UER Verification Report

Oilfield uses power grid instead of generator retrofit project Project ID: XVDG

Project Partner: Xinjiang Petrolor Energy Services Co., Ltd No.2286 Jiyuan Road, Economics Development District, Korla City, Bayingol Mongolian Autonomous Prefecture, Xinjiang, China

Document provided by Müller-BBM Cert GmbH Accreditation No. D-VS-18709-01-00 (DAkkS) Report No. MC-UER-20-007 Version No. 1.0 Page 1 of 70

UER Verification Report

Title of the project activity Oilfield uses power grid instead of generator (as stated within the application template) retrofit project Project No. XVDG Approval authority of the project activity DEHSt Approval date of the project activity 13/08/2020 Lead Partner of the Project Xinjiang Petrolor Energy Services Co., Ltd Address of the Lead Partner No.2286 Jiyuan Road, Economics Development District, Korla City, Bayingol Mongolian Autonomous Prefecture, Xinjiang, China Approved offsetting period 2020-08-18 to 2021-08-17 (incl. both days) Monitoring/verification period number and duration MP 02 of this monitoring period 2020-10-01 to 2020-11-30 (incl. both days) Version number of the monitoring report to which this 2.1 dated 02/12/2020 report applies Host State P. R. China Scale of the project activity ☑ Large-scale ☐ Small-scale Sectoral scopes linked to the applied methodologies Sectoral scope 1: Energy industries Applied methodologies and standardized baselines AM0045 “Grid Connection of Isolated Electricity Systems” Version 03.0 Standardized baselines: N/A The project site which is the closest to the source of the Substation Yueman Kezier Keshener emissions, by reference to longitude and latitude Longitude 82.8910°E 82.4395°E coordinates to four decimal places [hddd.ddddd°] Latitude 40.6365°N 41.9188°N

Estimated amount of GHG upstream emission 19,615,763

reductions during the monitoring period [kg CO2e] Certified amount of GHG upstream emission 22,638,126 reductions during determined monitoring period [kg CO2e] Prepared by Müller-BBM Cert GmbH Contact Heinrich-Hertz-Straße 13 50170 Kerpen Accreditation ID D-VS-18709-01-00 (DAkkS) Verification report ID MC-UER-20-007 Version number of the verification report 1.0 Issue date of this report 2020-12-05 Verification carried out (from-to) 2020-11-20 to 2020-12-05 Applicable level of assurance Reasonable Name and position of the confirming personnel of the Dr. Stefan Bräker, Dr. Matthias Bender, Managing verification report director

Page 2 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Content Section A Executive Summary ...... 5 A.1 Purpose and general description of project activity ...... 5 A.2 Location of project activity ...... 6 A.3 Information, in case of project activities associated with oil production ...... 6 A.4 Scope of the verification ...... 7 A.5 Preparation and assessment ...... 8 A.6 Conclusion ...... 9 Section B Verification team, technical reviewer and approver ...... 10 B.1 Verification team member ...... 10 B.2 Technical reviewer and approver of the verification report ...... 10 Section C Application of materiality...... 11 C.1 Consideration of materiality in verification planning ...... 11 C.2 Consideration of materiality in verification activities ...... 13 Section D Means of verification ...... 14 D.1 Desk/document review ...... 14 D.2 On-site inspection ...... 14 D.3 Interviews ...... 15 D.4 Sampling approach...... 15 D.5 Clarification requests (CL) corrective action requests (CAR) and forward action requests (FAR) raised ...... 16 Section E Verification findings ...... 17 E.1 Contents of the monitoring report ...... 17 E.2 Remaining forward action requests from validation and/or previous verifications ...... 18 E.3 Compliance of the project implementation and operation with the registered design document ...... 18 E.4 Post registration changes ...... 20 E.4.1 Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan, applied methodologies, standardized baselines and other methodological documents ...... 20 E.4.2 Corrections ...... 20

Page 3 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

E.4.3 Permanent changes from registered monitoring plan, or permanent deviation of monitoring from the applied methodologies, standardized baselines or other methodological documents ...... 21 E.4.4 Changes to the project design ...... 22 E.5 Compliance of the registered monitoring plan with applied methodologies, applied standardized baselines and other applied methodological documents ...... 22 E.6 Compliance of the monitoring activities with the registered monitoring plan . 24 E.6.1 Data and parameters fixed ex ante or at renewal of crediting period ...... 24 E.6.2 Data and parameters monitored ...... 25 E.6.3 Implementation of sampling plan ...... 25 E.7 Compliance with the calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments ...... 25 E.8 Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions ...... 26 E.8.1 Calculation of baseline GHG emissions ...... 26 E.8.2 Calculation of project GHG emissions ...... 28 E.8.3 Calculation of leakage emissions ...... 29 E.8.4 Summary calculation of upstream emission reductions ...... 30 E.8.5 Comparison of actual of upstream emission reductions with estimates in the approved PDD ...... 31 E.9 Approval ...... 32 E.10 Offsetting period...... 32 Section F Internal quality control ...... 33 Section G Verification opinion ...... 34 Appendix 1: Abbreviations ...... 36 Appendix 2: Certificates of verification team members ...... 37 Appendix 3: Documents reviewed or referenced ...... 45 Appendix 4: Clarification requests, corrective action requests and forward action requests ...... 45 Appendix 5: Monitored parameters ...... 51 Appendix 6: Accuracy and Calibration details of monitoring equipment ...... 69

Page 4 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Section A Executive Summary

A.1 Purpose and general description of project activity

Mabanaft GmbH & Co. KG has commissioned Müller BBM CERT GmbH to carry out the 2nd verification of the UER project activity Oilfield uses power grid instead of generator retrofit project with regard to the applicable requirements for UER project activities in Germany. Müller BBM Cert GmbH, an accredited verification body according to DIN EN ISO 14065 including the validation and verification of GHG assertions based on ISO 14064 Part 1 to 3/ISO14064/ and duly authorized to confirm compliance of the monitoring report with requirements as set by ISO 14064 Part 2/ISO14064/. Directive (EU) 2015/652/DEU/ is laying down calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to Directive 98/70/EC (Fuel quality directive)/FQD/ relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuel. Directive (EU) 2015/652 is implemented in Germany by the Upstream Emissions Reduction Ordinance (UERO)/UERO/ thus forms the basis of this verification. The project has been implemented to reduce GHG emissions through switch using diesel generators to supply electricity power to using electricity power from national grid North West Power Grid (NWPG) for drilling machines and auxiliary equipment in western area of Tarim oilfield, which is mainly in Shaya County and Baicheng County in Aksu Region, Xinjiang, P. R. China. The two substations, Yueman 110kV in Shaya County and Kezier Keshener 110kV in Baicheng County are newly built and 29 drilling teams from 3 drilling companies were serviced by the project during the monitoring period, while Yueman 110kV substation connected to 15 drilling teams and Kezier Keshener 110kV substation connected to 14 drilling teams. It will result in significant emission reductions resulting from a measure which would only become reversible with significant efforts. These descriptions are confirmed via site inspection and comparing the MR/MR/ with PDD/PDD/, it is verified that the project is implemented as per the approved PDD/PDD/. Basic technical data is given in the table below.

Parameter Description Transformer in Yuman substation Type SFZ11-50000/110 Phase 3 Rated Capacity 50MVA Rated voltage (high voltage winding) 110KV Rated voltage (low voltage winding) 38.5KV Rated frequency 50Hz Manufacturer Baoding Baoling Transformer Co., Ltd.

Page 5 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Transformer in Kezier Keshener substation Type SFSZ10-50000/110 Phase 3 Rated Capacity 50MVA Rated voltage (high voltage winding) 110KV Rated voltage (medium voltage winding) 38.5KV Rated voltage (low voltage winding) 10.5KV Rated frequency 50Hz Manufacturer TBEA Xinjiang Co., Ltd.

A.2 Location of project activity

Parameter Description Host Country People’s Republic of China Region Xinjiang Project location address Shaya County and Baicheng County in Aksu Region Substations Yueman 110kV Kezier Keshener 110 kV Latitude 40.6365°N 41.9188°N Longitude 82.8910°E 82.4395°E

A.3 Information, in case of project activities associated with oil production

Parameter Unit Value ☐ Not applicable. Oil wells are not within the project boundary ☑ Applicable, as follows: Identification of Oil well - Yueman Block Gas/oil ratio during monitoring period1 Nm3/t 635 Identification of Oil well - Fuyuan Block Gas/oil ratio during monitoring period Nm3/t 522 Identification of Oil well - Zhongqiu Block Gas/oil ratio during monitoring period Nm3/t 3,378 Identification of Oil well - Keshen Block

1 Via site visit, it is verified that the project activity supplies electricity to the oilfield drilling teams which still under drilling, the wells does not start producing oil yet, so no oil value could be obtained, the Gas/oil ratio averaged over the preceding five calendar years from PDD is listed for reference.

Page 6 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Gas/oil ratio during monitoring period Nm3/t 5,729

A.4 Scope of the verification

This verification activity addresses in particular whether: - the preconditions for approval are present in relation to the project activity during the verification period, - the implementation of the project in accordance with the validated project design document; or in case of deviations whether the applicable requirements have been followed, - the monitoring report complies with the applicable requirements, - the monitoring activities are consistent with the monitoring plan esp. if all monitoring parameters have been determined in line with the methodological and, if applicable, other requirements and if all calculations methods have been applied correctly, - the calibration frequency of the respective measuring instruments are met – or in case of deviations whether the applicable requirements have been followed - the amount of emission reductions achieved during the monitoring period is correct - indications for potential double counting of emission reductions have occurred.

Müller BBM Cert GmbH has performed all tasks as specified under ISO 14064 Parts 2 and 3/ISO14064/, thus undertaking a systematic, independent and documented process for the evaluation of a greenhouse gas assertions of the above-mentioned project activity against the agreed verification criteria through this verification report. The main objective of this activity is the use of the verification report by the lead partner for the creation of UERs that are eligible under the German regulation/UERO/. The process of UER creation requires verification. Müller BBM Cert GmbH has nominated a verification team fulfilling the internal qualification criteria based on ISO 14064 Parts 2 and 3, ISO 14065 and ISO 14066/ISO14064/. The verification process involved an in-depth review of the submitted set of documentation and records as well as background research regarding applied technologies and country-specific circumstances, among others. Following a strategic analysis and the determination of assessment risks, a detailed verification plan has been developed. The verification included a site visit by the local team member, with the participation of all the personnel involved in the GHG emissions reduction project. A finding list has been provided to the lead partner who subsequently revised the documentation. The revised documentation underwent a further review before issuing this final verification report. The verification statement is given at a reasonable level of assurance. When verifying reported data, a 2.0% materiality threshold has been applied with regard to the total amount of emission reductions and in analogy to the EU ETS scheme (Regulation (EU) No 600/2012 as repealed and replaced by Regulation No 2018/2067 and Regulation (EU) No 601/2012), of which the quality requirements are applicable according to the Fuel Quality Directive/FQD/.

Page 7 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

In order to fulfil the internal requirements of Müller BBM Cert GmbH for final appraisal of this report, an independent technical review has been carried out to the ‘final verification report’. This review was done by a lead verifier, which has not been part of the main verification team. The verification has been carried out in the period from 20/11/2020 until 03/12/2020 (incl.)

A.5 Preparation and assessment

The verification criteria were agreed between the client and Müller BBM Cert GmbH prior to the assessment as the verification of the monitoring report to meet the requirements under ISO 14064 Parts 2 and 3/ISO14064/, the Council Directive (EU) 2015/652/EUD/ of 20 April 2015 laying down calculation methods and reporting requirements pursuant to Directive 98/70/EC (Fuel quality directive)/FQD/ of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels having regard to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC. As preparation for the assessment, the project participant has submitted the project documentation and emissions estimations before starting the verification. By reviewing and evaluating these documents a strategic and risk analysis has been performed in order to develop an assessment plan, that has captured and identified all relevant areas of assessment in order to reduce assessment risks and to enable a statement at a reasonable level of assurance that the project complies with the requirement of ISO 14064 Part 2 (ISO 14064-2) /ISO14064/. Müller BBM Cert GmbH has been provided with a Monitoring Report/MR/ and underlying data records covering the monitoring period. This document serves as the basis for the assessment presented herewith. On the basis of the assessment plan a site visit has been executed. During the site visit - An opening meeting was held - interviews with key personnel of the project have been held - the physical project implementation has been checked - the monitoring equipment has been inspected - monitoring practices have been observed - on-site available records have been reviewed and - a closing meeting was held where the findings list and, if applicable, required corrective action as respective timelines have been discussed and agreed.

This step is followed by the findings resolution. The lead partner identifies and implements corrections which are to be assessed by the verification team. In case of deviant monitoring practices this might require a respective approval from the UER project approval authority. Upon successful closure of the findings the final verification report incl. the verification statement is prepared by the verification team. Finally, the verification report undergoes a technical review, whereby a different verifier or a technical review team the complete verification sequence is reviewed. The personnel used is for TR is has not been involved in any stage of the verification decision making and is duly authorized for

Page 8 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

the project scope. In case of additional findings these will be addressed by the verification team and, if required, by the lead partner or project owner until full compliance with all applicable requirements is ensured. In case not all findings can be closed out a negative verification opinion will be issued. Upon successful Technical review the final report is then signed and forwarded to the lead partner, who is responsible for submission to the respective state authority being responsible for UER issuance.

A.6 Conclusion

As a result of this verification it is confirmed that - the preconditions for approval of the UER project activity are still met, - the project has been implemented in accordance with the validated project design document or in case of deviations whether the applicable requirements have been followed, - the monitoring report complies with the applicable requirements, - the monitoring activities are consistent with the monitoring plan - the calibration frequency requirements have been followed - no indications for potential double counting have been identified during this verification.

Müller BBM CERT confirms that during the above specified verification period the project has achieved UER emission reductions for monitoring period 01/10/2020 to 30/11/2020 (incl.) as follows:

22,638,126 kg CO2e.

Page 9 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Section B Verification team, technical reviewer and approver

B.1 Verification team member

Involvement in

findings

Affiliation

(e.g. name of s

central or site inspection site

other office of -

erification

On Interview V

No. Role Name Email VB) review Desk/document Type of resource of Type 1. Team Leader EI Martin mbeckmann@ N/A ☑ ☐ ☐ ☑ Beckmann 2d-g.com 2. Verifier/ Local EI Xuejiao Zhao fzhao@2d- N/A ☑ ☑ ☑ ☑ Expert g.com

B.2 Technical reviewer and approver of the verification report

Affiliation (e.g. name of Type of central or other No. Role resource Name Email office of VB) 1. Technical Dr. Joerg Zens joerg.zens@mbbm- Müller BBM Cert Reviewer cert.com GmbH 2. Assistant Dr. Matthias matthias.bender@m Müller BBM Cert Technical Bender bbm- cert.com GmbH reviewer.

Page 10 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Section C Application of materiality

C.1 Consideration of materiality in verification planning

The verification has been planned against the materiality threshold as displayed in the following table. These thresholds have been adopted from UNFCCC Clean development mechanism (CDM) requirements.

Category Threshold Applicable for ☐ C 0,5 % UER project activities achieving > 500.000 t of emission reductions ☐ B2 1% Large scale UER project activities achieving > 300.000 t of emission reductions ☑ B1 2% Other large scale UER project activities ☐ A 5 % Small scale UER project activities Strategic Analysis: At the beginning of the verification the verification team leader has assessed the nature, scale and complexity of the verification tasks to be done by carrying out a strategic analysis of all activities relevant to the UER PA. The team leader has collected and reviewed the information relevant to assess that the designated verification team is sufficiently competent to carry out the verification and to ensure that it is able to conduct the necessary risk analysis. Risk analysis and detailed audit testing planning: For the identification and assessment of potential reporting risks and to determine the necessary detailed audit testing procedures for residual risk areas the following table is used.

Risk that could lead to Assessment of the risk Response to the risk in the material errors, omissions Risk level Justification verification plan and/or No. or misstatements sampling plan 1. Preconditions for approval 1.1 Noncompliance with ☐ low Validation and or Check of validation and binding requirements from ☐ medium approval might approval records validation / registration ☑ high include limitations of ER eligibility 2 Boundaries / completeness 2.1 Completeness of direct and ☐ low Relevant gas flows / Review of network plans indirect emission sources ☑ medium gas qualities may not Interviews ☐ high be considered in input / output balance 3 Implementation of monitoring plan 3.1 Installation of monitoring ☐ low Delayed installation On-site visit and check of equipment ☑ medium of monitoring equipment records ☐ high equipment Check of monitoring records Installation of different equipment

Page 11 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

3.2 Exchange of monitoring ☑ low Data gaps, accuracy On-site visit, check of equipment ☐ medium requirements equipment records ☐ high 3.3 Dysfunction of monitoring ☐ low Data gaps On-site visit, check of equipment ☐ medium equipment records ☑ high 3.3 Different monitoring ☑ low Data from deviant On-site visit, check om practices ☐ medium sources might have monitoring records ☐ high been used 4 Parameters 4.1 Different values for non- ☑ low The values for non- Comparison with registered monitored parameters ☐ medium monitored PDD ☐ high parameters which Check of the registered PDD have been fixed ex- and validation report ante might be mon- Check of the ER calculation itored or determined differently 4.2 Wrong values for ☐ low The monitored Comparison with registered monitored parameters ☐ medium parameters might PDD ☑ high have been Check monitoring equipment determined Check of data aggregation incorrectly 5 Calculations 5.1 Calculation mistakes ☐ low Wrong values, Spread sheet walk-throughs ☐ medium different equations, Plausibility checks ☑ high or mistakes in Re-Calculation spreadsheet programming might have occurred 6 Quality assurance / quality control 6.1 Non-fulfilment of ☐ low Calibrations might Check of manufacturer´s calibration requirements ☑ medium not have taken place specifications ☐ high within applicable Check of national time frames requirements Check of calibration data 7 Double counting 7.1 Double use of emission ☐ low ER credits may be Check of project boundaries reduction credits ☐ medium used in other and coordinates ☑ high projects or schemes. Check of other schemes As of 2021 ERs may Check of host country be counted against approvals (post 2020) the Host country NDCs On the basis of the risk analysis the verification has been planned. A detailed audit/verification plan has been prepared and submitted to the Lead Partner due time before the site visit.

Page 12 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

C.2 Consideration of materiality in verification activities

The verification has basically been carried out as per the verification plan. Errors, mistakes or other nonconformities have been addressed and corrected. The verification team has carried out its verification in a way to be able to confirm, with a reasonable level of assurance, that the collective effect of any omissions or undetected mistakes on the stated emission reductions does not exceed the above specified materiality level.

Page 13 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Section D Means of verification

D.1 Desk/document review

Based on submitted information on the project idea, its location, relevant stakeholders and the ap- plied methodology, it was agreed to execute the project under an extension of the framework con- tract for UER activities closed between the auditors and Müller-BBM-Cert GmbH. The scope of accreditation of Müller BBM Cert GmbH as accredited validation and verification body covers all relevant scopes of this project activity according to AM0045 and the PDD. Müller BBM Cert GmbH has access to auditors covering the required competences in the sectors related for this activity. The contract complies with the internal requirements of the validation and verification body. The cost estimate ensured that the required personnel and time resources were available for processing. The client confirmed the independence of the verification team members and Müller BBM Cert GmbH in writing.

D.2 On-site inspection

Duration of on-site inspection: 22/11/2020 to 25/11/2020 No. Activity performed on-site Site location Date Team member 1. Opening meeting Meeting room in PP company 22/11/2020 Zhao Xuejiao Interview with PP in Shaya County, Aksu Region, Representative and Xinjiang, People’s Republic of Operation Staff China 2 On-site inspection 2 substations and 29 drilling 22/11/2020~ Zhao Xuejiao teams in western area of 25/11/2020 Tarim oilfield in Shaya County and Baicheng County, Aksu Region, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China 3 Documents check Meeting room in PP company 25/11/2020 Zhao Xuejiao in Baicheng County, Aksu Region, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China 4 Finding Summary Meeting room in PP company 25/11/2020 Zhao Xuejiao in Baicheng County, Aksu Region, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China 5 Closing Meeting Meeting room in PP company 25/11/2020 Zhao Xuejiao in Baicheng County, Aksu Region, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China

Page 14 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

D.3 Interviews

Interviewee Team No. Last name First name Affiliation Date Subject member 1. Shao/I1/ Zhiming PP/Director 22/11/2020 - General aspects of the Xuejiao project Zhao 2 Zhou/I1/ Paibu PP/ 22/11/2020 - Changes since validation Xuejiao - Calibration procedures Technical Zhao - Project operation situation supervisor - Quality management system - Involved personnel and responsibilities - Training and practice of the operational personnel - Implementation of the monitoring plan - Monitoring data management - Data uncertainty and residual risks - Procedural aspects of the verification - Maintenance - Environmental aspects 3 Huang/I2/ Guowei Substation/ 22/11/2020 - Substation Implementation Xuejiao Engineer status Zhao 4 Peng/I2/ Zhenfeng 22/11/2020 - Drilling team connection Xuejiao status Zhao - Technical parameter of 5 Zhao/I2/ Feng Substation/ 22/11/2020 Xuejiao Substation Operator Zhao - Monitoring equipment /I2/ 6 Liu Dazhi 22/11/2020 installation Xuejiao Zhao 7 Zhang/I2/ Haibo 22/11/2020 Xuejiao Zhao 8 Liu/I2/ Deshuai 22/11/2020 Xuejiao Zhao 9 Liu/I2/ Fang Drilling 22/11/2020 - Drilling team connection Xuejiao Team/ status Zhao 10 Li/I2/ Qiang leader 22/11/2020 - Monitoring equipment Xuejiao installation Zhao - Electricity using and 11 Han/I2/ Liang 22/11/2020 Xuejiao purchase status Zhao 12 Song/I2/ Dayu 22/11/2020 Xuejiao Zhao 13 Li/I2/ Zhiguo 22/11/2020 Xuejiao Zhao

Page 15 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Interviewee Team No. Last name First name Affiliation Date Subject member 14 Wang/I2/ Hong 22/11/2020 Xuejiao Zhao 15 Zhang/I3/ Panyue 22/11/2020 Xuejiao Zhao 16 Liu /I3/ Wengui 22/11/2020 Xuejiao Zhao

D.4 Sampling approach

There is no Sampling approach has been used by PP and Verification team during this monitoring period.

D.5 Clarification requests (CL) corrective action requests (CAR) and forward action requests (FAR) raised

Areas of verification findings No. of CL No. of CAR No. of FAR Contents of the monitoring report - CAR 01 - Compliance of the project implementation and CAR 02 - - operation with the registered PDD Post-registration changes - - - Compliance of the registered monitoring plan with the - methodologies including applicable tools and - - standardized baselines Compliance of monitoring activities with the approved - - - monitoring plan Compliance with the calibration frequency - - - requirements for measuring instruments Assessment of data and calculation of emission - - - reductions Approval of the project - - - Offsetting period - - - Others (please specify) - - - Total 0 2 0

Page 16 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Section E Verification findings

E.1 Contents of the monitoring report

Description Means of verification The verification team has reviewed the monitoring report against the requirements of § 18 of UERO/§19b of FO. The following is confirmed Findings ☑ The monitoring report clearly specifies the monitoring period.

☑ The monitoring period, which is identical with the verification period fully lies within the approved offsetting period. ☑ The monitoring period relates to a compliance year

☑ The monitoring report references the project number which has been awarded by the DEHSt ☑ The date when the first upstream emission reductions were achieved as a result of the project activity has been specified. This date has been determined ☑ The monitoring report includes a brief description of the upstream emission measures ☑ The monitoring report includes a description of the technology and equipment installed, ☑ The monitoring report includes information about the relevant dates of the project implementation, including information relating to erection and commissioning as well as to the operating periods. ☑ The monitoring report includes the level of emission reductions in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent attainted during the monitoring period as well as the determination thereof. ☑ OK The project is associated with oil production and for every spring gas/oil ☐ N/A ratio during the monitoring period has been specified. ☑ The monitoring report includes information regarding the implementation of the project activity during the monitoring period. ☑ For each ex-ante defined parameter the following is included in the monitoring report: ☑ the unit of measurement ☑ the source ☑ the recording frequency ☑ a description of the value ☑ For each monitoring parameter the following is included in the monitoring report: ☑ the unit of measurement ☑ the source ☑ the recording frequency ☑ a description of the value ☑ a description of the quality control procedures ☑ the unit of measurement

Page 17 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Description ☑ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context:

☑ CAR CAR 01 was raised. ☐ CL Refer to Appendix 4 for details of finding raised and closed out. ☐ FAR Conclusions ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ The monitoring report complies with § 18 of UERO/19b of FO

E.2 Remaining forward action requests from validation and/or previous verifications

This is the second periodical verification of the project, via checking the 1st periodical verification report of the project/VER/, it is confirmed that there were no remaining Forward Action Requests (FAR) from the validation and 1st periodical verification.

E.3 Compliance of the project implementation and operation with the registered design document

Description Means of verification The verification team has inspected the project site against the project description in the registered Project design document (PDD)/PDD/. By means of on-site inspection and PDD/PDD/&MR/MR/ review, the verification team can confirm the below, Oilfield uses power grid instead of generator retrofit project is located in western area of Tarim oilfield, which is mainly distributed in Shaya County and Baicheng County, Aksu Region, Xinjiang, People’s Republic of China. The location of two substations and relevant service areas are marked in the map of MR/MR/. The map was checked by site inspection by GPS device and also comparing with the description in the PDD and no discrepancy was found. The project is to reduce GHG emissions through switch using diesel generators to supply electricity power to using electricity power from national grid for drilling machines and auxiliary equipment owned by Xinjiang Petrolor Energy Services Co., Ltd.. The two substations, Yueman 110kV in Shaya County and Kezier Keshener 110kV in Baicheng County are newly built and 29 drilling teams were serviced by the project during the monitoring period, while Yueman 110kV substation connected to 15 drilling teams and Kezier Keshener 110kV substation connected to 14 drilling teams. which has been confirmed by site inspection comparing with the PDD and MR. The project boundary covers all the diesel generating units on the oilfield exploration area, two new substations and all power plants physically connected to the electricity system NWPG which has been clearly defined as per the applied methodology/AM0045/. The baseline scenario is the same as the status prior to the implementation of the

Page 18 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Description project, i.e. continuation of the current practice of using diesel generators to supply electricity power for drilling machines and auxiliary equipment which has been determined in the registered PDD/PDD/. The project activity generates GHG emission reductions by fuel switch from petroleum fuel to electricity, thus not only generating GHG emission reductions but also produce financial, social and environmental benefits, which has been verified by checking the Feasibility Study Report/FSR/ and Environment Impact Analysis/EIA/ and interview with PP representatives/I1/ and operation staffs/I2/. The construction of the Yueman Substation started on 07/03/2020 and construction of the Keshen Substation started on 02/03/2020 which has been verified by checking the Substations construction start notice/SCSN/. The Keshen substation has been completed and started to operation on 03/07/2020 and the Yueman substation has been completed and started to operation on 06/07/2020, which has been verified by checking the Substations acceptance sheet/SAS/. And all the drilling teams connected to grid were all in July 2020 that is confirmed in the Grid connection acceptance report/GCAR/. Via checking the nameplate of Transformers by site inspection/NE/, it is verified that the technical data of the main equipment provided in the MR are correct. Further is has been checked if relevant technical equipment of the project activity has been exchanged or modified during the monitoring period and consistent notations of key equipment (meters etc.) in PDD, MR and calculation spreadsheet are applied. Interviews with operational personnel have been carried out, QMS records, maintenance records, instrument specifications were checked in this context. Thus based on the site inspection of the project implementation, it is verified that the implementation and operation of the project is in compliance with the registered PDD/PDD/, there was no any events or situations, which may impact the applicability of the methodology, occurred during this monitoring period was observed by verification team. In particular, it is confirmed that, Findings ☑ The physical project boundary complies with the description in the registered PDD. ☑ The project has been implemented as described in the latest version of the PDD as well as in section B.1 of the monitoring report. ☑ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context:

☑ CAR CAR 02 was raised. ☐ CL Refer to Appendix 4 for details of finding raised and closed out. ☐ FAR Conclusions ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ The project implementation is in full compliance with the registered PDD.

Page 19 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

E.4 Post registration changes

E.4.1 Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan, applied methodologies, standardized baselines and other methodological documents

☑ No temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan, applied methodologies, standardized baselines or other methodological documents have been identified ☐ The following temporary deviations have been identified: #1 Description of deviation Approved ☐ Date of approval Comment: #2 Description of deviation Approved ☐ Date of approval Comment:

Findings ☑ No findings have been raised in this context ☐ The following findings have been raised: #1 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR #2 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR

E.4.2 Corrections

☑ No need for corrections of the registered monitoring plan, or other methodological documents have been identified ☐ The following corrections have been applied: #1 Description of deviation Comment: #2 Description of deviation Comment:

Page 20 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Findings ☑ No findings have been raised in this context ☐ The following findings have been raised: #1 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR #2 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR

E.4.3 Permanent changes from registered monitoring plan, or permanent deviation of monitoring from the applied methodologies, standardized baselines or other methodological documents

☑ No permanent deviations from the registered monitoring plan, applied methodologies, standardized baselines or other methodological documents have been identified. ☐ The following permanent deviations have been identified: #1 Description of deviation Approved ☐ Date of approval Comment: #2 Description of deviation Approved ☐ Date of approval Comment:

Findings ☑ No findings have been raised in this context ☐ The following findings have been raised: #1 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR #2 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR

Page 21 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

E.4.4 Changes to the project design

☑ No changes to the project design from the registered monitoring PDD have been identified ☐ The following design changes have been identified: #1 Description of deviation Approved ☐ Date of approval Comment: #2 Description of deviation Approved ☐ Date of approval Comment:

Findings ☑ No findings have been raised in this context. ☐ The following findings have been raised: #1 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR #2 ☐ CAR ☐ CL ☐ FAR

E.5 Compliance of the registered monitoring plan with applied methodologies, applied standardized baselines and other applied methodological documents

Description Means of verification The verification team has analyzed the content to the approved monitoring plan against the requirements of the applied methodology and the applicable methodological tools (at verification stage) and came to the following conclusions: For monitoring structure, the details of roles and responsibilities for the monitoring is provided in the MR/MR/ and is in line with the information provided in the PDD/PDD/. The responsibilities as listed in the Management Structure of the project is verified by on-site interview with the project owner and checking the monitoring manual/MM/. All required equipment and procedures are available and implemented in an appropriate manner. All necessary monitoring instruments are installed. The measuring devices are well known and state-of-the-art. All required instruments

Page 22 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Description including stand by and operating procedures for the same have been implemented in an appropriate manner. For the metering purpose, according to the PDD/PDD/, the monitoring produces a continuous measurement of the quantity of electricity consumed by the drilling

teams on the oilfield (EGy) by meters (appropriately numbered), which readings are recorded for every drilling team. Refer to Appendix 5 for detail assessment.

The monitoring of the leakage of SF6 from switches is measured at the two newly- built substations through the Circuit breaker inspection record/CBIR/, via checking

the records, it is confirmed that there is no leakage of SF6. Refer to Appendix 5 for detail assessment. Neither failure nor exchange of meters was detected during this monitoring period. The verifier has checked all related calibration certificates and confirms that the calibration of each meter is valid for the entire 2nd monitoring period/CAL/. For data collection, the quantities of electricity supplied to the project activity

from NWPG EGy are measured continuously by meters. Data is recorded and stored in the computer electronically. The computer records the readings of meters for each meter of drilling team, which has been verified by checking the Daily power consumption records exported from computer/DPCR/. The monthly Electricity Transaction Notes including the data of electricity consumption for each drilling team/ETN/ during this monitoring period are used for cross-check which have been verified by the verification team, and it is confirmed that the monthly data on receipts/ETN/ are consistent with the total daily electricity consumption records/DPCR/. QA/QC procedure for meter calibration and data measurement and recording; procedure for monitoring staff training/TRR/ and competence/EQC/ were established and implemented. The data flow and emergency procedure were observed during the on-site verification. In case the monitoring equipment are out of order, no emission reductions will be claimed. Data management and archive procedures are confirmed provide in the MR and have been applied by the project implementation which has been verified by site inspection and checking all the related monitoring records. Findings ☑ The registered monitoring plan is in full compliance with the applied methodology AM0045 version 03.0/AM0045/ ☑ The registered monitoring plan is in full compliance with TOOL 07: “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” Version 07.0/TEF/ ☑ The registered monitoring plan is in full compliance with TOOL 05: “Baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption and monitoring of electricity generation” version 3.0/TBPL/ ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context:

☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusions ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met.

Page 23 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Description ☑ The monitoring plan complies with the applied methodology and the monitoring system and all applied procedures are completely in compliance to the latest approved monitoring plan and the methodology AM0045 version 03.0 and related tools.

E.6 Compliance of the monitoring activities with the registered monitoring plan

E.6.1 Data and parameters fixed ex ante or at renewal of crediting period

Description Means of verification The verification team has checked all ex-ante determined parameters for correct application in the MR and the ER calculation. The following results have been obtained. Findings Parameter Value Unit Correct application

COEFi,j 3.09591 tCO2e/mass or ☑ volume unit

COEFi Refer to Appendix 1 of MR tCO2e/mass or ☑ volume unit

GENj,bl Refer to Appendix 1 of MR MWh ☑

Fi,j,bl Refer to Appendix 1 of MR mass or volume ☑

LTavg, 5.48 years ☑

EFBAT, 0.5138 tCO2e/MWh ☑

EFbl,ini 0.8283 tCO2e/MWh ☑

Adef 0 hectares ☑

TL 0.91 for Yueman Substation % ☑ 2.57 for Kezier Keshener Substation

Sini 150.406 MW ☑

LTi,ini 5.48 years ☑

Lc, 0 tCO2/hectare ☑ ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ All ex ante defined parameters have been applied correctly throughout the Monitoring report and the emission reduction calculation.

Page 24 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

E.6.2 Data and parameters monitored

Description Means of verification The verification team has checked all monitored parameters and the required monitoring equipment. For each equipment it has been checked whether the accuracy requirements have been met and whether all applicable QA/QC requirements incl. calibration have been met. It has further been checked whether the parameter description in the monitoring plan corresponds with the actual situation. Finally, the data aggregation from the original data to the reported value has been checked and recalculated, where applicable. Findings Please refer to table A5-1 in Appendix 5 ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ All monitored parameters have been determined correctly. Where data gaps have occurred, accuracy or QA/QC requirements have not been met appropriate conservative compensations have been applied.

E.6.3 Implementation of sampling plan

Description Means of verification No sampling has been carried out during this verification Findings N/A ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ No sampling has been carried out during this verification

E.7 Compliance with the calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments

Description Means of verification The verification team has checked the calibration data and calibration certificates/CAL/ for all implemented monitoring equipment. Findings Please refer to table A6-1 in Appendix 6 ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL

Page 25 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Description ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ All calibrations have been carried out in line with the requirements of the registered monitoring plan. No delays in calibration have occurred.

E.8 Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions

E.8.1 Calculation of baseline GHG emissions

Description Means of verification The verification team has checked the calculation of baseline emissions in the monitoring report/MR/ and the related ER calculation spread sheet/ER/. In detail it has been checked whether • all underlying non monitored parameters have been considered correctly • All monitored parameters have been considered correctly • The calculations are in line with the approved monitoring plan • The ER calculation spread sheet is free of material errors • The calculation of the energy related baseline emissions has been done correctly The formula used for the determination of baseline emissions is consistent with the registered PDD/PDD/ and applied methodology AM0045/AM0045/, (1) BEy = EGy EFbl,yp

Where for the calculation of EFbl,yp, below formular need to be used according to the PDD/PDD/ and applied methodology AM0045/AM0045/,

(2) If Syp  0 and DSyp yp : EFbl,, yp= EF bl ini

yp (3) Syp= S ini − S ini,2 if yp   LT avg (2 LTavg )

Where:

BEy = Baseline emissions during the year y in t CO2e

EGy = Electricity supplied to the isolated system by the grid in the year yp (MWh)

EFbl,yp = Baseline emission factor (in tCO2e/MWh) of the project (previously isolated system at year yp) Syp = Power that would be supplied in the baseline scenario to previously isolated system in project year yp (MW) if the equipment in the system were not replaced at the end of their lifetime Dyp = Power electricity demand in MW of the project (previously

Page 26 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Description isolated system at year yp) EFbl,ini = Baseline emission factor of the isolated system (tCO2e/MWh) at the time of the interconnection to the grid Sini = Equipment power supply capacity in the isolated system (in MW) at the time of the interconnection to the grid yp = Number of years since the isolated system was interconnected to the grid (project year)

LTavg, = Average remaining lifetime of the equipment used in the isolated system at the time of the interconnection, weighted with the supply capacity of the equipment at the beginning of the project activity

Based on the ex-ante determined value of LTavg and monitoring result of yp, as assessed in Appendix 5 of this report, for this monitoring period,

yp=1 is less than 2×LTavg,= 10.96,

So based on the ex ante determined value of Sini ,

Syp = 150.406 - 150.406 × 1 / (2 × 5.48) = 136.682 MW

Thus Syp >0 and based on the monitoring result of Dyp as assessed in Appendix 5 of

this report, Syp > Dyp, then EFbl,yp = EFbl,ini which has been ex ante determined as

0.8283 tCO2/MWh.

Finally, for this monitoring period, based on the monitoring result of EGy as assessed in Appendix 5 of this report, the baseline emission is calculated as below

BEy = EGy EFbl,yp

= 108,442.980MWh×0.8283 tCO2/MWh

=89,823.320 tCO2 The total baseline emissions for this project is the sum of two months values which the calculation results have been listed clearly in the ER sheet/ER/ and MR/MR/ and have been verified and re-calculated by verifier.

Findings ☑ All required calculations have been demonstrated by the project proponents ☑ The calculation of baseline emissions is fully traceable and transparent ☑ No mistakes have occurred to calculate the baseline emissions ☑ The final baseline emissions value reported is deemed to be correct ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ The calculation of baseline emissions has been done correctly. This also includes the energy related baseline values.

Page 27 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

E.8.2 Calculation of project GHG emissions

Description Means of verification The verification team has checked the calculation of project emissions in the monitoring report and the related ER calculation spread sheet/ER/. In detail it has been checked whether • all underlying non monitored parameters have been considered correctly. • All monitored parameters have been considered correctly • The calculations are in line with the approved monitoring plan • The ER calculation spread sheet is free of material errors. • The calculation of the energy related project emissions has been done correctly. The formula used for the determination of project emissions is consistent with the PDD/PDD/ and applied methodology/AM0045/:

푃퐸푦 = (퐸퐺푦 × 퐸퐹푝,푦) × (푇퐿 + 1) + 푃퐸푆퐹6,푦 (4)

푃퐸푆퐹6,푦 = 푀푆퐹6,푦 × 퐺푊푃푆퐹6 (5) Where:

PEy = Project emissions during the year y in t CO2e

EFp,y = The project emission factor as given in the methodology is equivalent to the combined margin of the NWGP as determined with the Tool to calculate the emission factor for

an electricity system”/Version 7.0 (tCO2/MWh) TL = Incremental transmission losses (1.0 ≥ TL ≥ 0.0) of the project activity over and above those in the isolated area

PESF6,y = SF6 used in the new equipment of the project activity during

the year y in tonnes of CO2e

MSF6,y = Average quantity of SF6 leaks in the equipment during year y in tonnes of SF6. The value shall be determined using the equipment manufacturer’s information and/or amount of SF6 injected in the equipment during maintenance to maintain their operation standards

GWPSF6 = Global warming potential of Sulphur hexafluoriode (22,800 is the value for first commitment period) As per the PDD/PDD/ and “Tool to calculate emission factor for an electricity system” /TEF/ (Version 07.0) , EFp,,,,,,, y= EF grid CM y =0.5  EF grid OM y + 0.5  EF grid BM y

Where EFOM, y is same as EFgrid,, OM y and EFBM, y is same as EFgrid,, BM y

Via checking the calculation process of EFgrid,OM,y, EFgrid,BM,y and EFp,y in MR, it is verified that the process is in line with the tool/TEF/ and based on the results of

monitoring parameters EFOM,y, EFBM,y and EFp,y as assessed in the Appendix 5 of this

report, it is confirmed that EFp,y =0.6089 tCO2e/MWh

Page 28 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Description While for PESF6,y, based on the monitoring result of MSF6,y as assessed in the Appendix 5 of this report, for this monitoring period, no SF6 was added to the project, thus the Project emissions from SF6 leaks is calculated as 0. In conclusion, for this monitoring period, based on the different TL value for two substations based on the results of monitoring parameter TL as assessed in the Appendix 5 of this report, the project emission is calculated as below,

푃퐸푦 = (퐸퐺푦 × 퐸퐹푝,푦) × (푇퐿 + 1) + 푃퐸푆퐹6,푦

= (53,694.747MWh × 0.6089 tCO2/MWh) × (0.91%+1)+ (54,748.233MWh × 0.6089

tCO2/MWh) ×(2.57%+1)+0

= 67,185.194 tCO2e The total Project emissions from the consumption of electricity by drilling teams for this project is the sum of two substations and two months values which the calculation results have been listed clearly in the ER sheet/ER/ and MR/MR/ and have been verified and re-calculated by verifier.

Thus, for this monitoring period, PEy= 67,185.194 tCO2e.

Findings ☑ All required calculations have been demonstrated by the project proponents ☑ The calculation of project emissions is fully traceable and transparent ☑ No mistakes have occurred to calculate the project emissions ☑ The final project emissions value reported is deemed to be correct ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ The calculation of project emissions has been done correctly. This also includes the energy related project values.

E.8.3 Calculation of leakage emissions

Description Means of verification No leakage calculation has been presented in the MR according to the registered PDD/PDD/ and EIA/EIA/. Findings ☑ No leakage has been considered to calculate the UER emission reductions. The verification team confirms that no leakage effects need to be considered for this project during the current monitoring period ☐ All required calculations have been demonstrated by the project proponents ☐ The calculation of leakage emissions is fully traceable and transparent

Page 29 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Description ☐ No mistakes have occurred to calculate the leakage emissions ☐ The final leakage emissions value reported is deemed to be correct ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ No leakage emissions were to be considered for this project during the current monitoring period.

E.8.4 Summary calculation of upstream emission reductions

Description Means of verification Considering baseline, project and where applicable leakage emissions the UER value has been calculated. The verification team has checked this calculation and confirms the following: Emission reductions are calculated as follows:

퐸푅푦 = 퐵퐸푦 − 푃퐸푦 − 퐿퐸푦 (6)

Where:

ERy = Emission reductions in year y, (tCO2e)

BEy = Baseline emissions in year y, (tCO2e)

PEy = Project emissions in year y, (tCO2e)

LEy = Leakage emissions in year y, (tCO2e)

Based on the above calculation of BEy and PEy, During this monitoring period, the emission reduction is calculated as below table Baseline Project Leakage Emission Parameters Emissions Emissions Emissions Reductions

BEy PEy LEy ERy

(kgCO2e) (kgCO2e) (kgCO2e) (kgCO2e) Period

01/10/2020- 89,823,320 67,185,194 0 22,638,126 30/11/2020

Findings ☑ The calculation of upstream emission reductions has been done correctly. ☑ The final UER value reported is deemed to be correct ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL

Page 30 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Description ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ The upstream emission reduction value has correctly been calculated from baseline, project and leakage emissions as per UER = BE-PE-LE.

E.8.5 Comparison of actual of upstream emission reductions with estimates in the approved PDD

Description Means of verification The verification team has compared the ex-ante determined value with the actual value achieved during the current monitoring period. Via checking the actual value in MR comparing with the PDD, it is verified that the

actual Emission reduction value of 22,638.126 tCO2e is 15.41% more than the

estimated emission reduction of 19,615.763 tCO2e (117,373.011 tCO2e /365 d *61 d) in the registered UER PDD during this monitoring period. And the reason provided is confirmed as plausible by site interview with the project implementer/I1/ and considering the effect by COVID-19 epidemic. Furthermore, this monitoring period only covered two months, thus the higher ER value for a short period can’t represent the actual higher value will be achieved during the whole offsetting period, as the annual value will be the average one and the data for each day is not stable for this kind of project which is confirmed based on the verification team’s expertise. It is concluded that there is no significant deviation from the ex-ante determined value have occurred for this monitoring period. Findings ☑ No significant deviations from the ex-ante determined value have occurred ☐ The actual value of achieved UER during the current monitoring period differs significantly from the ex ante determined value. However, The differences are not due to reasons which would have an effect on the project approval The size category of the project (large / small scale) is not affected by this difference The materiality level considered during the planning stage of the verification was not to be revised. ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ Differences of the upstream emission reductions determined during the current monitoring period are either not significant or don´t raise issues which would have affected the project approval or the verification planning.

Page 31 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

E.9 Approval

Description Means of verification The verification team has checked whether the project has duly been approved and all approval conditions for approval have been met. The following is confirmed. Findings ☑ The project has duly been approved by the Federal Environmental Agency of Germany. The approval no. is XVDG, which is verified by checking the dedicated website/dehst/. ☑ All preconditions for approval were present in relation the project activity during the verification period ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ The project complies with the approval conditions.

E.10 Offsetting period

Description Means of verification The verification team has checked whether the offsetting period has been correctly considered and whether the monitoring and verification period is completely within this offsetting period and has not been considered for previous verifications. Findings ☑ The offsetting period is correctly been determined to start on 18/08/2020 and lasts until 17/08/2021 (last day). ☑ The current monitoring period lies completely within the offsetting period ☑ The first day of the current monitoring period is either the first day of the current offsetting period or the first day following the last day of the previous monitoring period. ☐ The following finding(s) have been identified in this context: ☐ CAR N/A ☐ CL ☐ FAR Conclusion ☐ The above listed findings could finally not be closed out. This requirement is not met. ☑ The current monitoring period is completely within the offsetting period and the first day of the current monitoring period is the first day of the current offsetting period.

Page 32 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Section F Internal quality control Upon finalization of the verification report by the verification team a technical review of the whole verification process was carried out. The technical review team consists of competent GHG auditors which are duly appointed for the project scope. The technical reviewers have not been involved in any steps of the decision-making process up to this stage. The technical review encompasses a procedural as well as a technical check. Following a risk-based approach the technical reviewers are to confirm that - the verification has been carried out by personnel meeting the applicable competence and impartiality requirements, - the verification process has been carried out in line with the internal verification procedures, - the conclusions drawn are transparent and in line with the applicable criteria for verification considering the country and scheme specific requirements, - the derived upstream emissions reduction value has been derived correctly meeting the applicable accuracy requirements.

In case of identified nonconformities or unclear statements the verification team will be asked to respond to such requests and to carry out required corrections and/or clarifications in the verification report and the supplementary documentation, if applicable. After the successful technical review the final approval of the complete verification process is carried out by a senior assessor located in the accredited premises of Müller BBM Cert. Finally, the duly signed and authorized report will be submitted to the client.

Page 33 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Section G Verification opinion The Mabanaft GmbH & Co. KG has commissioned Müller BBM Cert GmbH to carry out the verification of the 2nd monitoring period of the UER project “Oilfield uses power grid instead of generator retrofit project” with regard to the requirements ISO 14064 Pts. 2 and 3 and the requirements of the EU member state specific Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Regulations Guidance and German UERO. Monitoring period: From 01/10/2020 to 30/11/2020 (incl.). The assessments are based on the 2nd monitoring report, the validated project design document, including the monitoring plan, the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet and supporting documents made available to the verification team by the project participant. In detail the conclusions can be summarised as follows: - The verification has been carried in out in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14064 Pts. 2 and 3, the EU member state specific Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Regulations Guidance as well as relevant parts of the Regulation (EU) No 600/2012 as repealed and replaced by Regulation No 2018/2067 and German UERO. - The project only involves activities related to oil production located upstream to the raw material entering a refinery or a processing plant. - The preconditions for approval of the project by the Federal Environmental Agency of Germany were found to present during the verification period. - The project has been carried out in full accordance with the registered project design document or approved deviations thereof. - The monitoring activities are consistent with the registered monitoring plan – or approved deviations thereof. - The monitoring report includes all mandatory information as required by the EU member state specific GHG reporting regulation, - The calibration frequency requirements of the respective measuring instruments have been met, or in case of deviations these have been approved. - All used data and calculations required to determine the upstream emissions reduction value achieved during the verification period have been checked and it can be confirmed that the final UER value has been determined without material misstatements.

Müller BBM Cert GmbH herewith confirms that the project has achieved upstream emission reductions during the current verification period from 01/10/2020 to 30/11/2020 (incl.) as follows:

GHG Emission Reductions or Removal Enhancements kgCO2e Baseline Emissions 89,823,320 Project Emissions 67,185,194 Leakage 0 Net GHG emission reductions 22,638,126

Page 34 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Berlin, 03/12/2020 Kerpen, 06/12/2020

Mr. Martin Beckmann Dr. Joerg Zens Verification Team Leader Approval

Page 35 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Appendix 1: Abbreviations

Abbreviations Full texts BE Baseline Emissions CAR Corrective Action Request CDM UNFCCC Clean development mechanism CL Clarification Request DAkkS Deutsche Akkreditierungsstelle DEHSt Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle EI External Individual FAR Forward Action Request FSR Feasibility Study Report GHG Green House Gas ISO International Standard Organization LE Leakage Emissions LP Lead partner(s) (as defined by the UERO) MP Monitoring period = verification period MPE Maximum Permissible Error NWPG North West Power Grid PDD Project Design Document PE Project Emissions UER Upstream Emission Reduction UERO Upstream Emission Reduction Ordinance FO Fuel Ordinance VB Verification Body UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

Page 36 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Appendix 2: Certificates of verification team members Team Leader: Mr. Martin Beckmann

Page 37 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Page 38 of 70 MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Auditor: Ms Xuejiao (Fancy) Zhao

Page 39 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Page 40 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Dr Joerg Zens (Technical Reviewer)

Page 41 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Page 42 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Assistant Technical Reviewer. Dr. Matthias Bender

Page 43 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Page 44 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Appendix 3: Documents reviewed or referenced

No. Author Title References to the document Provider 1. Xinjiang Research Calibration Calibration certificate for 29 meters PP Institute of certificates /CAL/ installed in each drilling team covering Measurement &Testing this monitoring period 2. Chuan Kai Electric Co., Circuit breaker SF6 circuit breaker equipment PP Ltd., equipment manufacture specifications TGOOD, manufacture Southern High Voltage specification Electric Co., Ltd. /CBEMS/ 3. PP Circuit breaker Circuit breaker inspection record PP inspection covering this monitoring period record/CBIR/ 4. China National Certificate of Certificate of Metrological PP Accreditation Service Metrological Authorization of Xinjiang Research for Conformity Authorization Institute of Measurement &Testing, Assessment (CNAS) /CMA/ valid from 12/06/2018 to 11/06/2024 5. Project site DCS DCS records checked by site visit N/A records/DCS/ 6. PP Daily power Daily power consumption records PP consumption exported from computer records /DPCR/ 7. Xinjiang TH Environment a) EIA for Shaya Project issued by PP Environmental Impact Xinjiang TH Environmental Technology Consulting Analysis/EIA/ Technology Consulting Co. dated in Co. & August 2019 Keshener Project b) EIA for Keshener Project issued by issued by Xinjiang TH Xinjiang TH Environmental Environmental Technology Consulting Co. dated in Technology Consulting October 2019 Co. 8. PP and drilling Electricity Monthly Electricity Transaction Notes PP companies Transaction including the data of electricity Notes/ETN/ consumption for each drilling team 9. PP Employment Employment Qualification Certificate PP Qualification Certificate/EQC/ 10. Consultant Emission Emission Reduction Calculation sheet Consultant Reduction of project “Oilfield uses power grid Calculation instead of generator retrofit project” sheet/ER/ related to 2nd MR Version 2.0, dated 01/12/2020 11. …Aksu HT Electric Feasibility Study a) FSR for Shaya Project issued by Aksu PP Industry Development Report/FSR/ HT Electric Industry Development Co., Co., Ltd. & Ltd. in Jan 2019

Page 45 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

No. Author Title References to the document Provider Beijing ZH b) FSR for Keshener Project issued by International Beijing ZH International Engineering Engineering Technology Consulting Co., Ltd. Technology Consulting Xinjinang branch in September 2019 Co. , Ltd. 12. PP and drilling Grid connection Grid connection acceptance report PP company acceptance dated in July 2020 report/GCAR/ 13. PP Hourly output Hourly output load records of two PP load substations records/HOLR/ 14. PP Monitoring Monitoring manual in May 2020 PP manual/MM/ 15. Consultant Monitoring Monitoring Report of project “Oilfield Consultant Report/MR/ uses power grid instead of generator retrofit project” • Draft Version 1.0, dated 20/11/2020 • Draft Version 2.0, dated 01/12/20202 • Final Version 2.1, dated 02/12/2020 16. Verification team Nameplate of Photo of Nameplates of equipment N/A equipment/NE/ taken by verifier during site inspection 17. PP and the NWPG Power purchase 1. PPA Signed between the owner and PP PP and drilling agreements the NWPG dated 10/03/2020 company /PPA/ 2. PPA signed between the owner and the drilling company dated 18/03/2020 18. Aksu Hongtong Electric Substations Substations construction start notice PP Industry Development construction for two substations dated on Co., Ltd. start 02/03/2020 and 07/03/2020 notice/SCSN/ 19. Aksu Hongtong Electric Substations Substations acceptance sheet for two PP Industry Development acceptance substations dated on 03/07/2020 and Co., Ltd. sheet/SAS/ 06/07/2020 20. PP Training Staff Training record during this PP Record/TRR/ monitoring period

2 PLS note that before the site visit, PP provided the Draft Version 01 of MR, dated 20/11/2020 without complete set value for November 2020, but finished all the data on 01/12/2020, so the findings were issued based on the Draft Version 02 of MR with complete data set so that to be clearly reflect this monitoring period.

Page 46 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

No. Author Title References to the document Provider 21. UNFCCC AM0045/AM0045/ CDM Approved methodology AM0045 UNFCCC “Grid Connection of Isolated Electricity Systems” (version 03.0) 22. China Electric Power China Electric 2016, 2017 and 2018 China Electric Public Press Power Power Yearbook website Yearbook/CEPY/ 23. State Statistical China Energy 2016, 2017 and 2018 China Energy Public Bureau Statistical Statistical Yearbook website Yearbook/CESY/ 24. EU Directive (EU) Directive (EU) 2015/652 Public 2015/652/DEU/ website 25. National Energy DL/T448－ “Technical administrative code of Public Bureau 2016/DLT/ electric energy metering (DL/T448 － website 2016)” 26. EU Fuel quality Directive 98/70/EC (Fuel quality Public directive/FQD/ directive) website 27. ISO ISO14064, Greenhouse gases -- Part 1: Public ISO14065, Specification with guidance at the website ISO14066 organization level for quantification /ISO14064/ and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions and removals as of May 2012 Greenhouse gases -- Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements as of May 2012 Greenhouse gases -- Part 3: Specification with guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions as of May 2012 28. General Administration JJG 596- “Verification Regulations for Public of Quality Supervision, 2012/JJG596/ Electronic AC Energy Meters” (JJG 596- website Inspection and 2012) Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China 29. Consultant Project Design UER Project Design Document for Consultant Document/PDD/ project “Oilfield uses power grid instead of generator retrofit project”, version 1.1, dated on 02/06/2020 30. Verification team Photo taken Photo taken during site visit by N/A during site verification team visit/PHT/

Page 47 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

No. Author Title References to the document Provider 31. China Government Public “Electric power law of the people's National policies/PP/ Republic of China”, public “Environmental protection law of the website people's Republic of China”, “Law of the people's Republic of China on the prevention and control of environmental noise pollution”, “Production safety law of the people's Republic of China” 32. UNFCCC Tool of Baseline, CDM methodological tool “Baseline, UNFCCC project and/or project and/or leakage emissions from leakage electricity consumption and emissions/TBPL/ monitoring of electricity generation” version 3.0 33. UNFCCC Tool of EF/TEF/ CDM methodological tool “Tool to UNFCCC calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” Version 07.0.0 34. German DEHSt Upstream Upstream Emissions Reduction Public Emissions Ordinance (UERO) dated 22 January website Reduction 2018 Ordinance (UERO)/UERO/ 35. Verico SCE Validation Validation Report, version 1.0 dated PP Report/VAL/ 24/06/2020 36. MBBM 1st periodical 1st periodical verification report, N/A verification version 1.0, dated 24/10/2020 report/VER/ 37. DEHSt UER dedicated https://www.dehst.de/EN/climate- Public website in projects_maritime- website Germany /dehst/ transport/UERV/projects_fuel_sector _node.html

Page 48 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Appendix 4: Clarification requests, corrective action requests and forward action requests

Table A4-1: Remaining FAR from validation and/or previous verifications

FAR ID Xx Section no. Date: DD/MM/YYYY Description of FAR

Project participant response Date: DD/MM/YYYY

Documentation provided by project participant

VB assessment Date: DD/MM/YYYY

Table A4-2: CL from this verification

CL ID XX Section no. - Date: DD/MM/YYYY Description of CL

Project participant response Date: DD/MM/YYYY

Documentation provided by project participant

VB assessment Date: DD/MM/YYYY

Table A4-3: CAR from this verification

CAR ID 01 Section no. A.3 Date: 01/12/2020 Description of CAR For section A.3 of MR, the values of gas/oil ratio are from PDD but not relevant to this monitoring period, revision is requested. Project participant response Date: 02/12/2020 The project activity supplies electricity to the oilfield drilling teams which still under drilling, the wells does not start producing oil yet. Thus the project activity not related to the gas/oil ratio in this monitoring period. Gas/oil ratio averaged over the preceding five calendar years in the surrounding block is provided as reference. A footnote has been added in section A.3 of the MR for clarification. Documentation provided by project participant MR version 2.0/MR/ VB assessment Date: 02/12/2020

Page 49 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

The revised section A.3 of MR is checked, it is confirmed that the reason for the values of gas/oil ratio only from PDD but not relevant to this monitoring period has been clarified. Via site visit, it is verified that the project activity supplies electricity to the oilfield drilling teams which still under drilling, the wells does not start producing oil yet, so no oil value could be obtained, so the Gas/oil ratio averaged over the preceding five calendar years from PDD is listed for reference. CAR 01 is closed.

CAR ID 02 Section no. B.1&D.2 Date: 01/12/2020 Description of CAR For section B.1 of MR, the monitoring period until 30/11/2020 while the date was stated as 31/11/2020 have to be corrected. See section D.2 table 6 for date as well. Project participant response Date: 02/12/2020 The incorrect date has been revised in the updated MR. Documentation provided by project participant MR version 2.0/MR/ VB assessment Date: 02/12/2020 The revised section B.1 and D.2 of MR is checked, it is confirmed that the dates of 31/11/2020 is a typo and has been revised to 30/11/2020 correctly. CAR 02 is closed.

Table A4-4: FAR from this verification FAR ID Xx Section No. Date: DD/MM/YYYY Description of FAR

Project participant response Date: DD/MM/YYYY

Documentation provided by project participant

DOE assessment Date: DD/MM/YYYY

Page 50 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Appendix 5: Monitored parameters

Table A5-1: Monitored parameters Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment

1 EFOM,y CO2 operating N/A 0.9030 First, the verification team has ☒ The monitoring parameter des- OK OK

margin emission tCO2/MWh checked all related monitoring cription in the MR is deemed to be factor of the grid equipment from which the correct. reported monitoring parameter ☒ The accuracy requirements as per has been derived. (EU) 601/2012 are met or conservative EFOM,y is calculated from the data corrections have been applied. derived from the 2016, 2017 and ☒ Data gaps have not occurred or been 2018 China Energy Statistical closed in line with the applied Yearbook/CESY/ and 2016, 2017 and methodology or (EU) 601/2012. 2018 China Electric Power ☒ The QA/QC have been applied in line /CEPY/ Yearbook . with the MP And the calculation method is ☒ Calibration requirements have been verified as in line with the “Tool to met for the related monitoring calculate emission factor for an equipment (refer to A6-1). In case of electricity system” version delayed calibration an appropriate /TEF/ 07.0.0. adjustment has been considered Secondly, for each equipment it ☒ The data aggregation for this para- has been checked whether the meter has been done correctly and accuracy requirements have been where mistakes have been identified met and whether all applicable these have been corrected. QA/QC requirements incl. ☒ The reported value is deemed to be calibration have been met. It has correct. further been checked whether the parameter description in the

Page 51 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment monitoring plan corresponds with the actual situation. The 2016, 2017 and 2018 China Energy Statistical Yearbook/CESY/ and 2016, 2017 and 2018 China Electric Power Yearbook/CEPY/ are confirmed as the latest available data source obtained for this monitoring period. Finally, the data aggregation from the original data to the reported value has been checked and recalculated, where applicable. The data used in the MR is confirmed as the correct value calculated via checking the 2016, 2017 and 2018 China Energy Statistical Yearbook/CESY/ and 2016, 2017 and 2018 China Electric Power Yearbook/CEPY/. In conclusion, the value calculated in the MR is in line with the values in the evidence and corrected calculated in ER sheet for the project.

Page 52 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment

2 EFBM,y CO2 build N/A 0.3147 First, the verification team has ☒ The monitoring parameter des- OK OK margin emission tCO2/MWh checked all related monitoring cription in the MR is deemed to be factor of the grid equipment from which the correct. reported monitoring parameter ☒ The accuracy requirements as per has been derived. (EU) 601/2012 are met or conservative

EFBM,y is calculated from the data corrections have been applied. derived from the 2016, 2017 and ☒ Data gaps have not occurred or been 2018 China Energy Statistical closed in line with the applied Yearbook/CESY/ and 2016, 2017 and methodology or (EU) 601/2012. 2018 China Electric Power ☒ The QA/QC have been applied in line /CEPY/ Yearbook . with the MP And the calculation method is ☒ Calibration requirements have been verified as in line with the “Tool to met for the related monitoring calculate emission factor for an equipment (refer to A6-1). In case of electricity system” version delayed calibration an appropriate /TEF/ 07.0.0. adjustment has been considered Secondly, for each equipment it ☒ The data aggregation for this para- has been checked whether the meter has been done correctly and accuracy requirements have been where mistakes have been identified met and whether all applicable these have been corrected. QA/QC requirements incl. ☒ The reported value is deemed to be calibration have been met. It has correct. further been checked whether the parameter description in the monitoring plan corresponds with the actual situation. The 2016, 2017 and 2018 China Energy Statistical Yearbook/CESY/ and 2016, 2017 and 2018 China

Page 53 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment Electric Power Yearbook/CEPY/ are confirmed as the latest available data source obtained for this monitoring period. Finally, the data aggregation from the original data to the reported value has been checked and recalculated, where applicable. The data used in the MR is confirmed as the correct value calculated via checking the 2016, 2017 and 2018 China Energy Statistical Yearbook/CESY/ and 2016, 2017 and 2018 China Electric Power Yearbook/CEPY/. In conclusion, the value calculated in the MR is in line with the values in the evidence and corrected calculated in ER sheet for the project.

3 EFP CO2 emission N/A 0.6089 First, the verification team has ☒ The monitoring parameter des- OK OK factor of the grid tCO2/MWh checked all related monitoring cription in the MR is deemed to be equipment from which the correct. reported monitoring parameter ☒ The accuracy requirements as per has been derived. (EU) 601/2012 are met or conservative EFP is calculated from the corrections have been applied. monitoring parameters of EFOM,y

Page 54 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment

and EFBM,y using the below ☒ Data gaps have not occurred or been formular closed in line with the applied

EFP,y = EFOM,y ×0.5 + EFBM,y × 0.5 methodology or (EU) 601/2012. And the calculation method is ☒ The QA/QC have been applied in line verified as in line with the “Tool to with the MP calculate emission factor for an ☒ Calibration requirements have been electricity system” version met for the related monitoring 07.0.0./TEF/ equipment (refer to A6-1). In case of Secondly, for each equipment it delayed calibration an appropriate has been checked whether the adjustment has been considered accuracy requirements have been ☒ The data aggregation for this para- met and whether all applicable meter has been done correctly and QA/QC requirements incl. where mistakes have been identified calibration have been met. It has these have been corrected. further been checked whether the ☒ The reported value is deemed to be parameter description in the correct. monitoring plan corresponds with the actual situation.

EFP is a calculated value. Finally, the data aggregation from the original data to the reported value has been checked and recalculated, where applicable.

EFP is calculated from the

monitoring parameters of EFOM,y and EFBM,y using the below formular

EFP,y = EFOM,y ×0.5 + EFBM,y × 0.5

Page 55 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment And the calculation method is verified as in line with the “Tool to calculate emission factor for an electricity system” version 07.0.0./TEF/ In conclusion, the value calculated in the MR is in line with the values in the evidence and corrected calculated in ER sheet for the project.

4 MSF6,y SF6 leaks in the N/A 0 Tonnes of First, the verification team has ☒ The monitoring parameter des- OK OK

new equipment SF6 checked all related monitoring cription in the MR is deemed to be of the project equipment from which the correct. activity during reported monitoring parameter ☒ The accuracy requirements as per year y in mass has been derived. (EU) 601/2012 are met or conservative unit MSF6,y is measured by checking the corrections have been applied. daily Circuit breaker inspection ☒ Data gaps have not occurred or been /CBIR/ record , via checking the SF6 closed in line with the applied circuit breaker equipment methodology or (EU) 601/2012. /CBEMS/ manufacture specification , ☒ The QA/QC have been applied in line it is confirmed that SF6 is only with the MP allowed to be added when the ☒ Calibration requirements have been power is off for maintenance. met for the related monitoring While, via the daily Circuit breaker equipment (refer to A6-1). In case of inspection record/CBIR/ for this delayed calibration an appropriate monitoring period, it is verified adjustment has been considered that there was no power outage for maintenance occurred. ☒ The data aggregation for this para- meter has been done correctly and

Page 56 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment Secondly, for each equipment it where mistakes have been identified has been checked whether the these have been corrected. accuracy requirements have been ☒ The reported value is deemed to be met and whether all applicable correct. QA/QC requirements incl. calibration have been met. It has further been checked whether the parameter description in the monitoring plan corresponds with the actual situation.

MSF6,y is measured by checking the daily Circuit breaker inspection record/CBIR/, no monitoring equipment involved. The monitoring frequency is conservative comparing the yearly determined in the PDD. Finally, the data aggregation from the original data to the reported value has been checked and recalculated, where applicable. Via checking the Circuit breaker inspection record/CBIR/ for this monitoring period, it is verified that there was no power outage

for maintenance. The SF6 circuit breaker equipment manufacture specification/CBEMS/ is used for cross-check, it is confirmed that

Page 57 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment based on the equipment manufacturer’s information, a warning will be sent when the leakage of SF6 causes the change of gas pressure. Hence following the information, the leakage of SF6 can also be checked for cross- check the status of leakage of SF6.

Hence, no SF6 leaks occurred during this monitoring period. In conclusion, the value calculated in the MR is in line with the values in the evidence and correctly used in ER sheet for the project. 5 Public Verification and N/A N/A First, the verification team has ☒ The monitoring parameter des- OK OK policies evaluation of checked all related monitoring cription in the MR is deemed to be financial and equipment from which the correct. institutional reported monitoring parameter ☒ The accuracy requirements as per arrangements has been derived. (EU) 601/2012 are met or conservative that could help Public policies is checked by corrections have been applied. the verification and evaluation of ☒ Data gaps have not occurred or been implementation financial and institutional closed in line with the applied of the project arrangements that could help the methodology or (EU) 601/2012. implementation of the project ☒ The QA/QC have been applied in line based on publicly available with the MP official data and/ or literature. ☒ Calibration requirements have been Secondly, for each equipment it met for the related monitoring has been checked whether the equipment (refer to A6-1). In case of

Page 58 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment accuracy requirements have been delayed calibration an appropriate met and whether all applicable adjustment has been considered QA/QC requirements incl. ☒ The data aggregation for this para- calibration have been met. It has meter has been done correctly and further been checked whether the where mistakes have been identified parameter description in the these have been corrected. monitoring plan corresponds ☒ The reported value is deemed to be with the actual situation. correct. N/A, no equipment involved. Finally, the data aggregation from the original data to the reported value has been checked and recalculated, where applicable. via checking the relevant regulations or laws involved/PP/, it is verified that publicly available official data and/ or literature used for checking the monitored value are correct and reasonable. And based on these policies, it is verified that there were no financial and institutional arrangements that could help the implementation of the project during this monitoring period.

6 Dyp Power demand N/A 89.972 MW First, the verification team has ☒ The monitoring parameter des- OK OK of the project checked all related monitoring cription in the MR is deemed to be activity scenario equipment from which the correct.

Page 59 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment reported monitoring parameter ☒ The accuracy requirements as per has been derived. (EU) 601/2012 are met or conservative

Dyp is derived from Hourly output corrections have been applied. load records/HOLR/, which including ☒ Data gaps have not occurred or been the hourly records of output load closed in line with the applied for two substations. methodology or (EU) 601/2012. The value for this monitoring ☒ The QA/QC have been applied in line period is calculated by the sum of with the MP maximum real-time output load ☒ Calibration requirements have been on the 110kV high voltage side of met for the related monitoring Yueman substation (44.756 MW) equipment (refer to A6-1). In case of and Kezier Keshen substation delayed calibration an appropriate (45.216 MW). adjustment has been considered The monitoring frequency for this ☒ The data aggregation for this para- monitoring period is hourly which meter has been done correctly and is verified as more often than where mistakes have been identified yearly in PDD. these have been corrected. Secondly, for each equipment it ☒ The reported value is deemed to be has been checked whether the correct. accuracy requirements have been met and whether all applicable QA/QC requirements incl. calibration have been met. It has further been checked whether the parameter description in the monitoring plan corresponds with the actual situation. N/A, no equipment involved.

Page 60 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment Finally, the data aggregation from the original data to the reported value has been checked and recalculated, where applicable. Via checking the Hourly output load records/HOLR/, it is verified that the real output load for this monitoring period is correct.

The value of Dyp is directly measured during this monitoring period which is confirmed as conservative than the estimated value in PDD that is derived from FSR/FSR/. Hence the actual measured value is used for this monitoring period which is confirmed as in compliance with the methodology. In conclusion, the value calculated in the MR is in line with the values in the evidence and correctly used in ER sheet for the project.

7 Syp Power supply of N/A 136.682 MW First, the verification team has ☒ The monitoring parameter des- OK OK the displaced checked all related monitoring cription in the MR is deemed to be power plants in equipment from which the correct. isolated area in reported monitoring parameter ☒ The accuracy requirements as per the baseline has been derived. (EU) 601/2012 are met or conservative scenario corrections have been applied.

Page 61 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment

Syp is calculated using equation 2 ☒ Data gaps have not occurred or been and equation 3 of AM0045 version closed in line with the applied 03.0 which has been defined in methodology or (EU) 601/2012. the PDD ☒ The QA/QC have been applied in line 푦푝 with the MP 푆푦푝 = 푆푖푛푖 − 푆푖푛푖 × , (2 × 퐿푇푎푣푔) ☒ Calibration requirements have been met for the related monitoring 푖푓 푦푝 ≤ 2 × 퐿푇푎푣푔 equipment (refer to A6-1). In case of Thus it is calculated from the delayed calibration an appropriate parameters fixed ex ante of Sini, adjustment has been considered and LTavg and monitoring ☒ The data aggregation for this para- parameter of yp. meter has been done correctly and Refer to section E.6.1 for ex ante where mistakes have been identified values and the below table for these have been corrected. assessment of yp. ☒ The reported value is deemed to be Secondly, for each equipment it correct. has been checked whether the accuracy requirements have been met and whether all applicable QA/QC requirements incl. calibration have been met. It has further been checked whether the parameter description in the monitoring plan corresponds with the actual situation. N/A, no equipment involved. Finally, the data aggregation from the original data to the reported

Page 62 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment value has been checked and recalculated, where applicable. Via checking the fixed ex ante value of Sini, and LTavg and result of monitoring parameter of yp, it is verified that the calculation result of Syp is correct. In conclusion, the value calculated in the MR is in line with the values used in ER sheet for the project. 8 yp Number of years N/A 1 year First, the verification team has ☒ The monitoring parameter des- OK OK since the checked all related monitoring cription in the MR is deemed to be isolated area is equipment from which the correct. connected to the reported monitoring parameter ☒ The accuracy requirements as per grid. The project has been derived. (EU) 601/2012 are met or conservative may include yp is calculated by counting the corrections have been applied. different number of years from the date of ☒ Data gaps have not occurred or been isolated areas connection to the year y in the closed in line with the applied being connected crediting period. Where, the date methodology or (EU) 601/2012. to the grid at of connection by each isolated ☒ The QA/QC have been applied in line different years area, i.e. drilling team is with the MP within the confirmed by checking the Grid ☒ Calibration requirements have been crediting period. connection acceptance met for the related monitoring report/GCAR/, which records dates equipment (refer to A6-1). In case of of connection to the grid of each delayed calibration an appropriate drilling team. adjustment has been considered Secondly, for each equipment it has been checked whether the

Page 63 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment accuracy requirements have been ☒ The data aggregation for this para- met and whether all applicable meter has been done correctly and QA/QC requirements incl. where mistakes have been identified calibration have been met. It has these have been corrected. further been checked whether the ☒ The reported value is deemed to be parameter description in the correct. monitoring plan corresponds with the actual situation. N/A, no equipment involved. Finally, the data aggregation from the original data to the reported value has been checked and recalculated, where applicable.

yp is calculated as 1 due to the date of connection to grid were all in July 2020, which has been verified by checking the Grid connection acceptance report/GCAR/, and cross-checked with the First Electricity Transaction Notes/ETN/ between the project owner and the drilling company. In conclusion, the value calculated in the MR is in line with the evidence and the correct value has been used in ER sheet for the project.

Page 64 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment

9 EGy Electricity Meters 108,442.980 First, the verification team has ☒ The monitoring parameter des- OK OK supplied to the installed in MWh checked all related monitoring cription in the MR is deemed to be isolated system each drilling equipment from which the correct. by the grid in the team reported monitoring parameter ☒ The accuracy requirements as per year yp. (Refer to has been derived. (EU) 601/2012 are met or conservative

Appendix 6 EGy is measured continuously by corrections have been applied. for details of the 29 meters installed in each ☒ Data gaps have not occurred or been meters) drilling team and daily data closed in line with the applied recorded and stored in the methodology or (EU) 601/2012. computer electronically by which ☒ The QA/QC have been applied in line has been verified by site with the MP inspection of 29 meters and ☒ Calibration requirements have been checking the electronical data met for the related monitoring form computer/DPCR/. equipment (refer to A6-1). In case of The sum of the data measured by delayed calibration an appropriate total 29 meters at the 29 drilling adjustment has been considered teams is recorded as EGy which is ☒ The data aggregation for this para- confirmed as in line with the meter has been done correctly and request in the approved PDD. where mistakes have been identified 29 meters are installed in each these have been corrected. drilling team in figure C-2 of the ☒ The reported value is deemed to be MR which is verified as correct by correct. site inspection. Secondly, for each equipment it has been checked whether the accuracy requirements have been met and whether all applicable QA/QC requirements incl. calibration have been met. It has

Page 65 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment further been checked whether the parameter description in the monitoring plan corresponds with the actual situation. The measurement conducted by meters strictly in compliance with the requirement of “Technical administrative code of electric energy metering (DL/T448 － 2016)” /DLT/. The accuracy of meter is 0.5s for electricity measuring which is confirmed in line with the requirement in the PDD (at least 0.5s), and the calibration of meters were carried out annually in compliance with the requirement of “Verification Regulations for Electronic AC Energy Meters” (JJG 596- 2012)/JJG596/ of host country. The calibration certificates/CAL/ of the meters and Certificate of Metrological Authorization of the calibration party/CMA/ are checked by verification team and it is confirmed that the calibration period covering this monitoring

Page 66 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment period and there is no delay of the calibration occurred. Finally, the data aggregation from the original data to the reported value has been checked and recalculated, where applicable. For data collection, the electricity supplied to the isolated system by

the grid EGy is measured continuously by meters and recorded daily in computer, which has been verified by checking the Daily power consumption records exported from computer/DPCR/. The monthly Electricity Transaction Notes including the data of electricity consumption for each drilling team/ETN/ during this monitoring period are used for cross-check which have been verified by the verification team, and it is confirmed that the monthly data on receipts/ETN/ are consistent with the total daily electricity consumption records/DPCR/. In conclusion, the value calculated in the MR is in line with

Page 67 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Related Value Verification results Related Final No. Abbr. Name monitoring Verifiers action applied (after findings resolution) Findings result equipment the values in the evidence and corrected calculated in ER sheet for the project within this monitoring period.

Page 68 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Appendix 6: Accuracy and Calibration details of monitoring equipment

Table A6-1: Monitored parameters EU-ETS tier Equipment Monitoring Calibration Validity of Delayed Type Serial No. Accuracy requirements ID parameter dates3 calibration calibration met

Md1 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051733 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md2 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051773 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md3 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051762 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md4 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051780 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md5 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051751 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md6 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051752 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md7 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051770 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md8 EGy DTZY545-G 191116900329 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md9 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051774 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md10 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051754 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md11 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051700 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md12 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051765 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md13 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051768 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md14 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051753 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Md15 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051726 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

3 Last calibration before the beginning of the MP and all calibration dates during the monitoring period

Page 69 of 70

MC-UER-20-007 UER Verification Report

Mdk1 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051738 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk2 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051775 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk3 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051705 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk4 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051767 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk5 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051732 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk6 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051739 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk7 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051760 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk8 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051749 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk9 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051748 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk10 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051766 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk11 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051708 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk12 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051779 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk13 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051737 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Mdk14 EGy DSZY535-G 191015051734 0.5s ☒ 25/05/2020 24/05/2021 ☐ yes ☒ no

Page 70 of 70

MC-UER-20-007