furthermore, it is our opinion that the evidence
generated during the verification is appropriate and sufficient to support an overall positive
finding with a reasonable level of assurance. The verification opinion and verification statement
are presented in the following section.
4.5 Summary of Findings
Provide a summary of material and immaterial discrepancies expressed in tonnes and as net
and absolute error in Table 2. Include whether the discrepancy was an understatement or an
overstatement.
Include a more detailed description and log of results in Appendix C the “Issues Log”. This log
will include both resolved and unresolved issues from the verification. Unresolved issues should
be brought forward to Table 2.
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 24 of 45
Table 5: Summary of Findings
Number the finding with the year and provide a unique # for each finding.
Note: A detailed description of all material and immaterial findings should be provided in Table 3 of Appendix C.
Provide only a summary statement (1-4 sentences) for each unresolved immaterial finding and each material finding (resolved or
unresolved). If the finding is a resolved material finding, then put the tonnes net and absolute in the summary description column
and indicate n/a in the net and absolute columns. Do not include the tonnes in the total error calculation.
Indicate the type of error (qualitative or quantitative).
Indicate the Source Category (for facilities) or the Source/Sink (for offsets).
Indicate if the finding is an understatement or overstatement.
Provide both net and absolute error in tonnes of CO2 eq and as a % of the assertion.
Provide the total net error and the total absolute error in tonnes of CO2 eq and as a % of the assertion.
Result # Type Summary Description of Finding
Source Category or Source/Sink
Understat
ement/Ov
erstateme
nt
Tonnes
CO2 eq
% net
Tonnes
CO2 eq %
absolute
18/19-03 Qualitative There was some inconsistency in the
content that was uploaded by the
installers into the data management
system for old pneumatic devices. Not all
records contained pictures of the old
devices (e.g. out of 87 records checked,
33 did not have a picture of the old
device). Old devices were verified by
looking at the installation forms (pictures
of the hand-written notes) which
included the model/type of the high-
bleed devices and low-bleed devices and
date of installation for each device
checked.
N/A N/A N/A
18/19-05
Part 2
Quantitative RWDI recalculations resulted in 24,218
tonnes of offset reductions, while the
reported value was 24,310 tonnes for
2018 and 2019 combined. This
corresponds to an overstatement of
offset reductions by 45 tonnes (0.4%)
Over-
statement
for 2018
45 tonnes
(0.4%)
for 2018
45 tonnes
(0.4%) for
2018
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 25 of 45
Result # Type Summary Description of Finding
Source Category or Source/Sink
Understat
ement/Ov
erstateme
nt
Tonnes
CO2 eq
% net
Tonnes
CO2 eq %
absolute
for 2018 and overstatement by 46
tonnes (0.4%) for 2019.
These differences are due to the
following reason:
a) RWDI calculated CO2 and CH4
densities to be 1.858 kg/m3 and 0.677
kg/m3, respectively. These correspond to
60°F and 14.7PSI (i.e. the reference STP
used in manufacturers’ specifications for
pneumatic devices). Bluesource used
slightly different values of 1.871 and
0.680 kg/m3 for CO2 and CH4 from Air
Liquide, respectively. The difference
between the published values and RWDI
calculated values are immaterial.
Over-
statement
for 2019
46 tonnes
(0.4%)
for 2019
46 tonnes
(0.4%) for
2019
Total Error 2018 0.4%
Total Error 2019 0.4%
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 26 of 45
4.6 Opportunity for Improvement
Provide feedback on the data management system and controls, transparency, completeness of
the inventory, additions to the quantification methodology document or diagrams, etc. Include
positive considerations and observations also.
Identify strengths and weaknesses that may help to improve the report/s for the current
facility, sector, and compliance program. Identify ways in which the project/facility could be
more easily verified.
Below is a list of opportunity for improvements that relate to the qualitative findings listed in
Table 2 of Section 4.5:
There was some inconsistency in the content that was uploaded by the installers into the data
management system for old pneumatic devices. Not all records contained pictures of the old
devices (e.g. out of 87 records checked, 33 did not have a picture of the old device). Old
devices were verified by looking at the installation forms (pictures of the hand-written notes)
which included the model/type of the high-bleed devices and low-bleed devices and date of
installation, for each device checked. An opportunity for improvement exists to present the data
correctly.
5.0 Closure
5.1 Verification Statement
Include the signed verification statement in Appendix D.
Instructions to insert a pdf: 1. Click Insert>Object 2. In the Object dialog box click Create from
File and then click Browse. 3. Find the pdf you want to insert then click Insert. 4.Click OK.
For Offset Projects: fill in the sample Verification Statement provided, sign, scan and paste.
For Facilities: paste a signed version of the Verification Statement from the facility compliance
form. Include the conclusion on the GHG assertion and any qualification or limitations and the
level of assurance.
Provide the verification conclusion in the drop down box below.
The verification conclusion is:
Positive
5.2 Limitation of Liability
Include signed Conflict of Interest Checklist in Appendix E.
For Offset Projects: fill in the sample Conflict of Interest Checklist provided, sign, scan and
paste.
For Facilities: paste the signed Conflict of Interest Checklist from the facility compliance form.
Insert limitation of liability statement and include information in an Appendix F if applicable.
The Conflict of Interest Checklist is included in Appendix E.
This report has been prepared by RWDI AIR Inc. under and in accordance with its Validation
and Verification Program. The contents of this report are strictly confidential and are intended
solely to the client. Access to, or distribution of this report by any other party is unauthorized
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 27 of 45
without explicit consent. Any opinions expressed within this report are limited in application to
the Industrial Emissions Management program managed by ACCO through the Climate Change
and Emissions Management Act, and the Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation –
Alberta Regulation 255/2017.
5.3 Confirmations
Document information confirmed, including any discrepancies or inconsistencies, as per the
Confirmations section in the Standard for Greenhouse Gas Verification.
The following was confirmed:
• Bluesource used the CCIR offset project report form.
• Correct entry of administrative fields such as legal location in the offset project report
(OPR).
• The OPR and the offset project plan (OPP) provide quantification methodologies, any
changes from the OPP are documented in the OPR (some methodologies are confidential
but were provided to the verifier).
• Simplified process flow diagrams were provided in the OPR and the OPP.
• Additional request items/forms (e.g. spreadsheets) were complete and reasonable
justification provided where needed.
• Project report information details were provided in the OPP and the OPR.
• Aggregated Project Reporting Spreadsheet was reviewed and compared with Aggregated
Project Planning Spreadsheet. The final APRS (BlueSource Pool Charlie Pneu 5609-
4507_APRS_v6.xlsx) had no discrepancies.
6.0 References
Author. Year. Title. (no hyperlinks)
ACCO. 2018. Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Carbon Competitiveness Incentive
Regulation - Version 3.0
AEP. 2015. Carbon Offset Emissions Factors Handbook, No. 1.
ACCO. 2017a. Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation – Alberta Regulation 255/2017.
ACCO. 2017b. Quantification for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic Devices
- Version 2.0
ACCO. 2017c. Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset project developers – Version 2.0
AER 2018: Directive 60. Release date: December 13, 2018. Effective date: January 1, 2020,
unless otherwise indicated.
ISO 14064-3:2006 Greenhouse Gases Part 3: Specification with guidance for the validation and
verification of greenhouse gas assertions.
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 28 of 45
ISO 14065:2013 Greenhouse Gases: Requirements for greenhouse gas validation and
verification bodies for use in accreditation of other forms of recognition.
ISO 14064: 2006 Greenhouse gases Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for
quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal
enhancement.
Government of Alberta. 2017. Climate Change and Emissions Management Act.
Page 29 of 45
Appendix A: Final Verification Plan and Sampling Plan
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 30 of 45
Information to be included in the Verification Plan and Sampling Plan:
Revisions to the sampling plan
Date originally sent to Facility/project
Level of assurance agreed with the facility/project developer
Verification scope
Verification criteria
Amount and type of evidence (qualitative and quantitative) necessary to achieve the agreed
level of assurance
Methodologies for determining representative samples
Sampling Plan and Procedures
Risk Assessment: Risks of potential errors, omissions or misrepresentations that are identified
throughout the verification process including:
- Details of site visit
-offset/facility boundaries
- Methodologies, emissions factors and conversions used
- Comparability with the approved baseline
- Conformance to the program criteria
- Integrity for the responsible party’s data management system and control (organization chart,
GHGH management plan, personnel/consultant training, protocols used, control system
documentation, software/program documentation/certifications)
- Greenhouse gas data and information, including the type of evidence collected, verification
testing and crosschecking, inventory of emission sources
- Discussion of data management, (measurement, fuel sampling, calibration, consistent use
of standard conditions, data storage, procedures to fill missing data; procedures to repair
inconsistent data, adjustment of variables and factors)
- Other relevant information
Verification Plan, Risk Assessment & Sampling Plan
RWDI VVP Document Code Form Issued Version Version Issued
JOB-FRM-011 2014-06-06 2.0 2019-01-17
Date: May 6, 2019
RWDI Reference #: 1902805
Facility: Bluesource Methane Reduction Program Charlie Pool
Revision: 1
Verification SummaryA summary of information relevant to this verification has been provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Verification Summary
Project Name
Project Location
Project Description
NAICS Code
Reporting Program
Quantification
Protocol(s)
Initial GHG Assertion
Manager, Methane Program
RWDI AIR Inc. (RWDI) was retained by Bluesource Methane ULC (Bluesource) to provide third party Greenhouse Gas (GHG) verification
services for Bluesource Methane Reduction Program (BMRP) Charlie Pool, with facilities at various locations across Alberta. The
verification pertains to the facility’s GHG emissions report in accordance with the Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (CCIR) for
the six month period, October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019. This verification plan serves to document the scope and breadth of
verification activities being performed.
General Information
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program Charlie Pool
Aggregated offset project - facilities are found at various locations throughout southern Alberta. Total number
of subprojects consists of 984 low-bleed pneumatic devices that were converted from the high-bleed pneumatic
devices.
Office address:
Bluesource
1605-840 7 Avenue, SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 3G2
Project locations:
see below, Geographical Boundary section
Primary Contact
Kelsey Locke
403-262-3026 ext. 228
1605-840 7 Avenue, SW
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 3G2
The BMRP Charlie Pool is an aggregated offset project involving the conversion of existing high-bleed
pneumatic devices used in their oil and gas process operations, to an equivalent low-bleed venting device.
n/a
Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (CCIR) - Alberta Regulation 255/2017
Alberta Emission Offset Program - Quantification for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic
Devices, Version 2.0, January 2017.
24,310 tonnes of CO2e
Reporting Period
Organizational
Boundary
Geographical
Boundary
Operational Boundary
Emissions Scope
Protocol Reference
Quantification for
Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reductions
from Pneumatic
Devices
Quantification for
Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reductions
from Pneumatic
Devices
Quantification for
Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reductions
from Pneumatic
Devices
Quantification for
Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reductions
from Pneumatic
Devices
Quantification for
Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reductions
from Pneumatic
Devices
This source identification was considered in the verification
assessment, but excluded from this project.
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program Charlie Pool comprises of various natural gas facilities from four
producers located across southern Alberta.
The physical and operational project boundaries includes the pneumatic device itself, as well as the fuel gas
supplied to the device. The pneumatic device may be located on a single wellsite, battery, satellite, within a
compressor building or dehydration building etc. The legal land location of each device is tracked within the
Project inventory and the Aggregated Project Planning sheet.
All subprojects are located within Alberta’s provincial boundary.
Direct emissions from regulated sources within the organization and geographical boundaries.
CO2, CH4, N2O included in assertion; however, we also consider any potential emissions of SF6, HFCs, and PFCs
during our assessment for completeness.
Source of Greenhouse Gas Description
B7 - Vented Gas
Pneumatic control devices in the oil and gas industry are
commonly used to control pressure flow, levels, and/or
temperature. Natural gas or fuel gas that is consumed by
these devices is vented to the atmosphere.
P7 - Vented Gas
The low or non-venting pneumatic devices in the project
will reduce emissions as part of normal operations
compared to high-venting pneumatic devices. This source
will be zero when pneumatic devices are converted to
instrument air or solar-electric devices. The quantity of gas
vented in the project may have an impact on the emissions
reduction quantification for controller conversions
projects.
P9 - Fuel Extraction and Processing
Each of the fuels used throughout the project will need to
be sourced and processed. This will allow for the
calculation of greenhouse gas emissions from the various
processes involved in the production, refinement, and
storage of the fuels. The total volumes of fuel for each of
the sources / sinks in this project are considered in this
source / sink. Types and quantities of fuels used would
need to be tracked.
P6 - Air CompressionThis source identification was considered in the verification
assessment, but excluded from this project.
P8 - Process Control Electricity
Emissions Sources
Inventory Scope
October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 (6-month period)
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program Charlie Pool
Quantification for
Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reductions
from Pneumatic
Devices
Quantification for
Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reductions
from Pneumatic
Devices
Verification Objective
Level of Assurance
Verification Scope
Materiality Threshold
Achieving the overall objective of this verification involves executing verification procedures designed to
generate evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion with a reasonable level
of assurance.
B8 - Uncaptured Fuel GasThis source identification was considered in the verification
assessment, but excluded from this project.
P17 - Vent Gas CaptureThis source identification was considered in the verification
assessment, but excluded from this project.
· ISO 14065:2013 Greenhouse Gases: Requirements for greenhouse gas validation and verification bodies
for use in accreditation of other forms of recognition*.
* Should any discrepancies exist between ISO and regulatory criteria, the regulatory criteria shall take
precedence.
In accordance with ACCO criteria, the threshold used to determine the materiality of combined misstatements
on the overall assertion of 5% of total emissions reductions.
· Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation
(version 2.0) – June 2018
The verification assesses the operations and equipment within the inventory boundary as well as calculations
and supporting information used to quantify the greenhouse gas emissions presented in the Emissions
Reduction Report for the period October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019.
Verification Standards
The verification will be conducted in accordance with:
Program Criteria
Generating sufficient and appropriate evidence to support our opinion will involve executing verification
procedures that assess the assertion against the following criteria:
· Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers, Version 2.0, July 2018;
· ISO 14064 Greenhouse gases – Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification,
monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancement, ISO, April 2006 (ISO
14064-2)*.
*Should any discrepancies exist between ISO and regulatory criteria, the regulatory criteria shall take
precedence.
· Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Program (CCIR) - Alberta Regulation 255/2017;
· Alberta Emission Offset Program - Quantification Protocol for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from
Pneumatic Devices, Version 2.0, January 2017;
· Specified Gas Emitters Regulation - Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook, Version 1.0, March 2015;
· Climate Change and Emissions Management Act.
· Technical Guidance for Greenhouse Gas Verification at Reasonable Level Assurance – Version 2.0;
· ISO 14064-3:2006 Greenhouse Gases Part 3: Specification with guidance for the validation and
verification of greenhouse gas assertions*; and,
Provide an opinion with a reasonable level of assurance to the Alberta Climate Change Office (ACCO) as to
whether the October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 (6-month period) Methane Emissions Reduction Report for the
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program Charlie Pool is free from material misstatement, and is presented
fairly in accordance with the program criteria.
Verification Fundamentals
Verification TeamThe team for this assurance engagement includes:
Project Manager: Candace Bell, M.Sc., RWDI AIR Inc.
Lead Verifier: Alena Saprykina, M.Sc., RWDI AIR Inc.
Signing Authority: Annik White, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., RWDI AIR Inc.
Verifier: Thana Boonlert, B.Eng, EIT, RWDI AIR Inc.
Peer reviewer: Russ Lewis, M.Eng., P.Eng., RWDI AIR Inc.
Verification ScheduleTo date, RWDI has performed the following verification activities:
· Internal impartiality assessment.
· Initial review of emissions report and supporting documents provided to date.
· Kickoff meeting.
· Risk assessment based on the review of information systems and controls
· Sampling plan to verify sources, systems or facilities deemed to have elevated risk of material misstatement
(included herein).
The following schedule is proposed for the remaining verification milestones:
· Conduct site visit
· Draft issues log by
· Draft report submitted by
· Final report and verification statement by
May 9, 2019; May 13 - May 14 (tentative) May 30, 2019
June 7, 2019
June 14, 2019
Risk Assessment
Assertion-level Risk Assessment
Verification Risk = Inherent Risk x Control Risk x Detection Risk
A summary of the assertion-level risk assessment, including details of inherent and control risks is provided in Table 2.
In the context of greenhouse gas assurance, risk assessments involve assessing the risk that the emissions report presented to the
intended user (i.e., the assertion) contains material misstatements and/or has not been prepared in accordance with program criteria.
RWDI uses a two-tiered risk assessment process: assertion-level risk assessment and source-level risk assessment.
The first tier of RWDI’s risk assessment process is an assertion-level risk assessment, which establishes the overall level of risk that RWDI
is willing to accept on this engagement. This overall level of risk is called the Verification Risk and is related to Inherent Risk, Control
Risk, and Detection Risk according to the following:
The levels of Inherent and Control Risk established after our preliminary review of the responsible party’s GHG information
management system and controls inform the level of Detection Risk that we must strive to obtain through our verification strategy and
sampling plan in order to obtain the selected level of Verification Risk.
Table 2: Summary of Assertion-level Risk Assessment
Risk Category Risk Level
Verification Risk Low
Detection Risk Low
Control Risk Medium
• The GHG information management system is mostly complete with most
supporting records readily available. The GHG information management system has
been used in the past year/reporting period with minimal changes. (medium)
• The organization's corporate structure is not common. Bluesource doesn't own
the facilities, but owns the low-bleed pneumatic devices and emissions reductions
credits to a certain extent. (medium)
Data trails between the assertion and the primary data may be long, but they are well-
documented and traceable. Some QA/QC procedures were described and actual
supporting records were provided. (medium)
Based on the above inherent and control risks, detection risk should be set at Low in
order to achieve the target verification risk of low.
Inherent Risk Medium
• There is a low variety of source types that are commonly encountered in this
project that mainly comprises of pneumatic controller devices. GHG inventory
reductions include venting from High to Low or No Bleed Controller Conversions
(Pressure Controllers, Pressure Transducers, Liquid Level Controllers). (low)
• Reporter uses default methodologies and/or emission factors consistent with
program-specific guidance accepted by ACCO: "Quantification Protocol for
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic Devices" and the "Carbon
Offset Emission Factors Handbook". Methodologies are common within the sector.
However, the methodologies require significant level of data pre-processing, the
data trail appear to be transparent and traceable. There is some manual entry within
the GHG calculator spreadsheet. (medium)
• The inventory boundary includes 984 subprojects distributed within 4 producers.
Operations have a small level of integration with other facilities. There is a large
volume of pneumatic device conversions (emissions reductions) located at several
different locations throughout the subprojects across southern Alberta. (high)
• Operations are almost never subject to unplanned shutdowns. The temporal
scope is standard for the program/regulation. (low)
• Responsible staff have experience in greenhouse gas reporting. Bluesource
analysts are familiar with the operations and equipment at the project's sites and are
responsible for gathering primary data and calculating the project's emissions
reductions. (medium)
This is the level of risk that RWDI is willing to accept for this particular engagement.
• Inventory team roles and responsibilities are mostly defined. There are a few
individuals involved in collecting, processing, and checking data and/or calculations.
Ownership of and accountability for the inventorying process rests with a small
group of key individuals. Bluesource is responsible for the preparation and
submission of the emissions report, and calculations of the GHG emissions
reduction. A number of field technicians are responsible for recording and uploading
data collection on-site. There is evidence suggesting that new staff have received
training on the process and have access to experienced resources. (medium)
• Staff integral to GHG data gathering and reporting have not been working with
Bluesource for an extended period of time. The lead quantifier has been at
Bluesource for two years. (medium)
Discussion
Source-level Risk Assessment
risk = probability of misstatement x impact of misstatement
Tolerable Error
Tolerable error is the misstatement allowed in a particular category (for each baseline and project source) that would be acceptable to
the verifier without needing additional assessment. The conservative value of 0.1% was selected for the overall tolerance percent for all
baseline and project sources. The detailed materiality planning is provided in Table 6.
Risk is a calculated value ranging from 1 to 15, probability is a value from 1 to 3 assigned based on the inherent and control risks
affecting the source, and impact is a value from 1 to 5 assigned based on the source’s contribution to total emissions.
The inherent and control risks affecting each source are determined based on a review of the data management systems and controls
related to each source. A summary of this review is provided in Table 3. The risk calculation for each source is documented in Table 4.
Detailed Sampling Plan is provided in Table 5.
The second tier of RWDI’s risk assessment process is a source-level risk assessment. This step involves assigning a level of risk to each
emissions source that has been included in the inventory in order to inform the design of an effective sampling plan and prioritize
verification efforts. Assignment of risk levels is based on the following risk calculation:
Table 3: Qualitative Notes for Data Management Systems and Controls
Emissions Source ParametersData Acquisition Equipment, Sampling Frequency, Analytical
MethodData Processing and Tracking Emissions Calculations Management Policies and Practices
Operating hours of pneumatic devices Operating hours are tracked per site (surface location) and are
taken from Petrinex (production hours) or entered from SCADA or
entered manually by the operator (site equipment runtime).
Operating hours are summarized monthly in the "Bluesource
Methane Reduction Program - Data Request" sheets for each
producer.
Site equipment runtime, pressurized or energized hours is the
most accurate representation of pneumatic hours because the
devices will vent as long as they are energized and connected to a
natural gas supply, regardless of production hours.
If pressurized hours are not available, production hours may be
supplied per surface LSD. If there are multiple downhole wells
associated with the surface location, UWI & hours for all wells are
listed.
Where multiple meters exist per LSD, or multiple sources of
information are available (e.g. Petrinex and SCADA) the source
displaying the great number of hours is used.
The metered operating hours are collected in SCADA and Petrinex
by producers and are provided to Bluesource. Bluesource analysts
manages and organizes the hours in a spreadsheet (for example
"Scada Hours Master", "Petrinex Summary Hours master", and
"Producer 41 Hours October").
Where SCADA or Petrinex hours are not available, specific
equipment run hours are manually entered.
The operating hours from these spreadsheets are then copied into
the producer's main calculator (for example "BMRP_Charlie
RP2_Producer 4_v2_20190426"). The pneumatic devices are
assigned operating hours depending on their site location and
associated equipment.
Vent Rate of high bleed baseline devices Vent rates of high bleed pneumatic devices are gathered as per
manufacturer specifications and Table C2 of "Quantification
Protocol for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic
Devices". High-bleed device records, including make and model,
are entered and stored in the online cloud-based data
management system called Lukla. Each record has a unique
specific ID assigned to a new low bleed device.
Vent rates of high bleed pneumatic devices are compiled in tables
found in the main calculations spreadsheets under the tab
"REF_Vent Rates". Device inventory are tracked by field technicians
and Bluesource analysts using the cloud-based data management
system, Lukla.
CO2 and CH4 composition Annual monitoring and measurement of gas compositions are
based on third party laboratory (Maxxam) analyses of gas samples
where applicable. Where gas analysis is not available, default gas
compositions are used, as approved by AEP in the letter titled
"Request to Deviate from the Quantification Protocol for
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction from Pneumatic Devices".
Gas compositions are manually entered from the laboratory
analysis sheets and into summary spreadsheets. The frequency of
analyses will be confirmed.
Density of CO2 and CH4 The density of CO2 (1.8714 kg/m3) and CH4 (0.6797 kg/m3) is sited
from the Air Liquid Gas Encyclopedia at standard temperature and
pressure (STP), 1.013 bar and 15 oC.
n/a
B7 - Vented Gas
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Emissions calculations include CO2 and CH4; total CO2e .
The baseline vented gas volumes are calculated by multiplying
the operating hours with the specific (high bleed) device vent
rate.
CO2 and CH4 amounts are calculated by multiplying the gas
vented gas volume by gas content, and gas density.
The CO2e is calculated by multiplying the gas volumes with their
corresponding GWPs and summing the gases.
These emissions were determined using the calculation
equations as found in the "Quantification Protocol for
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic Devices",
section 4.1, Table 6.
Bluesource has a thorough and well documented QA/QC
procedures document to ensure the integrity of the data. This
document is called "BMRP Data QAQC Procedure 2018-10-01".
Several measures are put in place to ensure consistent and
accurate primary data is recorded into their cloud-based data
management system Lukla.
New and old devices are tracked using unique ID and following
written procedure (BS Install Template _ with Instructions.pdf) -
this work is performed by the filed coordinators.
Installation data is checked monthly against the installation record
upon receipt of work ticket from the
field contractor following Installation Record Quality Procedure by
Lukla (160055-QMS-(D)QA-001(0~C0)_DRAKKEN QAQC policy.pdf)
All records (including photos of old and new devices) are saved in
Lukla.
Bluesoure checks each record in Lukla.
Calculations are performed by a qualified emission analysts and
independent peer review is completed by a senior consultant to
screen for any errors. During the QA/QC process, input data and
calculation results are reviewed to ensure that any outliers are
investigated and justified.
Emissions Source ParametersData Acquisition Equipment, Sampling Frequency, Analytical
MethodData Processing and Tracking Emissions Calculations Management Policies and Practices
Operating hours of pneumatic devices Same as B7 but in relation to low-bleed devices. Same as B7 but in relation to low-bleed devices.
Vent Rate of low bleed project devices Same as B7 but in relation to low-bleed devices. Same as B7 but in relation to low-bleed devices.
CO2 and CH4 composition Same as B7 Same as B7
Density of CO2 and CH4 Same as B7 n/a
Volume of fuel in the project (equivalent to
volume of vented gas in the project)
These volumes are equivalent to the low-bleed vented project
volumes calculated in the above section P7.
These volumes are calculated in the producers' main calculation
spreadsheets as described in details in the above section.
CO2, CH4, N2O emission factors Emission factors for fuel extraction and processing are listed in
Table 4 of the SGER Carbon Offset Emission Factors Handbook.
n/a
Notes:
[1] Actual producer name was replaced with the name Producer 2 (for confidentiality)
Fuel Extraction and Processing
Emissions for Vent Gas from
Pressure Controllers, Transducers
and Level Controllers
Emissions from fuel extraction and processing are calculated by
multiplying the volume of fuel in the project (equivalent to
volume of vented gas from the low-bleed devices) by the
emission factor for fuel extraction and processing, and the
corresponding GWPs.
These emissions were determined using the calculation
equations as found in the "Quantification Protocol for
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic Devices",
section 4.1, Table 6.
Same as B7 - Vented Gas category above.
P7- Vented Gas
P9 - Fuel Extraction and Processing
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Emissions calculations include CO2 and CH4; total CO2e
Emissions reductions are calculated by finding the baseline
vented gas subtracted by the project vented gas.
The project vented gas amounts are calculated in the same
manner as the baseline vented gas, however, using the new (low
bleed) device's vent rate.
These emissions were determined using the calculation
equations as found in the "Quantification Protocol for
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic Devices",
section 4.1, Table 6.
Same as B7
Table 4: Risk Calculations
Rank Emissions SourceFuel/Input
Type
Fuel/Input
Amount [1]
Methane and CO2
Content [1]
Total Emissions [1]
(tonnes CO2e)
% of Emissions [2]
Inherent Risks Control Risks Risk Calculation
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Producer 1
Natural gas
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Producer 2
Natural gas
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Producer 3
Natural gas
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Producer 4
Natural gas
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Producer 1
Natural gas
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Producer 2
Natural gas
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Producer 3
Natural gas
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Producer 4
Natural gas
Fuel Extraction and Processing
Emissions for Vent Gas from Pressure
Controllers, Transducers and Level
Controllers Producer 1
Natural gas
Fuel Extraction and Processing
Emissions for Vent Gas from Pressure
Controllers, Transducers and Level
Controllers Producer 2
Natural gas
Fuel Extraction and Processing
Emissions for Vent Gas from Pressure
Controllers, Transducers and Level
Controllers Producer 3
Natural gas
Fuel Extraction and Processing
Emissions for Vent Gas from Pressure
Controllers, Transducers and Level
Controllers Producer 4
Natural gas
Notes:
[1] As obtained from the producers' main calculator spreadsheet.
[2] Excluding carbon dioxide generated from the combustion of biomass.
1 Medium
-Same as B7
Medium
-Same as B7
Probability = Medium x Medium = 2
Impact = 98.55% = 5
Risk = Probability x Impact = 10 out of 15
High Risk.
Probability = Medium x Medium = 2
Impact = 100% = 5
Risk = Probability x Impact = 10 out of 15
High Risk.
P7- Vented Gas
1
98.55%
To be updated once the calculator is received.
To be updated once the calculator is received.
B7 - Vented Gas
Medium
-Emissions source is related to equipment, operations or processes that do not
require specialized technical knowledge to understand. (low)
-Emissions calculations depend on a medium number of data input parameters.
There is some manual entry throughout the GHG calculation spreadsheet.
(medium-high)
-Emissions are calculated using default methodologies and/or emission factors
consistent with program-specific protocols. (medium).
- Emissions calculations require a large level of data pre-processing, but the data
trail is reasonably transparent. (medium to high)
-Data systems are primarily electronic and automated. There is some manual
data entry. Data is centrally organized, easy to search, and routinely monitored
for accuracy. (medium)
-Staff responsible for acquisition/processing of primary data and
delivery/communication of primary data to staff responsible for GHG calculations
have experience in their operational role as well as a moderate understanding of
greenhouse gas reporting. (medium)
Medium
-Emissions calculations rely on data from information management systems
that are well-developed and have been in use in a previous reporting cycle.
The calculations are transparent, but there are some manual entries found
within the GHG calculation spreadsheet. (medium).
- The Bluesource OPP ("Offset Project Plan Form") does describe the
methodologies used to calculate the emissions. The OPP describes the details
in how most of the primary data is collected, measured and processed. A
separate document describes the online cloud-based data management
system and controls. (medium)
-Data trails between the assertion and the primary data are reasonably short
and somewhat traceable. However, there are some manual entry within the
main GHG calculation spreadsheet. (medium)
-Primary data are unlikely to be lost or corrupted due to the implementation
of robust data security measures. (low)
100.00%
P9 - Fuel Extraction and Processing
Medium
Same as B7.
Medium
Same as B7.
Probability = Medium x Medium = 2
Impact = 1.47% = 2
Risk = Probability x Impact = 4 out of 15
Medium Risk.
2 1.47%
Table 5: Sampling Plan & Verification Procedures
Emissions Source or Scope Item Risk ID Verification Procedures
1.1 During the office site visit, ask the Bluesource analysts how all of the high-
bleed pneumatic devices are accounted for and tracked. Ask to see a map
of all of the producers and sites within the Charlie Pool project. Ask to see
the management system (Lukla) and how it works.
1.2 Select the representative sample of sites to visit for all 4 producers. During
the site visit check any available records for old devices ( e.g. from the site
log book, if available). Record old devices make and model and later
compare with the data uploaded in Lukla.
1.3 Compare the summarized spreadsheet list of high-bleed pneumatic
devices with an output report of all high-bleed devices from their data
management system, Lukla.
1.4 Check how hours of operations are tracked (manually recorded hours vs
Scada vs petrinex). If multiple sources of information is available, check
which method is the preferred method. Verify that the appropriate
methods are used.
1.5 Select representative sample of sites and performed detailed checks on
hours of operation (including verifying location and making sure that the
correct number of hours is recorded for the sites).
Verify that these devices used the appropriate site location and operation
hours. Where multiple meters are present at a given LSD, confirm that the
meter containing the greater operating hours were used.
1.6 During the site visits interview the field operators to check how hours are
recorded. Enquire about any known site shutdowns and how these affect
the estimated hours for pneumatic devices.
1.7 Request raw data (Scada records, manually recorded hours or petrinex) for
hours of operations and compare with the data used in calculations.
1.8 Enquire about any QA/QC process involved in checking operating hours.
1.9 Check that the calculated hours account for the "Date Subproject begins
generating offsets" using APRS Spreadsheet.
1.10 Recalculate run-time hours using raw data for the representative sample of
sites and compare with those used by Bluesource.
1.11 Verify that the vent rates used in the calculation spreadsheets for high-
bleed devices references the equipment-specific values found in the
appropriate protocol or manufacturer's spec sheets.
1.12 Select representative sample of data for the detailed check (making sure
that each unique device is included into the analysis). Check uploaded
pictures by the field technicians into Lukla, and compare the pictures with
the reported make and models. Make sure that the correct vent rate is
used for each selected device.
1.13 Perform recalculations for vent rates for the representative sample of the
high-bleed devices.
1.14 Verify that any gas analysis done by 3rd party laboratories were applied to
the appropriate sites and devices.
1.15 Where gas analysis is not available, verify that the default gas compositions
used, are in accordance to the approved ACCO values found in the letter
titled "Request to Deviate from the Quantification Protocol for Greenhouse
Gas Emission Reduction from Pneumatic Devices".
Are the CO2 and CH4 densities referenced correctly? 1.16 Verify that the density values used are referenced from an appropriate
source and applied correctly using the right STP conditions.
1.17 Cross-check calculation methodology for the baseline emissions against
the description contained in the OPP/OPR – are important assumptions
and uncertainties disclosed? Check if the OPP/OPR methodology uses
appropriate calculations and check calculation methodology with CCIR
Quantification documents.
1.18 Recalculate the final GHG baseline emissions. Review the emissions
reported in the main calculation spreadsheet and verify the emissions are
correctly reported. Verify that emissions are within tolerable error.
2.1 During the office site visit, ask the Bluesource analysts how all of the low-
bleed pneumatic devices are accounted for and tracked. Ask to see a map
of all of the producers and sites within the Charlie Pool project. Ask to see
the management system and how it works.
2.2 Physically locate a sufficient number of relevant low-bleed pneumatic
devices at each producer and take photos where acceptable (if not possible
record take note of device identifications, device type and characteristics,
and locations). Compare the obtained data with the records in Lukla.
Verify and note any other emission sources that may not have been
captured as part of the emissions inventory.
B7 - Vented Gas
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Are the vent rates of the various high-bleed devices
referenced and used correctly?
Are the baseline emissions calculations performed
correctly?
Has the total number of high-bleed pneumatic
devices (pressure controllers, transducers, and level
controllers) been accounted for?
Have all the operating hours for high-bleed devices
been estimated correctly?
Are the CO2 and CH4 gas compositions used
correctly?
P7- Vented Gas
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Has the total number of low-bleed pressure
controllers, transducers, and level controllers been
accounted for?
Emissions Source or Scope Item Risk ID Verification Procedures
Check APRS spreadsheets and make sure that the records match
calculation spreadsheets.
Have all the operating hours for low-bleed devices
been estimated correctly?
2.3 This is covered under B7 source.
2.4 Verify that the vent rates used in the calculation spreadsheets for low-bleed
devices references the equipment-specific values found in the appropriate
protocol or manufacturer's spec sheets.
2.5 Select representative sample of data for the detailed check (making sure
that each unique device is included into the analysis). Check uploaded
pictures by the field technicians into Lukla with those obtained during the
site visit, verify that the correct make and models were used in the
calculations.
2.6 Perform recalculations for vent rates for the representative sample of the
low-bleed devices.
Are the CO2 and CH4 gas compositions used
correctly?
2.7 This is covered under B7 source.
Are the CO2 and CH4 densities referenced correctly? 2.8 This is covered under B7 source.
2.9 Cross-check the project calculation methodology for the emissions against
the description contained in the OPP/OPR – are important assumptions
and uncertainties disclosed? Check if the OPP/OPR methodology uses
appropriate calculations and check calculation methodology with CCIR
Quantification documents.
2.10 Recalculate the final GHG project emissions. Review emissions reported in
the main calculation spreadsheet and verify the emissions are correctly
reported. Verify that emissions are within tolerable error.
Is the volume of fuel used in the project referenced
appropriately?
3.1 This is covered under B7 source.
Are the correct emission factors used for CO2, CH4,
N2O?
3.2 Verify that the emission factors were correctly referenced from the
appropriate protocol.
3.3 Cross-check calculation methodology for project fuel extraction and
processing emissions against the description contained in the OPP/OPR –
are important assumptions and uncertainties disclosed. Check if the
OPP/OPR methodology uses appropriate calculations and check
calculation methodology with CCIR Quantification documents.
3.4 Recalculate the final GHG emissions from the projects' fuel extraction and
processing. Review emissions reported in the main calculation spreadsheet
and verify the emissions are correctly reported. Verify that emissions are
within tolerable error.
Emission Reduction Have the emission reductions been calculated
correctly?
4.1 Recalculate the emissions reduction based on the verified baseline and
project level emissions identified in the verification procedures above.
Aggregated Project Reporting Sheet Was the information provided in APRS correct? 5.1 Check that information in APRS matches calculation spreadsheet. Check for
any errors in APRS spreadsheet.
Baseline and Project sources and sinks Are the baseline and project sources included
correctly based on the preliminary data provided?
5.2 Do a high level check on the baseline and project sources to determine if
there are any sources missing and compare these to previous reporting's
source inventory. Assess completeness of emissions inventory during site
visit and assess rationales provided for any sources that have been
excluded.
Is offset project information consistent across offset
project documentation?
5.3 Review most updated OPR for consistency with OPP and emissions
calculator.
5.4 Confirm offset project location per site visit.
5.5 Obtain AER license for plant operations (if applicable).
Do OPR and OPP exist? 5.6 Obtain OPP and OPR.
Are offset project contact, report dates, emission
reduction numbers reported correctly?
5.7 Verify the OPR and OPP information for consistency and accuracy.
Are process flow diagrams complete and accurate? 5.8 Obtain process flow diagrams and review for completeness and
consistency with emissions calculations.
5.9 Verify that the specified gas emissions reduction occur in Alberta
5.10 Verify and confirm that the emissions reduction are from an action that is
not otherwise required by law at the time it was initiated.
5.11 Verify that the emissions reduction are real and demonstrable
5.12 Verify that reduction result from an action taken on or after January 1,
2002, and occur on or after January 1, 2002
5.13 Verify that the emissions reduction are quantifiable and measurable.
P9 - Fuel Extraction and Processing
Other Scope Items
Fuel Extraction and Processing Emissions for
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Are the emissions calculations performed correctly?
Vent Gas from Pressure Controllers,
Transducers and Level Controllers
Are the vent rates of the various low-bleed devices
referenced and used correctly?
Are the project emission calculations performed
correctly?
Emissions Offset Credits
Offset Project Confirmations
Have offset project location and any applicable
approvals information been provided?
Program Criteria Verify that the requirements of Part 3, Section 16 of
the Alberta Regulation 255/2017 have been met
Has the total number of low-bleed pressure
controllers, transducers, and level controllers been
accounted for?
Page 31 of 45
Appendix B: Statement of Qualifications
Report Type Reporting Period
from 1-Oct-18
to 31-Mar-19
I ,
Per:
Date
Last Name
E-mail Address Phone Number
519-823-1311 ext 3036
☐ Same as third party verifier??
Last Name
E-mail Address Phone Number
403-232-6771 ext 6273
Last Name
E-mail Address Phone Number
403-232-6771 ext 6241
Completed the Greenhouse Gas Verification ISO 14064-3 training, October 3-4, 2018.
First Name
Russ Lewis
Training Received Under ISO 14064 Part 3
Peer Reviewer
P.Eng. [email protected]
Lead Verifier
First Name
Alena Saprykina
Professional Designation
MSc. [email protected]
Training Received Under ISO 14064 Part 3
Completed the Greenhouse Gas Verification ISO 14064 training, January 21-23, 2014
Professional Designation
Third-party verifiers described in Section 29 of the Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation.
Verifying Company Name
RWDI Air Inc.
Signature of Third Party Verifier
13-Jun-19
Training Received Under ISO 14064 Part 3
Completed the Greenhouse Gas Verification ISO 14064-3 training, October 3-4, 2018.
First Name
Annik White
Reporting Company Legal Name
Blue Source Methane ULC Offset Report
Signature of Third Party Verifier
Annik White (Third Party Verifier), meet or exceed the qualifications of third party
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program - Pool
Charlie5609-4507
Statement of Qualifications
Offset Report
Project Name Offset Project ID
Page 33 of 45
Appendix C: Findings and Issues
Page 34 of 45
Table 6: Detailed Findings and Issues Log
Number the issue with the year and provide a unique # for the issue. If the issue resolved during the verification, indicate that in
the resolution column. If the issue is not resolved during the verification, or if the issue was material (whether resolved or not)
record it as a finding in Table 2 and provide a cross reference to the finding # in the resolution column.
Describe the issues investigated. State the verification criteria that are not met. Provide a description of how it is not met and
provide the evidence. Indicate the Source Category (for facilities) or the Source/Sink (for offsets).
Indicate if the finding is an understatement or overstatement.
Summarize information between verifier and client.
Provide a conclusion including % discrepancy, if applicable.
Item
(YR-
##)
Description of the Issues
Investigated During the
Verification
Summary of information
exchanged between
verifier and client
Resolution Conclusion
(including %
discrepancy if
applicable)
18/19-
01
Actual Device ID and database
record for device PCIRL202 were
incorrectly labelled PCIRL462.
Bluesource confirmed that the
ID number is replicated and
incorrectly placed on what
should have been PCIRL202.
They confirmed that the
device itself or reductions are
not double counted.
It was
confirmed
during the
site visit that
the actual
serial
number is
correct, and
only the ID
was wrong.
There is no
discrepancy
related to this
issue in the
final assertion.
18/19-
02
For Producer 1, the following 5
devices have zero supply
pressure in the calculations:
TXIRL041, TXIRL863,
TXIRL1045, TXIRL1118 and
TXIRL638. However, the sites
were running based on the
information from
SCADA/Petrinex. This might
result in a potential
underestimation of offset
reductions.
Bluesource indicated that
these controllers were put on
different parts of the site
which are out of service (e.g.
booster station) but the hours
pulled from Petrinex refer to
the site as a whole.
Addressed
before the
final
submission.
N/A
Page 35 of 45
Item
(YR-
##)
Description of the Issues
Investigated During the
Verification
Summary of information
exchanged between
verifier and client
Resolution Conclusion
(including %
discrepancy if
applicable)
18/19-
03
There was some inconsistency in
the content that was uploaded
by the installers into the data
management system for old
pneumatic devices. Not all
records contained pictures of the
old devices (e.g. out of 87
records checked, 33 did not
have a picture of the old
device). Old devices were
verified by looking at the
installation forms (pictures of
the hand-written notes) which
included the model/type of the
high-bleed devices and low-
bleed devices and date of
installation, for each device
checked.
No information was
exchanged prior to adding this
issue to the issues log.
Not
addressed.
An opportunity
for
improvement
exists, to have
consistent
record keeping.
18/19-
04
For Producer 4, minor
discrepancies were identified in
run-time hours at two sites,
between Petrinex data and data
used in the calculations.
For site 1: Petrinex hours for
November 2018 and December
2018 were 672 and 588,
respectively. Hours used in
calculations for November 2018
and December 2018 were 720
and 744, respectively.
For site 2: March 2019 Petrinex
value was 744 hours, while
calculations showed zero.
Bluesource corrected the
errors.
Addressed
before the
final
submission.
N/A
Page 36 of 45
Item
(YR-
##)
Description of the Issues
Investigated During the
Verification
Summary of information
exchanged between
verifier and client
Resolution Conclusion
(including %
discrepancy if
applicable)
18/19-
05
Part 1
Minor discrepancies in
calculations were identified:
a). For Producer 4, for the
number of sites with multiple
gas compositions, Bluesource
used a less conservative
composition (with the highest
CH4%).
b). For Producer 1, for three
locations, Bluesource used
default CO2 and CH4
compositions, while site specific
values were available.
Bluesource corrected items a).
and b).
Addressed
before the
final
submission.
N/A
18/19-
05
Part 2
RWDI recalculations resulted in
24,218 tonnes of offset
reductions, while the reported
value was 24,310 tones for
2018 and 2019 combined. This
corresponds to an
overstatement of offset
reductions by 45 tonnes (0.4%)
for 2018 and overstatement by
46 tonnes (0.4%) for 2019.
These differences are due to the
following reason:
c). RWDI calculated CO2 and
CH4 densities to be 1.858 kg/m3
and 0.677 kg/m3, respectively.
These correspond to 60°F and
This was communicated to
Bluesource in the draft issues
log. Bluesource indicated that
they are using published
densities from Air Liquide in
order to account for possible
non-idealities in the gases and
calculation of densities. The
Pneumatics Protocol does not
state which calculation
method or published value
should be used for gas
densities, only that it should
be at STP. The difference
between the published values
and RWDI calculated values
are immaterial.
Not
addressed.
Overstatement
45 tonnes
(0.4%) for
2018
Overstatement
46 tonnes
(0.4%) for
2019
Page 37 of 45
Item
(YR-
##)
Description of the Issues
Investigated During the
Verification
Summary of information
exchanged between
verifier and client
Resolution Conclusion
(including %
discrepancy if
applicable)
14.7PSI i.e. the reference STP
used in manufacturers’
specifications for pneumatic
devices. Bluesource used slightly
different values of 1.871 and
0.680 kg/m3 for CO2 and CH4,
respectively.
18/19-
06
For Producer 1, 2018 and 2019
Greenhouse Gas reductions by
gas species summaries were
switched in the calculation
spreadsheet under the tab
<Offset Summary> (i.e. 2019
data is presented for 2018 and
2018 data is presented for
2019). This doesn’t affect the
overall assertion.
This was communicated to
Bluesource in the draft issues
log.
Addressed
before the
final
submission.
N/A
18/19-
07
Last year’s verification period
from July 3, 2018 to September
30, 2018 had 7,960 tonnes
CO2e reductions.
This verification period from
October 1, 2018 to March 31,
2019 has 24,310 tonnes CO2e
reductions, which is over 3
times higher than for the
previous period. It would
typically be expected that the
value would be 2 times higher
since the reporting period is
twice as long; the results are
due to the runtime hours, which
went up significantly for the
This was communicated to
Bluesource and explanation
was received. The reason the
hours are significantly less is
due to the installation dates of
the devices aligning with the
reporting period. Since
devices were installed during
the third quarter from July to
September, they were not
able to report full operating
hours. For instance, if the
device was installed in
August, it would have 0 hours
in July, limited hours in
August, and potentially full
hours in September.
Addressed
before the
final
submission.
N/A
Page 38 of 45
Item
(YR-
##)
Description of the Issues
Investigated During the
Verification
Summary of information
exchanged between
verifier and client
Resolution Conclusion
(including %
discrepancy if
applicable)
current reporting period,
compared to the previous
reporting period. It is unclear
why run-time hours went up
significantly.
Comparatively, that device
would have the potential to
report full hours from October
to March depending on the
uptime of the well, as
observed in the current
reporting period.
18/19-
08
The OPR states “Devices are
inspected at least once annually
to ensure the pneumatics are
not damaged and excessively
venting, and maintenance
records are kept, as required by
Section 1.2 (4), less a discount
factor is to be applied to the
emission claim. The inspection
process is further discussed in
Appendix A (Confidential) of this
report”. RWDI enquired about
the records or examples of
maintenance records.
Bluesource indicated that the
devices are inspected annually
every year following the first
calendar year they were
installed (i.e., devices
installed in 2017 need to be
inspected once in 2018, 2019,
2020 etc. and devices
installed in 2018 need to be
inspected once in 2019, 2020,
etc.). The devices for Pool
Charlie have been installed in
2018 and therefore have an
inspection deadline of
December 31, 2019 which
does not need to be
accounted for in this
verification.
Resolved before
the final
submission.
N/A
18/19-
09
Minor discrepancies were
identified in APRS:
a). reporting period start date
was incorrect.
b). Producer 1 - one device had
a wrong activity start date.
Bluesource corrected
discrepancies.
Addressed
before the
final
submission.
N/A
Page 39 of 45
Item
(YR-
##)
Description of the Issues
Investigated During the
Verification
Summary of information
exchanged between
verifier and client
Resolution Conclusion
(including %
discrepancy if
applicable)
c). Producer 2 - one device had
a wrong activity start date and
10 devices had LSD location
different from the database
system.
d). Producer 4 - 2018 and 2019
GHG reductions were switched
(i.e., 2019 data was presented
for 2018 and 2018 data was
presented for 2019).
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program: Pool Charlie/ RWDI Reference #1902805
June 2019
Page 40 of 45
Appendix D: Statement of Verification
Offset Project Project ID #
5609-4507
Serial Range Start Report Period
October 1, 2018 – March 31, 2019
Serial Range End
Not Available
GHG Assertion
Value Units
Total Baseline Emissions) tonnes CO2eq
Total Project Emissions ) tonnes CO2eq
Other ) tonnes CO2eq
Net Reductions) tonnes CO2eq
Statement of Assertion
Conclusion
Verifying Company Name
Signature of Third Party Verifier
First Name Last Name
Annik
Professional Designation Phone Number
519-823-1311 ext 3036
Project Developer
Statement of Verification
Associated SGER Submission
Protocol
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program - Pool
Charlie
Quantification Protocol for Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reductions from Pneumatic Devices,
Version 2.0, January 25, 2017
Signature of Third Part Verifier
Blue Source Methane ULC Not Available
Statement of Verification
29,823
5,513
Not Applicable
24,310
October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 - Emissions reduction for Bluesource Methane Reduction
Program - Pool Charlie Offset Project is 24,310 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.
Responsibilities of Project Developer and Third Party Verifier
RWDI Air Inc. has reviewed the Bluesource Methane Reduction Program - Pool Charlie Offset Project emissions reduction for
the period of October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019. Bluesource Methane ULC was responsible for preparing the offset project
emission reduction report. RWDI Air Inc.’s objective and responsibility is to provide an opinion to the Alberta Climate Change
Office as to whether the GHG assertion is free from material misstatements, and is presented fairly in accordance with the
program criteria.
During the course of the verification, no material misstatements were identified. It is our opinion, because the total
misstatement is below the materiality threshold of 5%, the GHG assertion does present fairly the Project’s emissions reduction
for the period of October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019. Furthermore, it is our opinion that the evidence generated during the
verification is appropriate and sufficient to support an overall positive finding with a reasonable level of assurance.
White
E-mail Address
P.Eng. [email protected]
RWDI Air Inc. Per:
Date:
13-Jun-19
Page 42 of 45
Appendix E: Conflict of Interest Checklist
Report Type Report Period
October 1, 2018 –
March 31, 2019
False
False
False
False
False
False
False
False
I ,
Verifying Company Name
Per:
Signature of Third Party Verifier Date
Last Name
E-mail Address Phone Number
519-823-1311 ext 3036
Conflict of Interest Checklist
Associated SGER Submission
Offset Project Protocol
Bluesource Methane Reduction Program -
Pool Charlie
Quantification Protocol for Greenhouse
Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic
Devices, Version 2.0, January 25, 2017
1The relationship between my firm and this reporting company poses unacceptable threat to
or compromises the impartiality of my firm.
2 The finances and sources of income of my firm compromise the impartiality of my firm.
Project Developer
Blue Source Methane ULC Offset Project
Checklist
Respond either "True" or "False" to each of the following statements:
4My firm participated in some manner in the development or completion of the associated
offset submission for this reporting company.
3The personnel my firm has scheduled to participate in the verification may have an actual
or potential conflict of interest.
5 My firm provided greenhouse gas consultancy services to this reporting company.
6My firm will use personnel that have, are, or will be engaged or previously employed by the
reporting company.
7 My firm will outsource the Statement of Verification for the associated offset submission.
Annik White (Third Party Verifier), have personally examined and am familiar
with the information contained in this Conflict-of Interest Checklist, and can demonstrate freedom from any conflict of interest related
to the reporting company for which the verification was performed. I hereby warrant that the information submitted in this Conflict-of
Interest Checklist is true, accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge, and that all matters affecting the validity of this Conflict-
of-Interest Checklist have been fully disclosed. Impartiality shall be monitored over the duration of the verification and any identified
actual or potential conflict-of-interest situations will be communicated to AEP directly.
RWDI Air Inc.
8 My firm offers products or services that pose an unacceptable risk to impartiality.
Important: If you have checked "True" to any of the above, you may not fulfill the "independence" requirement for third party verifiers.
Please contact Alberta Environment and Parks for further instruction. If the potential conflict of interest is a sufficient threat to
impartiality (perceived or actual), or cannot be effectively managed, you Third Party Verification Report will not be acceptable to
Alberta Environment and Parks.
Signature of Third Party Verifier
P.Eng. [email protected]
13-Jun-19
First Name
Annik White
Professional Designation
Page 44 of 45
Appendix F: Supplemental Diagrams/Tables/Figure
SITE VISIT PLAN
RWDI AIR INC. VVP DOCUMENT CODE: FORM ISSUED: VERSION: VERSION ISSUED: PAGE:
JOB-FRM-012 2013-07-13 2.0 2017-05-08 1 of 7
This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. ® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America.
rwdi.com
General Information
Site(s) to visit: Bluesource – Various facilities at Producer 1, 2, 3, and 4
Date(s) of site visit: Producer 1 – Tuesday, May 14, Producer 2 and Producer 3 –
Wednesday, May 15, Producer 3 and Producer 4 – Friday,
May 17
RWDI field verifiers: Thana Boonlert
Client hosts: Alex Fritz
Meeting location: Tim Hortons on 16th Ave, 240 16 Ave NE
Meeting time: Tuesday, May 14 – 7:00 am
Wednesday, May 15 – 7:45 am
Safety training requirements prior
to arrival on site:
H2S Alive
Safety training requirements upon
arrival to site:
Facility Operator to advise.
Personal protective equipment
required:
Fire retardant coveralls, hard hat, safety glasses, steel toe
boots, work gloves.
Additional notes (including required
training and PPE):
N/A
The general tasks to be completed during the site visit include:
• Safety and site orientation;
• Brief description of site visit objective;
• Overview of project history, operations, processes and equipment;
• Visit sample locations of device conversions at the four different producers within the Charlie
Pool boundary, and verify that the pneumatic devices installed are as reported;
The general criteria to be observed at each device location include:
• Make and model of device
• Serial number
• PSI value
• Installation records (if log book is available)
• Device functionality
Specific tasks to be completed are listed in the table below. The tasks are not necessarily listed in the
order that they must be completed. It is advised that the task list be reviewed in detail prior to the site
visit in order to ensure that appropriate personnel are available for discussion with verifiers and to
ensure that the requested data and records will be retrievable from their original sources.
SITE VISIT PLAN
RWDI AIR INC. VVP DOCUMENT CODE: FORM ISSUED: VERSION: VERSION ISSUED: PAGE:
JOB-FRM-012 2013-07-13 2.0 2017-05-08 2 of 7
This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. ® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America.
Time Task Notes Follow-up
Day#1 – Producer 1 – Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Safety and site orientation as required − n/a - n/a
Brief description of the site visit objective − completed. Discussed with operator the
objective of the site visit and key items that the
team was looking for.
- n/a
Discuss how hours of operations are recorded for specific
sites.
− Wells are metered and recorded through their
SCADA system
- n/a
Discuss with the operator and Bluesource the process in
which devices are replaced.
− Pronghorn installed all of the new devices and
also did the inventory for pneumatics.
- n/a
Identify any missing or extra devices that could be part of
the GHG inventory.
− No new extra devices were found. Any device
that might have been missed and need
replacing would be included in future pools.
- n/a
Review GHG inventory boundaries within each site − The boundaries include all the locations of the
new devices.
- n/a
Discuss shutdowns or periods of irregular operation that
occurred during the reporting year:
• Descriptions
• Dates and durations
• Effects on GHG emissions
− During shutdowns/turnarounds, the SCADA
system flags “zero” runhours, then staff needs
to address this in the system manually before
continuing. This forces them to also go check on
the facility’s operations/wells/equipment.
- n/a
Discuss changes for the reporting period (if applicable):
• Changes to operations, processes, equipment,
emissions sources
− None - n/a
General tour of facility
• Observe pneumatic devices
• Observe gas analyzers (if applicable)
• Gather information about old devices (inventory,
make and model)
− Gas analysis at each battery (at least) happen
annually.
− Log files for device replacement are recorded
by Pronghorn and scanned into the Lukla
system. Physical documents are kept and
stored by Pronghorn.
- n/a
SITE VISIT PLAN
RWDI AIR INC. VVP DOCUMENT CODE: FORM ISSUED: VERSION: VERSION ISSUED: PAGE:
JOB-FRM-012 2013-07-13 2.0 2017-05-08 3 of 7
Page 3
Time Task Notes Follow-up
• Observe facility log file (for device replacement
dates)
Complete the tasks and notes as described in the Site Visit
Verification Checklist for each pneumatic device visited.
− Completed. Detailed report is available upon
request.
- n/a
Interviews with selected facility specialists (if applicable).
For example:
• Maintenance/operations specialist (knowledge of
measurement device specs and
maintenance/calibration procedures)
− Dennis Olsen (present at the facility office).
Lead Operator (4 years at site, 9 years with
Producer 1). Dennis demonstrated their
SCADA system and Production Volume
Reporting (PVR) system.
− Giacomo Bertamini (escorted team to various
sites). Contract Operator (6-months in this role,
1.5 years as a sub contractor in similar role at
Producer 1).
Pascal Bonnet (not present,
but could be a good
resource for primary data)
Staff – Production
Measurement Analyst
Pulls data from systems and
sends to Bluesource
Main contact for data
extraction
Additional items − None. - n/a
Site Visit Close-out Meeting − Completed. Additional questions were asked
where applicable for clarification, and any
follow-up items were reviewed.
- n/a
SITE VISIT PLAN
RWDI AIR INC. VVP DOCUMENT CODE: FORM ISSUED: VERSION: VERSION ISSUED: PAGE:
JOB-FRM-012 2013-07-13 2.0 2017-05-08 4 of 7
Page 4
Time Task Notes Follow-up
Day#2 – Producer 2 and Producer 3 (1 location) – Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Safety and site orientation as required − n/a - n/a
Brief description of the site visit objective − completed. Discussed with operator the
objective of the site visit and key items that the
team was looking for.
- n/a
Discuss how hours of operations are recorded for specific
sites.
− Wells are metered and recorded through their
SCADA system
- n/a
Discuss with the operator and Bluesource the process in
which devices are replaced.
− Producer 2 -> Techmation (contractors)
replaced all of the devices and do maintenance
as required.
− Producer 3 -> Tarpon did installations
Alex Fritz to confirm if
Tarpon installations for
Producer 3
Identify any missing or extra devices that could be part of
the GHG inventory.
− No new extra devices were found. Any device
that might have been missed and need
replacing would be included in future pools.
- n/a
Review GHG inventory boundaries within each site − The boundaries include all the locations of the
new devices.
- n/a
Discuss shutdowns or periods of irregular operation that
occurred during the reporting year:
• Descriptions
• Dates and durations
• Effects on GHG emissions
− Producer 2
− clearSCADA -> auto-downloads hours to
Prodview (Bluesource has access to their
Prodview). During shutdowns, SCADA systems
flags a warning and operators are forced to
address issue and manually write in cause of
issue.
Clarify how data goes from
Proview to Petrinex
Discuss changes for the reporting period (if applicable):
• Changes to operations, processes, equipment,
emissions sources
− None - n/a
SITE VISIT PLAN
RWDI AIR INC. VVP DOCUMENT CODE: FORM ISSUED: VERSION: VERSION ISSUED: PAGE:
JOB-FRM-012 2013-07-13 2.0 2017-05-08 5 of 7
Page 5
Time Task Notes Follow-up
General tour of facility
• Observe pneumatic devices
• Observe gas analyzers (if applicable)
• Gather information about old devices (inventory,
make and model)
• Observe facility log file (for device replacement
dates)
− Producer 2
− Gas analysis are auto-recorded in their
Protrend software.
− There is also an annual gas analysis done per
battery.
− Two devices that were planned for visit could
not be accessed due to poor road conditions.
Therefore, four other devices were chosen to
visit (these device IDs and locations were
recorded).
Make sure that the new
device visited are within the
Charlie Pool scope and were
also not visited/verified in
the past.
Complete the tasks and notes as described in the Site Visit
Verification Checklist for each pneumatic device visited.
− Completed. Detailed report is available upon
request.
- n/a
Interviews with selected facility specialists (if applicable).
For example:
• Maintenance/operations specialist (knowledge of
measurement device specs and
maintenance/calibration procedures)
− Producer 2
− Ryan Munro (escorted site visit), Day-Operator,
5-years
− Producer 3
− Tyler Pletz (escorted site visit at 1 location
visited for Producer 3), Operator, 5-years.
- n/a
Additional items − Producer 2
− For one of the devices visited, the supply
pressure gauge was missing. It was replaced
with a “plug”. Specific picture is saved in site
visit pictures folder. This is most likely because
the gauge either broke or was leaking.
Confirmed that there is currently no leak
(otherwise a reading would show on the output
pressure gauge, and we would also hear a
hissing sound.
- n/a
SITE VISIT PLAN
RWDI AIR INC. VVP DOCUMENT CODE: FORM ISSUED: VERSION: VERSION ISSUED: PAGE:
JOB-FRM-012 2013-07-13 2.0 2017-05-08 6 of 7
Page 6
Time Task Notes Follow-up
Site Visit Close-out Meeting
− Completed. Additional questions were asked
where applicable for clarification, and any
follow-up items were reviewed.
- n/a
Time Task Notes Follow-up
Day#3 – Producer 3 (1 location) and Producer 4 – Friday, May 17
Safety and site orientation as required − n/a - n/a
Brief description of the site visit objective − completed. Discussed with operator the
objective of the site visit and key items that the
team was looking for.
- n/a
Discuss how hours of operations are recorded for specific
sites.
− DataWorks (data management system), SCADA - n/a
Discuss with the operator and Bluesource the process in
which devices are replaced.
− Contractor from Bluesource performs
installations
- n/a
Identify any missing or extra devices that could be part of
the GHG inventory.
− None - n/a
Review GHG inventory boundaries within each site − The boundaries include all the locations of the
new devices.
- n/a
Discuss shutdowns or periods of irregular operation that
occurred during the reporting year:
• Descriptions
• Dates and durations
• Effects on GHG emissions
− None this past year - n/a
Discuss changes for the reporting period (if applicable): − none - n/a
SITE VISIT PLAN
RWDI AIR INC. VVP DOCUMENT CODE: FORM ISSUED: VERSION: VERSION ISSUED: PAGE:
JOB-FRM-012 2013-07-13 2.0 2017-05-08 7 of 7
Page 7
Time Task Notes Follow-up
• Changes to operations, processes, equipment,
emissions sources
General tour of facility
• Observe pneumatic devices
• Observe gas analyzers (if applicable)
• Gather information about old devices (inventory,
make and model)
• Observe facility log file (for device replacement
dates)
− A device with an expected identification tag
number was not found at one of the locations.
Instead, a different identification number was
found that is supposed to be at a different
location.
- Kelsey to follow-up
regarding the reasoning for
mismatched IDs.
Complete the tasks and notes as described in the Site Visit
Verification Checklist for each pneumatic device visited.
− Completed. Detailed report is available upon
request.
- n/a
Interviews with selected facility specialists (if applicable).
For example:
• Maintenance/operations specialist (knowledge of
measurement device specs and
maintenance/calibration procedures)
− Greg Tipton
Shift lead operator (12 years) provided the site
tours.
- n/a
Additional items − none - n/a
Site Visit Close-out Meeting
− completed. Additional questions were asked
where applicable for clarification, and any
follow-up items were reviewed.
- n/a