1. Task 2 Report Background on Scope + Path Forward May 4, 2009 O&G GHG Technical WorkGroup

2. Beginning of 835 AM – 5/4/09 session

3. Task 2 Scope Overview The contractor will prepare a technical review of emissions quantification methods for critical field sources identified in the background and scoping paper, specifically designed to inform and guide the process of developing mandatory reporting requirements by partner jurisdictions in the Western Climate Initiative. For the significant land-based and offshore GHG sources identified in Task 1, this paper will:

4. Task 2 Scope Overview, continued –Prioritize sources for mandatory reporting, considering the magnitude of known or projected emissions. –Evaluate existing GHG accounting strategies and available data and emission factors. Discuss limitations inherent in currently available accounting methodologies, emission factors and data, focusing on the largest GHG sources. –Identify current methodological deficiencies for these high- priority sources; propose and discuss high-tier alternative sampling and/or analytical methodologies designed to address these deficiencies and improve emissions data quality.

5. End of 835 AM - 5/4/09 session

6. Proposed path forward to finish Task 2 report From Santa Fe meeting –Used available data – thanks to all TWG members contributing time and effort Available time and resources Basin level By production type (heavy oil, CBM, tight gas, et cetera) used Rankings presented in this way because of confidentiality, variation in data completeness and quality, etc. – CO2e presented to utilize these data Next step is fixing inaccuracies, addressing technical comments

7. Proposed path forward to move beyond Task 2 report Carefully craft response to the comments and concerns Use discussion of methods for Reporting at this meeting Build from spreadsheet Ongoing “living document” with methods Supported by WRAP staff

8. 1045 AM – 5/4/09 session

9. Clean Air Act Statutory Factors Oil & Gas doesn’t fit neatly into CAA mold What do you use to evaluate methods? Cost of compliance Time necessary for compliance Energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance Remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirements

10. Possible Criteria to Evaluate Methods Accurate (can be verified) Bias Contractor-supplied? Cost Feasibility (i.e. technical and practical) Method/measurement device availability Precision Reliability

11. Using criteria in the discussion Strengths and weaknesses of method under discussion Self-defined “I think this criterion is important because:” Handout