verification report for: prepared by: prepared for: version
TRANSCRIPT
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Version 3.0 Offset Verification Report Form
Verification Report for: Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474
Proponent Name and Proponent Project Number:
Modern Resources Inc. 1714-3474
Prepared by:
Brightspot Climate Inc.
Prepared for:
Alberta Environment and Parks
Version: Final
Date:
March 30, 2020
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 2 of 69
Table of Contents 1.0 Summary of Offset Project .................................................................................... 3 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6
2.1 Objective ............................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Scope ................................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Level of Assurance ............................................................................................... 7 2.4 Criteria ............................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Materiality .......................................................................................................... 7
3.0 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Procedures ......................................................................................................... 8 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 ................................................................................ 24 4.4 Evaluation of the GHG Assertion .......................................................................... 29 4.5 Summary of Findings ......................................................................................... 30 4.6 Opportunity for Improvement .............................................................................. 31
5.0 Closure ............................................................................................................ 31 5.1 Verification Statement ........................................................................................ 31 5.2 Limitation of Liability .......................................................................................... 31 5.3 Confirmations .................................................................................................... 31
6.0 References ........................................................................................................ 32 Appendix A: Final Verification Plan and Sampling Plan ........................................................... 33 Appendix B: Statement of Qualifications .............................................................................. 55 Appendix C: Findings and Issues ........................................................................................ 58 Appendix D: Statement of Verification ................................................................................. 60 Appendix E: Conflict of Interest Checklist ............................................................................. 64 Appendix F: Supplemental Diagrams/Tables/Figure ............................................................... 67
List of Tables Table 1: Risk Assessment .................................................................................................. 12 Table 2: Findings of Data Integrity Verification Procedures ..................................................... 18 Table 3: Findings of GHG Data and Information Verification Procedures ................................... 19 Table 4: Findings of Criteria Verification Procedures .............................................................. 24 Table 5: Offset Criteria Assessment ..................................................................................... 28 Table 6: Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 30 Table 7: Confirmation Findings ........................................................................................... 31 Table 8: Detailed Findings and Issues Log ............................................................................ 59 Table 9: Supporting Documentation Reviewed ...................................................................... 68
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 3 of 69
1.0 Summary of Offset Project
Item Description
Project Title Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
Project Description
This project quantifies greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions resulting from the conversion and installations of gas driven pneumatic devices to solar powered devices. The Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project has two components: Pneumatic pump electrification and pneumatic controller electrification.
Both project components will use electric energy produced by zero emissions renewable source in place of pneumatic pressure to drive the pneumatic devices. This eliminates methane and carbon dioxide which would have been vented from pneumatically driven devices had the project not occurred.
Project Location All subprojects are located throughout Alberta’s provincial boundary
Project Start Date May 8, 2018
Offset Start Date May 8, 2018
Offset Crediting Period May 8, 2018 – December 31, 2022
Offset Reporting Period January 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019
GHG Assertion (Actual Emission Reductions/Sequestration Achieved)
13,107 tonnes CO2e
Government Approved Quantification Protocol
Quantification Protocol for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic Devices, Version 2.0, January 2017
Ownership Modern Resources Inc. owns and operates all the subprojects pertaining to the aggregated project.
Project Activity
The project must meet the eligibility criteria stated in Part 1, Section 19 of the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) Regulation. In order to qualify, emission reductions must:
• Occur in Alberta;
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 4 of 69
• Result from an action taken that is not otherwise required by law at the time the action is taken;
• Must not be required by law at the time the reduction occurs;
• Result from actions taken on or after January 1, 2002;
• Occur on or after January 1, 2002; • Be real and demonstrable; • Be quantifiable and measurable, directly or
by accurate estimation using replicable techniques;
• Must not have had an effect on the determination of a regulated facility’s total regulated emissions
The verification included an evaluation of these criteria as well as the specific applicability criteria described in the Protocol. The results of this analysis are described in Section 4.3 of this report.
Project Contact
Nigel Campbell Modern Resources Inc. 200, 110 – 8th Avenue SW Calgary, AB, T2P 1B3, Canada +1 (403) 471-8190 [email protected]
Lead Verifier and Designated Signing Authority
Aaron Schroeder, P.Eng. Brightspot Climate 401 – 409 Granville Street Vancouver, British Columbia V6C 1T2 604.353.0264 [email protected]
Verification Team Members
Aaron Schroeder, P.Eng. Role: Lead Verifier Training: Greenhouse Gas Verification – ISO
14064-3, Canadian Standards Association, 2012
Rodrigo Cubedo, EIT Role: Associate Verifier Training: Greenhouse Gas Validation and
Verification, ISO 14064-3, University of Toronto, 2019
Ayla Nguyen, Co-op Student Role: Associate Verifier Training: Verifier in Training
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 5 of 69
Jeanna Brown, P.Eng. Role: Technical Expert Training: Greenhouse Gas Validation and
Verification, ISO 14064-3, University of Toronto, 2017
Sheldon Fernandes, P.Eng. Role: Peer Reviewer Training: Greenhouse Gas Verification
– ISO 14064-3, University of Toronto, 2019
Verification Strategy
The verification strategy applied a largely substantive approach. The verification procedures, which are detailed later in this section, were designed to test the activity data directly, wherever practical. By applying this approach, the verification did not rely heavily on the Responsible Party’s controls, but rather relied on the substantive evidence collected from verification procedures that reviewed metered data, data directly from invoices and independent laboratory reports, for example.
Verification Conclusion The verification conclusion is: Positive
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 6 of 69
2.0 Introduction
Summary of Offset Project Baseline
The project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by eliminating the volume of natural gas (methane) vented to atmosphere from pneumatic devices. In the baseline condition, existing devices would continue to vent higher volumes of natural gas, consisting primarily of methane, to atmosphere. In the project condition, these high venting pneumatic devices are replaced with functionally equivalent devices or systems that operate on electricity generated on-site through solar panels.
Summary of Changes
The Responsible Party’s Offset Project Report (OPR) indicates that there have been no changes to the project boundaries and no equipment changes during the reporting period.
The OPR states that the project’s boundaries, operations and major sources of greenhouse gas emissions have not changed from those previously reported.
No changes to the project boundary, emission sources, measurement and monitoring or quantification methodologies were found.
2.1 Objective The objective of the verification is as follows:
• to issue a verification statement on whether the GHG assertion is without material discrepancy;
• to issue a verification report that provides details of the verification activities; and • to complete the “confirmations” activities defined in the Alberta Environment and Parks
Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Section 5.1.3.
2.2 Scope
Project Name: Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
Serial Range: To be assigned at registration.
Organizational Boundary: Modern Resources Inc.
Geographic Boundary: All subprojects are located within Alberta’s provincial boundary
Physical Operations: Natural gas processing
Pneumatic devices and controllers
Emission Sources: Fuel Extraction & Processing
Process Control Electricity
Process venting
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 7 of 69
Vented Fuel Gas
IPCC GHGs Emitted/Removed: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Methane (CH4) Nitrous Oxide (N2O);
Remaining IPCC GHGs were not emitted in the baseline or project condition.
Reporting Period: January 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019
2.3 Level of Assurance The verification was conducted to a reasonable level of assurance.
The Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Version 4.0, November 2019 requires that verifications must be designed and completed to a reasonable level of assurance.
2.4 Criteria The program criteria used, and relevant supporting documentation is as follows:
• Climate Change and Emissions Management Act • Technology Innovation and Emission Reduction Regulation (133/2019) • Standard for GHG Emission Offset Project Developers, Version 3.0, Nov. 2019 • Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, version 4.0, Nov. 2019 • Quantification Protocol for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic
Devices, Version 2.0, January 2017
2.5 Materiality The materiality threshold is defined in The Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Version 4.0, November 2019. For this verification, the materiality threshold is 5%.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 8 of 69
3.0 Methodology
This verification was designed and completed according to the requirements of the ISO 14064-3 Standard.
The following verification activities (assessments/tests/reviews/evaluations) were conducted through the course of this verification. The specific verification activities that were conducted are detailed in the Verification Plan, which is appended to this report. They are also listed with the verification findings throughout section 4 of this report.
• Observations: the site visit included a tour of the project sites to observe emission sources, observation of the centralized meter data collection, and observation of the meter normalization for standard temperature and pressure;
• Review of documentation: the site visit included a review of the site metering diagram and process flow diagram, documentation supporting the activity data was reviewed, including review of any manual transcription that was applied between documents and the emission quantification software, meter calibration reports were reviewed for completeness and to identify any metering issues;
• Recalculation: the emissions quantities were recalculated using metered data and original data sources and by applying the quantification methodologies stated in the Responsible Party’s Offset Project Report; the methods for calculating any averages used in the emission quantification were recalculated and evaluated for accuracy and appropriateness;
• Inquiry: the site visit included an interview of plant operation and instrumentation personnel, production accounting personnel, and environmental reporting personnel.
• Analytical procedures: a year-over-year comparison of overall emissions offsets was performed.
3.1 Procedures The verification strategy applied a largely substantive approach. The verification procedures, which are detailed later in this section, were designed to test the activity data directly, wherever practical. By applying this approach, the verification did not rely heavily on the Responsible Party’s controls, but rather relied on the substantive evidence collected from verification procedures that reviewed metered data, data directly from invoices and independent laboratory reports, for example.
Regarding the scale and complexity of the verification procedures, the verification risk assessment was leveraged to design verification activities appropriate to address the inherent, controls and detection risk evaluated in relation to each activity data and boundary condition. In most cases, these verifications involved review of documentation, recalculation or analytical procedures designed to produce verification evidence to support the accuracy, completeness and consistency of the information. All activity data and boundary conditions were evaluated through the verification risk assessment, and verification activities were designed and completed commensurate with the verification risk assessed.
In a similar way, the data integrity, quantification methodologies and quantification itself were assessed through the verification risk assessment. Verification procedures were designed and completed to address each of these key areas.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 9 of 69
Verification evidence was developed from each of these verification activities, which was used to establish a verification conclusion regarding the GHG information systems, the Responsible Party’s controls and ultimately, the GHG Assertion.
The verification was conducted according to the ISO 14064-3 standard, which establishes four primary phases of a greenhouse gas verification as described in this section. The relevant sections from the ISO standard are noted below.
Agreement (ISO Section 4.3)
The verification level of assurance, objectives, criteria, scope and materiality was affirmed in the contract for services and re-affirmed during a verification kickoff meeting.
A conflict of interest review was conducted prior to beginning work and monitored throughout the verification. A conflict of interest statement is appended to this report.
Internally, Brightspot Climate began documenting the verification upon contract signing. All documentation related to the verification will be maintained for a period of seven years following the date of the verification statement.
Approach (ISO Section 4.4)
Brightspot Climate conducted an initial review of the Project’s greenhouse gas information, primarily by reviewing the reports and the Offset Project Plan. Brightspot Climate prepared a verification risk assessment based on this information, evaluating:
a) the inherent risks of discrepancies for each variable used to calculate each emission source and the general greenhouse gas reporting system;
b) the risk that the Responsible Party’s controls are insufficient to detect and prevent each inherent risk from causing a discrepancy in the GHG assertion; and
c) the potential magnitude of each inherent and control risk described above resulting from the contribution of the associated emission source.
This information was used to develop an appropriate verification procedure for each identified risk. Each procedure was designed to reduce the probability that the verification would not detect a discrepancy that has not been corrected by the Responsible Party’s controls. The tolerable error for each emission source is stated in the verification risk assessment.
Generally, a substantive approach was applied to the verification. Therefore, the verification procedures relied more heavily on data analysis than on controls testing.
Verification Plan
Brightspot Climate developed a Verification Plan that documents the level of assurance, verification objective, verification criteria, verification scope, and materiality. Additionally, the Verification Plan provides a general description of the Project, documents operational and organizational changes that have occurred since the previous verification, explains the Project’s control environment, and describes the safety requirements of the site visit.
Assessment (ISO Sections 4.5 – 4.7)
The verification procedures consist primarily of tests, analysis and review focused on the following six critical areas:
a) The completeness and relevance of emission sources included in the GHG Assertion;
b) The consistency of the emission sources and quantification methodologies between the Protocol, the Offset Project Plan, Offset Project Report and the tools used to quantify the emission reduction;
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 10 of 69
c) The accuracy and level of transparency of measured and estimated data sources, data integrity of electronic and manual data transfers and transcription between data systems and the GHG calculation;
d) The accuracy of the GHG emissions reduction calculations;
e) The completeness, accuracy and transparency of information presented in the Offset Project Plan and Offset Project Report documents, including the implementation of stated methodologies and emission factors in the quantification of emissions reductions; and
f) The accuracy of transcription of final calculated values into the GHG Assertion, including the “confirmations” required by AEP as described in the Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit.
The principles defined in the preceding six areas are defined in ISO 14064-1 (accuracy, completeness, consistency, relevance and transparency).
Site Visit
Rodrigo Cubedo attended a full day site visit to the Project, where completeness of data sources, accuracy of measurement and data system integrity was tested through observation and interviews with site operations and production accounting personnel. The site visit included a closing meeting to review outstanding action items and to provide site operations personnel with an overview of the verifier’s observations.
The following Responsible Party personnel were interviewed regarding various aspects of the Project: Zainab Dadashi, Production Foreman, and Ryan Adams, Site Operator.
Further details of the verification activities that were conducted on site, including observations and inquiries, are provided in Section 4 of this report.
Verification Procedures
The remainder of the verification procedures were conducted through a desk review following receipt of the draft GHG Assertion. The desk review included an independent recalculation of the emissions reduction assertion, as well as a review of supporting documentation.
Through the course of the assessment phase of the verification, Brightspot Climate issued questions and requests for additional documentation and data. These requests were consolidated in a simple electronic tracking system to maintain a common record of communication.
The Responsible Party had the opportunity to address any issues that were raised through the course of the verification before they were documented as discrepancies in the Verification Report.
Evaluation and Statement (ISO Sections 4.8 – 4.9)
Following the completion of all verification procedures and consideration of all information received from the Responsible Party, the verifier was tasked with concluding whether the GHG assertion is without material discrepancy and whether the verification reviewed sufficient and appropriate evidence to support a reasonable level of assurance.
If any outstanding discrepancies remained, their materiality would have been calculated according to AEP guidance such that both the aggregate net quantitative error and the absolute quantitative error could be reported. In such circumstances, qualitative discrepancies would be evaluated based on the potential impact on the GHG assertion and the potential impact on the Intended User’s ability to use the reported information.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 11 of 69
Peer Review
The independent Peer Reviewer conducted a complete review of the verification. The peer review process examined:
a) The completeness of the verification risk assessment; b) The appropriateness of the verification procedures considering the inherent and control
risks identified in the verification risk assessment; c) The appropriateness of any sampling conducted in each of the verification procedures; d) The completeness of each verification procedure, including the verifiers documentation
of work completed; e) Closure of any issues raised by the verifier through the course of the verification; f) The sufficiency and appropriateness of all evidence reviewed through the verification to
support a reasonable level of assurance; and g) A review of the final Verification Statement and Conflict of Interest Statement.
Verification Report
The Verification Report includes a Verification Statement, Statement of Qualifications, Conflict of Interest Statement and a report on the findings of the verification. The final Verification and Sampling Plan has been appended to the Verification Report, including the results of the verification risk assessment.
Verification risk is defined as the risk of an incorrect verification conclusion. It can be calculated as the product of
• The Project’s inherent risks; • The Responsible Party’s control risks; and • The detection risks associated with the verifier’s verification procedures.
Inherent Risk × Control Risk × Detection Risk = Verification Risk
The verifier cannot affect the inherent risk or the control risk. Therefore, to reduce the overall verification risk and reach the agreed level of assurance (defined in the verification scope), the verifier must design verification procedures that reduce the detection risk.
Each inherent and control risk was provided with the risk score (high/medium/low). The risk analysis of inherent and control risks considers both the magnitude of the activity data or inventory component on the overall GHG assertion as well as the probability that the risk will result in a discrepancy, as assessed by the verifier.
The Verification Risk Assessment Summary on the following pages describes the following information: • Activity Data / Inventory Component: The boundary, eligibility requirement, data
component or reporting activity being evaluated. • Inherent Risk: The verifier’s evaluation of inherent risk. Inherent risks have been
categorized according to the ISO 14064-1 principles (accuracy, completeness, consistency, relevance, transparency).
• Control Risk: A description of the Responsible Party’s controls (if any controls are applicable) and the verifier’s evaluation of control risks.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 12 of 69
• Max Detection Risk: The maximum detection risk that can be applied and still result in an overall verification risk that meets the agreed level of assurance.
• Designed Detection Risk: The detection risk of the verification procedure that the verifier intends to complete. Note that the designed detection risk must always be equal to or lower than the maximum detection risk.
• Verification risk: the product of the inherent, control and (designed) detection risk, as defined in the equation above.
Important note: The verification strategy for this verification applies both substantive tests and control tests. Substantive tests are designed to focus on directly testing activity data or inventory components and their associated inherent risks. Control tests are designed to focus on testing the Responsible Party’s controls and if the test is successful, relying on the Responsible Party’s control. Therefore, control tests indirectly test activity data or inventory components.
Each verification procedure listed in the following table denotes if the procedure is a substantive or control test.
Table 1: Risk Assessment
Source or Risk Area
Attributes Inherent Risk
Control Risk
Det. Risk
Procedure to Mitigate Risk
PROTOCOL APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS
Functional equivalence must be demonstrated
Occurrence Medium High Low Substantive test: Observe equipment and interview operations staff during site visit to determine level of service provided by project implementation.
Protocol is applicable to methane vent reductions; not applicable to reduction of propane or conversion from propane to methane
Occurrence Low High Low Substantive test: Observe equipment and interview operations staff to determine if any propane devices are, or have been, installed.
Project must be a conversion (brownfield) or an acceptable install (greenfield)
Occurrence High High Low Substantive test: Review documentation for a sample of sites that establishes eligibility according to Table 1 of the Protocol.
Pneumatic devices must be properly maintained and inspected
Consistency Low Low Low Control Test: Review the Responsible Party’s management system and records to determine if inspection and maintenance procedures have been
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 13 of 69
Source or Risk Area
Attributes Inherent Risk
Control Risk
Det. Risk
Procedure to Mitigate Risk
implemented for all sites and have been maintained through the reporting period. Substantive test: Observe equipment and interview operations staff to determine if inspection and maintenance procedures have been done.
An inventory of devices must be maintained
Completeness
Medium Low Low Substantive test: Observe devices during site visit and compare against project inventory to evaluate completeness.
Accuracy Medium Low Low Substantive test: Review documentation supporting the record of conversion (installation/conversion date) and device specifications for a sample of subprojects.
The project must meet the requirements of the Alberta Offset System
Occurrence High High Low Substantive test: Evaluate the Responsible Party’s evidence regarding the general requirements of the Alberta Offset System.
PROTOCOL FLEXIBILITY
Implementation of multiple pneumatic device conversions
Completeness
Medium Low Low Substantive test: Evaluate the completeness of the required data and documentation for all project sites included in the aggregated project.
Statistically relevant comparisons or emission factors may be used
Accuracy Medium Low Low Substantive Test: Assess the statistically relevant emission factors applied in the quantification and their reference documentation to ensure they are correctly applied.
Site-specific and make and model-specific emission factors may be applied
Accuracy Medium Low Low Substantive test: Assess the emission factors applied in the calculations to the preferential selection method documented in the OPP, and compare to reference values provided in the relevant reference documents.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 14 of 69
Source or Risk Area
Attributes Inherent Risk
Control Risk
Det. Risk
Procedure to Mitigate Risk
Preferential order of methods for baseline and project activity quantification for certain project types
Accuracy Low Low Low Substantive Test: Recalculate the complete emission reduction using original data and methods described in the approved quantification protocol.
QUANTIFICATION DATA Equipment inventory
Accuracy Low Low Low Review equipment inventory recorded with SCADA and confirm at site visits.
Completeness
Low Low Low Review equipment inventory recorded with SCADA and confirm at site visits.
Stroke count Accuracy Low Low Low Review stroke count measured with SCADA and confirm at site visits.
Completeness
Low Low Low Review stroke count measured with SCADA and confirm at site visits.
Injection pressure Accuracy Low Low Low Review injection pressure measured with SCADA and confirm at site visits.
Completeness
Low Low Low Review injection pressure measured with SCADA and ensure data is complete.
Gas analysis (% CH4 and % CO2)
Accuracy Low Low Low Substantive test: Analyze gas compositions for significant fluctuations or abnormal gas concentrations.
Completeness
Low High Low Substantive test: Confirm the accurate transcription of the gas analyses into the emission reduction calculation.
Operating hours Accuracy Medium High Low Substantive test: Compare operating hours used in calculations with government reported values.
Device vent rates Accuracy Medium Medium Low Substantive test: Review and confirm selected specified vent rate values using recalculation spreadsheet.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 15 of 69
Source or Risk Area
Attributes Inherent Risk
Control Risk
Det. Risk
Procedure to Mitigate Risk
Completeness
Medium Medium Low Substantive test: Review and confirm transcription of device specifications from supporting documentation.
Emission factors – natural gas extraction and processing
Accuracy
Low Low Low Review reference document and make sure the emission factors are up to date.
Completeness
Low Low Low Review reference document and make sure the emission factors are all included in the project plan.
Reference density of methane and carbon dioxide at STP conditions
Accuracy Low Low Low Substantive test: Compare the emission factors applied in the calculations to the values provided in the relevant reference documents.
Completeness
Low Low Low Substantive test: Compare the densities of methane and carbon dioxide applied in the calculations to the values provided in the relevant reference documents.
EMISSION REDUCTION QUANTIFICATION
Application of the approved quantification protocol
Accuracy Medium Medium Low Controls test: Compare the methodologies described in the Responsible Party’s Offset Project Plan to the methodologies described in the approved quantification protocol. Substantive test: Recalculate the emission reduction using original metered data and methods described in the approved quantification protocol.
Quantification of emission reduction
Accuracy Medium High Low Substantive test: Recalculate the emission reduction using original metered data.
DATA INTEGRITY
Activity data and emission factor data integrity
Accuracy Medium Medium Low Controls test: Analyze all activity data for abnormal data (zeros, missing data, values outside range).
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 16 of 69
Source or Risk Area
Attributes Inherent Risk
Control Risk
Det. Risk
Procedure to Mitigate Risk
Substantive test: Recalculate the complete emission reduction using original data.
Transcription of final emission reduction into Offset Project Report
Accuracy
Low High Low Substantive test: Compare the final emission reduction quantity reported by the Responsible Party to the quantity reported in the Offset Project Report. Also, compare these quantities to the recalculated quantity in previous verification procedures.
3.2 Team ISO 14064-3 defines sixteen subject matter areas in which the verifier should demonstrate familiarity (see ISO 14064-3, Section A.2.2.3). The verification team has competencies in each of these sixteen subject matter areas.
Lead Verifier: Aaron Schroeder, P.Eng.
Aaron Schroeder will be the Lead Verifier and Designated Signing Authority. His extensive experience quantifying and verifying greenhouse gas emissions satisfies all sixteen subject matter areas defined in the standard.
Biography: Aaron Schroeder has twelve years of professional experience analyzing, quantifying and verifying greenhouse gas emissions in North America. Prior to forming Brightspot Climate Inc. in 2015, Aaron worked for several years leading a team of fifteen greenhouse gas verification and policy analysts across Canada with ICF International. He provided leadership for this team and led the development of ICF’s standardized verification process, conformant with ISO 14064-3. In 2012, ICF’s verification process was accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
Mr. Schroeder’s hands on experience conducting greenhouse gas verifications includes numerous engagements for oil and gas extraction and processing, refining, pipeline, electricity generation and petrochemical facilities. Additionally, he has conducted verifications of emission reduction projects in industrial facilities, renewable energy, waste management and agriculture. He is sought after for his expertise devising strategies to bridge the gap between theoretical and practical implementation of methodologies for quantifying, reporting and verifying.
In 2014, the University of Toronto engaged Mr. Schroeder to instruct professional development courses on greenhouse gas inventory and project quantification, reporting and verification. Since 2014, Mr. Schroeder has instructed several of these courses in live, two-day sessions and on-line instruction as a sessional lecturer through the university’s School of Environment. Additionally, Mr. Schroeder has worked with the School of Environment to re-write and update the courses.
Training: Greenhouse Gas Verification – ISO 14064-3, Canadian Standards Association, 2012; Instructor – Greenhouse Gas Verification – ISO 14064-3, University of Toronto, 2015 - 2017
Associate Verifier: Rodrigo Cubedo, B.Eng.
Biography: Rodrigo Cubedo has a background in mechanical engineering, specializing in aerospace projects. Rodrigo has leveraged his engineering experience to understand and
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 17 of 69
systematically improve the processes used to work with international clients. He is fluent in Spanish, English, French and basic Mandarin. His experience working with a large accounting firm through an in-house deployment of analytical software exposed him to a systematic research framework, which he has recently used to complete GHG verifications.
Training: Rodrigo Cubedo graduated as a mechanical engineer from McGill University in June of 2016.
Associate Verifier: Ayla Nguyen, Co-op Student
Biography: Ayla Nguyen is a co-op student at Brightspot Climate. She is completing her Bachelor of Science in Earth Sciences at Simon Fraser University. Throughout her studies, she had experience composing a hydrogeology consultation project at Southern Ontario waste landfill site where blasting of site resulted in fractures in the unconfined rock layer. The project includes determining the confined and unconfined aquifer parameters to determine the rate and direction of contaminated groundwater. At Brightspot,
Training: Verifier in Training
Associate Verifier: Jeanna Brown, P.Eng.
Biography: Jeanna Brown is a professional engineer with thirteen years of experience in the oil and gas industry. Since joining Brightspot, Jeanna has gained experience working on GHG verifications for a variety of projects related to oil and gas production and processing, pulp and paper, agriculture and electricity generation. This has included both emission reduction (offset) projects and annual industrial facility reports under the Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER). Jeanna’s other work in greenhouse gas quantification includes scenario modelling for regulatory compliance, quantification of corporate inventories and consulting on offset project development.
Training: Jeanna received GHG Validation and Verification, ISO 14064-3, training through the University of Toronto in September 2017.
Peer Reviewer: Sheldon Fernandes, P.Eng.
Biography: Sheldon Fernandes is a Consultant for Brightspot Climate and has over 6 years of experience implementing innovative policies, programs, and technology focused on addressing energy and sustainability issues. He has strong experience in carbon market analysis, regulatory analysis, financial analysis, sustainability reporting, greenhouse gas (GHG) quantification and verification and energy efficiency program design and delivery in a wide variety of jurisdictions worldwide.
Training: Greenhouse Gas Verification – ISO 14064-3, Canadian Standards Association, 2019
3.3 Schedule Verification Kickoff Meeting January 13, 2020
Verification Plan January 24, 2020
Site Visit January 17, 2020
Draft Verification Report March 25, 2020
Final Verification Report March 30, 2020
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 18 of 69
4.0 Results The verification results are presented in the following five subsections. Subsections 4.1 – 4.3 present the results of the verification procedures for the data integrity (4.1), Quantification Methodologies and Quantification (4.2), and Boundary Conditions and Activity Data (4.3).
4.1 Assessment of Internal Data Management and Controls The Project’s GHG quantification is primarily performed in Excel spreadsheets: “ERC_Pneumatic_Controllers_Modern_Resources_2019_updated_March_16.xlsx” and “ERC_Pneumatic_Pumps_Modern_Resources_2019_updated_March_16.xlsx”. All data required to quantify emissions reductions for the Project is either manually transcribed into these spreadsheets or electronically transferred from other spreadsheets. The final calculated quantities from these spreadsheets are transferred into the Offset Project Report. Data validation is completed before information is transferred; therefore, there are no active data controls in this document.
All activity data are either metered or referenced from supplier invoices. Meters are maintained on a preventative maintenance program, including periodic calibration. Calibration records are filed on-site.
The Responsible Party maintains an Offset Project Plan (OPP) and produces an Offset Project Report (OPR), which document the emission sources, processes for collecting GHG activity data, equations applied to quantify emissions reduction, calculation assumptions, meter calibration procedure and schedule, the averaging method applied to quantification, and a discussion of GHG data management.
Findings from Previous Verification
There were no discrepancies detected in the previous verification of Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification.
Results of Verification Procedures
There were three verification procedures completed to test data integrity. The results of these procedures are provided in the following table.
Table 2: Findings of Data Integrity Verification Procedures
GHG Report Element
Verification Procedures Verification Findings
Activity data and emission factor data integrity
Controls test: Analyze all activity data for abnormal data (zeros, missing data, values outside range).
The activity data was reviewed to detect any missing, zeroes or missing data amongst the data provided. Relevant activity data such as gas analyses were evaluated for completeness and abnormal values. No discrepancies were detected in the integrity of the activity data.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 19 of 69
GHG Report Element
Verification Procedures Verification Findings
Substantive test: Recalculate the complete emission reduction using original data.
The recalculated emission reductions matched the quantities asserted by the Responsible Party. It is therefore a reasonable conclusion that data integrity has been maintained from points of data collection through reporting. No discrepancies were detected in the accuracy of the emission reduction quantification.
Transcription of final emission reduction into Offset Project Report
Substantive test: Compare the final emission reduction quantity reported by the Responsible Party to the quantity reported in the Offset Project Report. Also, compare these quantities to the recalculated quantity in previous verification procedures.
Values reported in the Offset Project Report match the values quantified by the Responsible Party.
No discrepancies were detected in the transcription of values in the Offset Project Report.
4.2 Assessment of GHG Data and Information The GHG information consists of the activity data applied to quantify emissions reductions, the source documentation for the activity data, the information in the Offset Project Plan, as described in the previous section of this report, and the documentation supporting the boundary, methodologies, meter calibration, and emission factors.
Table 3: Findings of GHG Data and Information Verification Procedures
GHG Report Element
Verification Procedures
Verification Findings
Quantification Data
Equipment Inventory Substantive test: review that the field operation logs match the values in the emission reduction calculator.
The pumps and controllers logged by the Responsible Party match the devices used in the quantification spreadsheet. Furthermore, the pump dimensions were confirmed during the site visit and through additional clarification with the Responsible Party. No discrepancies were identified between the devices logged by the Responsible Party, the quantification spreadsheet and project report.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 20 of 69
GHG Report Element
Verification Procedures
Verification Findings
Stroke Count Substantive test: review that the field operation logs match the values in the emission reduction calculator.
The stroke count was obtained from a SCADA report. The stroke counts were accurately transcribed to the Responsible Party’s quantification. No discrepancies were detected between the pressure logs and the Responsible Party’s quantification spreadsheet.
Injection Pressure Reasonableness test: review that the injection pressures fall within a reasonable range.
The injection pressure was obtained from a SCADA report and used to determine the correct emission factor from the manufacturing spreadsheet. No discrepancies were detected between the pressure logs and the Responsible Party’s quantification spreadsheet.
Gas analysis (% CH4 and % CO2)
Substantive test: Analyze gas compositions for significant fluctuations or abnormal gas concentrations.
Review of the gas compositions did not reveal significant fluctuations or abnormal concentrations. No discrepancies were detected in the gas composition analyses used in the quantification.
Substantive test: Confirm the accurate transcription of the gas analyses into the emission reduction calculation.
Third party gas analyses were compared against the values used to quantify emission reductions. Transcription of the gas analysis data to the emission reduction calculation was completed accurately. No discrepancies were identified. Gas analyses were correctly transcribed.
Substantive test: Review completeness of gas composition data.
A review of gas compositions applied in the quantification confirmed that monthly gas composition data was used. Various devices did not use the gas composition associated to the downhole location. The responsible party explained that these locations had the equivalent gas composition as the nearby plant. As a result, the responsible party used the gas composition from this plant to estimate the methane composition of the gas that would have been otherwise used to power the baseline pneumatic devices. No discrepancies were detected in the completeness of the gas composition data.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 21 of 69
GHG Report Element
Verification Procedures
Verification Findings
Operating hours Substantive test: Compare operating hours used in calculations with government reported values and/or raw data from the subproject participant’s data collection software.
The operating hours data for each site were reviewed against participant’s data collection software (SCADA), and were found to be complete. Reported operating hours reflect production downtime during which fuel gas systems (supplying the pneumatic instruments) often remain energized. This is therefore a conservative approach to accounting for operating hours in the quantification. No discrepancies were detected in the operating hours data used in the quantification.
Device vent rates Substantive test: Review and confirm selected specified vent rate values using recalculation spreadsheet.
The vent rate values used in the quantification were taken from the Protocol and manufacturer specifications. For two conversion types, vent rates were derived from a statistically relevant set of field measurements as described in the Protocol. CO2 emission factor for CVS4150 controller was not thoroughly applied. The responsible party fixed this quantification error and updated the total GHG assertion. No discrepancies were identified. The vent rates were obtained from sources that met the protocol criteria.
Substantive test: Review and confirm transcription of device specifications from supporting documentation (field technician installation record) into the data management system.
The vent rates quoted by the Responsible party match the rates used in the quantification spreadsheet. No discrepancies were detected in the transcription of device specifications.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 22 of 69
GHG Report Element
Verification Procedures
Verification Findings
Emission factors – natural gas extraction and processing
Substantive test: Compare the emission factors applied in the calculations to the values provided in the relevant reference documents. Substantive test: Review reference document and make sure the emission factors are all included in the project plan.
The verification team compared the emission factors mentioned in the Offset Project Plan to the emission factors described in the approved Quantification Protocol. The quantification methods described in the Responsible Party’s Offset Project Plan adhere to the methods described in the approved Quantification Protocol. No discrepancies were detected in the emission factors of natural gas extraction and processing.
Reference density of methane and carbon dioxide at STP conditions
Substantive test: Compare the densities of methane and carbon dioxide applied in the calculations to the values provided in the relevant reference documents.
The Responsible Party calculated the density for methane and carbon dioxide using STP conditions. The same value was calculated in the independent recalculation. No discrepancies were detected in the calculated densities for methane and carbon dioxide used in the quantification.
Emission Quantification and Reporting
Application of the approved quantification protocol
Controls test: Compare the methodologies described in the Responsible Party’s Offset Project Plan to the methodologies described in the approved quantification protocol.
The verification team compared the methods described in the Offset Project Plan to the methods described in the approved Quantification Protocol. The quantification methods described in the Responsible Party’s Offset Project Plan adhere to the methods described in the approved Quantification Protocol. No discrepancies were detected in the methodologies described in the Offset Project Plan.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 23 of 69
GHG Report Element
Verification Procedures
Verification Findings
Substantive test: Recalculate the emission reduction using original metered data and methods described in the approved quantification protocol.
Recalculation of emissions reduction was performed using the quantification methodology described by Alberta’s pneumatic devices protocol. The independent recalculation resulted in the same emission reduction quantity asserted by the Responsible Party. No discrepancies were detected in the application of the approved quantification protocol.
Quantification of emission reduction
Substantive test: Recalculate the emission reduction using original metered data.
The independent recalculation of the emission reduction resulted in the same emission reduction quantity asserted by the Responsible Party. Therefore, the Verification Team concluded that no arithmetic or calculation errors were made by the Responsible Party in the emission reduction quantification. Alternative sources of energy (methanol and gasoline) to power the electric devices were noted during the site visit. The responsible party explained that these were only used if there were not to be enough solar energy to power the device. The responsible party provided a conservative estimate of emissions generated by these sources on the project condition. No discrepancies were detected in the recalculation of the emission reduction quantification.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 24 of 69
4.3 Assessment against Criteria Table 4: Findings of Criteria Verification Procedures
GHG Report Element Verification Procedures
Verification Findings
PROTOCOL APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS
Functional equivalence must be demonstrated
Substantive test: Observe equipment and interview operations staff during site visit to determine level of service provided by project implementation.
During the site visits, the verification team observed the pneumatic controllers and pumps, and found that an equivalent level of service is provided by all installations. Site staff indicated that the systems work well and reliably. Ongoing maintenance is performed during regular facility maintenance. Manufacturer specifications indicate that the electric devices can perform equivalent operational function when compared to the high bleed devices present in the baseline condition, further supporting functional equivalence. No discrepancies were detected in the functional equivalence of the converted devices.
Protocol is applicable to methane vent reductions; not applicable to reduction of propane or conversion from propane to methane
Substantive test: Observe equipment and interview operations staff to determine if any propane devices are, or have been, installed.
During the site visits and interviews with site personnel no propane devices were observed, and there were no indications of the use of propane. No discrepancies were detected in the applicability of the Protocol to methane vent reductions only.
Project must be a conversion (brownfield) or an acceptable install (greenfield)
Substantive test: Review documentation for a sample of sites that establishes eligibility according to Table 1 of the Protocol.
All documentation was reviewed to ensure compliance with Table 1 of the Protocol. No discrepancies were identified. The project includes electrification of pneumatic devices in accordance with Table 1 in section “1.2 Protocol Applicability” of the protocol.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 25 of 69
GHG Report Element Verification Procedures
Verification Findings
Pneumatic devices must be properly maintained and inspected
Control Test: Review the Responsible Party’s management system and records to determine if inspection and maintenance procedures have been implemented for all sites and have been maintained through the reporting period.
Although this criterion is not applicable for Pneumatic Device Electrification, the Responsible Party performs annual maintenance through a third-party service provider for all their devices. No discrepancies were detected in the maintenance and inspection of pneumatic devices.
An inventory of devices must be maintained
Substantive test: Observe devices during site visit and compare against project inventory to evaluate completeness.
The Responsible Party maintains a comprehensive inventory list of subprojects included in the aggregated project. Installed equipment observed during site visits were compared against the Responsible Party’s inventory. No discrepancies were detected in the project device inventory.
Substantive test: Review documentation supporting the record of conversion (installation/conversion date) and device specifications.
Installation Records (IRs) were reviewed for a sample of subprojects. Device specifications and installation dates were compared between the IRs and the calculation sheets No discrepancies were detected in the transcription of device specifications.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 26 of 69
GHG Report Element Verification Procedures
Verification Findings
The project must meet the requirements of the Alberta Offset System
Substantive test: Evaluate the Responsible Party’s evidence regarding the general requirements of the Alberta Offset System.
Occurs in Alberta – All sites in the aggregated project are located within Alberta, as confirmed by project documentation. Actions not otherwise required by law – No regulatory requirements were found to apply to the project activity for the sites in the aggregated project. Actions taken on or after January 1, 2002 – Installation and commissioning of all devices occurred after this date, as confirmed by project documentation, installation records, and inquiries of site operations staff. Real, demonstrable, quantifiable – The verification procedures confirmed that the emission reductions in the aggregated assertion meet these requirements. The specific verification procedures supporting this conclusion include observation during the site visits, review of supporting documentation, and the recalculation of the emission reduction. Clearly established ownership – Modern Resources Inc. owns and operates the facilities at which the Project is implemented and asserts that it has ownership of the emissions reductions. Counted once for compliance purposes – The project credits will be registered with the Alberta Emissions Offset Registry (AEOR). Brightspot Climate is not aware of any other systems or registries where the Project has been registered. The Responsible Party has not disclosed registration of the Project on any other system or registry.
PROTOCOL FLEXIBILITY
Implementation of multiple pneumatic device conversions
Substantive test: Evaluate the completeness of the required data and documentation for all project sites included in the aggregated project.
Data and documentation for all sites has been included in the aggregated project. No discrepancies were detected in the completeness of the data and documentation for the device conversions included in this project.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 27 of 69
GHG Report Element Verification Procedures
Verification Findings
Statistically relevant comparisons or emission factors may be used
Substantive Test: Assess statistically relevant emission factors applied in the quantification, and review source data and documentation used in their derivation.
Emission factors derived from a statistically relevant set of field measurements was applied for two device conversion types in the aggregated project. The field measurements and determination of the emission factors were done by a third party. No discrepancies were detected in the use of statistically relevant emission factors.
Site-specific and make and model-specific emission factors may be applied
Substantive test: Assess the emission factors applied in the calculations to the preferential selection method documented in the OPP and compare to reference values provided in the relevant reference documents.
The calculation of the site-specific and make and model-specific emission factors resulted in the estimated emission factors from the manufacturer specification tables. The quantity asserted by the Responsible Party reasonably matches the quantity recalculated. Therefore, the verification team concluded that no arithmetic or calculation errors were made by the Responsible Party in the emission reduction quantification. No discrepancies were detected in the site-specific and make and model-specific emission factors.
Preferential order of methods for baseline and project activity quantification for certain project types
Substantive Test: Recalculate the complete emission reduction using original data and methods described in the approved quantification protocol.
The independent recalculation of the emission reduction resulted in the same emission reduction quantity asserted by the Responsible Party. Therefore, the approved Protocol quantification methods and preferential order of methods were applied in the Responsible Party’s emission reduction quantification.
No discrepancies detected.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 28 of 69
Table 5: Offset Criteria Assessment
Offset Eligibility Criteria
Assessment
The reduction or sequestration must occur in Alberta;
The aggregated project includes subprojects in locations throughout Alberta. The Aggregated Project Reporting Sheet was reviewed to confirm all locations are within the Province of Alberta.
The reduction or sequestration
(i) must result from an action taken that is not required by law at the time the action is taken, and (ii) must not be required by law at the time the reduction or sequestration occurs;
The project activity is not required by municipal, provincial or federal regulations or directives and did not result from an action that was required by law at the time the action was taken.
The reduction or sequestration must (i) result from an action taken on or after January 1, 2002, and (ii) occur on or after January 1, 2002;
The project start date is May 8, 2018.
The reduction or sequestration must be real and demonstrable;
The emission reduction was demonstrated through measurement and estimation of data required for the quantification. The GHG information presented to the verification team included sufficient and appropriate evidence to substantiate conformance with the Protocol Applicability Requirements and to substantiate the quantification data.
The reduction or sequestration must be quantifiable and measurable, directly or by accurate estimation using replicable techniques;
The emission reduction was demonstrated through measurement and estimation of data required for the quantification. This data was substantiated by sufficient and appropriate evidence. Table 3 of this report presents the findings of the evaluation of each variable required for the emission reduction quantification.
The specified gas emissions that were reduced or the carbon dioxide that was sequestered must not have had an effect on the determination of a regulated facility’s total regulated emissions under section 13(3) or (4).
None of the subprojects included in this aggregated project are located at Regulated Facilities. None of the emission reductions occur at Regulated Facilities.
If reverification confirm the project was verified by a third-party verifier that meets the requirements in Part 1 for the Standard for Validation, Verification, and Audit.
Not applicable. This is not a reverification.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 29 of 69
4.4 Evaluation of the GHG Assertion The verification assessment is that the GHG Assertion meets the requirements of the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation
The results of each verification procedure are provided in the preceding three subsections (4.1 – 4.3). Sufficient and appropriate evidence was collected through the verification procedures to reach the verification conclusion at a reasonable level of assurance, which is provided in the Verification Statement.
The data and GHG information provided by the Responsible Party is sufficient to support the GHG assertion.
There were no material or immaterial discrepancies detected in the final GHG assertion.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 30 of 69
4.5 Summary of Findings Table 6: Summary of Findings
Result # Type Summary Description of Finding Source Category or Source/Sink
Understatement/Overstatement
Tonnes CO2 eq % net
Tonnes CO2 eq % absolute
NA NA There were no discrepancies detected in the verification of Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project.
NA NA NA
Total % Error N/A
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 31 of 69
4.6 Opportunity for Improvement Overall, the GHG information was orderly and thoroughly presented.
The quantification spreadsheets were satisfactorily organized and sufficiently transparent to conduct the verification procedures.
Sufficient and appropriate evidence was provided by the Responsible Party to conduct each of the verification procedures.
The Offset Project Plan and Offset Project Report thoroughly document the emission sources, quantification approach, equations, data collection and information controls.
5.0 Closure 5.1 Verification Statement The verification conclusion is: Positive
5.2 Limitation of Liability
5.3 Confirmations
Table 7: Confirmation Findings
Confirmation Confirmation Finding
Correct entry of administrative fields such as facility codes and legal locations
The Offset Project Report was reviewed for completeness and accuracy. All project and legal location information is complete and accurate.
Quantification Methodology document is provided and consists of the required components
The Responsible Party has documented all relevant methodologies, procedures and controls in the Offset Project Plan and the Offset Project Report.
Simplified process flow diagrams and energy diagrams
The Responsible Party’s Offset Project Plan and Offset Project report provide process flow diagrams, which were reviewed and found to accurately represent the Project.
Fuel usage This requirement is not applicable to Offset Projects.
Additional request items/forms are complete and reasonable justification provided where needed
The Statutory Declaration was reviewed and found to be complete.
The Aggregated Project Reporting Sheet was reviewed. Sub-projects listed on this sheet were included in the Aggregated Project
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 32 of 69
Planning Sheet and accurately describe the subprojects included in the Project.
N/A is checked on pages in the reporting form that do not apply
This requirement is not applicable to Offset Projects.
For forecasting facilities, the fund to credit ratio was met
This requirement is not applicable to Offset Projects.
For oil sands facilities, the area fugitive calculations are accounted for, as required
This requirement is not applicable to Offset Projects.
For emission offset projects, confirm alignment with project report plan and project report form requirements
The Responsible Party has prepared an Offset Project Plan and an Offset Project Report that meet all the requirements specified in the Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers, Version 2.0, July 2018
For an aggregate facility, confirm that the compliance report or application includes all of the individual facilities.
This requirement is not applicable to Offset Projects.
6.0 References The documents reviewed through the course of the verification include: None.
+1 (604) 353-0264 • www.brightspot.co • [email protected]
Modern Resources Inc.
Pneumatic Device Electrification Project Verification Plan
January 24, 2020
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
i
Terminology
ISO 14064-2 defines the following terms used in the context of a GHG verification:
GHG Assertion: a declaration or factual and objective statement made by the Responsible
Party.
The Alberta Climate Change Office Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit1 extends this
definition to include the document that identifies the greenhouse gas emission reduction and/or
removals and emissions offsets being claimed by the offset project over a defined period of
time.
Project: activity or activities that alter the conditions identified in the baseline scenario which
cause greenhouse gas emission reductions or greenhouse gas removal enhancements.
The GHG Assertion subject of this verification is for the Modern Resources Pneumatic Device
Electrification Project which will be referred to throughout this document as “the Project”.
ISO 14064-2 defines the following parties associated with the verification:
Responsible Party: person or persons responsible for the provision of the greenhouse gas
assertion and supporting GHG information.
The Responsible Party for this verification is Modern Resources Inc. (Modern).
Intended User: individual or organization identified by those reporting GHG-related information
as being the one who relies on that information to make decisions.
The Intended User for this verification is Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP).
Verifier: competent and independent person, or persons, with the responsibility of performing
and reporting on the verification process.
The Verifier for this verification is Brightspot Climate Inc. (Brightspot Climate). The members of
the verification team are provided in section 2 of this document.
1 Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Version 3.0, December 2018, Alberta Climate Change Office.
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
1
Introduction
This document serves to communicate information between the parties associated with the
independent verification of the Offset Project Report for the Modern Resources Pneumatic Device
Electrification Project.
This document contains six sections:
1. The Introduction, which defines the principles by which this verification will be conducted;
2. The Verification, which defines the verification parameters and the GHG inventory principles that
will be tested by the verification. This section also provides information regarding the verification
team and site visit;
3. The Responsible Party Data Management and Controls, which describes the data management
system and control environment implemented by the Responsible Party;
4. Previous GHG Assertions, which describes any modifications to the original project that have
been made since the original Offset Project Plan was developed and any findings from previous
verifications for this Project;
5. The Verification Risk Assessment and Verification Procedures, which describes the risks of
potential errors, omissions or misrepresentations to the overall GHG assertion and the
verification procedures that have been developed to reduce the overall verification risk; and
6. The Sampling Plan, which lists the verification procedures that could apply sampling of the
project data, along with the sampling size, the sampling methodology and justification.
The Responsible Party developed the Project in accordance with the requirements of the
Quantification Protocol for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic Devices, Version
2.0, January 2017 (the Protocol).
GHG Quantification Principles
ISO 14064-2 defines six principles that are fundamental to the fair accounting and reporting of GHG
information. The verification procedures will test that these principles have been upheld through the
Responsible Party’s inventory, accounting and reporting processes.
Section 3.2 – 3.6 of ISO 14064-2 defines these principles as follows:
Accuracy: reduce bias and uncertainty as far as practical
Completeness: include all relevant emission sources
Conservativeness: use conservative assumptions, values and procedures to ensure that GHG
emission reductions or removal enhancements are not over-estimated
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
2
Consistency: enable meaningful comparisons of reported emissions (from year to year or
between facilities or between companies)
Relevance: select GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs, data and quantification methodologies
appropriate to the needs of the intended user
Transparency: disclose sufficient and appropriate GHG information to facilitate verification and
to allow intended users to make decisions with relative confidence
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
3
Verification
Verification Principles
ISO 14064-3 defines four fundamental principles to conducting a greenhouse gas verification, namely
independence, ethical conduct, fair presentation and due professional care.
Brightspot Climate has implemented processes, including mandatory training for all verification team
members, to ensure the application of these principles for this verification.
Regarding the principle of independence, Brightspot Climate conducted an assessment of threats to
independence prior to initiating this verification. No real or perceived threats to independence were
identified. Brightspot Climate will continue to monitor for threats to independence throughout the
course of this verification. A final “Conflict of Interests Checklist” will be appended to the Verification
Statement.
Verification Parameters
The verification will be conducted according to the parameters defined in the following table:
Table 1: Verification Parameters
Level of Assurance Reasonable assurance
Objectives
• issue a verification statement on whether the GHG assertion is
without material discrepancy;
• issue a verification report that provides details of the verification
activities; and
• complete the “confirmations” activities defined in the Alberta
Climate Change Office Guidance Document2, Section 5.1.3
Criteria
• Climate Change and Emissions Management Act
• Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Version 4.0,
November 2019
• Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers,
Version 3.0, November 2019
• Technology Innovation and Emission Reductions Regulation (A.R.
133/2019, as amended)
• Quantification Protocol for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions
from Pneumatic Devices, Version 2.0, January 2017
2 Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Version 4.0, November 2019. Alberta Environment and Parks.
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
4
Scope
Project Name: Modern Resources Pneumatic Device
Electrification Project
Geographic Boundary: All subprojects are located throughout Alberta’s
provincial boundary.
Physical Operations: Natural gas processing and compression
Pneumatic devices and controllers Emission Sources: Pneumatic pump and controller electrification
• B7: Vented Fuel Gas
• P7: Project Vented Gas
• P8: Process Control Electricity
• P9: Fuel Extraction and Processing
IPCC GHGs Emitted: Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CH4)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Reporting Period: January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019
Materiality Quantitative materiality threshold is 5% of asserted greenhouse gas
emission reduction.
Preliminary Verification
Schedule
Verification Kickoff Meeting January 13, 2020
Draft Verification Plan January 24, 2020
Site Visit February 25, 2020
Draft Verification Report March 25, 2020
Final Verification Report March 30, 2020
Verification Team
Aaron Schroeder, P.Eng., will be the Lead Verifier and Designated Signing Authority for this verification.
His extensive experience quantifying and verifying greenhouse gas emissions satisfies all sixteen subject
matter areas defined in the ISO 14064-3.
Jeanna Brown, P.Eng., will be the technical expert and will provide analytical support to the verification
team through the completion of the verification procedures and the development of the Verification
Report.
Rodrigo Cubedo, EIT will provide analytical support to the verification team through the completion of
the verification procedures and the development of the Verification Report.
Ayla Nguyen, Co-op student, will provide analytical support to the verification team through the
completion of the verification procedures and the development of the Verification Report.
Sheldon Fernandes, P.Eng., will conduct an independent peer review of the verification.
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
5
Additional information regarding the qualifications of the verification team will be provided in a
Statement of Qualifications, which will be appended to the Statement of Verification.
Site Visit Safety Requirements
Personnel conducting site visits must be clean shaven and are required to wear personal protective
equipment including CSA approved hard hat, steel toed boots, fire retardant coveralls, work gloves,
hearing protection and eye protection with side shields. A site orientation must be completed before
entering the site.
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
6
Responsible Party Data Management and Controls
Data Management Systems
Modern Resources Inc., as the project developer, has the primary responsibility of collecting GHG
information, quantifying the emission reduction and completing required documentation.
The Responsible Party uses a 3rd party electronic data management software system to collect, record
and manage GHG information to support the emission reduction quantification. The Responsible Party
uses an Excel based calculator to perform the emission reduction calculations. Table 2, below,
describes the data measurement, estimation and data storage locations for all GHG information used
by the Responsible Party to produce the GHG inventory. The final column in this table describes the
data storage location and the path (intermediate data transfer) prior to use in the GHG inventory.
Table 2: GHG Information Data Management
Activity Data Description Measurement Type Data Storage Location / Path
Equipment Inventory
(make, model, plunger
size, stroke length, etc.)
Field Operations Staff
Collection
Field Operations
>>Internal Data Management System Digital
Action Tracking System (DATS)
>>Emission Reduction Calculator (ERC)
Stroke Count Field Operations Staff
Collection
Field Operations
>> DATS
>> ERC
Injection Pressure Automated Collection
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
– Remote/on-site data collection
>> Production Manager – Internal Production
Data Management System (ProdMan)
>>ERC
Gas Analysis Third party analysis
Field Operations arrange with AGAT Laboratories
to complete on-site samples
>>Upload analysis on WebFluids database
>>Data populated into ERC
Operating Hours Automated Collection
SCADA
>> Production Volumes Reporting (PVR) – Field
Data Capture System
>>ProdMan
>> ERC
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
7
Control Environment
The Responsible Party’s Offset Project Plan (OPP) describes the processes, procedures and systems
that have been designed and implemented within their quality assurance/quality control framework. The
accuracy and completeness of the documentation of the Responsible Party’s controls will be reviewed
through the course of the verification.
The following processes, procedures and systems have been employed by the Responsible Party:
• Quantification is based on direct metering and measurement.
• Data is transferred electronically between systems to reduce transcription errors.
• Gas composition is analyzed by a third party laboratory.
• The Responsible Party has implemented a QA/QC and senior review process to validate data,
transcription, calculations, references and methodologies.
• All quantification data is stored on the Responsible Party’s corporate server in a unique project
folder under the date it was downloaded. Electronic data is backed up by a third party service
provider.
• The Responsible Party has implemented a record retention system that meets the requirements
of the Regulation.
• The Offset Project Plan (OPP) is reviewed annually for accuracy, completeness, consistency,
relevance and transparency. The OPP documents:
• Project boundary
• Project processes
• Emission sources
• Changes made to the project since the baseline condition was established
• Activity data used to quantify emissions
• Emission quantification equations and other methods for deriving values required for the
quantification of emissions
• Emission factors and references
• Data management
• Data quality controls and procedures
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
8
Previous GHG Assertions
Changes to Operations and Boundaries
This is the second year that Brightspot Climate has provided verification services for the Project.
There are new pneumatic devices installed and aggregated as part of the Offset Project. Brightspot
Climate Inc. will consider these new devices during site visits and throughout the verification process.
Findings from Previous Verifications
There were no discrepancies identified in previous verification results.
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
9
Verification Risk Assessment and Verification Procedures
Verification risk is defined as the risk of an incorrect verification conclusion. It can be calculated as the
product of
• The Facility’s inherent risks;
• The Responsible Party’s control risks; and
• The detection risks associated with the verifier’s verification procedures.
Inherent Risk × Control Risk × Detection Risk = Verification Risk
The verifier cannot affect the inherent risk or the control risk. Therefore, to reduce the overall verification
risk and reach the agreed level of assurance (defined in the verification scope), the verifier must design
verification procedures that reduce the detection risk.
Each inherent and control risk was provided with the risk score (high/medium/low). The risk analysis of
inherent and control risks considers both the magnitude of the activity data or inventory component on
the overall GHG assertion as well as the probability that the risk will result in a discrepancy, as assessed
by the auditor.
The Verification Risk Assessment Summary on the following pages describes the following information:
Activity Data / Inventory Component: The boundary, eligibility requirement, data component or
reporting activity being evaluated.
Inherent Risk: The verifier’s evaluation of inherent risk. Inherent risks have been categorized
according to the ISO 14064-1 principles (accuracy, completeness, consistency, relevance,
transparency)
Control Risk: A description of the Responsible Party’s controls (if any controls are applicable)
and the verifier’s evaluation of control risks.
Max Detection Risk: The maximum detection risk that can be applied and still result in an overall
verification risk that meets the agreed level of assurance.
Designed Detection Risk: The detection risk of the verification procedure that the verifier intends
to complete. Note that the designed detection risk must always be equal to or lower than the
maximum detection risk.
Verification risk: the product of the inherent, control and (designed) detection risk, as defined in
the equation above.
Important note: The verification strategy for this verification is to use substantive tests instead of control
tests wherever possible. Substantive tests are designed to focus on directly testing activity data or
inventory components and their associated inherent risks. Control tests are designed to focus on
testing the Responsible Party’s controls and if the test is successful, relying on the Responsible Party’s
control. Therefore, control tests indirectly test activity data or inventory components.
Each verification procedure listed in the following table denotes if the procedure is a substantive or
control test.
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
10
Table 3: Verification Risk Assessment Summary
Source or Risk Area Attributes Inherent
Risk
Control
Risk
Detection
Risk
Procedure to Mitigate Risk
PROTOCOL APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS
Functional equivalence
must be demonstrated
Occurrence Medium High Low Substantive test: Observe equipment and interview
operations staff during site visit to determine level of
service provided by project implementation.
Protocol is applicable to
methane vent reductions;
not applicable to reduction
of propane or conversion
from propane to methane
Occurrence Low High Low Substantive test: Observe equipment and interview
operations staff to determine if any propane devices are,
or have been, installed.
Project must be a
conversion (brownfield) or
an acceptable install
(greenfield)
Occurrence High High Low Substantive test: Review documentation for a sample of
sites that establishes eligibility according to Table 1 of the
Protocol.
Pneumatic devices must
be properly maintained and
inspected
Consistency Low Low Low Control Test: Review the Responsible Party’s
management system and records to determine if
inspection and maintenance procedures have been
implemented for all sites and have been maintained
through the reporting period.
Substantive test: Observe equipment and interview
operations staff to determine if inspection and
maintenance procedures have been done.
An inventory of devices
must be maintained
Completeness Medium Low Low Substantive test: Observe devices during site visit and
compare against project inventory to evaluate
completeness.
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
11
Source or Risk Area Attributes Inherent
Risk
Control
Risk
Detection
Risk
Procedure to Mitigate Risk
Accuracy Medium Low Low Substantive test: Review documentation supporting the
record of conversion (installation/conversion date) and
device specifications for a sample of subprojects.
The project must meet the
requirements of the Alberta
Offset System
Occurrence High High Low Substantive test: Evaluate the Responsible Party’s
evidence regarding the general requirements of the Alberta
Offset System.
PROTOCOL FLEXIBILITY
Implementation of multiple
pneumatic device
conversions
Completeness Medium Low Low Substantive test: Evaluate the completeness of the
required data and documentation for all project sites
included in the aggregated project.
Statistically relevant
comparisons or emission
factors may be used
Accuracy Medium Low Low Substantive Test: Assess the statistically relevant emission
factors applied in the quantification and their reference
documentation to ensure they are correctly applied.
Site-specific and make and
model-specific emission
factors may be applied
Accuracy Medium Low Low Substantive test: Assess the emission factors applied in
the calculations to the preferential selection method
documented in the OPP, and compare to reference values
provided in the relevant reference documents.
Preferential order of
methods for baseline and
project activity
quantification for certain
project types
Accuracy Low Low Low Substantive Test: Recalculate the complete emission
reduction using original data and methods described in the
approved quantification protocol.
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
12
Source or Risk Area Attributes Inherent
Risk
Control
Risk
Detection
Risk
Procedure to Mitigate Risk
QUANTIFICATION DATA
Equipment inventory Accuracy Low Low Low Review equipment inventory recorded with SCADA and
confirm at site visits.
Completeness Low Low Low Review equipment inventory recorded with SCADA and
confirm at site visits.
Stroke count Accuracy Low Low Low Review stroke count measured with SCADA and confirm
at site visits.
Completeness Low Low Low Review stroke count measured with SCADA and confirm
at site visits.
Injection pressure Accuracy Low Low Low Review injection pressure measured with SCADA and
confirm at site visits.
Completeness Low Low Low Review injection pressure measured with SCADA and
ensure data is complete.
Gas analysis
(% CH4 and % CO2)
Accuracy Low Low Low Substantive test: Analyze gas compositions for significant
fluctuations or abnormal gas concentrations.
Completeness Low High Low Substantive test: Confirm the accurate transcription of the
gas analyses into the emission reduction calculation.
Operating hours Accuracy Medium High Low Substantive test: Compare operating hours used in
calculations with government reported values.
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
13
Source or Risk Area Attributes Inherent
Risk
Control
Risk
Detection
Risk
Procedure to Mitigate Risk
Device vent rates Accuracy Medium Medium Low Substantive test: Review and confirm selected specified
vent rate values using recalculation spreadsheet.
Completeness Medium Medium Low Substantive test: Review and confirm transcription of
device specifications from supporting documentation.
Emission factors – natural
gas extraction and
processing
Accuracy
Low Low Low Review reference document and make sure the emission
factors are up to date.
Completeness Low Low Low Review reference document and make sure the emission
factors are all included in the project plan.
Reference density of
methane and carbon
dioxide at STP conditions
Accuracy Low Low Low Substantive test: Compare the emission factors applied in
the calculations to the values provided in the relevant
reference documents.
Completeness Low Low Low Substantive test: Compare the densities of methane and
carbon dioxide applied in the calculations to the values
provided in the relevant reference documents.
EMISSION REDUCTION QUANTIFICATION
Application of the
approved quantification
protocol
Accuracy Medium Medium Low Controls test: Compare the methodologies described in
the Responsible Party’s Offset Project Plan to the
methodologies described in the approved quantification
protocol.
Substantive test: Recalculate the emission reduction using
original metered data and methods described in the
approved quantification protocol.
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
14
Source or Risk Area Attributes Inherent
Risk
Control
Risk
Detection
Risk
Procedure to Mitigate Risk
Quantification of emission
reduction
Accuracy Medium High Low Substantive test: Recalculate the emission reduction using
original metered data.
DATA INTEGRITY
Activity data and emission
factor data integrity
Accuracy Medium Medium Low Controls test: Analyze all activity data for abnormal data
(zeros, missing data, values outside range).
Substantive test: Recalculate the complete emission
reduction using original data.
Transcription of final
emission reduction into
Offset Project Report
Accuracy
Low High Low Substantive test: Compare the final emission reduction
quantity reported by the Responsible Party to the quantity
reported in the Offset Project Report. Also, compare these
quantities to the recalculated quantity in previous
verification procedures.
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
15
Sampling Plan
The verification procedures that could apply sampling of the project data are listed in the following table.
The sampling size, the sampling methodology and their respective justifications are also described in the following table.
Table 4: Sampling Plan
Activity Data /
Inventory
Component
Detection
Risk
Design
Description of Verification
Procedure
Sampling Methodology and
Justification
Sample Size
Equipment
Inventory
Low Substantive test: review that the
field operation logs match the
values in the emission reduction
calculator.
Review of full dataset has lower
detection risk than sampling.
All values
Low Review that the field operator
transcribes the data onto the data
management system are complete.
Review of full dataset has lower
detection risk than sampling.
All values
Stroke Count Low Substantive test: review that the
field operation logs match the
values in the emission reduction
calculator.
Review of full dataset has lower
detection risk than sampling.
All values
Low Review that the field operator
transcribes the data onto the data
management system are complete.
Review of full dataset has lower
detection risk than sampling.
All values
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
16
Activity Data /
Inventory
Component
Detection
Risk
Design
Description of Verification
Procedure
Sampling Methodology and
Justification
Sample Size
Injection Pressure Low Reasonableness test: review that
the injection pressures fall within a
reasonable range.
Review of full dataset has lower
detection risk than sampling.
All values
Low Review that the injection pressures
are complete in the project plan.
Review of full dataset has lower
detection risk than sampling.
All values
Gas analysis
(% CH4 and %
CO2)
Low Substantive test: Analyze gas
compositions for significant
fluctuations or abnormal gas
concentrations.
Confirm the accurate transcription
of the gas analysis into the
emission reduction calculation.
Review of full dataset has lower
detection risk than sampling.
Annual sample for each site
Medium Review completeness of gas
composition data.
Review transcription for all gas
analyses has lower detection risk
than sampling.
Review gas analysis for all devices.
Operating hours Low Substantive test: Compare
operating hours used in
calculations with reported values.
Compare reported values for all
sites has lower detection risk than
sampling.
Compare operating hours for all
devices.
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
17
Activity Data /
Inventory
Component
Detection
Risk
Design
Description of Verification
Procedure
Sampling Methodology and
Justification
Sample Size
Low Review completeness of operating
hours data.
Compare reported values for all
sites has lower detection risk than
sampling.
All values
Device vent rates Low Substantive test: Review and
confirm selected specified vent rate
values using recalculation
spreadsheet.
Review of full dataset has lower
detection risk than sampling.
All values
Medium Substantive test: Review and
confirm transcription of device
specifications from supporting
documentation (work orders,
invoices, photos, etc.) into data
management system.
Stratification of subproject
participants; random sampling;
discrepancies are normally
distributed
Review vent rates for all devices.
Emission factors –
natural gas
extraction and
processing
Low Compare the emission factors
applied in the calculations to the
values provided in the relevant
reference documents.
Assess statistically relevant
emission factors applied in the
quantification, and review source
data and documentation used in
their derivation.
All values
Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Plan Modern Resources Inc. – Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
18
Activity Data /
Inventory
Component
Detection
Risk
Design
Description of Verification
Procedure
Sampling Methodology and
Justification
Sample Size
Low Review that the emission factors
are complete in the project plan.
Assess statistically relevant
emission factors applied in the
quantification, and review source
data and documentation used in
their derivation.
All values
Reference
densities of
methane and
carbon dioxide at
STP conditions
Low Substantive test: Compare the
densities of methane and carbon
dioxide applied in the calculations
to the values provided in the
relevant reference documents.
There are only two values, to be
applied throughout the
quantification.
Two values
Low Review the referenced densities of
methane and carbon dioxide for
completion in the QMD.
Two values Review the two values for
referenced density that has lower
detection risk than sampling.
Page 56 of 69
Statement of Qualifications
Alberta Emission Offset Project
Emission Offset Project Name Offset Project ID
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474
Emission Offset Project Developer Offset Reporting Period
Modern Resources Inc. January 1, 2019
December 31, 2019
from to
Signature of Designated Signing Authority
I,
Aaron Schroeder (Designated Signing Authority), meet or exceed the qualifications and eligibility of a third party assurance provider described in Section 27 of the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation.
Third Party Assurance Provider Company Name
Brightspot Climate Inc. Per:
Signature of Designated Signing Authority Date
Training Received meeting Verification Standard requirements
• Greenhouse Gas Verification – ISO 14064-3, Canadian Standards Association, 2012 • Instructor – Greenhouse Gas Verification – ISO 14064-3, University of Toronto, 2015-present
First Name Last Name Aaron Schroeder
Professional Designation or Accreditation Org/Number E-mail Address Phone Number
Professional Engineer [email protected] 604.353.0264
Lead Verifier
� Same as designated signing authority.
First Name Last Name
Professional Designation or Accreditation Org/Number E-mail Address Phone Number
Training Received meeting Verification Standard requirements
March 30, 2020
Page 57 of 69
Peer Reviewer First Name Last Name Sheldon Fernandes E-mail Address Phone Number [email protected]
Sheldon: (647)967-1649
Training Received meeting Verification Standard requirements
• GHG Validation and Verification, ISO 14064-3, University of Toronto, 2019
Page 59 of 69
Table 8: Detailed Findings and Issues Log
Item (YR-##)
Description of the Issues Investigated During the Verification
Summary of Information Exchanged
Resolution (Resolved or Unresolved)
Conclusion (including % discrepancy if applicable)
19-01 Alternative sources of energy (methanol and gasoline) to power the electric devices were noted during the site visit.
The responsible party explained that these were only used if there were not to be enough solar energy to power the device. The responsible party provided a conservative estimate of emissions generated by these sources on the project condition.
Resolved No discrepancy was identified with the use of alternative fuel to power the solar driven devices.
19-02 Various devices did not use the gas composition associated to the downhole location.
The responsible party explained that these locations had the equivalent gas composition as the nearby plant. As a result, the responsible party used the gas composition from this plant to estimate the methane composition of the gas that would have been otherwise used to power the baseline pneumatic devices.
Resolved No discrepancy was identified.
19-03 CO2 emission factor for CVS4150 controller was not thoroughly applied.
The responsible party fixed this quantification error and updated the total GHG assertion.
Resolved No discrepancy was identified.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 61 of 69
Statement of Verification
Alberta Emission Offset Project
Emission Offset Project Title
Quantification Protocol (Date/Version) Project ID #
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project
Quantification Protocol for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic Devices, Version 2.0, January 2017
1714-3474
Emission Offset Project Developer Offset Reporting Period Start Serial Range (if applicable)
Modern Resources Inc. January 1, 2019 N/A
Authorized Project Contact (if applicable) Offset Reporting Period End
N/A December 31, 2019
Statement of Verification
Total GHG Assertion
Value Units
Total Baseline Emissions 13,111 tonnes CO2eq
Total Project Emissions 4 tonnes CO2eq
Other (I.e. levied) N/A tonnes CO2eq
Net Reduction 13,107 tCO2e
Statement of Assertion
The Responsible Party’s GHG Assertion is comprised of the Offset Project Plan, Offset Project Report and supporting documentation.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 62 of 69
The GHG Assertion covers the reporting period January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019 and states an emission reduction and removal claim of 13,107 tonnes CO2e over this period.
The emission reduction and removal claim consist of 2019 vintage credits.
Responsibilities of Project Developer and Third-Party Assurance Provider
Our responsibility as the Verifier is to express an opinion as to whether the GHG Assertion is materially correct, in accordance with approved Protocol, the Technology Innovation and Emission Reduction (the “Regulation”), and the Alberta Climate Change Office – Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers, Version 3.0, November 2019.
We completed our review in accordance with the ISO 14064 Part 3: Greenhouse Gases: Specification with Guidance for the Validation and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Assertions (ISO, 2006). As such, we planned and performed our work in order to provide positive, but not absolute assurance with respect to the GHG Assertion.
The verification procedures that were performed through the course of the verification were developed based on the results of a risk assessment that was completed during the verification planning stage. These verification procedures are described in the Verification Plan. Certain verification procedures included data sampling. The sampling type, sample size and the justification for the planned sampling type and size are detailed in a Sampling Plan, which is included in the Verification Plan.
Conclusion
I believe our work provides a reasonable basis for my conclusion.
There were no unresolved misstatements in the final GHG Assertion.
Based on our review, it is my opinion at a reasonable level of assurance that the GHG Assertion is materially correct and presented fairly in accordance with the relevant criteria.
Signature of Designated Signing Authority
Verification Company Name
Brightspot Climate Inc. Per: Aaron Schroeder
Signature of Designated Signing Authority
Date:
First Name Last Name
Aaron Schroeder
Professional Designation/Accreditation Org & Number E-mail Address Phone Number
March 30, 2020
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 63 of 69
Professional Engineer [email protected] (604) 353-0264
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 65 of 69
Conflict of Interest Checklist
Alberta Emission Offset Project
Emission Offset Project Title
Quantification Protocol (Date/Version)
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474
Quantification Protocol for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from Pneumatic Devices, Version 2.0, January 2017
Project Developer Offset Reporting Period Start Offset Reporting Period End
Modern Resources Inc. January 1, 2019 December 31, 2019
Checklist
Respond either "True" or "False" to each of the following statements:
1. The relationship between my firm and this reporting company poses
unacceptable threat to or compromises the impartiality of my firm.
False
2. The finances and sources of income of my firm compromise the
impartiality of my firm.
False
3. The personnel my firm has scheduled to participate in the verification
may have an actual or potential conflict of interest.
False
4.
My firm participated in some manner in the development or completion of the associated offset submission for this reporting company.
False
5. My firm provided greenhouse gas consultancy services to this
reporting company.
False
6. My firm will use personnel that have, are, or will be engaged or
previously employed by the reporting company.
False
7. My firm will outsource the Statement of Verification for the
associated offset submission.
False
8. My firm offers products or services that pose an unacceptable risk to
impartiality.
False
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, the Verification Report will not be acceptable to Alberta Environment and Parks.
Modern Resources Pneumatic Device Electrification Project 1714-3474 March 2020
Page 66 of 69
Signature of Designated Signing Authority
I , Aaron Schroeder (Designated Signing Authority), 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.
Verification Company Name
Brightspot Climate Inc.
Per: Aaron Schroeder
Signature of Designated Signing Authority
Date:
First Name Last Name
Aaron Schroeder
Professional Designation/ Accreditation Org & Number E-mail Address Phone Number
Professional Engineer [email protected] (604) 353-0264
March 30, 2020
Page 68 of 69
Table 9: Supporting Documentation Reviewed
File Name Description
Project_Report_Modern_Resources_Pneumatic_
Device_Conversion_Feb_2019_updated_March_16.pdf Offset Project Report
Project Plan_Modern Resources Pneumatic Device
Conversion_March 2018.pdf Offset Project Plan
APRS_20200206_2019_updated_March_3.xlsm Aggregated Project Reporting Sheet
ERC_Pneumatic_Controllers_Modern_Resources_
2019_updated_March_16.xlsx
Quantification Spreadsheet
ERC_Pneumatic_Pumps_Modern_Resources_
2019_updated_March_16.xlsx
Quantification Spreadsheet
MCI_-_C1_Stroke_Calculator.xlsx Stroke calculator
MCIData_07-16_P1_to_Brightspot.xlsx MCI Data
Various Gas Analysis invoices (x19 folders) Gas Analysis
Various Operating Hours notepad (x6)
Well Op hours.xlsx
Controller Operating Hours
Limitation of Liability
This report is intended for the responsible party and the intended user as defined in the attached verification report. The sole intention of the report is to verify the GHG assertion made by the responsible party named in the report and is not intended to provide assurance of any kind for any purpose other than for reporting under the GHG program as defined in the scope of the attached report.
Brightspot Climate disclaims liability for use by any other party and for any other purpose.
Page 69 of 69
Accreditation
Brightspot Climate Inc. is an accredited verification body by the Standards Council of Canada1.
This verification was completed in conformance with the requirements of the ISO 14064-3, ISO 14065 and ISO 14066 standards.
1 The SCC Accreditation Symbol is an official symbol of the Standards Council of Canada, used under license.