RDCDM 152 Registered PDD - PDD 2 - Clean - No Highlights

CDM-PDD-FORM
Project design document form for

CDM project activities
(Version 05.0)
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT (PDD)
Title of the project activity Rang Dong Oil Field Associated Gas Recovery and Utilization
Project
Version number of the PDD 9.0
Completion date of the PDD 29th July 2014
Project participant(s)  Japan Vietnam Petroleum Company Limited

 Vietnam Oil and Gas Group
 Petrovietnam Exploration Production Corporation
 ConocoPhillips (U.K) Gama Limited
Host Party Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Sectoral scope and selected Sectoral scope 10 - Fugitive emission from fuels (solid, oil and
methodology(ies), and where gas)
applicable, selected standardized Methodology – AM0009 Version 2.1
baseline(s)
Estimated amount of annual average 675,858 tCO2

GHG emission reductions
Version 05.0 Page 1 of 69

CDM-PDD-FORM
SECTION A. Description of project activity
A.1. Purpose and general description of project activity
The purpose of the project activity is the recovery and utilization of gases produced as a by-
product of oil production activities at the Rang Dong oil field, located about 140 kilometres off the
south-eastern coast of Vietnam.
Prior to 2002, this by-product gas was disposed at the platform via a combustion process known in
the industry as flaring. During this process, waste gas was burned on site to produce a waste
stream consisting largely of CO2 but also containing uncombusted remnants of the original waste
stream. The amount of by-product gas not burned depends on the efficiency of the flare
equipment.
Project activity includes construction of a gas pipeline and compressor facilities to recover and
transport the by-product gas, which would otherwise have been flared. As a result of this reduction
in flaring activities, CO2 emission has been reduced. The gas recovered is processed into dry gas
(mostly CH4), as well as LPG (butane and propane), and condensate (hydrocarbon molecules
containing five or more carbons). The dry gas is supplied to nearby power plants (Phu My and Ba
Ria) and will be sent to a local fertilizer plant, whereas LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas ) and
condensate is consumed domestically as home cooking fuel and is used to produce gasoline.
The baseline scenario is the continued flaring of the associated gas produced from Rang Dong
fields. The baseline scenario is determined by assessing and comparing four possible baseline
scenarios in addition to the project scenario from the view points of legislative issues, technical
issues and economical attractiveness as summarized below and elaborated in B.4:
(a) Legal issue: Pursuant to Petroleum Law, the Vietnamese Government allowed the flaring of
associated gas in Block 15-2 to support crude oil production. Therefore, recovery of associated
gas is not required by law, though the Government prefers efficient use of its natural resources
to help reduce its dependence on imported fuel.
(b) Commercial viability: As explained in further detail below, the commercial viability of the
project would be questionable without the availability of CERs.
(c) Lack of sufficient alternatives: Direct venting of CH4 and other produced gasses to the
atmosphere is prohibited by the Vietnamese Government. Re-injection of associated gas into the
oil reservoir can be carried out in order to enhance oil recovery, but it is not carried out since gas
injection is more expensive and less efficient than water injection. Furthermore, there is no
conclusive proof that such gases would not eventually be emitted to the atmosphere (this may
result in emission of CH4, a more potent GHG than the CO2 associated with flaring).
Consumption of associated gas at the oil field for the purpose of onsite power generation is an
activity currently being carried out but the amount utilised is small compared to the amount
recovered. Recovery, land transport and utilization of gas (which is the project activity) is not
considered commercially attractive relative to other investment opportunities.
In conclusion, the emission reductions would not occur in the absence of the proposed project
activity.
Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions:
Construction of the gas pipeline and compressor enables the transport and use of associated
gases that would otherwise have to be flared (ie. burned and emitted as CO2) for security and
economic reasons. Installation of compressor is required since it is difficult to transport the gases
by wellhead pressure alone. Since compression is required for gas transportation only, installation
of the compressor facility does not result in increased production of gases beyond what would

CDM-PDD-FORM
have occurred in the absence of compression. All gas is produced strictly as a by-product of oil
production.
This gas is processed into dry gas (mostly CH4), LPG (propane and butane), and condensate. Dry
gas is sent to the local power plants, substituting for gas and fuel oil previously used, and will be
sent to a local fertilizer plant. Therefore, the project reduces anthropogenic GHG emissions
through the recovery and utilization of gas which would otherwise been flared. GHG emission
reductions may also occur at the power plant, since utilization of gas partly substitutes for fuel oil.
In the interest of conservativeness however, this calculation is not included in the proposed
methodology. LPG and condensate produced from the recovered gas substitutes for a certain
amount of LPG and condensate currently imported and therefore have no net effect on GHG
emission of the project.
Fertilizer produced from dry gas is expected to substitute fertilizer made from similar materials.
Therefore, use of dry gas for fertilizer manufacture is not expected to result in net increase of
greenhouse gas emission.
An estimated average reduction in GHG emissions of 675,858 tCO2 per year is expected during
the ten year crediting period.
Contribution to sustainable development:

This project contributes to the sustainable development of Vietnam in several ways. The project
provides an additional source of clean-burning natural gas to support the development needs of
Vietnam and contributes to reduction of import dependency of petroleum products through
provision of gas to the power plants at a significantly reduced price - about half the rate obtained
through other gas fields. The elimination of flaring offshore and the substitution of gas for existing
fuel in domestic electricity production results in reduced atmospheric pollution. Finally, the net
volume of CO2 emissions eliminated is approximately 6,758,577 tonnes over the crediting period.
The CERs will be transferred to the Project Participants.
A.2. Location of project activity

A.2.1. Host Party
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
A.2.2. Region/State/Province etc.
Rang Dong oil field, about 140km off the coast of south-eastern Vietnam (see attached map).
A.2.3. City/Town/Community etc.
The project takes place offshore. The nearest major city is Vung Tau City, administrative centre of
Baria – Vung Tau Province, where the gas processing plant is located 140 km from Rang Dong oil
field.

CDM-PDD-FORM
A.2.4. Physical/Geographical location
106° 108° 110°
m
0
Ho Chi Minh
10
m
20 m
Ho Chi Minh
60
m
50
Vung Tau
10° 10°
0m
Rang Dong
2 00
oil field
1000 m
8° 8°
South-eastern
coast of Vietnam
106° 108° 110°
A.3. Technologies and/or measures
The technology consists of a pipeline and a compressor facility. The pipeline was constructed in
full compliance with environmental regulations, and was subject to an environmental impact
assessment (please see section D). The compressor facility was installed on an existing facility in
October 2003, and thus there was no need to construct additional facilities such as a wellhead
platform. Therefore, the impact to the environment was kept to a minimum. No other additional
construction (e.g. facilities for sweetening) was necessary.
Specification
Pipeline 46.5km in length, from Rang Dong oil field to Bach Ho oil field (to be
connected to the existing pipeline from Bach Ho to onshore gas
processing plant)
- Design life: 30 years
- ANSI rating: ANSI class 600
- MAOP: 100barg (1450psig)
- Design flow rate: 4.5 million Nm3/d
- Material: API 5L X 65
- Outside diameter: 16”
- Corrosion allowance: 3mm (0.125in)
Compressor Currently anticipated specification:
facility - Turbine power: 9,104kW (35dec C)
- Compressor speed: 13,768
- BKW inc GB loss 8,711
- Efficiency 82.4%, 76,5%
Project Scheme

CDM-PDD-FORM

CDM-PDD-FORM
Post registration changes:

Since 2008, several changes have occurred as reflected in the project scheme and summarised in below table:
Whether the changes How the changes would impact the
would have been overall operation/ability of the
No Description of changes Reasons for the changes
known prior to project activity to deliver emission
registration reductions as stated in the PDD
1 Phuong Dong oil field Due to the marginal oil The commercial Phuong Dong and Rang Dong are
On 24th August 20081, Phuong Dong field reserves and short production discovery of Phuong geologically separated and there is
which is new oil discovery 2 located about life, the utilization of existing Dong which is no reservoir connection between
18 km northeast of Rang Dong field within facilities at Rang Dong field is prerequisite condition them so Phuong Dong production
the same contract area of Block 15-2 the only solution to develop for Phuong Dong does not lead to the increase of
started production. Phuong Dong economically. development was Rang Dong production and
Phuong Dong oil reserves were evaluated Though the main purpose of made only on 3rd May subsequently the gas quantity
as marginal for development hence Phuong Dong development is 2007 after the CDM recovered from Rang Dong which is
minimum facility development concept with to produce oil but, as a result registration (04th regarded as baseline emission.
no processing facilities at Phuong Dong of using existing facilities at February 2006) However, though the capacity of
was selected to save investment cost. The Rang Dong, by-product gas existing processing facilities at Rang
well fluid (mixture of crude oil and from Phuong Dong is Dong field including the compressor
associated gas) produced from Phuong recovered and exported to & pipeline under the project activity
Dong is transported via newly installed 18- shore together with Rang is expected to be enough for
km pipeline to Rang Dong oil field where it Dong gas and the volume of production of both fields 3 and JOA
is processed and separated into oil and gas measured at the exit of contractually requires that Phuong
associated gas. The processed oil which is Rang Dong oil field which Dong development, as an Exclusive
main Phuong Dong product shifted together originally was used for Operation, should not jeopardize,
with Rang Dong oil while a part of the by- baseline emission calculation hinder the Rang Dong Joint
product gas is supplied back to Phuong in the PDD registered in 2006 Operation 4 , there should be
Dong for gas lift operation and the represents the gas quantity of inevitable negative impact to Rang
remainder is transported together with mixture of Rang Dong gas and Dong production and, subsequently,
Rang Dong gas to Dinh Co Gas Processing Phuong Dong gas. reduce the gas quantity recovered
Plant for producing dry gas, LPG and Phuong Dong development from Rang Dong field as result of
condensate. was not included in the the share use of Rang Dong
1
Phuong Dong Certificate of Handover dated 29 July 2008 and Daily Executive Report dated 24 August 2008
2
Commercial Discovery was made on 3rd May 2007
3
Design capacity of compressor and pipeline are 2.4 and 4 million m3 per day while expected exportable gas quantity of Rang Dong and Phuong Dong is less than
3
1.6 million m per day
4
Clause 7.1 (c) of JOA

CDM-PDD-FORM
As only two PSC contractor parties (JVPC registered PDD so gas facilities such as during
and PVEP while COP rejected) decided to recovered from Phuong Dong commissioning, maintenance works
participate in, Phuong Dong is an Exclusive is eliminated from baseline or emergency situations due to
Operation in accordance with Joint emission as described in detail Phuong Dong operation.
Operating Agreement (“JOA”) and it is in section B.6.1 and will not On the other hand, it is difficult for a
operationally and financially independent lead to the CER increase marginal field as Phuong Dong to
from Rang Dong field. Therefore, Phuong beyond the declared amount in consider installation of new gas
Dong field can be considered as the the registered PDD in 2006. compression system and pipeline
changes happened outside of project for recovering its small gas quantity
boundary. and Phuong Dong gas would have
been flared without the project
activity. Therefore it is worth
mentioning the contribution of the
project activity to the emission
reduction from recovering Phuong
Dong gas though such emission
reduction is not considered as CDM
activity.
2 FPSO replacement in Rang Dong field The replacement of
The replacement of 30-year The replacement is related only to
The old charter FPSO (Floating Production, old FPSO was deemedFPSO happened with the oil production process
Storage and Offloading vessel) built in 1978 oil processing facilities
necessary to ensure safe and (processing and storage). The
was replaced with fixed CLPP platform and had no relation to
smooth operation at Rang capacity of newly installed CLPP
(Central Liquid Processing Platform) and Dong field. gas recovery project and FSO is smaller than the
FSO (Floating Storage and Offloading therefore it was not replaced FPSO6 so the replacement
vessel) with the same function due to the taken into account at does not increase the Rang Dong oil
expiration of warranty period under FPSO the time of registration production and, subsequently, the
charter contract in Oct 20085 (See process by Project Participants. by-product gas quantity recovered
diagram under project activity) The replacement from Rang Dong field.
became firm only upon
the execution of FSO
charter contract in 7th
July 2006.
3 Su Tu Vang gas recovery project The project takes place JVPC was informed by Though the design capacity of Rang
Since May 20097, associated gas of the Su outside of Block 15-2 PVGas who is the Dong – Bach Ho pipeline is
Tu Vang oil field which is located in Block boundary and beyond the investor of gas pipeline expected to be enough for both
5
Article 5.10 under FPSO charter contract
6
CLPP liquid processing capacity is 62,000 blpd against 64,000 blpd of FPSO; FSO storage capacity is 350,000 bbl against 1,020,559 bbls of FPSO

CDM-PDD-FORM
15-1 PSC contract area, controlled and control of Project Participant. connecting Su Tu Vang Rang Dong and Su Tu Vang gas 9
operated by Cuu Long JOC has been In accordance with AM0009 field to Rang Dong – but the shared use of the pipeline
supplied to the same Rang Dong – Bach Version 2.1, all the gas Bach Ho gas pipeline might potentially reduce the up-time
Ho gas pipeline at downstream of gas quantity supplied to the same of its intention of of the pipeline, the gas quantity
export delivery point of Rang Dong field. It gas pipeline under project implementing Su Tu recovered from Rang Dong and
is commingled with associated gas from activity downstream of Rang Vang gas recovery only subsequently the emission reduction
Rang Dong oil field and then supplied to the Dong field is required to be in 20078. as stated in PDD as results of
gas processing plant. monitored for calculation of commissioning, maintenance works
project emission and leakage or emergency situations related to
so Su Tu Vang gas is included Su Tu Vang field operation.
in the monitoring plan as On the other hand, the possibility of
described in more detail in using existing Rang Dong-Bach Ho
section B6.1. pipeline under the project activity
saves cost and facilitates Su Tu
Vang gas recovery project which
also contribute to the emission
reduction though it is not considered
as CDM activity.
4 Ca Ngu Vang and Rong Doi Moi oil fields These field developments took place outside of Block The share use of the same Bach Ho
From July 2008 and December 2010, Ca 15-2 boundary and beyond the control of Project - Dinh Co gas pipeline with these
Ngu Vang and Rong Doi Moi oil fields Participant. No significant impact to project activity was new gas sources might potentially
respectively started supplying the anticipated so the owners of these fields had not reduce the uptime ratio of the
associated gas to Bach Ho oil field10, where officially informed and consulted with Project Participants pipeline as result of commissioning;
such gas is commingled with associated before the operation starts of these fields. maintenance works or emergency
gas of Bach Ho then supplied to the Dinh situations related to the operation of
Co gas processing plant. The metering these fields and subsequently
system at Bach Ho field under approved reduce the gas quantity transported
monitoring plan can measure the total from Rang Dong field to Dinh Co
volume and composition of Ca Ngu Vang GPP.
gas, Rong Doi Moi gas and Bach Ho gas.
Therefore, no revision to the approved
monitoring plan is required due to these
7
Notice of Su Tu Vang First Gas
8
The confidential agreement between JVPC and PVGas for exchanging data in preparation for connection work was signed on 1st Aug 2007.
9
The design capacity of Rang Dong-Bach Ho pipeline is 4 million m3 per day while maximum exportable gas quantity of Rang Dong, Phuong Dong and Su Tu Vang
fields is 2.5 million m3 per day.
10
Notice of Ca Ngu Vang First Gas dated 15 Oct 2008 and Gas Deliver Receipt Report 2010 dated 28 March 2011.

CDM-PDD-FORM
new gas sources.
These above post registration changes require certain revisions to the monitoring plan as described in section B6.1 to ensure that the level of
accuracy or completeness in the monitoring and verification process is not reduced; However, such changes would not adversely affect the
conclusions of the validation report of the registered PDD as further explained in detailed in relevant sections hereinafter.

CDM-PDD-FORM
A.4. Parties and project participants
Private and/or public Indicate if the Party

Party involved
entity(ies) project involved wishes to be
(host) indicates a host
participants considered as project
Party
(as applicable) participant (Yes/No)
Vietnam (host) Petrovietnam(*1) No
PVEP(*2)
Japan JVPC(*3) No
United Kingdom of Great ConocoPhillips(*4) No
Britain and Northern Ireland
Switzerland Petrovietnam(*1) No
PVEP(*2)
(*1) Vietnam Oil and Gas Group, the Vietnamese State oil and gas company duly established
under the laws of Vietnam and having its registered office at 18 Lang Ha Street, Hanoi,
Vietnam (hereinafter referred to as “Petrovietnam”);
(*2) Petrovietnam Exploration Production Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Petrovietnam,

established and existing under the laws or Vietnam and having its registered office at 18 Lang
Ha Street, Hanoi, Vietnam (hereinafter referred to as “PVEP”)
(*3) Japan Vietnam Petroleum CO., LTD, a company established and existing under the laws of
Japan and having its registered office at 6-3, Otemachi Chome, Chiyoda-Ku, Tokyo 1005-8163,
Japan (hereinafter referred to as “JVPC”)
(*4) ConocoPhillips (U.K.) Gama Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of England
(Registration No 3716310) and having its registered office at Portman House, 2 Portman
Street, London W1H6DU (hereinafter referred to as “ConocoPhillips”)
The contact for CDM Project Activity is Japan Vietnam Petroleum Co. Ltd.
A.5. Public funding of project activity
None
SECTION B. Application of selected approved baseline and monitoring

methodology and standardized baseline
B.1. Reference of methodology and standardized baseline
The project activity is developed with reference to the approved baseline and monitoring
methodology AM0009 / Version02.1:” Recovery and utilization of gas from oil wells that would
otherwise be flared”
B.2. Applicability of methodology and standardized baseline

CDM-PDD-FORM
The approved methodology is appropriate for Rang Dong oil field Associated Gas Recovery and
Utilization Project Activity (the project activity) since the methodology has been developed
specifically based on the project.
The project activity meets with applicability condition of the approved methodology described
below:
- Gas at oil wells is recovered and transported in pipelines to a process plant where dry gas, LPG
and condensate are produced;
- Energy required for transport and processing of the recovered gas is generated by using the
recovered gas;
- The products (dry gas, LPG and condensate) are likely to substitute in the market the same type
of fuels or fuels with a higher carbon content per unit of energy;
- The substitution of fuels due to the project activity is unlikely to lead to an increase of fuel
consumption in the respective market;
- In the absence of the project activity, the gas is mainly flared;
- Data (quantity and fraction of carbon) is accessible for the products of the gas processing plant
and for the gas recovered from other oil exploration facilities in cases where these facilities supply
recovered gas to the same gas processing plant.
The post registration changes as described in the section A.3 happened outside of project
boundary and have no direct relation to the project activity. The same existing compressors and
pipelines constructed under project activity continue being used to recover and transport the gas
from Rang Dong and new fields to shore without necessity to make any modification to the design
or operation parameters of the existing systems. The scheme and condition of the project activity
remain unchanged; therefore there isn’t any impact of the post registration changes to the
applicability and application of approved methodology AM0009 version 02.1.

CDM-PDD-FORM
B.3. Project boundary
The facilities which are under the control of the Project Participants are as follows:
•Facilities currently installed and being developed at the Rang Dong oil field
•Transportation facilities (pipeline from Rang Dong oil field to Bach Ho oil field)
Source GHGs Included? Justification/Explanation

Flaring of CO2 Yes Main source of emissions in the baseline
associated gas CH4 No Caused by uncombusted CH4. It is
Baseline scenario
assumed that flaring results in complete

oxidation of carbon in associated gas,
resulting in a conservative baseline
N2O No Assumed negligible, this is conservative
Fugitive CO2 No Pipeline and the associated equipment is
emissions from CH4 No not constructed at the baseline scenario.
pipeline and the N2O No
associated
equipment
Fuel combustion CO2 No Outside of project boundary and
for recovery, considered as leakage.
transport and CH4 No Caused by uncombusted CH4. The
processing of emission as a result of project activity is
the gas smaller compared to the baseline emission
due to higher combustion efficiency and
less fuel consumption. Uncombusted CH4
caused by project activity can be offset by
the uncombusted CH4 which is not taken
into account at the baseline scenario.
Neglected and this is conservative.
N2O No The emission as a result of project activity
is smaller compared to the baseline
Project scenario
emission due to higher combustion

efficiency and less fuel consumption. N2O
emission caused by the project activity can
be offset by the N2O emission which is not
taken into account at the baseline
scenario. Neglected and this is
conservative.
Consumption of CO2 Yes Only for emergency when fuel other than
other fuels in produced gas is used for recovery
place of the CH4 No Negligible
recovered gas N2O No Negligible
Leaks, venting CO2 No Negligible
and flaring CH4 Yes Included. Fugitive emissions from recovery
during the (Rang Dong field) and the pipelines during
recovery, normal operation and when accidental
transport and event occurred.
processing of N2O No Negligible
recovered gas
Figure B-3: Diagram of project boundary, infrastructure and monitoring points with CDM project
activity

CDM-PDD-FORM
Condensate LPG Dry gas
Boundary of
project activity B
Rang Dong oil field Gas
processing
Su Tu Vang plant
CO2 CO2 Oil field
On-site
X2
Flaring
consumption
Recovery C X’
Production Transportation
Oil A1 A
wells X
Back Ho
Oil field
A2
Phuong Dong Ca Ngu Vang Rong & DoiMoi
oil field Oil field Oil field
Legend:
Baseline infrastructure
Baseline Project Post registration Project infrastructure
infrastructure infrastructure changes Post registration changes
B.4. Establishment and description of baseline scenario
(1) Options
The following options are conceivable:
•Option 1: Release to the atmosphere at the oil production site (venting).
•Option 2: Flaring at the oil production site.
•Option 3: On-site consumption.
•Option 4: Injection into the oil reservoir.
•Option 5: Recovery, transportation, processing and distribution to end-users.
(2) Criteria
The following criteria are chosen:
•Legal issues (are the options permitted by law or agreement?)
•Economic- attractiveness (are the options economically attractive?)
(3) Evaluation of the five options

The five options are evaluated according to the criteria, as shown below:
(a) Option 1: release to the atmosphere at the oil production site (venting)

CDM-PDD-FORM
As shown in the table B4, release to the atmosphere at the oil production site (venting)
(Option 1) cannot be implemented, since this is prohibited under agreement with the
Vietnamese Government (Law of Environmental Protection)
(b) Option 4: Injection into the oil reservoir
In case of Rang Dong oil field, option 4 is not the baseline scenario since it cannot be
applied by the following reasons:
Injection to the oil reservoir (Option 4) in order to enhance oil recovery is found to be much
more expensive as well as less efficient in oil recovery compared with water injection.
Analysis by the Project Participants found that water injection is expected to be at least
10% higher than gas injection in terms of recoverable ratio, a term to refer to the efficiency
of the recovery ( “recovery” referring to the oil in place that will be produced from an oil
reservoir). Therefore, water injection is the preferred option for oil recovery. Since gas
injection and water injection cannot coexist efficiently in the same reservoir, it is not
possible to carry out gas injection in the Rang Dong oil field.
(c) Option 5: Recovery, transportation, processing and distribution to end-users
Recovery, transportation, processing and distribution to end-users (Option 5) is a desirable
option since it makes rational use of the recovered gas. However, absent the value of CER
credits, this option is unattractive.
Calculation of IRR was conducted in the Full Field Development Plan using the
methodology described in AM0009 version 2.1. The parameters for calculation of the IRR
have been determined according to the gas sales terms which would be set out in the
Production Sharing Contract (PSC) and the Gas Sales Agreement between the Project
Participants and the Vietnam Government, as well as the gas production and export profile
to be projected in the Full Field Development Plan.
The IRR of Rang Dong associated gas recovery and utilization project was evaluated
based on the following parameters:
Gas production Quoted from the production profile in the Full Field
Development Plan
Gas sales Gas production minus in-house consumption and flaring
Gas price Agreed price and escalated by the agreed ratio in the PSC
Amendment
Conversion CF to BTU is 1,200 BTU/CF.

factor
CAPEX Capital expenditure which cost of gas recovery facilities and

pipelines.
OPEX Operational cost
Cost recovery A certain portion of gas sales applied to cost recovery as

agreed in the PSC Amendment
Profit sharing Profit (gas sales minus cost recovery) shared between project
participants and host country as agreed in the PSC
Amendment.
Analysis of the Project Participants by above parameters have concluded that the IRR for
recovery and land transport of associated gas is about 8 to 9%, considering the cost of the
compressor and pipeline, as well as revenue from gas sales. This IRR is based on the
assumption that all of the produced gas is to be sold to the power plants. This is not likely,

CDM-PDD-FORM
however, because some amount of the gas may at times exceed the demand of the power
plants and as a result have to be flared. Therefore, about 8 to 9% of IRR can be regarded
as a very optimistic figure. This is lower than the minimum investment criteria (c.10%) of
the Project Participants.
All the post registration changes described in section A.3 happened more than 7 years after
the project started its operation in November 2001 and such changes were uncertain to
Project Participants at the decision making time in 2001 as well as at the time of
registration in 2006. These changes occurred outside of the project activity so their impacts
had been considered negligible and had not been taken into account in the financial
assessment by the Project Participants; therefore, CER value had remained an important
and decisive factor for the investment decision as well as maintaining operation of the
project.
As per CDM requirement, the below assessment incorporating the impact of the post
registration changes to the original investment analysis was conducted to see whether the
post registration changes would affect the additionality of the project activity.
The impact of each post registration change to the parameters of IRR analysis were
evaluated as summarised below:
Gas The assumption of using production profile of Rang Dong field
production in the Full Field Development Plan originally used for IRR
calculation remains unchanged due to below reasons:
(a) Su Tu Vang, Ca Ngu Vang and Rong Doi Moi fields are
located outside of the Block 15-2, the gas produced and
recovered from these fields would not bring any additional
revenue for Project Participants.
(b) The replacement of FPSO occurred only in the oil
processing facilities so its influence to gas recovery process
is negligible.
(c) As an exclusive operation where not all the Block 15-2
parties who are also Project Participants participate in,
Phuong Dong is operationally and financially separated from
Rang Dong and its gas sales revenue cannot be considered
as revenue of Rang Dong gas recovery project. Therefore,
Phuong Dong gas would not change the gas production
originally assumed in registered PDD.
(d) On the other hand, the share use of the same transportation
pipeline system by several fields as result of the post
registration changes might potentially cause certain
operational constraints to Rang Dong gas export as
explained in section A.3. However such negative effects
were not taken into consideration in the analysis.
Gas sales Gas production minus in-house consumption and flaring. The
post registration changes occurred outside of project activity
and would not change this operation practise in Rang Dong
field.
Gas price The price and escalation factors for Rang Dong gas was
agreed and fixed throughout Rang Dong production life as
agreed under under the PSC 3rd amendment dated 29 July
2004 (article 6.2.8 page 9) and Gas Sales Agreement not
depending on market situation.
Conversion Only Phuong Dong gas which is mixed with Rang Dong gas
factor (Gas before being transported to shore might potentially affect the
heating composition of Rang Dong gas; however, the gas recovery
value) system installed in Rang Dong field under project activity
equipped with Low Temperature Separation can extract well the

CDM-PDD-FORM
heavy liquid component that makes the gas at the outlet quite
dry and its composition is stable despite the change of the
supply gas at the inlet. The actual data before and after Phuong
Dong start operation also shows that the composition and
carbon content of export gas are stable11. Therefore, the gas
heating value which is equivalent to carbon content remains the
same as originally assumed.
CAPEX
The associated gas is the by-product of the oil production so
the associated gas recovery activity under the project shares
the expenditure with oil production. The CAPEX allocated for
gas recovery activity was estimated and fixed at 42 Million U.S
dollar under the PSC 3rd amendment dated 29 July 2004 (article
6.2.7(a) page 7) throughout PSC term. This CAPEX was used
for project economics evaluation at the CDM registration and
remains unchanged after post registration changes.
OPEX The same as CAPEX, the OPEX allocated for the gas recovery
activity under the project activity was estimated and fixed at 0.5
Million U.S dollar for each year under the PSC 3rd amendment
dated 29 July 2004 (article 6.2.7(b) page 8) throughout PSC
term. This OPEX was used for project economics evaluation at
the CDM registration and remains unchanged after post
registration changes.
Cost The percentage of gas sales revenue applied for cost recovery
recovery of 80% was used at the project decision making in 2001 when
the negotiation for gas sales was on-going; however, 70% cost
recovery ratio was fixed and agreed under PSC 3rd
amendment dated 29 July 2004 (article 6.2.7(c) page 8)
throughout PSC term. The post registration changes occurred
much after the agreement on cost recovery ratio was achieved
in 2004 so they obviously have no impact to this parameter.
Though the decrease in cost recovery ratio to 70% would
diminish the economics return but as the ratio is not affected by
post registration changes so the original ratio of 80% is
maintained for IRR calculation as per EB guideline.
Profit The profit share ratio between the project participants and host
sharing county was fixed under PSC 3rd amendment dated 29 July 2004
(article 6.2.8 page 8) throughout the PSC term.
Above assessment concluded that there is no impact of the post registration changes to the
IRR analysis and IRR of the project remains lower than the minimum investment criteria
(c.a10%) of the Project Participants.
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis was not included in the registered PDD as it actually was not conducted
for project investment decision due to below reasons:
 Associated gas is just a by-product from oil production process in Rang Dong field
while it was not economically feasible to recover it due to low gas price controlled by
Vietnamese Government 12 . During initial oil production in Rang Dong field,
associated gas was actually being flared.
 Due to such low economic return, making use of associated gas which otherwise
would have been flared to protect environment and contribute to development of
11
The average carbon content of associated gas exported from Rang Dong field to shore before (Rang Dong
gas only) and after (Rang Dong and Phuong Dong gas) over the same period of 2.5 years are 0.683 and
0.682 kg-C/m3 respectively.
12
Paragraph 2 page 8 of Vietnam Analysis Report dated 9 May 2012 by EIA

CDM-PDD-FORM
host country was the main consideration (rather than economic benefit) for project
participants to decide on project investment. Therefore, achieving minimum
investment criteria (c.a IRR 10%) under most likely scenario (base scenario)
considering possible additional CER revenue from CDM application was acceptable
to project participants for investment decision and no sensitivity analysis was
considered.
 In addition, the sensitivity analysis was not conducted as most of major economics
parameters such as gas price, CAPEX, OPEX, cost recovery and profit sharing
were agreed and fixed throughout the PSC term. Gas production was the only
changeable parameter but it had high uncertainty depending on several unknown
factors such as geological characteristics, exploration activities, actual well
production performance and Gas-Oil ratio. It was difficult to quantify such factors
and sensitivity analysis on gas production was not conducted.
As evaluated above table regarding IRR analysis, the post registration changes have no
impact on the IRR analysis, sensitivity analysis was not considered with respect to such
post registration changes.
(d) Option 2: flaring at the oil production site
Option 3: on-site consumption
This leaves the Project Participants with two options: Flaring at the oil production site
(option 2) and on-site consumption (Option 3). Both are the current practice.
Without the project activity, the natural course of action would be to continue the current
practice, i.e. to consume the gas locally for on-site electricity generation and flare the
remainder, since this is the most economically attractive option permitted under law (See
Table B4). Since onsite energy demand is a fraction of total volume of associated gas
recovered, a great proportion of the gas would be flared. Furthermore, there is no indication
that laws and regulations will be enacted in the near future which will limit the current
practice (e.g. in the form of SO2 regulation). The new law and regulation amendments13
introduced during the period when the post registration changes occurred specify in more
detail that Ministry of Industry and Trade shall be the Government body who directly control
and give permission for flaring associated gas, but no legislative movement towards
restriction or prohibition of gas flaring has been observed. The gas flaring is still legal and
being considered on case-by-case basis subject to the technical and commercial feasibility
of the alternatives.
At the time of project registration in 2006, there were six oil fields currently producing crude
oil and associated gas offshore in Vietnam. Two of them (Bach Ho oil field and Rang Dong
oil field) recover and utilize the associated gas while four oil fields still continue flaring of
associated gas (Ruby, Dai Hung, Su Tu den, Bunga-Kekwa). Since 2008, associated gas
from several new oil fields have been recovered and utilised as results of post registration
changes reported in section A.3; however, except the Su Tu Vang case where the field
owners had to invest capital for installation of gas compressors and the pipelines, in the
other cases, the associated gas is recovered as indirect result of using existing facilities of
adjacent fields for oil production without paying significant extra investment or operation
cost and the owners did not face any financial or technical barrier for recovering their gases.
The situation of Su Tu Vang field is also not comparable to the project activity as its oil
reserves are expected higher than Rang Dong field (second in Vietnam after Bach Ho)14
and the field owners also expect the development of the high potential Su Tu Trang natural
gas field in the same PSC contract area to recover its investment. The current operation of
13
Article 38.2 of Amendment to Petroleum Law ref. 10/2008/QH12 dated 3th June 2008 specifies “Ministry of
Industry and Trade shall be responsible to make decisions on flaring associated gas”. Article 28.3 of
Decision 84 dated 15th December 2010 amending Regulation on Petroleum Production ref. 163 dated 7th
September 1998 stipulated “an Operator shall submit to the Ministry of Industry and Trade for consideration
and approval of the associated gas flaring plan for each year with respect to field”
14
EIA report “Vietnam Analysis Briefs” dated 9th May 2012, page 5, paragraph 3.

CDM-PDD-FORM
the oil fields in Vietnam implies that the local consumption and continuation of flaring is
most economically attractive.
Bach Ho oil field, which is exporting associated gas onshore, is only to compare the
economics of associated gas recovery and utilization project in two oil fields which share
similar conditions. Other things being equal, the bigger the field the more economical than
a smaller field it is due to economy of scale. It should also be noted that the Bach Ho
project is operated by a state company, and as such considerations other than economic
may have played a role in the decision to export gas from that field.
Therefore, to the baseline scenario assumes that most of the associated gas would be
emitted in the form of CO2 either through flaring or on-site consumption. A substantial
fraction of the associated gas may be emitted as CH4 since flaring does not ensure
complete combustion. In the interest of conservativeness, however, the baseline scenario
assumes that all the associated gas will be converted to CO2 and un-burned CH4
emissions will not be considered in the baseline calculation.
The evaluation conclusion is summarized in the table B4 below.
Table B4: Option for baseline scenario
Legal Issues Economical Conclusion

Attractiveness
Option 1: Release to the Prohibited by Highly attractive Not to be

atmosphere law implemented
Option 2: Flaring at the oil Not Highly attractive Current

production site prohibited practice
Option 3: On-site consumption Not Highly attractive Current

prohibited practice
Option 4: Injection into the oil Not Highly unattractive Not to be

reservoir prohibited (water injection is implemented
the preferred option)
Option 5: Recovery, transportation, Not Unattractive Not to be

processing and distribution to end- prohibited implemented
users
B.5. Demonstration of additionality
CDM consideration
(1) Project history
As the operator of the Rang Dong oil field, JVPC is responsible for leading the CDM project
activity. Nippon Oil Group (hereinafter referred to as “Nippon”), to which JVPC belongs, has
been actively studying and implementing GHG management practices since beginning of
2000. That work, which includes efforts to implement the CDM, is summarized below.
(a) Drivers for GHG emission reduction in Japan
Japan and the Kyoto Protocol
Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, Japan has the obligation to reduce its national GHG
emissions to 6% below its 1990 baseline emissions. When the Kyoto Protocol was drafted

CDM-PDD-FORM
in 1997, Japan’s GHG emissions had increased to more than 8% above its 1990 baseline
and that level of emissions remains unchanged as per the latest statistics.
Keidanren (Japanese Business Federation)
Nippon is one of the leading members of Keidanren, a comprehensive business
organization which is very influential in the economy and society in Japan. In terms of global
warming measures, the Keidanren has been emphasizing importance of “voluntary action”
by private sector rather than an administrative framework of a carbon tax or Cap & trade.
The Keidanren has adopted a voluntary action plan on the environment in part to help
Japan meet its GHG reduction target established under the Kyoto Protocol. In July 1996,
more than one year before the COP 3, the Keidanren presented the “Keidanren Appeal on
Environment” which outlined the voluntary actions of Japanese industry directed at
conservation of global environment in the 21st century. The appeal included the pledge for
positive participation in "activities implemented jointly" to transfer technology to developing
countries. This program is a very similar framework of JI/CDM. In February 1997 about half
a year prior to the COP 3, “Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan on the Environment” was
presented through which many of the participating industries established their own
quantitative targets for combating the challenges of global warming. In the paper “Follow-up
to the Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan on the Environment” in January 1999 and November
2000, the Keidanren emphasized that the CDM and JI processes should be considered as
one of means of achieving the objectives of the Voluntary Action Plan. .
Petroleum Association of Japan
In line with Keidanren’s action, Petroleum Association of Japan presented its Voluntary
Action Plan on the Environment, prior to the Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan on the
Environment. The plan included the goal to reduce specific energy consumption (energy
consumed per unit of crude oil in refined) 10% below 1990 levels by 2010 and to transfer of
energy saving technology to foreign countries in line with the aspirations of the CDM.
(b) GHG management measures adopted by Nippon
Nippon has been making voluntary efforts to manage environmental issues in line with the
actions of the Keidanren and the Petroleum association of Japan.
Environmental Action Plan
Nippon has established the Management Philosophy of a comprehensive energy enterprise
and under the principle of “Environmental harmony” Nippon established an environmental
action plan with GHG management as one of the plan’s focused themes. Nippon voluntarily
set a target to reduce specific energy consumption 20% in 2010 compared to 1990 (1%
reduction per year in average), a significantly tougher target than that of the Petroleum
Association of Japan.
CO2 emission reduction
Nippon achieved its reduction target in 1999, reducing specific energy consumption by 12%.
However during that period the total quantity of GHG emissions increased by about 10%
compared with 1990 levels mostly due to increase of operational ratio of its refineries.
Action plan for emission reduction credits
Nippon had been evaluating options for monetizing GHG emission reduction credits. These
efforts included 1) potential investment in a carbon fund, 2) GHG emission credit trading,
and 3) CDM project development, which was then materialized and defined as action plan in
February 2000.
The purpose of this work was:
- to obtain stable source of emission reduction credits
Nippon would need stable sources of emission reduction credit outside considering while
their CO2 emission had increased about 10% above its 1990 level, their internal CO2
emission reduction opportunity was anticipated to be very limited.
- to supply emission reduction credits to consumers if demanded

CDM-PDD-FORM
Nippon’s consumers might demand emission reduction credits to offset emission of CO2
resulted from burning their oil products.
- to support and expand the market for emission credits
There was business opportunity in the expanding market of emission reduction credit.
- to enhance Nippon’s company reputation
Nippon’s reputation could be enhanced through appealing its contribution to the global
warming measures.
(c) Participation in carbon fund
In April 2000, Nippon submitted Letter of Intent to the World Bank expressing interest in the
Bank’s Prototype Carbon Fund. Subsequently Nippon decided not to participate in the fund
preferring instead to focus its attention on internal GHG reduction opportunities associated
with the production of oil and natural gas. However in June 2003 Nippon eventually did decide
to participate in World Bank’s Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF).
(d) Emission trading
In September 2000, Nippon was presented the opportunity to invest in the creation of
Natsource Japan, an emission credit brokerage firm specializing in GHG reduction credits and
after considering the future value of GHG emission trading, decided to invest in Natsource
Japan from its establishment in May 2001.
(e) Development of the Rang Dong CDM
Presentation to Petrovietnam
In May 2000, Nippon invited staff of Petrovietnam to a training course for oil refinery
management in Japan. The purpose of the training course was to strengthen the
relationship with Petrovietnam and to identify mutually beneficial opportunities for technical
cooperation including CDM projects. The training course began with an overview of CDM as
well as technical cooperation and technology transfer in the areas of oil refinery
management, energy conservation, environmental measures and etc. Petrovietnam
colleagues were then invited to the Nippon refineries and other operation sites for about two
weeks of practical training.
Full Field Development Plan (FFDP) of Rang Dong oil field
A study of the A Full Field Development Plan (FFDP) was initiated in the year 2000 for the
Rang Dong oil field, a limited part of which had been producing crude oil since 1998. The
study started the same year many of Nippon’s GHG reduction initiatives were begun (see
above). Recovery and utilization of associated gas, a by-product of crude oil production,
was one subject of the feasibility study of the FFDP. Efficient utilization of associated gas
and elimination of flare in Vietnam, a country experiencing high economic growth, was
certainly aligned with the purpose of CDM - to assist non-Annex I countries in achieving
sustainable development. Although a project aimed at recovering the associated gas was
not economically attractive to the project participants, they shared the understanding that
value of CERs from such a project might improve the overall economics. In 2001 negotiation
of the gas sales agreement was taking longer than anticipated. There was concern that if
construction of pipeline was delayed and the supply of gas postponed until negotiations
were complete, the project would be even less economically attractive. Therefore,
construction of a pipeline began in June 2001 prior to the agreement of the key terms of gas
sales contract and the pipeline operation commenced in the end of November 2001. The
key terms of the gas sales were agreed upon in the end of 2001.
Documentation work for registration as CDM
In November 2001 the Marrakech Accord was adopted at the COP 7 and following this
development the project participants started documenting the case for Rang Dong flare
elimination as a CDM project. Project participants introduced the project concept to the
CDM organization in February 2002, summarizing the project activity in presentation
material. Project participants started to collect data in preparation for drafting the PDD once
the PDD template was made publicly available by the CDM Executive Board in August 2002.

CDM-PDD-FORM
Based on this design template the data necessary to complete the Rang Dong PDD was
collected. The CDM Executive Board approved the process for submitting a new
methodology in March 2003. Project participants drafted the new methodology and
submitted it in September 2003. This methodology received initial approval by the CDM
Executive Board in March 2004. The methodology was reformatted to AM0009 in June 2004.
After the revision process, the methodology received final approval by the CDM Executive
Board in May 2005.
(2) Major risks to the baseline

(a) Legislative movement
Legislative movement to restrict flaring would be one of the major risks to the baseline
scenario. Such movement will be observed and in case such movement is undertaken, it will
be taken into consideration.
(b) Technological improvement of gas injection
Technological improvement of gas injection that results in the higher recoverable ratio
represents a risk to the baseline. The Rang Dong oil field has already invested in water
injection, which is expected to be at least 10% higher than gas injection in terms of
recoverable ratio. Therefore, additional investment will be required if gas injection takes the
place of water injection. Gas injection is mature technology and such improvement is not
expected.
B.6. Emission reductions
B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices
As mentioned in section B.2, the baseline scenarios, the project emission sources and the
greenhouse gases included in the project boundary have been identified according to methodology
AM0009 (version 2.1). The project emission reduction is equal to the difference of the baseline
emissions, project emissions and leakage emissions.
The project activity meets with applicability condition of the AM0009 version 2.1 described below:
- Gas at oil wells is recovered and transported in pipelines to a process plant where dry gas, LPG
and condensate are produced;
- Energy required for transport and processing of the recovered gas is generated by using the
recovered gas;
- The products (dry gas, LPG and condensate) are likely to substitute in the market the same type
of fuels or fuels with a higher carbon content per unit of energy;
- The substitution of fuels due to the project activity is unlikely to lead to an increase of fuel
consumption in the respective market;
- In the absence of the project activity, the gas is mainly flared;
- Data (quantity and fraction of carbon) is accessible for the products of the gas processing plant
and for the gas recovered from other oil exploration facilities in cases where these facilities supply
recovered gas to the same gas processing plant.
Projection and adjustment of project and baseline emissions

(1) Defining the Oil Production Project
The project recovers associated gas from the Rang Dong Oil Production Project. The Project
Area is defined here as production of oil from Block 15-2 according to the Production Sharing
Contract (PSC) between Petrovietnam, and the other Project Participants.

CDM-PDD-FORM
Current oil production is approximately 50,000bbl/day, but this is expected to increase to a
production target of 65,000bbl/day in the near future. The associated gas, a mixture of various
types (hydrocarbons and others), is produced as by-product as a result of this activity. The share
of CH4 in the associated gas is 72.55%.
(2) Projection of associated gas production

In “Japan Vietnam Petroleum Company Limited Full Field Development Plan of Rang Dong Field
September 2001” (hereinafter referred to as “Full Field Development Plan”), which was drafted
by the Project Participants and approved by Vietnam Government in 2002, a two staged
development was planned. The first stage development focused on the area of confirmed
commercial oil reserves. The implementation of the second stage of development would depend
on the results of appraisal work to be carried on in parallel with the first stage development.
The production profiles in the both stages have three scenarios, namely Low case (1P: Proved
reserves), Base case (2P: Proven + Probable reserves) and High case (3P: Proven + Probable +
Possible reserves), which are expressed probabilistically as P90, P50 and P10. Since
investment decisions are customarily taken on the basis of P50, this is taken as the basis of
baseline estimation. For the purpose of this project, we defined the cases in the PDD as follows:
Base case: Base case (P50 of Proven + Probable reserves) of the first stage development
High case: Base case (P50 of Proven + Probable reserves) of the second stage development
Appraisal work will be continued at Rang Dong oil field and estimation of production will be up-
dated depending on the result of the appraisal works. Therefore, baseline data will be collected
ex post. If the oil and gas production profile turns out to be different from the original projection, it
will be reported.
(3) Defining the Most Likely Course of Action

Onsite consumption of associated gas, and flaring of the remainder (which had been the practice
until the beginning of the project) would be the most likely course of action. The detail of
definition of the most likely course of action is set out in section B.4.
(4) Measure to address uncertainty of baseline emission

Baseline emission as a result of flaring may differ from the projected emissions since the
following parameters may differ from the original projection.
•Quantity of gas emitted as a by-product
•Fractional composition of gas
•Loss of gas due to internal consumption (to provide energy for gas compressor and
processing facilities)
Such uncertainty will be taken into account given that emissions reduction is calculated in terms
of actual gas recovered and used (ie. delivered to the power plant). If the actual associated gas
emission from the oil fields turned out to be lower than the projected emissions due to lower
crude oil production, lower gas ratio to crude oil, lower proportion of CH4, or if there was more
loss during the transport / processing than originally expected, this would not amount to
overestimation of emissions reductions, since these would be reflected as the reduced amount of
CH4 delivered.
The quantity and composition of the associated gas will be measured on an ex post basis as per
the “Projection and adjustment of project and baseline emission” section of AM0009 version 2.1.
Baseline Emissions:
Baseline emission consists of four elements:

CDM-PDD-FORM
- CO2 emission caused by combustion of associated gas (flaring)
- N2O emission caused by combustion of associated gas
- CH4 emission caused by uncombusted associated gas
- CH4 emission caused by fugitive emission
(a) CO2 emission caused by combustion of associated gas (flaring)

In the baseline scenario, all the associated gas produced at the Rang Dong oil field would be
consumed as flaring and as onsite consumption during field operations.
Taking into consideration of variable nature of associated gas production volume, described in
“(2) Projection of associated gas production” above, the baseline emission is calculated in ex
post basis.
Baseline emissions at the oil field assume that all of the associated gas is converted into CO2
either through flaring or in-house consumption. In accordance with AM0009 version 2.1,
baseline emissions are originally calculated based on the volume of the associated gas at point
A in Figure B6-1. After Phuong Dong started production on 24th August 2008, the volume of
associated gas at point A represents the mixture of Rang Dong and Phuong Dong gas while
Phuong Dong gas was not included in the baseline under the registered PDD; therefore Phuong
Dong export gas is excluded from the baseline emission. As per material balance principle,
Phuong Dong export gas is the difference between the Phuong Dong gas supplied to Rang
Dong field measured at the point A1 in the figure B6-1 and portion of Phuong Dong gas supplied
back to Phuong Dong for gaslift operation at point A2 and used at Rang Dong field as fuel. For
the interest of simplicity and conservativeness, the gaslift amount at point A2 and the fuel gas
are not taken into account and the baseline emission is calculated as denoted in formulae (1)
below:
44 1
BL y  m carbon , A', y   (1)
12 1000
With:
mcarbon, A', y  VA, y  Wcarbon, A, y  VA1, y  Wcarbon, A1, y
Where:
BLy Are the baseline emissions during the period y in tons of CO2 equivalents.
mcarbon, A', y Is the carbon quantity recovered at point A attributed to Rang Dong oil field
during the period y in ton.
V a,y Is the volume of gas recovered from the oil field at point A in Figure D2-1
during the period y in m3.
w carbon, A, y Is the average content of carbon in the gas recovered at point A in Figure
D2-1 during the period y in kg-C/m3.
V A1, y Is the volume of gas recovered from Phuong Dong oil field at point A1 in
Figure B6-1 during the period y in m3.
Wcarbon, A1, y Is the average content of carbon in the gas recovered at point A1 in Figure
B6-1 during the period y in kg-C/m3.

CDM-PDD-FORM
Due to unstable flow conditions after first stage oil separator MBD-120 at point A1, the
uncertainty of the Phuong Dong gas flow meter at point A1 was evaluated and assigned at
±3%15 which is higher than uncertainty level of other remaining meters in the monitoring report
i.e ±1%. In order to ensure the level of accuracy of the monitoring plan, the difference between
the accuracy level of the existing monitoring plan and the accuracy of the Phuong Dong gas
flow meter which is 2% will be added to the volume of Phuong Dong gas measured at point A1.
This method is conservative as it leads to the reduction of baseline emission and the CERs.
(2) N2O emission caused by combustion of associated gas

N2O is generated in the course of combustion. Since combustion is well controlled in the
project activity compared to flaring (the baseline scenario), it is considered that N2O emission
can be reduced by the project activity. However, N2O emission is not taken into consideration
for the interest of conservativeness and for simplicity as per AM0009 version 2.1.
(3) CH4 emission caused by uncombusted associated gas

CH4 emission at the baseline is not taken into consideration for conservativeness and for
simplicity as per AM0009 version 2.1.
Following is the estimation of CH4 emission at the baseline.
Based on the gas composition indicated at the table B6-3-1, associated gas contains 0.492 ton
of CH4 per thousand m3 of associated gas.
According to the UKOOA atmospheric emission inventory gas flaring emission factor (Appendix
2; Table 4), 2% of associated gas remains uncombusted under the flaring. Therefore, the total
amount of uncombusted CH4 during the project period can be calculated by the following
formulae:
Total production volume of associated gas during the project period
X CH4 content of associated gas (0.492 ton/ thousand m3)
X 2%
= 37,000 ton CH4
Global warming potential of CH4 is 21. Therefore, baseline emission of uncombusted CH4 is:
37,000 ton X 21 = 777,000 ton of CO2
The baseline emission of uncombusted CH4 is not taken into consideration for the interest of
conservativeness and simplicity. At the same time, emission of uncombusted CH4 as a result
of project activity is not taken into account because it can be offset by the baseline emission of
uncombusted CH4. This is justified because uncombusted ratio at the project activity is smaller
compared to flaring, from the viewpoint of efficiency of combustion and the additional
combustion.
(4) Fugitive emission of CH4

CH4 emission caused by fugitive emission is not taken into account at the baseline scenario
because pipeline and the associated equipment is not constructed at the baseline scenario.
Fugitive emission of CH4 could be considered in the course of flaring, however, for the interest of
conservativeness, it is not taken into account.
15
The result of Uncertainty Study conducted by accredited third party METCO concluded that the uncertainty
of Phuong Dong gas flow meter at MBD-120 is ±3% (section 2.1.4.5 page 28)

CDM-PDD-FORM
(5) Risk for baseline
(a) Legislative movement
The baseline scenario, as explained at section B4, is based on the continuation of flaring of
associated gas at oil field. The scenario would, if required after the legislative movement at
COP/MOP, take into consideration of future possibility of revision. Currently there is no sign
that Vietnam regulation would require stopping the flaring of associated gas. Therefore,
regulatory changes related to flaring will be monitored every year.
(b) Technical improvement
Technical improvement of gas injection is not expected as explained at section B4. However,
the project activity will continue monitoring of technical improvement, which is considered to
be a risk to the baseline.
Project Emissions
Source of project emission is composed of five elements, in which “CO2 emission caused by
combustion” and “CH4 emission caused by fugitive emission” will be taken into consideration in
accordance with AM0009 version 2.1. The reasons are explained below:
<Five elements of GHG emission>
- CO2 emission caused by combustion
- N2O emission caused by combustion
- CH4 emission caused by uncombusted associated gas
- CH4 emission caused by fugitive emission
- CH4 emission from transport of the gas in pipelines when accidental events occur
(1) CO2 emission caused by combustion

CO2 emission by combustion is taken into consideration. The basic idea of calculation is
explained in (3) CO2 emission.
(a) Overall description
The figure below is the overall description of the project activity.
Associated gas is produced and exported from Rang Dong oil field and from Bach Ho oil field.
Then it is mixed and processed to gas products (dry gas, LPG and condensate) at a gas
processing plant. The gas products are shipped to the market.
CO2 emission (baseline, emission in the boundary and leakage) is monitored and calculated
based on carbon balance at the each monitoring points.

CDM-PDD-FORM
Figure B6-1: Schematic illustration of the project activity
CO2 emission at around the gas processing plant:

{(Carbon content at Point A) + (Carbon content at Point X) + (Carbon content at Point
X2 ) – (Carbon content at Point B)} * 44/12
(b) Definition of monitoring data

Monitoring data at each monitoring point is defined as follows:
- Quantity of substance subject for monitoring
Monitoring Substance subject for monitoring Parameters

Point
Point A Volume of gas recovered at point A VA,y (m3 / year)
Point A1 Volume of gas recovered at point A1 VA1,y (m3 / year)
Point X Volume of gas recovered at point X VX,y (m3 / year)
Point X2 Volume of gas recovered at point X2 VX2,y (m3 / year)
Point B Quantity of dry gas that is produced in the gas VB,dry gas,y (m3 / year)
processing plant at point B
Quantity of LPG that is produced in the gas mB,LPB,y (ton / year)

processing plant at point B
Quantity of condensate that is produced in the mB,condensate,y (ton / year)

gas processing plant at point B

CDM-PDD-FORM
- Average content of carbon in each substance subject for monitoring

Point
Point A Average content of carbon in the gas wcarbon,A,y (kg-C / m3)

recovered at point A
Point A1 Average content of carbon in the gas wcarbon,A1,y (kg-C / m3)

recovered at point A1
Point X Average content of carbon in the gas w carbon,X,y (kg-C / m3)

recovered at point X
Point X2 Average content of carbon in the gas w carbon,X2,y (kg-C / m3)

recovered at point X2
Point B Average content of carbon in dry gas at point B w carbon,B,dry gas,y (kg-C /
m3)
Average content of carbon in LPG at point B w carbon,,LPB,y (kg-C / kg)
Average content of carbon in condensate at w carbon,,condensate,y (kg-C /

point B kg)
(c) Definition of calculated data

- Quantity of carbon in each substance

Point
Point A Quantity of carbon in the gas recovered at mcarbon,A,y (kg-C / m3)

point A
Point A1 Quantity of carbon in the gas recovered at mcarbon,A1,y (kg-C / m3)

point A1
Point A’ Quantity of carbon in the gas attributed to mcarbon,A’,y (kg-C / m3)

Rang Dong associated gas
Point X Quantity of carbon in the gas recovered at m carbon,X,y (kg-C / m3)

point X
Point X2 Quantity of carbon in the gas recovered at m carbon,X,y (kg-C / m3)

point X2
Point B Quantity of carbon in dry gas at point B m carbon,B,dry gas,y (kg-C /

m3)
Quantity of carbon in LPG at point B m carbon,,LPB,y (kg-C / kg)
Quantity of carbon in condensate at point B m carbon,,condensate,y (kg-C /

kg)
Quantity of carbon in each substance is derived by multiplying the quantity of each substance
with the average carbon content of each substance.
(d) Calculation of CO2 emission of leakage
Leakage from the project occurs since exported gas must be processed before being used as
power plant fuel and other products. It is assumed here that the carbon equal to the difference

CDM-PDD-FORM
between the carbon content of gas exported from Rang Dong oil field and the carbon content
of gas products is released into the atmosphere as CO2 either through in-house consumption
or flaring at the gas processing plant and gas distribution stations.
Since the plant and stations will process associated gas from another offshore oil field (Bach
Ho oil field), it is not possible to precisely measure the emission associated with gas exported
from Rang Dong oil field.
Therefore, as a proxy measure, this is calculated by multiplying the total emission with the
proportion of carbon content of Rang Dong gas. Since the gas composition of associated gas
from Rang Dong oil field is virtually identical from those coming from Bach Ho oil field this
formula can be said to be reasonably accurate as per AM0009 version 2.1.
(e) CO2 emissions due to consumption of other fuels than the recovered gas
It is expected that associated gas produced but not exported via pipeline is emitted as CO2,
through in-house consumption including fuel combustion for recovery, which is already offset
from the baseline emission since baseline emission is based on the volume of gas monitored
at point A as per AM0009 version 2.1. Therefore, CO2 emissions in the boundary can be
denoted as:
1
PECO 2,other , fuel , y   m fuel, y  NCV fuel  EFCO 2, fuel
1000 Fuels
(2)
Where:
PE CO2, other fuels, y Are the CO2 emission due to consumption of other fuels than the recovered
gas due to the project activity during the period y in tons of CO2
m fuel, y Is the quantity of a specific fuel type that is consumed due to the project
activity during the project y in kg.
NCV fuel Is the net calorific value of the respective fuel type in kJ/kg
EF CO2, fuel Is the CO2 emission factor of the respective fuel type in kg CO2/kJ
Since PE CO2, other fuels, y is any fuel purchased externally in case of emergency; it is not used for
calculation. The primary purpose of the data is for emergency preparedness.
(2) N2O emission caused by combustion

N2O emission would be caused by combustion as a result of project activity, which occurs at oil
field (in the boundary) as well as at the gas processing plant (as a leakage). However, the
emission as a result of project activity is smaller compared to the baseline emission due to
higher combustion efficiency and less fuel consumption. The N2O emission is not taken into
account at the baseline scenario and therefore N2O emission caused by the project activity can
be offset.
Therefore, the methodology is appropriate for the project activity.
(3) CH4 emission caused by uncombusted CH4

CH4 emission would be caused by uncombusted CH4 as a result of project activity. CH4
emission is caused at oil field (in the boundary) and at the gas processing plant (as a leakage).
However, the emission as a result of project activity is smaller compared to the baseline
emission due to higher combustion efficiency and less fuel consumption. The uncombusted
CH4 is not taken into account at the baseline scenario and therefore uncombusted CH4 caused
by the project activity can be offset.
Therefore, uncombusted CH4 emission caused by the project activity can be offset and is not
taken into consideration in the interest of conservativeness since it is smaller than baseline
emission.

CDM-PDD-FORM
(4) CH4 emission caused by fugitive emission
Although fugitive emission of CH4 is negligible, it is calculated using factor authorized and
approved by U. S. EPA (Environment Projection Agency).
(a) CH4 emission from recovery of the associated gas
Fugitive CH4 emission occurring during the recovery of the gas is negligible but is estimated
based on AM0009 version 2.1.
1
PECH 4, plants , oilfield , y  GWPCH 4   wCH 4, A, y  EFequipment  Tequipment ,oilfield
1000 equipment
(3)
where:
PE CH4, plants oil field, y Are the CH4 emissions from the project activity in the Rang Dong oil field
during the period y in tons of CO2 equivalents.
GWPCH4 Is the approved Global Warming Potential for CH4.
T equipment, oil field Is the operation time of the equipment in hours
w CH4, A, y Is the average CH4 weight fraction in the respective stream in kg-CH4/kg
EF equipment Is the appropriate emission factor from Table B6-1 in kg/hour/equipment
Table B6-1 Calculation sheet using emission factors

Equipment type Emission Factors (kg/hour/source)
Valves 4.5 * 10–3

Pump seals 2.4 * 10–3
Others 8.8 * 10–3
Connectors 2.0 * 10–4
Flanges 3.9 * 10–4
Open-ended lines 2.0 * 10–3
(b) CH4 emission from transport of the gas in pipeline under the normal operation condition
Fugitive emission from pipeline is negligible since the pipeline was constructed using the
state-of-the art material: API 5L X 65 is used and ANSI rating is ANSI class 600. Furthermore,
responsibility of maintenance and operation is strictly defined among project participants as
attached and pipeline is kept in a good condition.
In the interest of conservativeness, however, fugitive emission (containing CH4) through the
pipeline is calculated using the parameters contained in the study by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA-453/R-95-017, Table 2-4) as per AM0009 version 2.1.
1
PECH 4 , pipeline , y  GWPCH 4   wCH 4, pipeline  EFequipment  Tequipment , pipeline
1000 equipment
(4)
where:
PE CH4, pipleline, y Are the CH4 emissions from the project activity during the transport of the
associated gas in pipeline under the normal operation condition during the
period y in tons of CO2 equivalents.
w CH4, pipeline, y Is the average CH4 weight fraction in the respective stream in kg-CH4/kg
T equipment,pipeline Is the operation time of the equipment in hours

CDM-PDD-FORM
(5) CH4 emission from transport of the gas in pipelines when accidental events occur
Although accidental events seldom occur to the pipeline, the resulting emissions are calculated
based on the conservative assumption.
When an accident causes gas leakage from a pipeline, the gas leakage volume is less than the
sum of 1) the total amount of gas that flowed during the time the accident occurred until the gas
flow is shut and 2) the total amount of gas remaining in the pipeline. In the interest of
conservativeness, the volume set out above should be estimated as the gas leakage from a
pipeline caused by an accident.
CH4 emissions from the pipelines when accidental event occurred can be calculated as:
PECH 4, pipeline , accident  GWPCH 4  (VA,t , accident  Vremain , accident )  WCH 4, pipeline , accident (5)
with:
VB ,accident  t accicdent  F  (t 2  t1 )  F
Pp Ts
Vremain,accident  d 2    L  
Ps T p
where:
PECH4, pipeline, accident Are the CH4 emission from the project activity due to transport of
the recovered gas in the pipeline when the accidental event
happens in tons of CO2 equivalents.
VA, t, accident Is the volume of gas supplied from the oil well at point A from the
time the gas leakage started until the shutdown valves closed the
pipeline in m3.
Vremain,accident Is the volume of gas remaining in the pipeline after the shutdown
valves close the pipeline in m3.
W CH4, pipeline, accident Is the average CH4 weight fraction in the gas recovered at point A
in ton-CH4/㎥
taccident Is the time difference between t1 and t2 determined as “retention
time” in seconds.
t1 Is the time the gas leakage caused by the accident occurred. “t1”
is determined based on the continuous monitoring data such as
pressure etc.
t2 Is the time that the shutdown valves closed both the upstream
and downstream pipeline. “t2” is determined based on the
operation data.
F Is the flow rate of gas supplied from the oil well at point B in
m3/seconds.
d Is the radius of the pipeline in meters. The data is derived from P
& I (Piping and Instrument).
π Is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.
L Is the length of the pipeline in meters. The data is derived from P
& I (Piping and Instrument).
Pp Is the pressure in the pipeline when the shutdown valves close
both the upstream and downstream of the pipeline in atm.
CDM-PDD-FORM
Ps Is the standard pressure in atm.
Tp Is the temperature in the pipeline when the shutdown valves close
both the upstream and downstream of the pipeline in Centigrade.
Ts Is the standard temperature in Centigrade.
Leakage
(1) CO2 emission due to fuel combustion for recovery, transport and processing of the gas
Emission outside of the project boundary occurs upstream of shipping point. Most of the emission
is caused by the operation of Dinh Co Gas Processing Plant. Dinh Co Gas Processing Plant has
the following components that emit CO2
・ Three Gas turbine generators (Two are for operation use and one is for stand-by)
・ One Diesel generator (stand-by)
・ Flare header
Emissions from the gas processing plant can be calculated under the assumption that the
difference between the carbon contained in the associated gas imported into the gas processing
plant and the carbon contained in the products (dry gas, LPG and condensate) is released into the
atmosphere as CO2. This emission figure represents the amount of CO2 emission caused by in-
house consumption and flaring of associated gas upstream of shipping point of the gas products.
G as S crubber
V -101
Inlet C om presser
V 01011A ～D → K -1011A ～D → E-1015A ～D
G A S From R ang D ong
Flare header
D ehydrator
V -06A /B
S lug C atcher
S C -01、S C -02 S ales G as
G as P rocessing P lant
G PP
G as turbine generator
G as From B ach H o S lug C atcher LP G

Inlet Flush D rum LP G B ulｌ
et
V -03 V ー21A /B
G AS
LP G 、C ondensate
LP G
D rain Flare
C ondensate T ank
TK -21 C ondensate
P roduced W ater
Flush D rum
V -52
O ff S pec.
B urn P it C ondensate B ullet
V -21C
Since associated gas exported from Rang Dong oil field and Bach Ho oil field are mixed and
processed simultaneously, it is necessary to take into account only CO2 emission occurring as a
result of gas exported from Rang Dong oil field from the project activity. Therefore, the CO2
emissions attributable to gas exported from Rang Dong oil field and Bach Ho oil field upstream of

CDM-PDD-FORM
shipping point of the gas products are calculated on the basis of their respective carbon content,
and the former should be taken into account as leakage.
CO2 emission outside of the project boundary as a result of project activity can be calculated as:
mcarbon, A', y 44 1
PECO2, gas, y  (mcarbon, A, y  mcarbon, X , y  mcarbon, X 2, y  mcarbon, B, y )   (6)
mcarbon, A, y  mcarbon, X , y  mcarbon, X 2, y 12 1000
with
m carbon, A, y = V A,y * w carbon, A, y
m carbon, A’, y = V A,y * w carbon, A, y – VA1,y * w carbon, A1, y
m carbon, B, y = V dry gas, B, y * w carbon, dry gas, B, y+ m LPG, B, y * w carbon, LPG, B, y+ m condensate, B,y * w carbon,
condensate, B, y
m carbon, X, y = V X,y * w carbon, X, y
m carbon, X2, y = V X2,y * w carbon, X2,
Where:
PE CO2,gas,y Are the CO2 emissions from the project activity due to combustion,
flaring or venting of recovered gas during the period y in tons of CO2.
m carbon, A, y Is the quantity of carbon in the recovered gas from the project area at
point A in Figure B6-1 during the period y in kg.
m carbon, A’, y Is the quantity of carbon attributable to Rang Dong oil field at point A in
Figure B6-1 during the period y in kg.
m carbon, B, y Is the quantity of carbon in the products (dry gas, LPG, condensate)
leaving the gas processing plant at point B in Figure B6-1 during the
period y in kg.
m carbon, X, y Is the quantity of carbon in the recovered gas from Bach Ho oil field at
point X in Figure B6-1 during the period y in kg.
V dry gas, B, y Is the volume of dry gas that is produced in the gas processing plant
(Point B Figure B6-1) during the period y in m3.
m LPB, B, y Is the quantity of LPG that is produced in the gas processing plant
(Point B Figure B6-1) during the period y in kg.
m condensate, B, y Is the quantity of condensate that is produced in the gas processing
plant (Point B Figure B6-1) during the period y in kg.
V A, y Is the volume of gas recovered at point A Figure B6-1 during the period
y in m3.
V A1, y Is the volume of gas recovered at point A1 Figure B6-1during the period
y in m3. As explained in equation (1), accuracy level of Phuong Dong
gas flow meter (3%) is lower than the level of existing monitoring plan
(1%), the difference in accuracy which is 2% is deducted from the value
measured by the Phuong Dong gas flow meter at point A1. Such
adjustment is conservative as it will increase the Leakage and lead to
the reduction of CERs.
V X, y Is the volume of gas recovered at point X Figure B6-1 during the period
y in m3.
w carbon, A, y Is the average content of carbon in the gas recovered at point A in
Figure B6-1 during the period y in kg-C/m3.
w carbon, dray gas, B, y Is the average content of carbon in dry gas at point B in Figure B6-1
during the period y in kg-C/m3.
w carbon, LPG, B, y Is the average content of carbon in LPG at point B in Figure B6-1
during the period y in kg-C/kg.
w carbon, condensate, B, y Is the average content of carbon in condensate at point B in Figure B6-
1 during the period y in kg-C/kg.
w carbon, A, y Is the average content of carbon in the gas recovered at point X in

CDM-PDD-FORM
The formulae “V X,y = V X’,y – 96.7% * V C,y + 542 * V condensateX’,y = V X’,y – (100% – 3.3%) * V
C,y + 542 * V condensateX’,y is in accordance with management system of Bach Ho oil field. It
is calculated in a conservative manner as is explained below.
(a) 3.3% * V C, y“ in the formulae

In the management system of PVgas and Vietsovpetro, 3.3%* V C, y is deducted from
the volume of Rang Dong gas as a compensation to use the facility of Bach Ho oil field
and is added to the volume of Bach Ho gas. It leads to increased volume of Vx,y for
about 1% leading to reduced volume of CER and thus it is conservative assumption.
(b) Conversion factor “542 m3(gas)/m3(liquid)” in the formulae

At point X’, some portion of associated gas exists as liquid (condensate). Such
condensate volume is measured, converted to gas volume, and added to Vx,y. In the
management system of Bach Ho oil field, conversion factor 542 m3(gas)/m3(liquid) is
used. This conversion factor leads to the increased volume of V x,y, for about 1% in
comparison with using the conversion factor (206 m3(gas)/m3(liquid) ) based on recent
actual measured data as is explained below. It results in reduced volume of CER and
thus it is conservative assumption.
Below is the conversion factor based on the recent actual measured data:
(572 kg/m3) / (65.7kg/kmol) * (23.645 m3/kmol) = 206 m3(gas)/m3(liquid)
Where:
572 kg/m3: measured density of condensate in an average
65.7 kg/m3: measured molecular weight of condensate in an average
23.645 m3/kmol: standard m3 factor
Assumed that the molecular weight of the condensate is 25kg/kmol, the conversion
factor is 542. The composition of condensate (wcondensate X’,y) will be monitored to confirm
the conservativeness every month.

Fugitive emission of CH4 is not expected from gas processing plant since the plant has state-of-
art gas detection system using infrared radiation. This is absolutely necessary for security
reason. Furthermore, the U.S. EPA study, which was based on the data collected by American
Petroleum Institute (API) shows that the average fugitive emission from leaking components in
oil and gas service such as valves, flanges, etc., are primarily dependent on number of each
type of components in service. The average fugitive emission does not significantly depend on
gas flow, gas pressure, and pipe size. As a result, we expect the average leakage emissions
from the gas processing plant to be the same as before in the absence of the project. This is
why we are not proposing to monitor the leakage emissions from gas processing plant.
(3) CH4 emission from processing of the associated gas

Fugitive CH4 emission occurring during the processing of the gas is negligible but is estimated
based on AM0009 version 2.1.
1
PECH 4, plants , proces sin g , y  GWPCH 4   wCH 4, stream , proces sin g  EFequipment  Tequipment , proces sin g (7)
1000 equipment
where:
PE CH4, plants processing, y Are the CH4 emissions from the project activity in the gas processing
plant during the period y in tons of CO2 equivalents.
T equipment, processing Is the operation time of the equipment in hours
CDM-PDD-FORM
w CH4, stream, processing Is the average CH4 weight fraction in the respective stream in kg-CH4/kg
(4) CO2 emissions from gas products

The CO2 emissions from products of associated gas from Rang Dong oil field occur outside the
project boundary. The products of associated gas from Rang Dong oil field are dry gas (mostly
CH4 including carbon hydrate with higher molecular weight), LPG and condensate. Emissions
from gas products are not considered for the following reasons.
(a) Substitution of fuel
Dry Gas
Dry gas supplied to the power plants replaces the existing fuel, natural gas.
Dry gas is also supplied to a fertilizer plant which started operation in Jan 2004. Fertilizer
produced from dry gas substitutes fertilizer imported from other countries, which are
made from similar materials. Therefore, use of dry gas for fertilizer manufacture does not
result in net increase of greenhouse gas emission.
LPG
Most of propane and butane is used as LPG. Emission of CO2 as a result of LPG
consumption is not taken into account, since it is expected that LPG does not replace
fuels which have higher or lower carbon content: LPG is used a fuel for heating and
cooking. The increase in production of LPG only serves to replace imported LPG.
Condensate
Condensate is the collective name of substances included in the associated gas which
contains higher number of carbon molecules (pentane, hexane, etc.) than LPG. Emission
of CO2 as a result of condensate consumption is not taken into account, since it is
expected that condensate does not replace fuels which have higher or lower carbon
content: Condensate is mixed with additive to make commercial gasoline. The increase in
production of condensate and gasoline will only serve to replace imported condensate
and gasoline.
(b) Impact on the market
The comparison of demand in the local market and supply by the project are forecasted by the
following table.
Dry Gas BCM
Demand Rang Dong Associated gas
(South East
Vietnam) Base Case High Case
2004 5.2 0.326 (6.3%) 0.326 (6.3%)
2006 6.0 0.202 (3.4%) 0.356 (5.9%)
2008 7.2 0.137 (1.9%) 0.403 (5.6%)
2010 8.4 0.083 (1.0%) 0.378 (4.5%)
( ) is a share to the demand
LPG thousand ton

Demand LPG from Rang Dong Gas
(Vietnam) Base Case High Case
2004 746 72.5 (9.7%) 72.5 (9.7%)
2006 1,074 45.0 (4.1%) 79.2 (7.3%)
2008 1,483 30.5 (2.1%) 89.7 (6.1%)
2010 1,962 18.4 (0.9%) 84.2 (4.3%)

CDM-PDD-FORM
Gasoline (condensate) thousand ton
Demand condensate from Rang Dong Gas
(Vietnam) Base Case High Case
2002 2,400 29 (1.2%) 29 (1.2%)
2005 2,830 26 (0.9%) 29 (1.0%)
2010 4,160 8 (0.2%) 36 (0.9%)
The demand forecast for dry gas is compiled by Petrovietnam based on the power plant
construction plan in the “Prime Minister’s Decision regarding the Adjustment of Vietnam
Electricity Development Master Plan in Government No. 40/2003/QD-TTg in 21 March 2003”
and a fertilizer plant which has been in operation since Jan 2004. The demand of LPG and
gasoline is also forecasted by Petrovietnam.
Based on the above analysis, it can be concluded that emissions from gas products do not
amount to leakage since they only substitute the similar gas products currently imported. In
addition since the supply volume of gas products by the project is small compared to the
demand, it would not lead to cheaper price and higher consumption and increased GHG
emission.
Emission Reduction
Emission reductions are calculated as the difference between baseline and project emissions,
taking into account any adjustment for leakage:
EF y = BL y – PE CO2, other fuel, y – PE CO2, gas, y – PE CH4, plants oil field, y – PE CH4, plants, y – PE CH4, pipeline, y –
PE CH4, pipeline, accident – Ly
(8)
with
PE CH4, plants, y = PE CH4, plants oil field, y + PE CH4, plants processing, y
Where:
EF y Are the emission reductions of the project activity, adjusted for leakage,
BLy Are the baseline emissions during the period y in tons of CO2 equivalents.
PE CO2, gas, y Are the CO2 emissions from the project activity due to processing of
recovered gas during the period y in tons of CO2 equivalents.
PE CO2, other fuels, y Are the CO2 emissions due to consumption of other fuels than the
recovered gas due to the project activity during the period y in tons of CO2
equivalents.
PE CH4, plants, y Are the CH4 emissions from the project activity at the gas recovery facility
and the gas processing plant during the period y in tons of CO2 equivalents.
PE CH4, pipeline, y Are the CH4 emissions from the project activity due to transport of the
recovered gas in the pipeline during the period y in tons of CO2 equivalents.
PE CH4, pipeline, accident Are the CH4 emissions from the project activity due to transport of the
recovered gas in the pipeline when accidental event occurs in tons of CO2
equivalents.
Ly Are any leakage emissions during the period y in tons of CO2 equivalent.
PE CH4, plants oil field, y Are the CH4 emissions from the project activity at the gas recovery facility

CDM-PDD-FORM
PE CH4, plants processing, y Are the CH4 emissions from the project activity at the gas processing
plant during the period y in tons of CO2 equivalents.
B.6.2. Data and parameters fixed ex ante
Data / Parameter EFCO2, fuel, y

Unit kilogram CO2 per kiloJoule
Description CO2 emission factor for gas oil/diesel
Source of data Table 1.4 of Chapter 1 of Vol 2 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines
Value(s) applied 74.8
x 10-6
Choice of data or Upper limit value specified in Table 1.4 of Chapter 1 of Vol 2 of
Measurement methods 2006 IPCC Guidelines
and procedures
Purpose of data This value is applied for project emission calculation
Additional comment No comment
Data / Parameter NCVfuel

Unit kiloJoule per kilogram diesel fuel
Description Net calorific value for gas oil/diesel
Source of data Table 1.2 of Chapter 1 of Vol 2 of 2006 IPCC Guidelines
Value(s) applied 43.3
x 103
Choice of data or Upper limit value specified in Table 1.2 of Chapter 1 of Vol 2 of
Measurement methods 2006 IPCC Guidelines
and procedures
Purpose of data This value is applied for project emission calculation
Data / Parameter EFequipment

Unit Kilogram CH4 per hour leaking from equipment
Description Emission factor from leakage of methane from equipment during
recovery of gas in Rang Dong field
Source of data AM 0009 version 2.1 default emission factors based on US EPA
Value(s) applied
Factors Number of equipment
Valves 4.5 E-3 152
Pump seals 2.4 E-3 8
Others 8.8 E-3 240
Connectors 2.0 E-4 59
Flanges 3.9 E-4 146
Open-ended
2.0 E-3 46
lines

CDM-PDD-FORM
Choice of data or Default factor specified in AM0009 version 2.1
Measurement methods
and procedures
Purpose of data Calculated as the sum of methane emissions from all the flanges,
valves etc in Rang Dong field for gas recovery
Data / Parameter EFpipeline

Unit Kilogram CH4 per hour from pipelines
Description Emission factor from leakage of methane from equipment during
transportation of gas in Rang Dong field
Source of data AM 0009 version 2.1 default emission factors based on US EPA
Value(s) applied
Factors Number of equipment
Valves 4.5 E-3 5
Pump seals 2.4 E-3 0
Others 8.8 E-3 0
Connectors 2.0 E-4 0
Flanges 3.9 E-4 23
Open-ended
2.0 E-3 0
lines
Choice of data or Default factor specified in AM0009 version 2.1
Measurement methods
and procedures
Purpose of data Calculated as the sum of methane emissions from all the flanges,
valves etc in the pipeline
B.6.3. Ex ante calculation of emission reductions
Baseline emissions at the oil field assumes that all of the associated gas is converted into CO2
either through flaring. The formulae (1) described in B6-1 is used to estimate the CO2 emission.
The estimation is based on the following data:
- The gas composition data: (Table B6-3-1)
- Projection of production volume of associated gas and export volume of associated gas:
Full Field Development Plan
Base case assumes that the probability of gas emissions exceeding this value is 50%; High
case assumes that such probability is 10%.
CO2 emission as a result of flaring or in-house consumption is calculated from the volume of gas
multiplied by its carbon content. Carbon content can be calculated from the fractional
composition using the following table
Table B6-3-1: Gas composition of associated gas from Rang Dong
C Molecular Carbon

CDM-PDD-FORM
atoms/mole composition Content
% t-C/1000 m3
0 0.000
n-C1 1 72.550% 0.367
n-C2 2 10.330% 0.105
n-C3 3 6.690% 0.102
n-C4 4 2.290% 0.046
so-C4 4 1.410% 0.029
n-C5 5 0.830% 0.021
iso-C5 5 0.790% 0.020
neo-C5 5 0.000
n-C6 6 1.010% 0.031
iso-C6 6 0.000
neo-C6 6 0.000
n-C7 7 0.720% 0.026
iso-C7 7 0.000
Triptane 7 0.000
n-C8 8 0.260% 0.011
iso-C8 8 0.000
diiso-C8 8 0.000
8 0.000
n-C9 9 0.120% 0.005
iso-C9 9 0.000
C10 10 0.040% 0.002
iso-C10 10 0.000
diiso-
10 0.000
C10
CO2 1 0.040% 0.000
N2 0 0.420% 0.000
H2O 0 2.490% 0.000
Other 0.010%
Total 0.764
Source: Coordination Operation Procedure from Rang Dong – Bach Ho Pipeline Project between
JVPC-VSP-PVGC
(Doc Number: PVGC. OP. 904-Rev: 01 Page 8)
Therefore, carbon content of the associated gas is calculated to be 0.764t-C/1000m3 (2.801t-

CO2/1000m3). Since fractional composition of gas may vary over time, carbon content is
calculated on a monthly basis.
Table B6-3-2 is projection of baseline CO2 emission as a result of flaring based on Full Field
Development Plan. It is calculated using both Base Case and High Case production. The Base
Case is considered to be the most probable case as described in “(2) Projection of associated
gas production” in B.6.1 above. Baseline emissions at the oil field assume that all of the
associated gas is converted into CO2 either through flaring or in-house consumption.
Table B6-3-2: Projected GHG emissions as a result

of flaring of associated gas (tCO2)
Year Base case High case

2001 73,665 73,665

CDM-PDD-FORM
2002 1,258,108 1,302,864
2003 1,637,005 1,899,610
2004 1,236,569 1,236,743
2005 1,020,370 1,137,328
2006 766,856 1,351,211
2007 594,285 1,547,202
2008 509,883 1,500,086
2009 437,821 1,429,840
2010 307,995 1,407,569
2011 125,092 1,150,069
(Dec 2001-Nov 7,967,649 14,036,187
2011)
Source: Full Field Development Plan

Base case assumes that the probability of gas
emissions exceeding this value is 50%; High case
assumes that such probability is 10%.
Project Emissions:
(1) CO2 emission
It is expected that associated gas produced but not exported via pipeline is emitted as CO2,
through in-house consumption including fuel combustion for recovery which is already offset
from the baseline emission since baseline emission is based on the volume of gas monitored at
point A as per AM0009 version 2.1.
Therefore, CO2 emission should be calculated only in case when other fuels than the recovered
gas is consumed in the boundary.

(a) Calculation of Emission factor (Rang Dong oil field)
EFequipment RD can be calculated as 2.976 based on the data below.
Number of Fugitive
Factors
valves emission
(= A) (= B) (= A * B)
(kg/hour/source) (kg/hour)
Valves 4.5 * 10–3 152 0.684
Pump seals 2.4 * 10–3 8 0.0192
Others 8.8 * 10–3 240 2.112
Connectors 2.0 * 10–4 59 0.012
Flanges 3.9 * 10–4 146 0.057
Open-ended lines 2.0 * 10–3 46 0.092
Total fugitive emissions of hydro
=∑A * B (kg/hour) 2.976
carbon
(b) Calculation of Emission Factor (Pipeline)

EFequipment pipeline can be calculated as 0.03147 based on the data below.
Rand Dong Fugitive
Factors
- Dinh Co emission
(= A) (= B) (= A * B)
(kg/hour/source)
Valves 4.5 * 10–3 5 0.023

CDM-PDD-FORM
Pump seals 2.4 * 10–3 0 0.0000
Others 8.8 * 10–3 0 0.000
Connectors 2.0 * 10–4 0 0.000
Flanges 3.9 * 10–4 23 0.009
Open-ended lines 2.0 * 10–3 0 0.000
Total HC fugitive emissions =∑Factor X valves 0.03147
(c) Calculation of CH4 weight fraction

wCH4, A, y can be calculated as 50.1% (=11.638 / 23.248) based on the table below.
Composition per mole

Molecular Molecular Weight
(=volume)
Weight (=M) (=M * C)
(=C)
%
n-C1 16.042 72.550% 11.638
n-C2 30.068 10.330% 3.106
n-C3 44.094 6.690% 2.950
n-C4 58.120 2.290% 1.331
so-C4 58.120 1.410% 0.819
n-C5 72.146 0.830% 0.599
iso-C5 72.146 0.790% 0.570
neo-C5 72.146 0.000
n-C6 86.172 1.010% 0.870
iso-C6 86.172 0.000
neo-C6 86.172 0.000
n-C7 100.198 0.720% 0.721
iso-C7 100.198 0.000
Triptane 100.198 0.000
n-C8 114.224 0.260% 0.297
iso-C8 114.224 0.000
diiso-C8 114.224 0.000
114.224 0.000
n-C9 128.250 0.120% 0.154
iso-C9 128.250 0.000
C10 142.276 0.040% 0.057
iso-C10 142.276 0.000
diiso-C10 142.276 0.000
CO2 44.010 0.040% 0.018
N2 28.016 0.420% 0.118
H2O 28.016 2.490% 0.698
Other 0.010%
Total 99.990% 23.248
Based on (a), (b) and (c), the fugitive emission of CH4 will be:
(2.976 + 0.03147) * 50.1 % * 8.76 * 21 = 277 ton / year
Leakage
Some portion of associated gas supplied from Rang Dong oil field is consumed at the gas
processing plant to produce gas product. The formulae to estimate the CO2 emission is described
in B.6.1.

CDM-PDD-FORM
Historical E2CO2 data will be statistically analyzed to ensure that the methodology provides an
accurate figure of actual emissions occurring at the gas processing plant.
The estimation is based on
- The gas composition data: (Table B6-3-1)
Full Field Development Plan
Base case assumes that the probability of gas emissions exceeding this value is 50%; High
case assumes that such probability is 10%.
Data in Full Field Development Plan is confidential; therefore, the data is shown to OE.
- Actual emission from the gas processing plant that occurred in 2002.
Formulae used for the estimation is:
44 1
V A, y  Wcarbon, A, y    15.1%
12 1000
Where:
V a,y Is the estimated volume of gas recovered from the oil field at point A in
Figure B6-1 during the period y in m3.
w carbon, A, y Is the estimated average content of carbon in the gas recovered at point A in
15.1% Is the actual emission from the gas processing plant that occurred in 2002
which is based on the following calculation.
Flow-in to Dinh Co Gas Processing plant****** (a)

Gas Volume Carbon content Total carbon content
(*)
(million m3) (ton / thousand (ton)
m3)
Rang Dong 409 0.764 312,000
Bach Ho 1,731 0.751 1,300,000
Total 1,612,000
Flow-out from Dinh Co Gas Processing Plant****** (b)
Gas Volume Carbon content Total carbon content
(*) (ton)
1,577 0.605
Dry gas (million m3) (ton/ thousand 954,000
m3)
351 0.821
LPG 288,000
(thousand ton) (ton/ ton)
151 0.833
Condensate 126,000
(thousand ton) (ton/ ton)
Total 1,368,000
The difference between flow-in and flow-out is:

(a) - (b) = 1,612,000 – 1,368,000 = 244,000 (ton) ****** (c)
The emission rate at around the gas processing plant is:
(c) / (a) = 244,000 / 1,612,000 = 15.1%

CDM-PDD-FORM
Following table is the estimated emission as leakage.
Estimated emissions as leakage
(tonnes-CO2)
Base case High case
Mt-CO2 Mt-CO2
2001 (Dec) 11,153 11,153
2002 190,477 197,254
2003 247,843 287,601
2004 187,217 187,243
2005 154,484 172,192
2006 116,102 204,573
2007 89,975 234,246
2008 77,196 227,113
2009 66,286 216,478
2010 46,630 213,106
2011 (Jan –
18,939 174,120
Nov)
(Dec 2001 -
1,206,302 2,125,079
Nov 2011)
Note: The bottom line does not exactly meet with the total
due to the calculation by rounding off.
B.6.4. Summary of ex ante estimates of emission reductions

Base Case:
Year Baseline emissions Project Leakage Emission

(t CO2e) emissions (t CO2e) reductions
(t CO2e) (t CO2e)
2001 73,665 23 11,153 62,489
2002 1,258,108 277 190,477 1,067,353
2003 1,637,005 277 247,843 1,388,885
2004 1,236,569 277 187,217 1,049,075
2005 1,020,370 277 154,484 865,609
2006 766,856 277 116,102 650,477
2007 594,285 277 89,975 504,033
2008 509,883 277 77,196 432,410
2009 437,821 277 66,286 371,258
2010 307,995 277 46,630 261,088
2011 125,092 254 18,939 105,899
Total 7,967,649 2,770 1,206,302 6,758,577
Total
number
of 10 years
crediting
years
Annual 796,765 277 120,630 675,858
average
over the
crediting
period

CDM-PDD-FORM
High Case:
Year Baseline emissions Project Leakage Emission reductions
(t CO2e) emissions (t CO2e) (t CO2e)
(t CO2e)
2001 73,665 23 11,153 62,489
2002 1,302,864 277 197,254 1,105,334
2003 1,899,610 277 287,601 1,611,732
2004 1,236,743 277 187,243 1,049,223
2005 1,137,328 277 172,192 964,860
2006 1,351,211 277 204,573 1,146,360
2007 1,547,202 277 234,246 1,312,679
2008 1,500,086 277 227,113 1,272,696
2009 1,429,840 277 216,478 1,213,085
2010 1,407,569 277 213,106 1,194,186
2011 1,150,069 254 174,120 975,695
Total 14,036,187 2,770 2,125,079 11,908,338
Total
number
of 10 years
crediting
years
Annual 1,403,619 277 212,508 1,190,834
average
over the
crediting
period
B.7. Monitoring plan
B.7.1. Data and parameters to be monitored
Data / Parameter V A,y

Unit m3
Description The volume of gas recovered at point A in figure B6-1 during the
period y
Source of data Gas flow meters installed at point A
Value(s) applied Ex-post monitoring
Measurement methods Measurement: by Ultrasonic Flow Meters with pressure
and procedures andtemperature compensation by pressure and temperature
transmitter
Archive: Electronic
Uncertainty level: Low
Proportion of data to be monitored: 100%
Monitoring frequency Continuously. Data is aggregated and reported on a daily basis for
the purpose of calculating emission reductions.
QA/QC procedures Consistency checks of measurement with commercial data.
Calibration frequency: every 3 years in accordance with Regulations
relating to gas measurement issued by Petrovietnam in 2009 (article
7.5.2, page 21)
Purpose of data Baseline Emission and Leakage

CDM-PDD-FORM
Additional comment Used in equation (1) and (6)
Data / Parameter Wcarbon, A, y

Unit % and kg/m3
Description Carbon content of gas recovered at point A in figure B6-1 during the
period y
Source of data Gas composition analyzed by online gas chromatograph installed at
point A
Measurement methods Measurement with online gas chromatograph at point A. Monthly
and procedures manual gas sampling and analysis by accredited third party is
conducted as back-up data.
Archive: Electronic
Uncertainty level: Medium
Monitoring frequency Monthly. The gas composition is sampled and analysed by online
gas chromatograph continuously. The analysis result is recorded
continuously by the DCS and the measured value of the middle or
last day (in case of meter shutdown in the middle of the month) of
each month shall be selected and used for calculation of carbon
content for that month. In case of failure of online gas
chromatograph the gas analysis result by accredited third party of
the month when failure occurs shall be used.
QA/QC procedures Cross-check with data from previous month and with measurement
from other wells of the same oil field if possible.
7.5.2, page 21).
Data / Parameter VA1,y

Unit m3
Description The volume of gas recovered at point A1 in figure B6-1 during the
period y
Source of data Gas flow meters installed at point A1
Measurement methods Measurement with orifice flow meter with pressure/temperature
and procedures compensation by pressure and temperature transmitters.
Archive: Electronic
Monitoring frequency Continuously. Data is aggregated and reported on a daily basis for
the purpose of calculating emission reductions.
Systems are operated and maintained in accordance with
procedures described in “Phuong Dong Sales Gas Measurement
Manual” issued in Sep 2009.
7.5.2, page 21).

CDM-PDD-FORM
Data / Parameter Wcarbon, A1, y

Unit Kg-C/m3
Description Carbon content of gas recovered at point A1 in figure B6-1 during
the period y
Source of data Gas composition of recovered gas at point A1
Measurement methods Monthly manual gas sampling and analysis at laboratory of
and procedures accredited third party.
Archive: Electronic
Monitoring frequency Monthly.
from other wells of the same oil field if possible.

Data / Parameter m fuel,y

Unit T
Description The volume of a specific fuel type that is consumed due to the
project activity during the period y
Source of data Quantity of other fossil fuel measured at Dinh Co gas processing
plant
Measurement methods Measurement: tanks used for fuel storage are standard ones with
and procedures level indicators for defining the fuel volume. The volume and time of
fuel filling are recorded for calculation of fuel used due to project
activity.
Archive: electronic
Monitoring frequency Annually
QA/QC procedures Consistency checks of measurement with commercial data
Purpose of data Project Emission and Leakage
Additional comment Used in equation (2)
Data / Parameter Tequipment, oil field

Unit Hours
Description Operation time of each equipment used for project activity in the
Rang Dong oil field
Source of data Recorded operation time of each equipment in the Rang Dong oil
field
Measurement methods Archive: electronic. Operation time of each equipment is recorded in
and procedures the DCS system but the whole year is used for calculation of project
emission for conservativeness.

CDM-PDD-FORM
QA/QC procedures Consistency is of overall calculation is checked by comparing
overall results for CH4 leakage with other international default
values for gas production and gas processing e.g. IPCC.
Purpose of data Project Emission
Data / Parameter w CH4, A, y

W CH4, pipeline,y
Unit Kg CH4/ kg
Description CH4 content of streams in the Rang Dong oil field (point A) in the
figure B6-1 during the period y
Source of data Gas composition analyzed by online gas chromatograph installed at
point A.
Measurement methods Measurement with online gas chromatography at point A. Monthly
and procedures manual gas sampling and analysis by accredited third party is
conducted as back-up data.
Archive: electronic
Monitoring frequency Annually. The gas composition is sampled and analysed by online
gas chromatograph continuously. The analysis result is recorded
continuously by the DCS and the measured value of the middle or
last day (in case of meter shutdown in the middle of the month) of
each month shall be selected and used for calculation of carbon
content for that month. In case of failure of online gas
chromatograph the gas analysis result by accredited third party of
the month when failure occurs shall be used.
from other wells of the same oil field if possible
7.5.2, page 21).
Additional comment Used in equation (3),(4) and (5)
Data / Parameter T equipment, pipeline

Unit Hours
Description Operation time of each equipment of the Rang Dong-Bach Ho gas
pipeline constructed by project activity
Source of data Recorded operation time of each equipment of the pipeline
Measurement methods Only required if EPA approach is used
and procedures Archive: electronic. Operation time of each equipment is recorded in
the DCS system but the whole year is used for calculation of project
QA/QC procedures Consistency of overall calculation is checked by comparing overall
results for CH4 leakage with other international default values for
pipeline e.g. IPCC.

CDM-PDD-FORM
Data / Parameter F
VA, t, accident
Unit m3
Description Flowrate and volume of gas supplied from the oil well at point A in
the figure B6-1 from the time the gas leakage started until the
shutdown valves closed the pipeline
Source of data Quantity of recovered gas measured by flow meters at point A
Measurement methods Measurement by Ultrasonic Flow Meters with pressure and
and procedures temperature compensation by pressure and temperature
transmitter. Archive: electronic
Monitoring frequency Continuously
Calibration frequency: every 3 years in accordance with
Regulations relating to gas measurement issued by Petrovietnam in
2009 (article 7.5.2, page 21).
Data / Parameter t1
Unit Day/hour/minutes/second
Description The time when the gas leakage caused by the accident occurred
Source of data Recorded time when the gas leakage caused by the accident
occurred
Measurement methods Measurement with e.g. operation controller. “t1” is determined
and procedures based on the continuous monitoring data such as pressure
Archive: electronic
QA/QC procedures Consistency checks of measurement with operation data
Data / Parameter t2
Unit Day/hour/minutes/second
Description The time when the shutdown valves closed both the upstream and
downstream pipeline
Source of data Recorded time when the shutdown valves closed both the upstream
and downstream pipeline
Measurement methods Measurement with e.g. operation controller. “t2” is determined based
and procedures on the operation date
Archive: electronic

CDM-PDD-FORM
Data / Parameter Pp
Unit atm
Description The pressure in the pipeline when the shutdown valves close both
the upstream and downstream of the pipeline
Source of data Measured pressure in the pipeline
Measurement methods Measurement with e.g. pressure meters
and procedures Archive: electronic
Data / Parameter Tp
Unit Centigrade
Description The temperature in the pipeline when the shutdown valves close
both the upstream and downstream of the pipeline
Source of data Measured temperature in the pipeline
Measurement methods Measurement with e.g. temperature meters
Data / Parameter Vx,y

Unit m3
Description Quantity of recovered gas at point X in the figure B6-1 from Bach Ho
oil Field during period y
Source of data Calculated based on gas quantity measured at Bach Ho oil field
Measurement methods
and procedures Calculated by below equation as described in B.6.1 in accordance
with the revision of monitoring plan approved by UNFCCC on 6th Oct
2009:
V X,y = V X’,y – 96.7% * V C,y + 542 * V condensateX’,y
Archive: electronic
Purpose of data Leakage

CDM-PDD-FORM
Data / Parameter w carbon, x, y

Unit % and kg/m3
Description Carbon content of gas recovered at point X from Bach Ho field in
figure B6-1 during the period y.
Source of data Gas composition of associated gas produced at Bach Ho oil field
Measurement methods Measurement with gas chromatography. The gas is manually
and procedures sampled and analysed at laboratory of third party.
Archive: electronic
Monitoring frequency Monthly
from other wells of the same oil field if possible
Data / Parameter Vx’,y

Unit m3
Description The volume of gas recovered at point X’ in figure B6-1 during the
period y
Source of data Quantity of gas measured by flow meters at point X’
Measurement methods Measurement by orifice meters with pressure/temperature
and procedures compensation by pressure and temperature transmitters
Archive: electronic
7.5.2, page 21).
Data / Parameter Vcondensate X’,y

Unit m3
Description The volume of condensate at point X’ in figure B6-1 during the
period y
Source of data Quantity of condensate measured by flow meters at point X’ in figure
B6-1
Measurement methods Measurement by turbine flow meters with pressure/temperature
Archive: electronic

CDM-PDD-FORM
Calibration frequency: every 1 year in accordance with the regulation
of Ministry of Science and Technology (“MOSTE”)16
Data / Parameter wcondensate X’,y

Unit Kg-C/m3
Description Carbon content of condensate at point X’ in figure B6-1 during the
period y
Source of data Composition of condensate at point X’ in figure B6-1
Measurement methods Monthly sampled and analysed at laboratory of third party
Uncertainty level: low
Purpose of data Leakage; This data is monitored to confirm the conservative of
condensate gas conversion factor of 542 in accordance with the
revision of monitoring plan approved by UNFCCC on 6th Oct 2009.
The revised monitoring plan is available at
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/DNV-CUK1133472308.56/view
Data / Parameter VC,y

Unit m3
Description The volume of gas at point C in figure B6-1 during the period y
Source of data Quantity of gas measured by flow meters at point C
Measurement methods Measurement by orifice meters with pressure/temperature
Archive: electronic
7.5.2, page 21).
Data / Parameter VX2,y

Unit m3
Description The volume of gas recovered at point X2 from Su Tu Vang field in
figure B6-1 during the period y
Source of data Quantity of gas measured at point X2 by flow meters at Su Tu Vang
field
16
No. 20 under Appendix of Decision 25/2007/QD-BKHCN dated 5th October 2007

CDM-PDD-FORM
Measurement methods Measurement by ultrasonic flow meters with pressure/temperature
Archive: electronic
Accuracy: the system is designed and maintained to have total
uncertainty better than ± 1%
Systems are operated and maintained in accordance with
procedures described in “Su Tu Vang Sales Gas Measurement
Manual” issued in May 2009
7.5.2, page 21).
Data / Parameter w X2,y

Unit Kg-C/m3
Description Carbon content of gas at point X2 in figure B6-1 during the period y
Source of data Composition of gas at point X2 in figure B6-1
Measurement methods Measurement with online gas chromatograph at point X2.
Uncertainty level: low
Data / Parameter V B, dry gas, y

Unit m3
Description The volume of dry gas produced at the Dinh Co gas processing plant
point B in figure B6-1 during the period y
Source of data Volume of dry gas measured by flow meters at gas processing plant
(Point B)
Measurement methods Measurement by commercial orifice and ultrasonic flow meters with
and procedures pressure and temperature compensation. The gas supplied to
fertiliser plant is measured by ultrasonic flow meters while other gas
is measured by orifice meters.
Archive: electronic

CDM-PDD-FORM
QA/QC procedures Consistency checks of measurement with commercial data. Systems
are operated and maintained in accordance with procedures
described in “Measurement Manual for Ba Ria and Phu My GDS
Metering Systems” Rev 01
7.5.2, page 21).
Data / Parameter w carbon, dry gas, B, y

Unit % and kg/m3
Description Carbon content of gas produced at Dinh Co Gas Processing Plant
Source of data Composition of dry gas produced at gas processing plant (Point B)
Measurement methods Measurement with online gas chromatography
QA/QC procedures Consistency checks of measurement with commercial data. Systems
are operated and maintained in accordance with procedures
described in “Measurement Manual for Ba Ria and Phu My GDS
Metering Systems” Rev 01
Calibration frequency: equipped with daily autocalibration
Data / Parameter m LPG, B, y

Unit Ton
Description The mass of LPG produced at the Dinh Co gas processing plant
Source of data Quantity of LPG produced at gas processing plant (Point B)
measured by flow meters
Measurement methods Measurement with e.g. coriolis meters. The LPG produced at Dinh
and procedures Co Gas Processing Plant is exported by truck at the plant or shipped
at Thi Vai Terminal. The LPG exported at the plant is measured by
Truck Weighbridge and LPG transported to Thi Vai Terminal for
shipping is measured by Coriolis meters.
Archive: electronic
Calibration: every 6 months in accordance with GPP’s procedure
“Check of Coriolis Mass Flow Meters at site” Ref. PVGC/MP/448
Data / Parameter w carbon, LPG, B, y

CDM-PDD-FORM
Unit % and kg/m3
Description Carbon content of LPG produced at Dinh Co Gas Processing Plan
Source of data Composition of LPG produced at gas processing plant (Point B)
Measurement methods Measurement with gas chromatograph. Monthly sampled and
and procedures analysed at laboratory of third party.
Archive: electronic
Proportion of data to be monitored: x%
Data / Parameter m condensate, B, y

Unit Ton
Description The mass of Condensate produced at the Dinh Co gas processing
plant point B in figure B6-1 during the period y
Source of data Quantity of condensate produced at gas processing plant (Point B)
Measurement methods Measurement with e.g. coriolis meters
Calibration: every 6 months in accordance with GPP’s procedure
“Check of Coriolis Mass Flow Meters at site” Ref. PVGC/MP/448
Data / Parameter w carbon, condensate, B, y

Unit % and kg/m3
Description Carbon content of condensate produced at gas processing plant
(Point B)
Source of data Composition of condensate produced at gas processing plant (Point
B)
Measurement methods Measurement with gas chromatograph. Monthly sampled and
and procedures analysed at laboratory of accredited third party.
Archive: electronic
Proportion of data to be monitored: x%
Data / Parameter w CH4,stream, processing

Unit Kg CH4/ kg

CDM-PDD-FORM
Description CH4 content of gas recovered from Rang Dong field being processed
in the gas processing plant
Source of data Composition of gas recovered from Rang Dong field being
processed in the gas processing plant.
Measurement methods Measurement with e.g. gas chromatography. The same value as w
and procedures CH4, A, y
W CH4, pipeline,y shall be applied
Archive: electronic
Monitoring frequency annually
QA/QC procedures Consistency is of overall calculation is checked by comparing overall
results for CH4 leakage with other international default values for gas
production and gas processing e.g. IPCC.
Data / Parameter Tequipment, processing

Unit Hours
Description Operation time of each equipment in the gas processing plant
Source of data Recorded operation time of each equipment in the gas processing
plant
Measurement methods Archive: electronic. Operation time of each equipment is recorded in
and procedures the DCS system but the whole year is used for calculation of project
QA/QC procedures Consistency is of overall calculation is checked by comparing overall
results for CH4 leakage with other international default values for
pipeline e.g. IPCC.

CDM-PDD-FORM
B.7.2. Sampling plan
No data sampling is required under the monitoring plan
B.7.3. Other elements of monitoring plan
(1) Data handling

(a) Overall framework
Figure shown on the below is the tentative framework of data handling.
Required data for CDM activity is collected at three operation sites (Rang Dong oil field, Bach
Ho oil field, Su Tu Vang oil field and Dinh Co Gas Processing Plant). Rang Dong oil field
which is under the control of JVPC is in the boundary of project activity. Bach Ho oil field, Su
Tu Vang oil field and Dinh Co Gas Processing Plant, which are not under the control of project
participants, are determined as outside of the boundary. Since Petrovietnam is a major
shareholder of Bach Ho oil field and Dinh Co Gas Processing Plant, Petrovietnam is
responsible for collecting the data from the two operation sites outside of the boundary. Data
of Phuong Dong oil field, which is determined as outside of the boundary, is collected by JVPC
since JVPC is a major shareholder and operator of this oil field.
Based on the collected data, JVPC (Vung Tau) is responsible for calculating the emission
reduction. The calculation result is reviewed and approved by project participants (JVPC,
ConocoPhillips, Petrovietnam and PVEP).
JVPC will report the approved result to the International Organization related to CDM and to
Japanese Government. Petrovietnam will report the approved result to Vietnamese
Government.

CDM-PDD-FORM
(b) Rang Dong oil field

Data is collected at Production Department of JVPC Vung Tau.
Data collection
Gas composition of associated gas is analysed by gas chromatography every month. Data of
mass flow, temperature and pressure is collected by DCS (distributed control system) which is
also used for commercial meter. The mass flow data is automatically adjusted in accordance
with temperature and pressure. The adjusted data is downloaded to an excel sheet by
operator and is reviewed by manager of Production Group. The monitoring is in accordance
with Sales Gas Measurement System Metering Manual Procedure. Production Review
Meeting is held every week and any anomalies are checked to ensure accuracy.
Maintenance and calibration
Maintenance and calibration of gas chromatograph will be performed together with fiscal gas
flow meters in accordance with procedure “JVPC Rang Dong CPC Sale Gas Metering System
Accuracy Verification Test” The manual issued in January 12, 2004 was prepared by
EMERSON who conduct calibration.
Training
Training is carried out and well managed using training matrix of JVPC, which covers
monitoring training.
Management
Management, internal review and corrective action is conducted based on weekly, monthly,
quarterly and annual production report.
Management is conducted in accordance with established management system. Director
General of JVPC Vung Tau is responsible for management.
(c) Phuong Dong oil field

Data is collected at Production Department of JVPC Vung Tau.
Data collection
Gas composition of associated gas is analyzed by gas chromatography every month. Data
of mass flow, temperature and pressure is collected by DCS (distributed control system)
which is also used for commercial meter. The mass flow data is automatically adjusted in
accordance with temperature and pressure. The adjusted data is downloaded to an excel
sheet by operator and is reviewed by manager of Production Group. The monitoring is in
accordance with Measurement Manual of Phuong Dong Oil & Gas Metering system.
Production Review Meeting is held every week and any anomalies are checked to ensure
accuracy.
Maintenance and calibration of gas chromatograph will be performed together with fiscal
gas flow meters in accordance with procedure “Phuong Dong Oil & Gas Metering System
Accuracy Verification Test”
Training
Training is carried out and well managed using training matrix of JVPC, which covers
monitoring training.
Management
General of JVPC Vung Tau is responsible for management.
(d) Dinh Co gas processing plant

CDM-PDD-FORM
Data collection
Composition dry gas is analysed using an automatic sampling system and gas
chromatography every three hours. Gas composition of LPG and condensate is analysed at
Thi Vai Port each shipment. Data of mass flow, temperature and pressure is collected by DCS
(distributed control system) which is also used for commercial meter. The mass flow data is
automatically adjusted in accordance with temperature and pressure. The adjusted data is
downloaded to an excel sheet by operator and is reviewed by analytical chemical engineer.
Since the data is used for commercial transactions, any anomalies are checked to ensure
accuracy.
Maintenance and calibration of gas chromatograph is performed in accordance with procedure
“Daniel Gas Chromatograph Maintenance” (document Number PVGC/MP/465). Maintenance
and calibration of coriolis flow meter is performed in accordance with procedure “Check of
Coriolis Mass Flow Meters at GPP site” (document Number PVGC/MP/448). Maintenance and
calibration of orifice flow meter is performed in accordance with procedure “Check of Coriolis
Mass Flow Meters at GPP Site” (document Number PVGC/MP/448).
Management
Management is conducted in accordance with established management system and Manager
of Dinh Co Gas Processing Plant is responsible for the management.
(e) Bach Ho oil field

Data collection
Composition associated gas is analysed by gas chromatography every month. Data of mass
flow, temperature and pressure is collected by DCS (distributed control system) which is also
used for commercial meter. The mass flow data is automatically adjusted in accordance with
temperature and pressure. The adjusted data is downloaded to an excel sheet by operator
and is reviewed by engineer in charge. Since the data is used for commercial transactions,
any anomalies are checked to ensure accuracy.
Maintenance and calibration of gas chromatograph is performed in accordance with yearly
maintenance program approved by chief engineer. Maintenance and calibration of flow meter
is also performed in accordance with yearly maintenance program approved by chief engineer.
Management
Management is conducted in accordance with established management system and Chief
engineer is responsible for the management.
(f) Su Tu Vang oil field
Data collection
Composition associated gas is analyzed by gas chromatography every month. Data of mass
flow, temperature and pressure is collected by DCS (distributed control system) which is also
used for commercial meter. The mass flow data is automatically adjusted in accordance with
temperature and pressure. The adjusted data is downloaded to an excel sheet by operator
and is reviewed by engineer in charge. Since the data is used for commercial transactions,
any anomalies are checked to ensure accuracy.
Maintenance and calibration of gas chromatograph is performed in accordance with
“Measurement Manual of Su Tu Vang Sales Gas Metering system” (Document Number:
CLJOC-OPE-GDL-40-0001: Rev1)
Management

CDM-PDD-FORM
General of Cuu Long JOC is responsible for management.
(2) Calculation
Data is calculated at Health, Safety and Environment Division of JVPC Vung Tau. Director
General of JVPC Vung Tau is responsible for the result of calculation.
(3) Management system for project activity

(a) Overall
In order to maintain the high level of performance, the management system shown in the
below figure is introduced. JVPC, ConocoPhillipes, Petrovietnam and PVEP will measure the
performance and take corrective action. Furthermore, an internal audit system will be
constructed.
(b) Emergency preparedness

Emergency preparedness is based on “JVPC Emergency Response Plan” (Document
Number: OHSE-0404-Dec 03) at Rang Dong oil field and on emergency Procedure-GPP
(Document number: VGC.CD.206)
(c) Human resource improvement
Since the project activity is implemented as a part of daily operation at the sites, human
resource improvement is composed of daily OJT (on the job training) and training for CDM.
Training for CDM
The training for CDM will be performed under the management system targeting at staff of
Rang Dong oil field, Dinh Co Gas Processing Plant, Bach Ho oil field, Petrovietnam and PVEP.

CDM-PDD-FORM
An internal seminar will be organized to study global warming, Kyoto mechanism and
calculation of emission reduction.
Daily OJT (on the job training)
JVPC, Dinh Co Gas Processing Plant and Bach Ho oil field provides the following OJT to their
employees.
Safety training takes place at operation sites where employees handle explosive fuel gas.
Training for data handling, calibration and maintenance also takes place, which is required for
daily operation.
(4) Sustainability indicators

Followings are indicators determined by Vietnamese government:
Monitoring
Criterion content determined by Vietnamese Data need Monitoring
Government frequency
Economic National Growth of N/A
sustainability income national income
generation CER revenues CER share allocated to Yearly
Petrovietnam and
PVEP
Market price of CER
(average)
Economic Technology N/A
externalities transfer
Import Statistic data of Yearly
substitutions domestic consumption
and import
- gasoline
- LPG
Environmental GHG GHG emission Will be monitored and
sustainability reduction calculated in the project
activity
Non GHG air Non GHG air N/A
pollution pollution emission
Non GHG water Will be monitored as Quarterly
pollution part of EIA
Waste Waste generation Will be monitored as Yearly
rate part of EIA
Ecosystem % change in N/A
forest cover
soil erosion N/A
likely effect on N/A
biodiversity
Social and Poverty Creation of rural N/A
institutional eradication employment
sustainability Reduction in N/A
number of poor
households
Quality of life People income Will be monitored by Yearly
interview to the
representative of Baria-
Vung Tau peoples
committee

CDM-PDD-FORM
Improving of Will be monitored by Yearly
living conditions interview to the
representative of Baria-
Vung Tau peoples
committee
Readiness of Public sector N/A
implementing Private sector N/A
agencies
(*) EIA: Environment Impact Assessment (Please referred to section F1) N/A: Not
Applicable
B.7.4. Date of completion of application of methodology and standardized baseline and

contact information of responsible persons/ entities
(1) Date of completion of application of methodology
Japan Vietnam Petroleum Company determined the baseline, which is completed in 13/05/2005.
(2) Name of person / entity determining the baseline
Hidetoshi Ohashi
Deputy General Manager
Project Coordination and Business Development Department
Japan Vietnam Petroleum Company Limited
3-12, Nishi-Shimbashi 1-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo
105-8412, Japan
Telephone: 81-3-3501-0522
Fax: 81-3-3502-2692
E-mail: hidetoshi.ohashi@noex.eneos.co.jp
SECTION C. Duration and crediting period
C.1. Duration of project activity
C.1.1. Start date of project activity
27 November 2001
C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of project activity
15 years
C.2. Crediting period of project activity
C.2.1. Type of crediting period
Fixed

CDM-PDD-FORM
C.2.2. Start date of crediting period
01 December 2001
C.2.3. Length of crediting period
10 years
SECTION D. Environmental impacts
D.1. Analysis of environmental impacts
Under the Law on Environmental Protection promulgated in 1993 and Circular 490/1998/TT-
BKHCNMT by the Ministry of Science, Technology & Environment (MoSTE – the current Ministry
of Natural Resources & Environment) organizations or individuals are required to submit an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to the State management agency for appraisal &
approval prior to construction or renovation in a production area. To meet the requirements, the
Environmental Impact Assessment which covers the entire activities of Full Field Development
Plan was submitted to MoSTE through Petrovietnam on 29th March 2002. An official meeting was
held in the MoSTE office on 7th May 2002, followed by approval by MoSTE on 20th June 2002.
The EIA is a comprehensive assessment for any development activities in Block 15-2, where Rang
Dong oil field is located. It includes appropriate mitigation measures in regard to environmental
protection during the project as well as regular environmental monitoring programs. The EIA for
Full Field Development Plan is in line with all relevant environmental law in Vietnam including “Law
on Environmental Protection” and “Regulations on Environmental Protection in Petroleum
Prospecting, Exploration, Field Development, Production, Storage, Transportation and Processing,
and Related Services”.
In describing significant impacts, a summary of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is
shown below.
Scope of activities and impacts examined in the EIA are as follows:
 Pre-installation;
 Construction/ installation & commissioning activities;
 Drilling activity;
 Production operation; and
 Accidental events.
In evaluating the potential and significant impacts of the activities, the following items and factors
were taken into account during assessment:
 Magnitude of impact (combining severity, scale, duration impact, and recovery ability of
the receiving environment);
 Frequency of impact (probability occurrence);
 Potential regulatory and legal exposure (legislation requirements);
 Cost management (including technical difficulty of changing the impact); and
 Community and stakeholder concerns, effects on the company’s public image.
The assessment of the above mentioned factors are described in quantitative terms wherever this
has been possible. A scoring system was also developed to assist the impact assessment. In
accordance with this scoring system, a value of impact frequency (probability occurrence) and
value of items (legislation requirement -Vl, cost management Vcm and community impact - Vc) is
scored from 1 to 4. Level of impact significance increases from scores 1 to 4.

CDM-PDD-FORM
D.2. Environmental impact assessment
(a) Major impacts: oil spill response

Some impacts are deemed as significant but the only impact deemed unacceptable is a large-
scale oil spill, which would occur only as the result of an accident. To minimize the chances of
such an occurrence, in addition to those reflected in the design of facilities & operation
procedures, the Oil Spill Response Plan and Emergency Response Plan were developed and
approved by Petrovietnam & MoSTE for the first time on 22nd March 1994 to assist the
Company in the event an oil spill occurred. These plans have been updated annually taking
into account changes in JVPC operation, organization and lessons learned from regular
exercises. This Associated Gas Recovery and Utilization Project will have no impact on the
possibility of a major oil spill.
(b) Other environmental impacts
For other environmental impacts, as described above, JVPC established appropriate mitigation
measures as well as proposing an Environmental Monitoring Program, which includes the
Discharge Monitoring at Source and Environmental Monitoring Survey Program, approved in
the EIA for Full Field Development Plan by MoSTE on 20th June 2002. Furthermore, the
Regulatory Compliance Register was developed and distributed to employees for the purpose
of ensuring compliance with all relevant HSE law, regulations & standards including
environmental legislations, standards & guidelines as attached herewith.
(c) Trans-boundary impact
Trans-boundary impact of the project is not specifically referred to in the EIA. Since Vietnam is
the country closest to the site, impacts of the project on other countries are expected to be
considerably lesser than that on Vietnam, for which no significant impacts have been identified.
SECTION E. Local stakeholder consultation
E.1. Solicitation of comments from local stakeholders
(1) Stakeholders Meeting

Outline of meeting
A meeting was held at 9:00 on August 20, 2003 at Petrovietnam. The primary purposes of the
meeting were:
・ to collect public comment from persons concerned
・ to identify stakeholders
Persons representing the following organizations were attended to the meeting:
<Stakeholder>
・ Institute of Energy, Electricity of Vietnam, Ministry of Industry
・ Vietnam National Office for Climate Change and Ozone Protection, Ministry of Natural
Resource and Environment (MoNRE): Designated National Authority (DNA) of Vietnam
<Project Participants>
・ Petrovietnam
・ JVPC
・ ConocoPhillips
In addition to the attendance of the meeting, MoNRE identified the stakeholders of the project
activity as follows:
・ The People’s committee of Baria - Vung Tau Province (local authorities)

CDM-PDD-FORM
・ Electricity of Vietnam including Baria Power Plant and Phu My Power Plant (EVN)
・ Petrolimex
(2) Consultation with other Stakeholders
To meet with the requirement proposed by MoNRE, consultation with above stakeholders was
conducted.
E.2. Summary of comments received
(1) Stakeholders Meeting

Following an explanation of the purpose of the meeting, a presentation was made using
overhead projector. The presentation included:
・ Outline of the Project Activity
・ Baseline
・ Monitoring and calculation
・ Contribution to sustainable development of Vietnam from the environment and economic
point of view
All the attendances were satisfied with the presentation and very supportive to the project
activity by expressing following comments:
・ The project activity contributes to environment conservation by using clean fuel as well as by
reducing CO2 emission.
・ The project activity contributes to sustainable development of Vietnam since it reduces
Vietnam dependence on imported fuel.
Ministry of Industry (MOI)
Ministry of Industry (MOI) provided with document for the project activity emphasizing that
the project activity contributes to:
・ Sustainable development of Vietnam in several socio-economic aspects.
・ Substantial reduction of CO2 emissions.
・ Additional source of clean-burning natural gas to support the development needs of
Vietnam.
・ Reduced dependency on imported petroleum products.
The document is attached.
(2) Consultation with other Stakeholders

Documents were received from the stakeholders after the consultation.
The People’s committee of Baria - Vung Tau Province (local authorities)
Since the project activity is operates offshore where no residents live, the People’s committee
of Baria – Vung Tau Province is a stakeholder as a representative of residents. Consultation
with Vice Chairman was conducted on October 21, 2003 and received favourable comment.
Furthermore, the document mentioning supportive comment was provided, which is attached.
Electricity of Vietnam (EVN)
Since most portion of gas product is purchased by Electricity Vietnam as a fuel of power
generation, EVN is one of the most important stakeholders. EVN provided with document
including positive comment that the project activity contributes to protection of the environment
and development of economy. The document describing the comment is attached.
Petrolimex

CDM-PDD-FORM
Since Petrolimex purchases some portion of gas product, it is one of the most important
stakeholders. Consultation with Petrolimex was conducted and received positive comments.
The document mentioning supportive comment was provided, which is attached.
E.3. Report on consideration of comments received
Consultation with stakeholders and efforts to respond to their expectations will continue
SECTION F. Approval and authorization
-----

CDM-PDD-FORM
Appendix 1: Contact information of project participants and

responsible persons/ entities
Project participant Project participant

and/or responsible Responsible person/ entity for application of the selected methodology (ies)
person/ entity and, where applicable, the selected standardized baselines to the project
activity
Organization name Japan Vietnam Petroleum Company Limited
Street/P.O. Box 6-3, Otemachi chome, Chiyoda-ku,
Building
City Tokyo
State/Region
Postcode 1005-81463
Country Japan
Telephone 81-3-3502-0522
Fax 81-3-3501-2692
E-mail
Website
Contact person Ryunosuke Onogi
Title Deputy General Manager
Salutation Mr.
Last name Onogi
Middle name
First name Ryunosuke
Department Project Coordination and Business Development
Mobile
Direct fax 81-3-3501-2692
Direct tel. 81-3-3502-1708
Personal e-mail Ryunosuke.onogi@noex.eneos.co.jp

activity
Organization name Vietnam Oil and Gas Group
Street/P.O. Box 18 Lang Ha
Building
City Ha Noi
State/Region
Postcode
Country Vietnam
Telephone 84-4-8252526
Fax 84-4-8265942
E-mail dvha@hn.pv.com.vn
Website
Contact person Ha Van Do
Title Deputy General Manager

CDM-PDD-FORM
Salutation Mr.
Last name Do
Middle name Van
First name Ha
Department International Cooperation Department
Mobile
Direct fax 84-4-8252526
Direct tel. 84-4-8265942
Personal e-mail

activity
Organization name Petrovietnam Exploration Production Corporation
Street/P.O. Box 18 Lang Ha
Building
City Hanoi
State/Region
Postcode
Country Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Telephone 84-8-5566-006
Fax 84-8-5566-613
E-mail
Website
Contact person Thuc Dinh Phung
Title General Director
Salutation Mr.
Last name Phung
Middle name Dinh
First name Thuc
Department Management
Mobile
Direct fax
Direct tel.
Personal e-mail

activity
Organization name ConocoPhillips (U.K.) Gama Limited
Street/P.O. Box 34 Le Duan Street, District 1
Building
City Ho Chi Minh City
State/Region
Postcode
Country Socialist Republic of Vietnam

CDM-PDD-FORM
Telephone + (84) 8 825-7714 Ext 1110
Fax + (84) 8 825-7713
E-mail Jim.Andrew@ConocoPhillips.com
Website
Contact person Jim Andrew
Title Manager
Salutation Mr.
Last name Andrew
Middle name
First name Jim
Department Business Development
Mobile + (84) 9 0305 7040
Direct fax
Direct tel.
Personal e-mail
Appendix 2: Affirmation regarding public funding
No public funding is used for this project
Appendix 3: Applicability of methodology and standardized

baseline
The approved methodology AM0009 version 2.1 is appropriate for Rang Dong oil field Associated
Gas Recovery and Utilization Project Activity (the project activity) since the methodology has been
developed specifically based on the project. Details are explained in section B.2
Appendix 4: Further background information on ex ante

calculation of emission reductions
This Appendix 4 is replaced by the approved methodology AM0009 version 2.1.
Table Appendix 4-1: Projected GHG emissions as a

result of flaring of associated gas (Million tonnes -CO2)
Year Base case High case

2001 73,665 73,665
2002 1,258,108 1,302,864
2003 1,637,005 1,899,610
2004 1,236,569 1,236,743
2005 1,020,370 1,137,328

CDM-PDD-FORM
2006 766,856 1,351,211
2007 594,285 1,547,202
2008 509,883 1,500,086
2009 437,821 1,429,840
2010 307,995 1,407,569
2011 125,092 1,150,069
(Dec 2001-Nov 7,967,649 14,036,187
2011)
Source: Full Field Development Plan
Base case assumes that the probability of gas
emissions exceeding this value is 50%; High case
assumes that such probability is 10%.
Therefore, CO2 emissions of the baseline can be calculated using gas composition (Table B6-
3-1) and gas production volume. The calculation method is explained in Section B.6.3.
Table Appendix 4-2: Gas composition of associated gas from Rang Dong
C Molecular Carbon
atoms/mole composition Content
% t-C/1000 m3
0 0.000
n-C1 1 72.550% 0.367
n-C2 2 10.330% 0.105
n-C3 3 6.690% 0.102
n-C4 4 2.290% 0.046
so-C4 4 1.410% 0.029
n-C5 5 0.830% 0.021
iso-C5 5 0.790% 0.020
neo-C5 5 0.000
n-C6 6 1.010% 0.031
iso-C6 6 0.000
neo-C6 6 0.000
n-C7 7 0.720% 0.026
iso-C7 7 0.000
triptane 7 0.000
n-C8 8 0.260% 0.011
iso-C8 8 0.000
diiso-C8 8 0.000
8 0.000
n-C9 9 0.120% 0.005
iso-C9 9 0.000
C10 10 0.040% 0.002
iso-C10 10 0.000
diiso-
10 0.000
C10
CO2 1 0.040% 0.000
N2 0 0.420% 0.000
H2O 0 2.490% 0.000
Other 0.010%
Total 0.764
Source: Coordination Operation Procedure from Rang Dong – Bach Ho Pipeline Project Between
JVPC-VSP-PVGC
(Doc Number: PVGC. OP. 904-Rev: 01 Page 8)
* This is the typical data. Gas composition as well as volume will be monitored ex post basis.

CDM-PDD-FORM
Appendix 5: Further background information on monitoring
plan
Not applicable.
Appendix 6: Summary of post registration changes
Post registration changes are summarised in Section A.3.
-----
Document information
Version Date Description
05.0 25 June 2014 Revisions to:

 Include the Attachment: Instructions for filling out the project
design document form for CDM project activities (these
instructions supersede the "Guidelines for completing the
project design document form" (Version 01.0));
 Include provisions related to standardized baselines;
 Add contact information on a responsible person(s)/
entity(ies) for the application of the methodology (ies) to the
project activity in B.7.4 and Appendix 1;
 Change the reference number from F-CDM-PDD to CDM-
PDD-FORM;
 Editorial improvement.
04.1 11 April 2012 Editorial revision to change version 02 line in history box from Annex
06 to Annex 06b
04.0 13 March 2012 Revision required to ensure consistency with the “Guidelines for
completing the project design document form for CDM project
activities” (EB 66, Annex 8).
03.0 26 July 2006 EB 25, Annex 15
02.0 14 June 2004 EB 14, Annex 06b
01.0 03 August 2002 EB 05, Paragraph 12
Initial adoption.
Decision Class: Regulatory
Document Type: Form
Business Function: Registration
Keywords: project activities, project design document

RDCDM 152 Registered PDD - PDD 2 - Clean - No Highlights

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RDCDM 152 Registered PDD - PDD 2 - Clean - No Highlights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CDM-PDD-FORM

Project design document form for

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT (PDD)

Completion date of the PDD 29th July 2014

Project participant(s)  Japan Vietnam Petroleum Company Limited

Estimated amount of annual average 675,858 tCO2

Version 05.0 Page 1 of 69

A.1. Purpose and general description of project activity

Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions:

Version 05.0 Page 2 of 69

Contribution to sustainable development:

A.2. Location of project activity

Socialist Republic of Vietnam

A.2.2. Region/State/Province etc.

A.2.3. City/Town/Community etc.

Version 05.0 Page 3 of 69

106° 108° 110°

A.3. Technologies and/or measures

Version 05.0 Page 4 of 69

Version 05.0 Page 5 of 69

Post registration changes:

Version 05.0 Page 6 of 69

Version 05.0 Page 7 of 69

Version 05.0 Page 8 of 69

Version 05.0 Page 9 of 69

A.4. Parties and project participants

Private and/or public Indicate if the Party

(*2) Petrovietnam Exploration Production Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Petrovietnam,

A.5. Public funding of project activity

SECTION B. Application of selected approved baseline and monitoring

B.1. Reference of methodology and standardized baseline

B.2. Applicability of methodology and standardized baseline

Version 05.0 Page 10 of 69

Version 05.0 Page 11 of 69

Source GHGs Included? Justification/Explanation

assumed that flaring results in complete

emission due to higher combustion

Version 05.0 Page 12 of 69

B.4. Establishment and description of baseline scenario

(3) Evaluation of the five options

Version 05.0 Page 13 of 69

Gas sales Gas production minus in-house consumption and flaring

Conversion CF to BTU is 1,200 BTU/CF.

CAPEX Capital expenditure which cost of gas recovery facilities and

OPEX Operational cost

Cost recovery A certain portion of gas sales applied to cost recovery as

Version 05.0 Page 14 of 69

Version 05.0 Page 15 of 69

Version 05.0 Page 16 of 69

Version 05.0 Page 17 of 69

Legal Issues Economical Conclusion

Option 1: Release to the Prohibited by Highly attractive Not to be

Option 2: Flaring at the oil Not Highly attractive Current

Option 3: On-site consumption Not Highly attractive Current

Option 4: Injection into the oil Not Highly unattractive Not to be

Option 5: Recovery, transportation, Not Unattractive Not to be

B.5. Demonstration of additionality

Version 05.0 Page 18 of 69

Version 05.0 Page 19 of 69

Version 05.0 Page 20 of 69

(2) Major risks to the baseline

B.6. Emission reductions

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices