LPG Associated Gas

UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 1
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM

FOR CDM PROJECT ACTIVITIES (F-CDM-PDD)
Version 04.0
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT (PDD)
Title of the project activity

Version number of the PDD
Completion date of the PDD
Project participant(s)
Host Party(ies)
Sectoral scope and selected methodology(ies)
Estimated amount of annual average GHG

emission reductions
Sukowati-Mudi (Tuban) LPG Associated Gas

Recovery and Utilization Project
01
19/04/2012
Private entity: PT. Gasuma Federal Indonesia
Private entity: Agrinergy Pte Ltd
Private entity: Sumitomo Corporation
Republic of Indonesia
Sectoral scope 10: Fugitive emission from fuels
Approved baseline methodology AM0009
version 05.0.1: Recovery and utilization of
gas from oil wells that would otherwise be
flared or vented
57,223
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 2
SECTION A. Description of project activity

A.1. Purpose and general description of project activity
The project activity is the construction of a new facility to recover and utilize the flared associated gas
located at Mudi-Sukowati Oil Fields, East Java, Indonesia, to produce the saleable hydrocarbon products
namely lean gas, condensate and LPG. The project activity is undertaken by PT. Gasuma Federal
Indonesia (GFI) (hereinafter referred to as Project Proponent), a joint venture between PT. Yudistira
Energy and PT. Gasuma Corporindo.
In the absence of the project activity (the baseline scenario) and the scenario existing prior to the start of
the implementation, the associated gas would be flared. Flaring of associated gas is seen as common
practice in Indonesian oil production, although the practice has negative environmental impacts and
wastes energy resources. The gas flaring activity at Mudi-Sukowati oil fields has become a major
environment problem since 2006 due to the high content of CO2 and H2S (36%) of the associated gas
flared. The effort to utilise this associated gas was initially made in 2007 with the signing of associated
Gas Purchase Agreement (GPA) between PT Gasuma Corporindo and PT Pertamina EP, PT Pertamina,
Petrochina International Java Ltd and PT Medco E&P Tuban as the oil field operators. However, due to
the financial crisis in 2008, the effort to construct the gas processing plant facility was halted and the
associated gas is still flared.
To overcome the gas flaring issue, BP Migas (The Upstream Oil and Gas Executive Agency) as
Indonesian Oil and Gas Regulatory Body gave permit to PT Gasuma Corporindo to continue the GPA
with several adjustments on GPA articles, including the provision to add in PT. Pertagas (Pertamina Gas)
as the project monitoring body and PT Yudistira Energy as technical-support shareholder to GFI to ensure
the implementation of the project activity. The project facility was redesigned and the construction was
restarted in April 2011. The project is expected to be commissioned in May 2012.
The project activity is designed to process approximately 12 MMSCFD of associated gas from Mudi
Sukowati Field. It encompasses the establishment of compressor, condensate recovery plant, amine plant,
regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO), and gas processing plant. Due to its high content of CO2 and H2S
(36%), the associated gas (sour gas ) is first processed into sweet gas. The processed sweet gas is then fed
to the gas processing plant for further processing into lean gas, LPG and condensate.
The project activity is categorized in the sectoral scope 10 Fugitive emissions from fuels (solid, oil and
gas) and it reduces the GHG emissions from the substitution of fossil fuel with gas recovered from the
associated gas. The project activity is expected to reduce an average of 57,223 tonnes of CO2e per annum.
The emission reduction varies from 104,056 in the first year and then decreases to 23,820 in the final
year. This variation in the emission reduction is due to reducing gas availability estimate.
Contribution to sustainable development
Environmental sustainability:
This project will contribute to environmental sustainability by the reduction of CO2 and H2S emission as
the result of avoiding gas flare. Furthermore, by producing LPG, condensate and lean gas the project
activity provides clean source of energy to the consumers, displacing other higher carbon intensive fossil
fuels consumption.
Economy and social sustainability:

The proposed project activity will benefit the local community by generating the employment potential
during construction and operation phase. Moreover, the project activity will contribute to increased
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 3
availability of lean gas, LPG, and condensate to various industrial consumers. This will help to secure
supply of reliable and quality energy resources to local industries.
Technological sustainability:
A qualified and experienced technology provider from Annex I country which has been providing
services in oil and gas industry and similar activities is contracted and deployed for the project activity.
The project activity contributes to the technological sustainability through the utilization of a proven
technology and the transfer of knowledge and technical skill to the host country via employee training.
A.2. Location of project activity

A.2.1. Host Party(ies)
Republic of Indonesia
A.2.2. Region/State/Province etc.
East Java Province, Tuban District
A.2.3. City/Town/Community etc.
Soko Sub District, Sumurcinde Village
A.2.4. Physical/Geographical location
The geographical coordinates set of the Mudi Sukowati LPG plant is:
Latitude
: 7 6'24.97"S
Longitude
: 11157'58.53"E
Figure A.2.1: Location map of Mudi Sukowati LPG Plant
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 4
A.3. Technologies and/or measures

Pre-project scenario
The baseline scenario is the continuation of current practice where the associated gas is flared and the
operation of the existing oil and gas infrastructure is continued without any other significant changes,
thus it is identical to the scenario existing prior to the implementation of the project activity.
CO2
Flaring
Associated gas
Mudi Sukowati Oil Fields
Figure. A.3.1. Pre-project (baseline) scenario

Project Activity
The purpose of project activity is to utilize approximately 12 MMSCFD of associated gas from Mudi
Sukowati Field which has high content of CO2 and H2S (36%). The project activity encompasses the new
establishment and operation of compressor, condensate recovery plant, amine plant, compressor, and gas
processing plant, recovering the associated gas emitted from the nearby oil wells, to produce LPG,
condensate and lean gas.
The detailed list of main equipments that will be installed by the project activity is presented in the table
below:
Table. A.3.1. List of main equipments
Equipment name
Quantity
Specification
Compressor Package
1 unit
Designed capacity of 15 MMSCFD
(424,750 Sm3 per day)
Condensate Recovery Package
1 unit
Designed capacity of 15 MMSCFD
(424,750 Sm3 per day)
Generator Set (gas engine)
4 unit
2 MW each ( 380 V, 3 Ph, 50 Hz)
Back up generator set (gas)
1 unit
2 MW ( 380 V, 3 Ph, 50 Hz)
Back up generator set (diesel)
3 unit
1 MW each
Regenerative Thermal Oxydizer 1 package
Package
Gas Processing Plant (LPG)
1 package
Pipelines
1 set
Feed gas pipeline
1 set
Sweet/lean gas pipeline
1 set
Condensate pipeline
Storage and loading facility
- Condensate tanks
4 unit
260 m3 each
Off spec condensate tank
1 unit
170 m3
Amine Plant package
1unit
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 5
The average lifetime of the gas processing facility is 20 years. This is in line with the Decree of Ministry
of Finance No 96/2009 which defines the equipment lifetime for Oil and Gas Industry of 20 years, taking
into account the standard of average technical lifetime of equipment in the industry.
By recovery and utilization of associated gas to produce LPG, condensate and lean gas, the project
activity displaces the use of other fossil fuel sources and therefore the CO2 emissions, are reduced. The
project emissions are derived from the lean gas combustion for the process and also for the use of
electricity. Besides the gas generator set as the main electricity generator system, fossil fuel combustion
in the project activity is also envisaged from the emergency diesel generator system located in the project
site as the back-up power. For ex-ante estimations the project emissions from the use of diesel in the
emergency diesel generator system has been considered zero. The parameters for the calculation of same
will be monitored ex-post and the project emissions taken into account as actual.
The detail monitoring equipments and their location in the system are described in the figure below.
users
Gas pipeline
Flaring
Condensate
Pretreatment
Lean gas
Thermal oxidizer
a
Sukowati
Mudi Oil
Field
LPG
compressor
Condensa
te
recov ery
ff
Amine
plant
Generator
set
d
Diesel
e
Generator
Project boundary
Gas
processing
plant
In the absence of project activity
Back up
Figure A.3.1 Monitoring equipments and location

a
b
c
d
e
f
g
Meter to measure the sour gas consumed by thermal oxidizer

Meter to measure the sour gas consumed by heater at condensate recovery
Meter to measure the sour gas consumed by heater at amine plant
Electricity meter to measure the electricity consumption supplied by gas generator
Electricity meter to measure the electricity consumption supplied back-up diesel generator
Meter to measure recovered gas entering the gas processing plant (sweet gas)
Meter to measure the sour gas consumed by heater at gas processing plant
The project activity is using environmentally safe and sound technology and proven equipments. For
amine plant package, the main equipment to remove CO2 and H2S from the associated gas, the project
activity has chosen Propak, a technology provider which has been servicing the similar project activities
worldwide for years. Similarly, for refrigeration package in the gas processing plant, Austcold is used.
The technology providers will provide training for employees and engineers of GFI the during the
commissioning period to ensure the know-how is transferred to the host party.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 6
A.4. Parties and project participants

Party involved
(host) indicates a host Party
Private and/or public

entity(ies) project participants
(as applicable)
Indicate if the Party involved

wishes to be considered as
project participant (Yes/No)
Republic of Indonesia (host)
Private entity: PT. Gasuma

Federal Indonesia
No
United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland
Private entity: Agrinergy Pte

Ltd
No
United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland
Private Entity: Sumitomo

Corporation
No
Contact details as listed in Appendix 1.

A.5. Public funding of project activity
The project has not received any public funding or Official Development Assistance (ODA) from Annex I
Parties.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 7
SECTION B. Application of selected approved baseline and monitoring methodology

B.1. Reference of methodology
The selected methodology: Approved baseline methodology AM0009 Recovery and utilization of gas
from oil wells that would otherwise be flared or vented (Version 05.0.1)
This methodology also refers to the latest approved versions of the following tools:
- Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 06.0.0, EB 65, Annex 21)
- Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion (Version 02, EB 41,
Annex 11)
- Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption (Version
01, EB 39, Annex 7)
B.2. Applicability of methodology
Methodology AM0009 version 05.0.1 is applicable for the project activity for the following reasons:
Table B.2-1: Applicability of the Project Activity
Applicability
The methodology is applicable to project activities that
recover and utilise associated gas and/or gaslift gas
from oil wells.
Under the project activity the recovered gas, after the
pre-treatment (compression and phase separation) in
movable or stationary equipment, is:
Consumed on-site to meet energy demands; and/or
Transported to a gas pipeline without prior
processing; and/or
Transported to a processing plant where it is
processed into hydrocarbon products (e.g. dry gas,
LPG and condensates).
The dry gas is either
(i) transported to a gas pipeline directly, or
(ii) compressed to CNG first, then transported by
trailers/trucks/carriers and then decompressed
and gasified again, before it finally enters the
gas pipeline.
The project activity does not lead to changes in the
process of oil production, such as an increase in the
quantity or quality of oil extracted, in the oil-wells
within the project boundaries;
The injection of any gases into the oil reservoir and its
production system is allowed in the project activity
only for the purpose of the gas-lift process;
All recovered gas comes from oil wells that are in
operation and are producing oil at the time of the
recovery of the associated gas and/or gas-lift gas.
The methodology is only applicable if the identified
baseline scenario is:
The continuation of the current practice of either
venting (scenario G1), flaring (scenario G2) of the
Project Activity
The project activity is the installation of new
facility to recover and utilise associated gas from
oil wells and hence it conforms to this criterion.
In the project activity, after the pretreatment
(compression and phase separation) in a
stationary equipment, the recovered gas is
transported to a processing plant where it is
processed into hydrocarbon products (LPG, lean
gas and condensate). The dry gas then is
transported to a gas pipeline directly. Hence this
criterion is met.
The project activity does not lead to changes in

the process of oil production in the oil wells
within the project boundaries. Hence this
criterion is met.
The project activity does not involve the
injection of any gases into the oil reservoir and
its production system or any gas-lift process.
Hence this criterion is met.
The project activity recovers gas from oil wells
that are in operation and are producing oil at the
time of the recovery of the associated gas. Hence
this criterion is met.
The identified baseline scenario of the project
activity is the continuation of the current
practice of flaring of the associated gas and the
continued operation of the existing oil and gas
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 8
associated gas and/or gas-lift gas or on-site use of infrastructure without any other significant
the partial amount of associated gas and/or gas-lift changes, as detailed in the Section B.4.
gas to meet on-site energy demands and rest of the
gas are either vented or flared (scenario G3); and
The continued operation of the existing oil and gas
infrastructure without any other significant changes
(scenario P4); and
In the case where gas-lift is used under the project
activity: the gas-lift gas under the baseline uses the
same source as under the project activity and the
same quantity as under the project activity
(scenario 01).
The proposed project activity meets the applicability conditions of the tools referred to as follows:
Table B.2-2: Applicability of the Tools
Applicability of the tools
Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions
from fossil fuel combustion version 02
- This tool can be used in cases where CO2 emissions
from fossil fuel combustion are calculated based on
the quantity of fuel combusted and its properties.
Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage
emissions from electricity consumption version 01
- The tool may be used in methodologies where
auxiliary electricity is consumed in the project
and/or the baseline scenario. The tool can also be
applied in situations where electricity is only
consumed in the baseline or in the project or as
leakage source.
- One out of the following three scenarios applies to
the sources of electricity consumption: Electricity
consumption from the grid, Electricity consumption
from (an) off-grid fossil fuel fired captive power
plant(s), Electricity consumption from the grid and
(a) fossil fuel fired captive power plant(s)
- This tool is not applicable in cases where captive
renewable power generation technologies are
installed to provide electricity in the project
activity, in the baseline scenario or to sources of
leakage. The tool only accounts for CO2 emissions.
Project Activity
The project activity calculates the CO2
emissions from lean gas combustion based on
the quantity of lean gas combusted and its
properties. Hence this criterion is met.
- The methodology AM0009 version 05.0.1

refers to this tool to calculate the project
emissions from electricity consumption. Hence
this criterion is met.
- The source of electricity consumption in the
project activity is from off-grid lean gas fired
captive power plants. Hence this criterion is
met.
- The project activity does not involve source of

electricity consumpiton from a captive
renewable power generation. The tools is used
to calculate CO2 emissions. Hence this
criterion is met.
B.3. Project boundary

Source
GHGs Included?
Justification / Explanation
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
Project Activity
Baseline
CDM Executive Board
Page 9
CO2
Combustion of fossil fuels at
end-users that are produced
CH4
from non-associated gas or
other fossil sources
N2O
Yes
CO2
Energy use for the recovery,
pre-treatment, transportation,
and
if
applicable, CH4
compression/decompression,
transportation of the recovered
gas
N2O
Yes
No
No
No
No
Main source of emissions in the

baseline.
Excluded for simplification as per the
methodology. This is conservative.
methodology. This is conservative.
Main source of emissions in the
project.
methodology. This emission source is
assumed negligible.
methodology. This emission source is
assumed negligible.
As per the approved methodology, the project boundary encompasses:

- The project oil reservoir and oil wells where the associated gas and/or gas-lift gas is collected;
- The site where the associated gas and/or gas-lift gas was flared or vented in the absence of the
project activity;
- The gas recovery, pre-treatment, transportation infrastructure, including where applicable,
compressors;
- The source of gas-lift gas.
users
Gas pipeline
Flaring
Condensate
Pretreatment
Sukowati
Mudi Oil
Field
compressor
LPG
Thermal oxidizer
Condensa
te
recov ery
Gas
processing
plant
Amine
plant
Generator
set
Diesel
Generator
Project boundary
Lean gas
In the absence of project activity
Figure B.3.1: Project Boundary and SchematicIllustration of Project Activity
B.4. Establishment and description of baseline scenario
Back up
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 10
According to the approved methodology AM0009 - version 05.0.1, the baseline scenario is identified by
applying the following procedure:
Step 1: Identify plausible alternative scenarios
The project activity involves three components. Plausible alternative scenarios should include alternatives
for the following components:
a. Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for the associated gas from the project oil wells
b. Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for oil and gas infrastructure
c. Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for the use of gas-lift
Table B.4-1: Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for the associated gas from the project oil wells
G1 Release of the associated gas and/or Not plausible.
gas-lift gas into the atmosphere at The associated gas in Mudi Sukowati has high CO2 and H2S
content. Venting of the associated gas is dangerous due to
the oil production site (venting).
likelihood of explosion, life threatening, and environmental
health. Venting of associated gas is not prohibited by
Indonesian Law, however it is restricted under the law 1 .
Alternative (G1) is therefore not a plausible baseline scenario
and will not be considered further.
G2 Flaring of the associated gas and/or Plausible.
gas-lift gas at the oil production Prior to the implementation of the project activity, the
site.
associated gas from Sukowati Mudi oil fields would be
flared. Alternative (G2) is a plausible baseline scenario.
G3 On-site use of the partial amount of Not Plausible.
associated gas and/or gas-lift gas to Without prior processing of the associated gas, it would not
meet on-site energy and rest of the be feasible to use the partial amount of associated gas on-site
gas are either vented (G1) or flared to meet on-site energy, due to its high CO2 and H2S content
(50%). Alternative (G3) is not a plausible baseline scenario
(G2).
G4 Injection of the associated gas Not Plausible.
and/or gas-lift gas into an oil or gas Injection of the associated gas into the oil reservoir is not
reservoir.
required due to sufficient pressure. Furthermore due to its
unpredictable effectiveness 2 , gas injection is considered
costly. Alternative (G5) is not a plausible baseline scenario
G5 The proposed project activity Plausible.
without being registered as a CDM The proposed project activity itself is technically feasible.
project activity.
However, without CDM revenue, this scenario would not be
financially attractive as shown in the step 3 below.
G6 Recovery,
transportation,
and Not plausible.
utilization of the associated gas Recovery, transportation, and utilization of the associated gas
and/or gas-lift gas as feedstock for gas as feedstock for manufacturing of useful products would
manufacturing of useful products.
not be feasible due to high content of H2S and CO2. Without
prior processing, the composition of associated gas which is
lower in methane number is not in preference as feedstock for
manufacturing. Alternative (G6) is not a plausible baseline
scenario and will not be considered further.
Table B.4-2: Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for oil and gas infrastructure
1
2
Source: Regulation from Ministry of Environment No. 13 Year 2009

http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
P1
P2
P3
Page 11
Alternatives
Construction of a processing plant for
the purpose of processing the recovered
gas, in the same way as in the project
activity, without being registered as a
CDM project activity.
Construction of a processing plant of a
lower capacity than under the project
activity, which processes only nonassociated gas and does not process
recovered gas.
Supplying recovered gas to an existing
gas processing plant and constructing the
necessary infrastructure, without being
registered as a CDM project activity.
P4
Continuation of the operation of the

existing oil and gas infrastructure
without any other significant changes.
P5
Supplying recovered gas to a gas

pipeline without prior processing and
without being registered as a CDM
project activity.
Plausibility/Eligibility
Plausible.
This scenario is technically feasible however it would
not be financially attractive without being registered as a
CDM project activity as shown in the step 3 below.
Not plausible.
There is no non-associated gas in Mudi Sukowati and
therefore alternative (P2) is not a plausible baseline
scenario and will not be considered further.
Not Plausible.
There is no existing gas processing plant on-site before
the implementation of project activiy and therefore
supplying recovered gas to an existing gas processing
plant and constructing the necessary infrastructure is not
an applicable scenario and will not be considered
further.
Plausible.
In the absence of the project activity, the operation of
the existing oil and gas infrastructure would be
continued without any other siginificant changes.
Alternative (P4) is a plausible baseline scenario and will
be considered further.
Not plausible.
Without prior processing, the composition of associated
gas which is high in CO2 and H2S content and lower in
methane number is not in preference to be compressed
directly to the gas pipeline. Alternative (P5) is not a
plausible baseline scenario and will not be considered
further.
c. Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for the use of gas-lift

The gas-lift is not used under the project activity; therefore the alternative baseline scenarios for the use
of gas-lift are not applicable.
Identified plausible alternative scenarios for each component are summarized below:
Table B.4-3: Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for oil and gas infrastructure
For the associated gas
G2 Flaring of the associated gas and/or gas-lift gas at the oil production site.
G5 The proposed project activity without being registered as a CDM project
activity.
For
Oil
and
gas P1 Construction of a processing plant for the purpose of processing the
infrastructure
recovered gas, in the same way as in the project activity, without being
registered as a CDM project activity.
Continuation of the operation of the existing oil and gas infrastructure
P4 without any other significant changes.
For the use of gas-lift
Not applicable since no gas-lift system is used under the project activity.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 12
Out of 4 combinations of the plausible alternatives above, the combination of G2 & P4 and G5 & P1 are
deemed realistic and possible. The result of combinations is outlined in the following table as alternative
1 and alternative 2.
Table B.4-4: Realistic combinations of the three components
Alternative 1
G2 Flaring of the associated gas and/or gas-lift gas at the oil production site.
P4 Continuation of the operation of the existing oil and gas infrastructure without any other significant
changes.
Alternative 2
G5 The proposed project activity without being registered as a CDM project activity.
P1 Construction of a processing plant for the purpose of processing the recovered gas, in the same way
as in the project activity, without being registered as a CDM project activity.
Step 2: Evaluate legal aspects
All the realistic and possible alternatives above are in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory
requirements taking into account the enforcement in the region and EB decisions on national and/or
sectoral policies and regulations.
Step 3 and Step 4 of the identification of the baseline scenario and additionality are carried out in the
Section B.5.
B.5. Demonstration of additionality
Step 3: Evaluate the economic attractiveness of alternatives
As recommended in AM0009 version 05.0.1, the identification of the alternative scenarios that are
feasible in technical terms and are permitted by law and applicable regulatory requirements has been
demonstrated in the section B.4. The economic attractiveness is assessed for alternatives (1) and (2) by
determining an expected Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of each alternative scenario based on the latest
approved version of the Tool for demonstration and assessment of additionality.
Alternative 1
G2: Flaring of the associated gas and/or gas-lift gas at the oil production site, and
P4: Continuation of the operation of the existing oil and gas infrastructure without any other significant
changes.
Economic attractiveness evaluation for Alternative 1
This alternative will not require any investment and penalty is not charged for gas flaring in Indonesia.
Gas flaring activity is seen as a normal practice in the oil production industry as a way to dispose excess
gas or to protect vessels or pipes from over-pressuring. Hence this alternative will not create additional
cost nor additional revenue for the project owners. In this case the required return of the alternative refers
to the return of benchmark. As also stated in point 19 of the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment
Analysis version 05:
The benchmark approach is suited to circumstances where the baseline does not require investment or
is outside the direct control of the project developer, i.e. cases where the choice of the developer is to
invest or not to invest.
The benchmark has been based on the average local investment lending rate charged by national private
banks in Indonesia during the investment decision making for the project activity (end of March 2011-
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 13
April 2010)3,i.e. 13.29%, and the IRR of the project will be compared to this. As stated in point 12 of the
Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis version 05: Local commercial lending rates or
Weighted Average Costs of Capital (WACC) are appropriate benchmarks for a project IRR.
The financial information used for benchmark determination is publicly available. The calculation of
benchmark has been detailed in the spreadsheet that will be submitted with the PDD.
Alternative 2
G5: The proposed project activity without being registered as a CDM project activity.
P1: Construction of a processing plant for the purpose of processing the recovered gas, in the same way
as in the project activity, without being registered as a CDM project activity.
Economic attractiveness evaluation for alternative 2
This alternative is the project activity without CDM revenue, and its economic attractiveness is assessed
by the project IRR calculation. The project IRR is determined using the main relevant parameters as
follows:
Table B.5-1: Main Financial Parameters
No.
Parameter
Value
1.
Investment cost
USD 41,759,536
2.
Plant Production rate
Based on 12 MMSCFD
feed gas
- LPG
40 ton per day
- Condensate
600 bbl per day
- Lean gas
4.9 MMSCFD
3
Sales price
- LPG
746 USD per ton
- Condensate
59 USD per bbl
- Lean gas
5.75 - 6.1 USD/MMBTU
4.
Feed gas purchase price
0.5 - 1.46 USD/MMBTU
5.
6.
Operation and Maintenance cost

Inflation rate
6,380,689 USD/year
4.79%
7.
Tax rate
25%
Table B.5-2: Feed Gas Availability Estimation 4

Year
1
2
3
4
5
Feed Gas (MMSCFD)
12 12 11
8
6
6
4
7
4
8
3
9
3
Source
Feasibility Study Report

Lean Gas Sales Agreement page
8
Feed gas sales purchase
agreement page 24
Average inflation rate in the
past two years
Law of taxation in Indonesia
10
3
In compliance with Guidelines on the assessment of investment analysis point 3 that In general a
minimum period of 10 years will be appropriate, the financial analysis projection has been presented for
10 years, taking into account 20 years lifetime and the residual value for the remaining years has been
added back into the cash inflow.
The project IRR for the project activity without taking into account the CERs revenue is 3.32%, lower
than the benchmark (13.29%) and highlights that the project activity is not financially feasible.
3
4
http://www.bi.go.id/seki/tabel/TABEL1_26.xls
Based on Gas availability estimation by BP Migas
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 14
According to the methodology, the alternative scenario that is economically the most attractive course of
action is considered as the baseline scenario; hence the alternative 1, wherein the activities of gas flaring
and the operation of the existing oil and gas infrastructure are continued without any significant changes
(G2 & P4), is considered as the baseline scenario.
Sensitivity analysis
To show that the conclusion regarding the economic attractiveness above is robust and to provide a valid
argument in favour of additionality, a sensitivity analysis has been conducted in accordance with point 20
and 21 of the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis version 05. Variables which
constitute more than 20% of either total project cost or total project revenues, including the initial
investment cost, or have a material impact on the analysis, have been identified below and been subjected
to reasonable variation range of 10%:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Investment cost
Operation & Maintenance Cost
Feed gas amount
Condensate revenue
Lean gas revenue
LPG revenue
The impacts were analyzed in the range of 10% and the corresponding impacts have been highlighted in
the table and graph below:
Table B.5-6: Sensitivity Analysis
Variable
Investment cost
Operation & Maintenance Cost
Feed gas amount
Condensate revenue
Lean gas revenue
LPG revenue
Figure B.2: Sensitivity Analysis
-10%
8.16%
10.51%
-6.01%
-1.07%
-0.24%
-0.09%
-5%
5.58%
7.15%
-1.22%
1.14%
1.56%
1.64%
0%
3.32%
3.32%
3.32%
3.32%
3.32%
3.32%
5%
1.32%
-1.21%
7.58%
5.46%
5.03%
4.96%
10%
-0.44%
-6.81%
11.58%
7.55%
6.69%
6.56%
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 15
The results show that in the absence of CDM revenues, the variations between +10% and -10% of those
parameters consistently support the conclusion that the project activity is unable to pass the benchmark
and is not the most financially attractive alternative.
In accordance with the methodology, if the IRR of the project activity is lower than the hurdle rate of the
project participants and if the most plausible baseline scenario is not the project activity without being
registered as a CDM project activity; the analysis should proceed to the step 4 of Common Practice
Analysis.
Step 4: Common practice analysis
The following section demonstrates that the project activity is not a common practice in geographical area
of Indonesia by drawing on version 06.0.0 of Tool for the demonstration and assessment of
additionality for demonstration of common practice analysis.
Sub-step 4a: Analyze other activities similar to the proposed project activity
In Indonesia, associated gas is considered as a by-product of oil production and is simply flared in order
to minimise costs, as well as due to a lack of regulations5. In 2003, Indonesia has been rated by the World
Bank6 as the third highest country in terms of quantities flared gas per barrel of oil produced, and the fifth
highest country in terms of total annual gas flared.
Additionally, in October 2006, World Bank and GGFR7 reported that in Indonesia, out of 76 blocks
producing oil and gas, 47 blocks flared gas. As mentioned in the report, BP Migas8 data in 2004 indicated
that those 47 onshore and offshore blocks consist of 506 oil fields have flared 358 MMSCFD or
equivalent to 3.7 billion m3 gas per year (4.3% of total gas production), and the production from those
flaring blocks represent 96% of Indonesias oil production and 82% of its gas production, as summarized
in this table below:
Total Production
Oil and condensate (MMBOPD)
Gas (MMSCFD)
1.10
8,302
Production
flaring blocks
1.03
6,827
from Percent
96
82
Turning to LPG supply, to encourage domestic production in 2001 the Indonesian government allowed
the private business entities to participate in the development of oil and gas projects and divided the
business activities into upstream and downstream9. Every downstream business entities whose activity is
gas recovery and processing, is required to obtain a business license from the government to operate.
The identification of similar project activities for the common practice analysis below has focused on the
geographical country of Indonesia as the host country, on the operational project activities which recover
and utilize the associated gas from onshore oilfields and are under the same legal regulatory framework as
5
HWWA Hamburg Report: Gas Flaring Reduction in the Indonesian Oil and Gas Sector Technical and Economic
Potential of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, Gustya Indriani, 2005.
http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/32895/1/497849372.pdf
6
Gas Flaring and Venting - A Regulatory Framework and Incentives for Gas Utilization, Franz Gerner, Bent
Svensson, and Sascha Djumena, The World Bank public policy journal, October 2004.
http://rru.worldbank.org/documents/publicpolicyjournal/279gerner.pdf
7
The World Bank/GGFR (Global Gas Flaring Reduction): Indonesia Associated Gas Survey Screening and
Economic Analysis Report-25 October 2006.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGGFR/Resources/indonesiaassociatedgassurvey.pdf
8
BP Migas is the regulatory body on Oil and Gas in Indonesia Government
9
Government Law in Oil and Gas No. 22 Year 2001: http://www.pwc.com/en_ID/id/energy-utilitiesmining/assets/law22-2001.pdf
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 16
mentioned above. Based on the data from Indonesian Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources10, there
are 5 entities have been identified as downstream operational activities. To further identify the similar
project activities, the steps in paragraph 47 of Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality
version 06.0.0 have been applied as follows:
Step 1: Calculate applicable output range as +/-50% of the design output or capacity of the
proposed project activity.
The design output of the proposed project activity is up to 42 ton LPG/day and thus the applicable output
range is 21 63 ton LPG/day.
Step 2: In the applicable geographical area, identify all plants that deliver the same output or
capacity, within the applicable output range calculated in Step 1, as the proposed project activity
and have started commercial operation before the start date of the project. Note their number Nall.
Registered CDM project activities and projects activities undergoing validation shall not be
included in this step
The table below has listed all 6 entities operating the downstream actvities in Indonesia, excluding the
registered CDM project activity and projects activities undergoing CDM validation.
Table B.5-4: The License Holders of LPG plants in Indonesia
No. Downstream
Location
Designed
Business Entity
Capacity
1.
PT. Maruta Bumi Langkat, North 47 ton LPG/day
Prima
Sumatera
Commissioning
Year
2001
As shown, all of them have a designed output beyond the applicable output range of 21- 63 ton LPG/day,
except the project of PT. Maruta Bumi Prima. Thus, Nall is 1.
Step 3: Within plants identified in Step 2, identify those that apply technologies different that the
technology applied in the proposed project activity. Note their number Ndiff.
In 2003, Pertamina the State-Owned Enterprise became PT Pertamina (Persero)11, although 100% of its
shares are still state owned, its role changed from that of a regulator to that of a market participant. Due to
this change Pertamina became market oriented 12 which affected its business strategy and commercial
relationships with their partners in downstream business. PT Maruta Bumi Prima was commissioned and
agreed by Pertamina before 2003 and is therefore distinct from proposed project activity in respect to its
investment climate.
Thus Ndiff = 1.
Step 4: Calculate factor F=1-Ndiff/Nall representing the share of plants using technology similar to
the technology used in the proposed project activity in all plants that deliver the same output or
capacity as the proposed project activity. The proposed project activity is a common practice
within a sector in the applicable geographical area if both the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the factor F is greater than 0.2, and
(b) Nall-Ndiff is greater than 3.
10
Annex 5: List of License Holder for Gas Processing in Indonesia Database from Indonesian Ministry of Energy
and Mineral Resources - Directorate General of Oil and Gas
11
Government Regulation No. 31 Year 2003: http://www.anggaran.depkeu.go.id/peraturan/PP%2031%20%202003.pdf
12
http://www.pertamina.com/index.php/detail/read/company_history
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 17
Factor F=1-Ndiff/Nall = 1-1 = 0 and therefore the proposed project activity is not a common practice.
Sub-step 4b: Discuss any similar Options that are occurring
The above analysis illustrates that the above plants are different and distinct from the propose project
activity and it can be concluded that the proposed project activity is not common practice and hence
additional.
CDM consideration
CDM revenue has been a decisive factor in the decision to proceed with the project and the CDM makes
the project feasible for the project owners. Efforts to proceed under CDM were taken by GFI, including
contacts with several CDM consultants and CDM prior notification to UNFCCC and Indonesian DNA on
25/08/2011.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 18
B.6. Emission reductions

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices
Baseline emissions
Project activities under this methodology reduce emissions by recovering associated gas and/or gas-lift
gas and utilizing the recovered gas. The utilization of the recovered gas displaces the use of other fossil
fuel sources. For example:
The use of recovered gas in a processing plant can displace the use of non-associated gas in that
processing plant;
In another situation, the recovered gas may be compressed into a natural gas pipeline, thereby
displacing the processing of non-associated gas in a gas processing plant at another site.
The exact emission effects are difficult to determine and would require an analysis of the whole fuel
supply chain up to the end-users for both the project activity and the baseline scenario. This methodology
provides a simplified and conservative calculation of emission reductions, assuming that the use of
recovered gas displaces the use of methane the fossil fuel with the lowest direct CO2 emissions.
Emissions from processing and transportation of fuels to end-users are neglected for both the project
activity and the baseline scenario, as it is assumed that these emissions are similar in their magnitude and
level out.
Baseline emissions are calculated as follows:
BE y = V F , y .NCV RG , F , y .EFCO 2 Methane
(1)
Where:
BE y
= Baseline emissions in year y, (tCO2e)
VF , y
= Volume of total recovered gas measured at point F in Figure A.3.1 in year y, (Nm)
NCVRG , F , y
= Average net calorific value of recovered gas at point F in Figure A.3.1 in year y,
EFCO 2 Methane
(TJ/Nm3)
= CO2 emission factor for methane (tCO2/TJ)
Project emissions
The following sources of project emissions are taken into accounted in line with the methodology:
CO2 emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels for the recovery, pre-treatment, transportation,
and, if applicable, compression of the recovered gas up to the point F in Figure A.3.1
CO2 emissions due to the use of electricity for the recovery, pre-treatment, transportation, and,
if applicable, compression of the recovered gas up to the point F in Figure A.3.1
Other sources of project emissions such as emissions from leaks, venting and flaring during the recovery,
transportation and processing of recovered gas are assumed to be of similar magnitude in the baseline
scenario.
Project emissions are calculated as follows
PE y = PECO 2, fossilfuel , y + PECO 2 elec , y
(2)
Where:
PE y
= Project emissions in the year y, (tCO2e)
PECO 2, fossilfuel , y
= CO2 emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels for the recovery, pretreatment, transportation, and, if applicable, compression of the recovered gas up
to the point F in Figure A.3.1 in year y, (tCO2e)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 19
= CO2 emissions due to the use of electricity for recovery, pre-treatment,
PECO 2 elec , y
transportation and, if applicable, compression of the recovered gas up to the point

F in Figure A.3.1 in year y, (tCO2e)
Project emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels

Project emissions PECO2,fossilfuels,y due to the consumption of fossil fuels, including the recovered gas, if
applicable for the recovery, pre-treatment, transportation and, if applicable, compression of the recovered
gas are calculated applying the latest approved version of the Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2
emissions from fossil fuel combustion where PECO2,fossilfuels,y corresponds to PEFC,j,y in the tool and
process j corresponds to all sources of fuel combustion (e.g. a compressor, etc) up to point F in Figure
A.3.1
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process j are calculated based on the quantity of fuels
combusted and the CO2 emission coefficient of those fuels, as follows:
, ,
, ,
(3)
Where:
, ,
, ,
,
= The CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process j during the year y (tCO2/yr)
= The quantity of fuel type i combusted in process j during the year y (mass or volume
unit/yr);
= The CO2 emission coefficient of fuel type i in year y (tCO2/mass or volume unit)
= The fuel types combusted in process j during the year y
The CO2 emission coefficient of fuel,

, , can be calculated using one of the following two Options,
depending on the availability of data on the fossil fuel type i, as follows:
Option A
: The CO2 emission coefficient
, is calculated based on the chemical composition
of the fossil fuel type i, using the following approach:
COEF ,
If FC , , is measured in a mass unit:
If FC , , is measured in a volume unit: COEF ,
Where:
COEF ,
wC, ,
,
i
Option B
wC, , x 44/12
wC, , x , x 44/12
(4)
(5)
= The CO2 emission coefficient of fuel type i (tCO2/mass or volume

unit);
= The weighted average mass fraction of carbon in fuel type i in year y
(tC/mass unit of the fuel);
= The weighted average density of fuel type i in year y (mass
unit/volume unit of the fuel)
: The CO2 emission coefficient

, is calculated based on net calorific value and
CO2 emission factor of the fuel type i, as follows:
COEF ,
NCV , x EFCO , ,
(6)
Where:
= The CO2 emission coefficient of fuel type i in year y (tCO2/mass or
,
volume unit)
= The weighted average net calorific value of the fuel type i in year y
NCV ,
(GJ/mass or volume unit)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
EFCO
Page 20
= The weighted average CO2 emission factor of fuel type i in year y

(tCO2/GJ)
,,
Option B is selected due to the availability of data.

Project emissions from consumption of electricity
Project emissions PECO 2 elec , y due to the use of electricity for the recovery, pre-treatment, transportation,
and, if applicable, compression of the recovered gas are calculated applying the latest approved version of
the Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption where
PECO2,elec,y corresponds to PEEC,y in the tool and the electricity consumption sources j in the tool
corresponds to all sources of electricity consumption (e.g. a compressor, etc) up to point F in Figure
A.3.1.
In the generic approach mentioned in the tool, the project emissions from consumption of electricity are
calculated based on the quantity of electricity consumed, an emission factor for electricity generation and
a factor to account for transmission losses, as follows:
PEEC,
Where:
PEEC,
ECPJ, ,
EFEL, ,
TDL ,
j
ECPJ, , x EFEL, , x 1
TDL ,
(7)
= Project emissions from electricity consumption in year y (tCO2/yr)

= Quantity of electricity consumed by the project electricity consumption source j in year
y (MWh/yr)
= Emission factor for electricity generation for source j in year y (tCO2/MWh)
= Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing electricity to
source j in year y
= Sources of electricity consumption in the project
The determination of the emission factors for electricity generation (EFEL, , ) depends on which scenario
(A, B or C) applies to the source of electricity consumption:
Scenario A: Electricity consumption from the grid.
Scenario B: Electricity consumption from (an) off-grid fossil fuel fired captive power plant(s).
Scenario C: Electricity consumption from the grid and (a) fossil fuel fired captive power plant(s).
Since the project activity is using the electricity from captive power plant, therefore the determination of
the emission factors for electricity generation is calculated based on the scenario B, as follows:
Option B1:
The emission factor for electricity generation is determined based on the CO2 emissions
from fuel combustion and the electricity generation in the captive power plant(s) installed
at the site of the electricity consumption source.
In case where none of the captive power plants is a cogeneration plant or where the heat
generation is ignored (subject to the conditions outlined above), the emission factor of the
captive power plant(s) is calculated as follows:
EFEL, ,
FC , .
Where:
EFEL, ,
=
FC
,.
NCV ,
EG ,
EFCO , ,
(8)
Emission factor for electricity generation for source j, k or l in year y

(tCO2/MWh)
=
Quantity of fossil fuel type i fired in the captive power plant n in the time
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
NCV ,
EFCO
EG
,,
i
t
Option B2:
Page 21
period t (mass or volume unit)

= Average net calorific value of fossil fuel type i used in the period t (GJ /
mass or volume unit)
=
Average CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i used in the period t
(tCO2 / GJ)
= Quantity of electricity generated in captive power plant n in the time
period t(MWh)
=
The fossil fuel types fired in captive power plant n in the time period t
=
Sources of electricity consumption in the project
=
Time period for which the emission factor for electricity generation is
determined
=
Fossil fuel fired captive power plants installed at the site of the electricity
consumption source j
Using the conservative default values, as follows:

A value of 1.3 tCO2/MWh if
(a) The electricity consumption source is a project or leakage electricity consumption
source; or
(b) The electricity consumption source is a baseline electricity consumption source;and
the electricity consumption of all baseline electricity consumptions sources at the site
of the captive power plant(s) is less than the electricity consumption of all project
electricity consumption sources at the site of the captive power plant(s).
A value of 0.4 tCO2/MWh if
(a) The electricity consumption source is a baseline electricity consumption source; or
(b) The electricity consumption source is a project electricity consumption source and the
electricity consumption of all baseline electricity consumptions sources at the site of
the captive power plant(s) is greater than the electricity consumption of all project
electricity consumption sources at the site of the captive power plant(s).
Option B1 is selected to calculate the emission factor for electricity generation and this selected approach
should not be changed during the crediting period.
B
esides the gas generator set as the main electricity generator system, fossil fuel combustion in the project
activity is also envisaged from the emergency diesel generator system located in the project site as the
back-up power. For ex-ante estimations the project emissions from the use of diesel in the emergency
diesel generator system has been considered zero. The parameters for the calculation of same will be
monitored ex-post and the project emissions taken into account as actual.
Leakage
Leakage emission is calculated as follows:
LE y = LE FC , y + LE EC , y
Where:
LEy
LEFC,y
LEEC,y
(8)
= Leakage emissions in year y (tCO2e)

= Leakage emissions due to fossil fuel consumption after point F in Figure A.3.1 in
year y (tCO2e)
= Leakage emissions due to electricity consumption after point F in Figure A.3.1 in
year y (tCO2e)
Leakage emissions due to fossil fuel consumption

Leakage emissions due to fossil fuel consumption in year y (LEFC,y) is calculated applying the latest
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 22
approved version of the Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion
where LEFC,y corresponds to PEFC,j,y in the tool and process j corresponds to all sources of fuel
combustion (e.g. compressor, decompressor or trailers/trucks/carriers etc) after point F in Figure A.3.1.
The same formula for PEFC,j,y for project emissions calculation is used.
Leakage emissions due to electricity consumption
Leakage emissions due to electricity consumption in year y (LEEC,y) is calculated applying the latest
approved version of the Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity
consumption where LEEC,y corresponds to PEEC,y in the tool and the electricity consumption sources j in
the tool corresponds to all sources of electricity consumption (e.g. compressor, decompressor or
trailers/trucks/carriers etc) after point F in Figure A.3.1.
LEEC, ,
ECLE, , x EFEL, , x 1
TDL ,
Where:
LE EC ,l , y
ECLE, ,
EFEL, ,
TDL ,
= Leakage emissions from electricity consumption in year y (tCO2 / yr)

= Quantity of electricity consumed by the project electricity consumption source l in
year y (MWh/yr)
= Emission factor for electricity generation for source l in year y (tCO2/MWh)
= Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing electricity to
source l in year y
= Leakage electricity consumption sources that are supplied with power from captive
power plant(s) installed at one site
Since there is no electricity consumption after point F therefore no leakage emission due to electricity
consumption is considered.
Emission reductions
Emission reductions are calculated as follows:
ER y = BE y PE y LE y
(10)
Where:
ER y
Emissions reductions in year y (t CO2e)
BE y
Emissions in the baseline scenario in year y (tCO2e)
PE y
Emissions in the project scenario in year y (tCO2e)
LE y
Leakage in year y (t CO2e)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 23
B.6.2. Data and parameters fixed ex ante

Data / Parameter
EFCO2,Methane
Unit
tCO2/TJ
Description
CO2 emission factor for methane
Source of data
Calculated in line with procedures and data presented in ISO 6976 as

referred in the methodology of AM0009 version 05.0.1
Unit
Value
Source
Carbon Content of Methane
12,011 kg/kmol ISO 6976: Table 1
CO2 Emission Factor for 44.01 kg/kmol
ISO 6976: Table 1
Methane
NCV of Methane (at 250C)
802.60 kJ/mol
ISO 6976: Table 3
Value(s) applied
54.834
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
As per AM0009 version 05.0.1, the CO2 emission factor for methane is
included in the parameters that are not monitored.
Purpose of data
Calculation of baseline emissions
Additional comment
Data / Parameter
TDLj,y
Unit
Description
Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing

electricity to source j in year y
Source of data
As per Tool to calculate baseline, project and or leakage emissions from

electricity consumption, in case of scenario B ,TDLj/k/l,y = 0 as a
simplification.
0
Value(s) applied
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Purpose of data
Calculation of project emissions
Additional comment
B.6.3. Ex ante calculation of emission reductions

As per methodology AM0009 version 05.0.1, the emissions reduction by the project activity is calculated
as follows:
Based on the feed gas projection, the volume of recovered gas expected is shown as below:
Table B.6.3-1: Expected volume of recovered gas
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 24
Projected Total Volume of Recovered

Gas (Point F) (Nm3) ,
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
67,898,401
67,898,401
67,898,401
45,265,601
33,383,380
24,613,170
19,803,700
15,543,076
15,543,076
15,543,076
NCVRG , F , y
= 0.0000506 TJ/Nm3
EFCO 2 Methane
= 54.834 tCO2/TJ
Baseline emissions
BE y = V F , y .NCV RG , F , y .EFCO 2 Methane

Based on the calculation above, baseline emissions for each specific year are summarized below:
Baseline Emissions
Year
(tCO2/year)
2013
188,532
2014
188,532
2015
188,532
2016
125,688
2017
92,695
2018
68,343
2019
54,989
2020
43,158
2021
43,158
2022
43,158
Project Emission
PE y = PE CO 2, fossilfuel , y + PE CO 2 elec , y
Project emissions from the consumption of fossil fuels
, ,
COEF ,
, ,
NCV , x EFCO
,
,,
The quantity of sour gas combusted in process per year are as follows:
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
NCVsourgas,y
EFCO2,natgas,y
Page 25
Quantity of sour gas combusted (MMSCF/year)

FCsourgas,j,y
673
673
673
449
331
244
196
154
154
154
= 1,139.5 GJ/MMSCF
= 0.058 tCO2/GJ
Based on the formula above, project emissions from fossil fuels combustion for each specific year are
summarized below
Project emissions from fossil fuels combustion
Period y
(PEFC,j,y)
2013
44,721
2014
44,721
2015
44,721
2016
29,814
2017
21,988
2018
16,211
2019
13,044
2020
10,237
2021
10,237
2022
10,237
Project emissions from consumption of electricity
PE EC , y for each specific year is calculated as follows:
PE EC , y = j EC PJ , j , y .EFEL , j , y .(1 + TDL j , y )
Where:
TDL j , y
=0
Emission factor for electricity generation for source j is calculated as follows:

FC , . x NCV , x EFCO , ,
EFEL, ,
EG ,
Quantity of electricity generated and consumed by the project electricity consumption source j year y
(MWh/year) are as follows:
Period y
Quantity of electricity generated and by the
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 26
project electricity consumption source

( EC PJ , j , y ) ( EG n ,t )
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
63,360
63,360
63,360
42,240
31,152
22,968
18,480
14,504
14,504
14,504
Quantity of lean gas fired in the captive power plant each year is summarized below:
Quantity of lean gas fired in the captive power
plant (MMSCF/year)( FC leangas ,t )
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
543.6
543.6
543.6
356.4
262.8
193.8
155.9
122.4
122.4
122.4
NCV leangas ,t
= 994.2 GJ/MMSCF
EFCO 2leangas ,t
= 0.058 tCO2/GJ
Based on the formula above, emission factor for electricity generation for each year is 0.489 tCO2/MWh;
and therefore the project emissions from electricity consumption for each specific year are calculated and
summarized as below:
Project emissions from electricity consumption
( PE EC , y )
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
30,986
30,986
30,986
20,657
15,253
11,232
9,038
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 27
2020
2021
2022
7,093
7,093
7,093
Besides the gas generator set as the main electricity generator system, fossil fuel combustion in the
project activity is also envisaged from the emergency diesel generator system located in the project site as
the back-up power. For ex-ante estimations the project emissions from the use of diesel in the emergency
diesel generator system has been considered zero. The parameters for the calculation of same will be
monitored ex-post and the project emissions taken into account as actual.
Total estimation of project activity emissions
PE y in tCO2/year for each specific year are summarized as table below:
Table B.6.3-5: Project Emissions Summary
PE FC , y in
Year
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
tCO2/year
44,721
44,721
44,721
29,814
21,988
16,211
13,044
10,237
10,237
10,237
PE EC , y
PE y
in tCO2/year
30,986
30,986
30,986
20,657
15,253
11,232
9,038
7,093
7,093
7,093
in tCO2/year
75,707
75,707
75,707
50,471
37,223
27,444
22,081
17,331
17,331
17,331
Leakage
Leakage emissions due to fossil fuel consumption in year y (LEFC,y) is calculated corresponds to PEFC,j,y
in the tool and process j corresponds to all sources of fuel after point F in Figure A.3.1. (heat oil heater at
gas processing plant).
The quantity of sour gas combusted in process per year is as follows:
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Quantity of sour gas combusted after point F

(MMSCF/year) FCsourgas,j,y
132
132
132
88
65
48
39
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
2020
2021
2022
NCVsourgas,y
EFCO2,natgas,y
Page 28
30
30
30
= 1,139.5 GJ/MMSCF
= 0.058 tCO2/GJ
Based on the formula above, leakage emissions from fossil fuels combustion after point F for each
specific year are summarized below:
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Emission reductions
Leakage emissions from fossil fuels combustion

(LEFC,j,y)
8,769
8,769
8,769
ER y = BE y PE y LE y
5,846
4,311
3,179
2,558
2,007
2,007
2,007
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
B.6.4. Summary of ex ante estimates of emission reductions

Baseline
Project emissions
Year
emissions
(t CO2e)
(t CO2e)
2013
188,532
75,707
2014
188,532
75,707
2015
188,532
75,707
2016
125,688
50,471
2017
92,695
37,223
2018
68,343
27,444
2019
54,989
22,081
2020
43,158
17,331
2021
43,158
17,331
2022
43,158
17,331
1,036,785
416,333
Total
10
Total number of
crediting years
Annual
average over the
103,679
41,633
crediting period
Page 29
8,769
8,769
8,769
5,846
4,311
3,179
2,558
2,007
2,007
2,007
48,222
Emission
reductions
(t CO2e)
104,056
104,056
104,056
69,371
51,161
37,720
30,350
23,820
23,820
23,820
572,230
4,822
57,223
Leakage
(t CO2e)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 30
B.7. Monitoring plan

B.7.1. Data and parameters to be monitored
Data / Parameter
VF , y
Unit
Description
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Nm
Volume of total recovered gas measured at point F in Figure A.3.1 in year y
On-site measurement using Orifice meter
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Period y
Value
2013
67,898,401
2014
67,898,401
2015
67,898,401
2016
45,265,601
2017
33,383,380
2018
24,613,170
2019
19,803,700
2020
15,543,076
2021
15,543,076
2022
15,543,076
Data should be continuosly measured using calibrated orifice meters.
Measurements should be taken at the point(s) where recovered gas exits the
pre-treatment plant.
Continuosly
Volume of gas should be completely metered with regular calibration of
metering equipment. The measured volume should be converted to the
volume at normal temperature and pressure using the temperature and
pressure at the time to measurement.
The consistency of metered volume of recovered gas at point F in figure
A.3.1 will be cross-checked by Barton Chart recorder. This recorder is used
as the emergency backup measurement.
Calibration will be taken annually or when measuring equipments show
deviation from its tolerated fair value.
-
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 31
Data / Parameter
NCVRG , F , y
Unit
Description
Source of data
TJ/Nm3
Net calorific value of recovered gas at point F in Figure A.3.1 in year y
On site measurement (Chemical analysis of gas samples taken at point F in
Figure A.3.1 using Gas chromatography)
0.0000506
Measurements should be undertaken in line with national or international
fuel standards.
Gas samples should regularly be taken at point F in Figure A.3.1 and the
molar composition of each gas sample should be determined through
chemical analysis following the procedures for QA/QC. Based on the molar
composition, the Net Calorific Value on a volumetric basis should be
determined for each sample in line with ISO 6976 or an equivalent
standard for a combustion reference temperature of 250C and the same
metering reference condition used for parameter VF,y. The average NCV
during the period y is defined as the arithmetic average of NCVs for the
samples taken during the same period.
Sampling and compositional analysis and calculation of net calorific value
at least monthly
Sampling in accordance with ISO 10715 or equivalent standard.
Compositional analysis in accordance with ISO 6974 or equivalent
standard. Routine maintenance and calibration in accordance with ISO
10723 or equivalent standard. GC calibration gases certified to ISO 6141 or
equivalent standard. Annual manufacturer servicing and calibration to
ISO17025 or equivalent standard. In case third party laboratories are used,
these should as a minimum have ISO17025 accreditation or justify that
they can comply with similar quality standards.
For the purpose of this methodology, the qualifier net is synonymous
with lower and inferior, and the term calorific value is synonymous
with heating value.
For the purpose of monitoring plan, the Gross calorific value will be
resulted from the composition analysis using Gas Chromatography and Net
calorific value shall be calculated from data of gross calorific value by
multiplying it with 90% (as per guidelines in the 2006 IPCC Volume 20).
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 32
Data / Parameter
FC sourgas , j , y
Unit
Description
MMSCF/year
Quantity of sour gas combusted in processes before point F of the figure
A.3.1 (heaters at condensate recovery- amine plant, and RTO) during the
year y
The total result of on site measurement using orifice meters
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Quantity of sour gas combusted (MMSCF/year)

FCsourgas,j,y
673
673
673
449
331
244
196
154
154
154
Volume of sour gas combusted should be completely metered with regular

annual calibration of metering equipment.
Continuously
The consistency of metered volume of sour gas combusted in process will
be cross-checked by Barton Chart recorder. This recorder is used as the
emergency back-up measurement.
-
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 33
Data / Parameter
NCV sourgas , y
Unit
Description
GJ/MMSCF
Net calorific value of sour gas combusted in process before point F of the
figure A.3.1 (heaters at condensate recovery- amine plant, and RTO) in
year y
On site measurement (Chemical analysis of gas samples taken at sour gas
production after compression using Gas chromatography)
Source of data
Value(s) applied
1,139.5
Measurement methods
and procedures

fuel standards.
Gas samples should regularly be taken at lean gas production before it is
used and the molar composition of each gas sample should be determined
through chemical analysis following the procedures for QA/QC. Based on
the molar composition, the Net Calorific Value on a volumetric basis
should be determined for each sample in line with ISO 6976 or an
equivalent standard. The average NCV during the period y is defined as
the arithmetic average of NCVs for the samples taken during the same
period.
at least monthly
with heating value.
The measurement unit will be converted to GJ/MMSCF.
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 34
Data / Parameter
EFCO 2 ,natgas , y
Unit
Description
Value(s) applied
tCO2/GJ
CO2 emission factor of natural gas used before point F of the figure A.3.1
(compressor, condensate recovery, amine plant and RTO) in the period y
IPCC default values for CO2 emission factor of natural gas at the upper
limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in table
1.4 of Chapter1 of Vol. 2(Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on
National GHG Inventories
0.0583
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Since there is no CO2 emission factor provided, IPCC Guidelines value

should be used.
Any future revision of the IPCC Guidelines should be taken into account
-
Data / Parameter
EC PJ , j , y
Unit
Description
MWh/year
Quantity of electricity generated and consumed by the project electricity
consumption j in year y.
On site measurements
Source of data
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Quantity of electricity consumed by the project

electricity consumption source ( EC PJ , j , y )
63,360
63,360
63,360
42,240
31,152
22,968
18,480
14,504
14,504
14,504
Continuously measured using electricity meter and aggregated at least

annually.
Continuously
-
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 35
Data / Parameter
FC generator ,leangas ,t
Unit
Description
m3/year
Quantity of lean gas fired in the captive power plant (gas generator) in the
time period t
Onsite measurements
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Quantity of lean gas fired in the captive power

plant (MMSCF/year)( FC leangas ,t )
543.6
543.6
543.6
356.4
262.8
193.8
155.9
122.4
122.4
122.4
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Continuously measured using volume meters. The measured unit will be in

MMSCF and will be converted into m3.
Continuously
-
Data / Parameter
NCV leangas ,t
Unit
Description
GJ / MMSCF
Average net calorific value of lean gas used in the period t for electricity
consumption
On site collection and laboratory measurement. Calculated using 90% of
gross calorific values provided in the laboratory analysis.
994.2
Monthly measurements should be undertaken in line with national or
international fuel standards.
Monthly
The laboratories should have ISO17025 accreditation or justify that they
can comply with similar quality standards.
-
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 36
Data / Parameter
EFCO 2,leangas ,t
Unit
Description
t CO2 / GJ
CO2 emission factor of natural gas used in the period t for electricity
consumption
IPCC default values at the upper or lower limit whatever is more
conservative of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided
in table 1.4 of Chapter 1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
on National GHG Inventories
0.0583 t CO2 / GJ
Any future revision of the IPCC Guidelines should be taken into account.
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment

2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories is used as there are no
CO2 emission factor is provided from the fuel supplier, or project
participant or national default.
Data / Parameter
FC generator , dieseloil ,t
Unit
Description
m3/year
Quantity of diesel oil fired in the captive power plant (diesel generator) in
the time period t
Onsite measurements
0
Continuously measured using volume meter.
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Continuously
.
-
Data / Parameter
EG diese lg enerator ,t
Unit
Description
MWh/year
Quantity of electricity generated in captive power plant (diesel generator)
in the time period t
Onsite measurements
0
Continuously measured using electricity meter
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Continously
-
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 37
Data / Parameter
NCV dieseloil ,t
Unit
Description
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
GJ / m3
Average net calorific value of diesel oil used in the period t for electricity
consumption
On site collection and laboratory measurement or supplied by the supplier
Calculated using 90% of gross calorific values provided in the laboratory
analysis.
0
Monthly measurements should be undertaken in line with national or
international fuel standards.
Monthly
-
Data / Parameter
EFCO 2, dieseloil ,t
Unit
Description
t CO2 / GJ
CO2 emission factor of diesel oil used in the period t for electricity
consumption
IPCC default values at the upper or lower limit whatever is more
conservative of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided
in table 1.4 of Chapter 1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines
on National GHG Inventories
0.074 1
Any future revision of the IPCC Guidelines should be taken into account.
Source of data
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment

2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories is used as there are no
CO2 emission factor is provided from the fuel supplier, or project
participant or national default.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 38
Data / Parameter
FC sourgas ,l , y
Unit
Description
MMSCF/year
Quantity of sour gas combusted in processes after point F of the figure
A.3.1 (heater at LPG Plant) during the year y
On site measurement using orifice meter.
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Period y
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Quantity of sour gas combusted after point F

(MMSCF/year) FCsourgas,j,y
132
132
132
88
65
48
39
30
30
30
Volume of sour gas combusted should be completely metered with regular

annual calibration of metering equipment.
Continuously
The consistency of metered volume of sour gas combusted in process will
be cross-checked by Barton Chart recorder. This recorder is used as the
emergency back-up measurement.
Calculation of leakage emissions
-
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 39
Data / Parameter
NCV sourgas ,l , y
Unit
Description
GJ/MMSCF
Net calorific value of sour gas combusted in process after point F of the
figure A.3.1 (LPG plant) in year y
On site measurement (Chemical analysis of gas samples taken at sour gas
production after compression using Gas chromatography)
Source of data
Value(s) applied
1,139.5
Measurement methods
and procedures

fuel standards.
Gas samples should regularly be taken at lean gas production before it is
used and the molar composition of each gas sample should be determined
through chemical analysis following the procedures for QA/QC. Based on
the molar composition, the Net Calorific Value on a volumetric basis
should be determined for each sample in line with ISO 6976 or an
equivalent standard. The average NCV during the period y is defined as
the arithmetic average of NCVs for the samples taken during the same
period.
at least monthly
with heating value.
The measurement unit will be converted to GJ/MMSCF.
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 40
Data / Parameter
EFCO 2, natura lg as ,l , y
Unit
Description
Value(s) applied
tCO2/GJ
CO2 emission factor of sour gas used after point F of the figure A.3.1
(heater at LPG plant) in the period y
IPCC default values for CO2 emission factor of natural gas at the upper
limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in table
1.4 of Chapter1 of Vol. 2(Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on
National GHG Inventories
0.0583
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Since there is no CO2 emission factor provided, IPCC Guidelines value

should be used.
Any future revision of the IPCC Guidelines should be taken into account
-
Source of data
B.7.2. Sampling plan

As per Standard for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities, the
requirements for sampling in the applicable methodology are having precedence. Hence sampling plan
for NCV as described in the AM0009 version 05.0.1 is used.
B.7.3. Other elements of monitoring plan
The operational and managament structure that will be implemented by the project operator in order to
monitor emission reductions and any leakage generated by the project activity is decribed in the following
figure:
CDM operational and management structure
-
Field Manager
Design, train, establish and manage the system of CDM
Responsible for the implementation and administration of
CDM project activity at the site
Assistant of Field Manager

Check the aggregated data
Archive the aggregated data in electronic form for at least 2
years after the crediting period
Regularly back up the data
Project Supervisor
Aggregate data and report to Assistant of Field Manager
Calibration of equipments (Measure, record, archive)
Project Operators
Daily measurement and recording
(measure, record, archive)
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 41
Data collection and storage arrangement

All data that need to be collected will be measured and recorded at the frequency as per details in B.7.1
by Project operators and then reported to Production Supervisor. Production Supervisor will aggregate
those data and then report them to Assistant of Field Manager who will check and archive them in the
electronic form, as well as manage the regular data back-up. All data collected as part of monitoring
should be archived electronically and be kept at least for 2 years after the end of the last crediting period.
100% of the data should be monitored if not indicated otherwise in the tables above. All measurements
should be conducted with calibrated measurement equipment according to national standards.
Calibration of metering units
The metering units for feed gas must first be calibrated by the Directorate of Metrology and recalibrated
once every year. If there is doubt on the accuracy of a metering unit, the recalibration of such metering
unit shall be conducted. If the accuracy of any metering unit deviates by more than 2%, the metering unit
from the time of the most recent inspection of the metering unit until the time of discovery of the in
accuracy shall be adjusted.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
SECTION C. Duration and crediting period

C.1. Duration of project activity
C.1.1. Start date of project activity
11/04/2011, purchase order of the Amine System
C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of project activity
10 years 00 months
C.2. Crediting period of project activity
C.2.1. Type of crediting period
The fixed crediting period is chosen for the project activity
C.2.2. Start date of crediting period
01/12/2012 or the date of registration whichever is later
C.2.3. Length of crediting period
10 years 00 months
Page 42
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 43
SECTION D. Environmental impacts

D.1. Analysis of environmental impacts
The Regulation of Environmental Ministry No 11 year 2006 has stipulated that the gas processing plant
with a capacity less than 50 MMSCFD is not mandatory to conduct Environmental Impact Analysis
(referred to as AMDAL document Analisa Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan). Further, the Regulation of
Environmental Ministry No 13 year 2010 stipulated that the project activity which is not required to carry
out Environmental Impact, is obliged to carry out Environmental Management Effort and Monitoring
Effort. Together these documents are referred to as UKL/UPL report (Upaya Pengelolaan Lingkungan/
Upaya Pemantauan Lingkungan)
In compliance to above, PT. Gasuma Federal Indonesia has undertaken an UKL/UPL report for the
project activity. This documentation has been obtained its approval by the Oil and Gas Directorate
General on 05/11/2008. No other licenses are required to carry out the project activity in regards to
environment impact documentation.
D.2. Environmental impact assessment
Prior to the implementation of the project activity, the associated gas would be flared. The flaring of the
associated gas with high content of CO2 and H2S has caused air pollution and endangered living beings at
nearby site. The proposed project activity is an environmentally friendly project which reduces the gas
flaring activity and enables improvement of the local area where the gas was earlier being flared. It does
not require any displacement of local population. The proposed project activity therefore does not cause
any adverse social impacts on local population but has rather helped in improving the quality of life.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 44
SECTION E. Local stakeholder consultation

E.1. Solicitation of comments from local stakeholders
A stakeholder consultation was undertaken on 09/09/2008 to inform the local people of the project
owners intention to apply for CDM benefits for the project activity. Identified stakeholders, i.e. local
residents, local village representatives, workers on the plant site and their union representatives, local and
national government environmental bodies, were invited. In addition, a public notice of the stakeholder
meeting was posted in the local newspaper. The stakeholder meeting took place at Sokosari Village Hall,
Tuban. The meeting started with introduction to the project by PT. Gasuma Federal Indonesias staff
followed by questions from participants.
E.2. Summary of comments received
No.
1.
Question
How many employment opportunities PT.
GFI can provide for people from Rahayu
Village? How PT. GFI will conduct a fair
recruitment process?
2.
What will the compensation be if the faulty

is done by the company?
3.
Please explain the mechanism of building

the LPG plant?
4.
5.
Has the environmental impact assessment

been done?
What is the Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) mechanism, how the CSR can be
conducted transparently?
6.
Is CDM part of AMDAL?
7.
What is the socio-economic impact from

PT. GFI building the LPG plant?
Answer
Employees will be recruited accordingly. PT GFI
was referring to the employment recruitment that
was done by JOB PPEJ in Lamongan sub-district.
Employment distribution will be done according to
the percentage and needs of the company after
agreement with the village leader.
Compensation will be given to any faulty that
caused by the company. However the company will
conduct their working procedure in accordance to
the international standard for health, safety and
environmental regulation.
A diagram was used to explain the process flow for
utilizing the gas from JOB PPEJ in a simple way
and also the positive impacts of project activity by
reducing the flaring for surrounding villages.
UKL/UPL is done with the approval from ministry
of environment.
CSR activities are given 2.5% of the company
profits as part of the companys responsibility to
the surrounding villages. CSR will be coordinated
with local government to avoid conflict of interest.
The priority will be given to the nearest village
from the companys location.
CDM is not part of AMDAL. AMDAL is regulated
by Indonesian law, whilst CDM is under the Kyoto
Protocol and regulated by UNFCCC.
The positive impact from the project is the
economic growth for local villagers. The company
will recruit from the surrounding villagers for
employment both for the skilled and non-skilled
labours. The companys employment will increase
the income for the villagers who are employed. PT.
GFI will try to minimize the negative impact by
working in accordance to the international
regulations.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
E.3. Report on consideration of comments received

None of the comments received required any actions to be taken.
Page 45
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 46
SECTION F. Approval and authorization

The project participants are waiting for the letters of approval from Indonesia and United Kingdom for
the project activity. These will be submitted later during the validation process.
-----
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 47
Appendix 1: Contact information of project participants

Organization name
Street/P.O. Box
Building
City
State/Region
Postcode
Country
Telephone
Fax
E-mail
Website
Contact person
Title
Salutation
Last name
Middle name
First name
Department
Mobile
Direct fax
Direct tel.
Personal e-mail
PT. Gasuma Federal Indonesia

Jl. Kapten Tendean Kav. 28
BPH MIGAS Building 1st Floor
Jakarta
DKI Jakarta
12710
Indonesia
+62 21 520 2633
+62 21 525 5703
www.yudistiraenergy.com
Project Manager
Mr.
Marto
Sudarmo
Pudjianto
yhp_lpg@cbn.net.id
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Organization name
Street/P.O. Box
Building
City
State/Region
Postcode
Country
Telephone
Fax
E-mail
Website
Contact person
Title
Salutation
Last name
Middle name
First name
Department
Mobile
Direct fax
Direct tel.
Personal e-mail
Page 48
Sumitomo Corporation
1-8-11 Harumi, Chuo-Ku
Tokyo
104-8610
Japan
+81-3-5166-4155
+81-3-5166-6444
www.sumitomocorp.co.jp
HU
Manager
Mr.
Hideki
Sawano
Environmental Solution Business Dept.
+81-3-5166-4618
+81-3-5166-6957
cdm-project@sumitomocorp.co.jp
H
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Organization name
Street/P.O. Box
Building
City
State/Region
Postcode
Country
Telephone
Fax
E-mail
Website
Contact person
Title
Salutation
Last name
Middle name
First name
Department
Mobile
Direct fax
Direct tel.
Personal e-mail
Page 49
Agrinergy Pte. Ltd

10 Hoe Chiang Road
#08-04 Keppel Towers
Singapore
089315
Singapore
+65 6592 0400
+65 6592 0401
www.agrinergy.com
Managing Director
Mr.
Atkinson
Ben
moc@agrinergy.com
Appendix 2: Affirmation regarding public funding
The project has not received any public funding or official development assistance from Annex I parties.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 50
Appendix 3: Applicability of selected methodology

Please refer to section B.2.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 51
Appendix 4: Further background information on ex ante calculation of emission reductions

Please refer to section B.6.3 and CERs spreadsheet calculation.
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Appendix 5: Further background information on monitoring plan

Please refer to section B.7.1. and B.7.2.
Page 52
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 53
Appendix 6: Summary of post registration changes

Not applicable. The project activity is being proposed for registration.
-----

LPG Associated Gas

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

LPG Associated Gas

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UNFCCC/CCNUCC

CDM Executive Board

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT (PDD)

Title of the project activity

Estimated amount of annual average GHG

Sukowati-Mudi (Tuban) LPG Associated Gas

CDM Executive Board

SECTION A. Description of project activity

Economy and social sustainability:

CDM Executive Board

A.2. Location of project activity

Figure A.2.1: Location map of Mudi Sukowati LPG Plant

CDM Executive Board

A.3. Technologies and/or measures

Mudi Sukowati Oil Fields

Figure. A.3.1. Pre-project (baseline) scenario

CDM Executive Board

In the absence of project activity

Figure A.3.1 Monitoring equipments and location

Meter to measure the sour gas consumed by thermal oxidizer

CDM Executive Board

A.4. Parties and project participants

Private and/or public

Indicate if the Party involved

Republic of Indonesia (host)

Private entity: PT. Gasuma

United Kingdom of Great

Private entity: Agrinergy Pte

United Kingdom of Great

Private Entity: Sumitomo

Contact details as listed in Appendix 1.

CDM Executive Board

SECTION B. Application of selected approved baseline and monitoring methodology

The project activity does not lead to changes in

CDM Executive Board

- The methodology AM0009 version 05.0.1

- The project activity does not involve source of

B.3. Project boundary

CDM Executive Board

Main source of emissions in the

As per the approved methodology, the project boundary encompasses:

In the absence of project activity

Figure B.3.1: Project Boundary and SchematicIllustration of Project Activity

B.4. Establishment and description of baseline scenario

CDM Executive Board

Source: Regulation from Ministry of Environment No. 13 Year 2009

CDM Executive Board

Continuation of the operation of the

Supplying recovered gas to a gas

c. Plausible alternative baseline scenarios for the use of gas-lift

CDM Executive Board

CDM Executive Board

Feed gas purchase price

0.5 - 1.46 USD/MMBTU

Operation and Maintenance cost

Table B.5-2: Feed Gas Availability Estimation 4

Feasibility Study Report

CDM Executive Board

Figure B.2: Sensitivity Analysis

CDM Executive Board

CDM Executive Board

CDM Executive Board