Part III: Flare Reduction Project Family - IPIECA

Section 7. Flare Reduction Project Family
Table 7-11. Applicability and History of Approved CDM Baseline Methodologies for Flare Reduction Projects,
continued
Methodology Version
Date
Approved
AM0037 01 29 September
2006
History of Methodology
Development and Revisions
Initial Adoption:
This methodology was developed for
projects that recover previouslyflared
associated gas from oil wells
and utilize the gas in an existing or
new end-use facility, both as a
feedstock and, if applicable, partly as
an energy source to produce a useful
chemical product. Such chemical
products could include methanol,
ethylene or ammonia.
The specific applicability criteria
stated in Version 01 included:
• The surplus tail gas substitutes
the same type of fuels/feedstock
with a higher CO 2 equivalent
emissions impact.
• The use of tail gas in production
of a useful product does not lead
to displacement of production in
a new plant that would be built
in the absence of the project
activity in an Annex 1 country.
• The use of tail gas by the project
activity will not lead to an
increase in fuel consumption
outside the project boundary.
• Energy requirements of the
project activity are met primarily
using the previously flared tail
gas.
Notes
When this methodology was developed, the original version of AM0009
was already approved. It was meant to build upon AM0009 to include
projects where flaring occurred after processing instead of at the point of
extraction. The original proposed methodology (NM0145) defined the
boundary that included the end-user facility that utilizes the recovered
gas as a feedstock or fuel. It was envisioned as being applicable only to
new facilities constructed to use otherwise-flared gas as a feedstock and
not existing facilities.
The Methodology Panel found that the proposal did not address the issue
of potential changes in emissions due to substitution of fuels or
additional fuel use by end-users and suggested that the corresponding
section of AM0009 be brought into the methodology. The Panel also felt
that unlike the facilities addressed in AM0009, those using the proposed
methodology may construct new end-product facilities to produce
methanol, ethylene or ammonia, thus having a possible effect on the
international supply of these chemicals, and hence on activities outside
the project boundary. The Panel concluded that this topic should be
addressed in the leakage analysis and that the project boundary should
explicitly include the production facilities for the end product.
The methodology proposal was approved after revisions were made in
response to the above concerns. Of particular note was that the treatment
of baseline, project, and leakage emissions was based on the criterion that
the project generated from CDM activities would otherwise have used a
fuel and/or feedstock with equal or higher CO 2 equivalent emissions.
October 2009 60