Subject: Draft Revised UNFC-2008 and Draft Accompanying Explanatory Note From: StatoilHydro Ad Hoc Group of Experts
6 February 2009
A small ad hoc group of experts within StatoilHydro reviewed the proposed Draft UNFC-2008 and Explanatory notes in a meeting in January 2009. The comments that were made are summarised below. The group felt is was important to make the system easy to understand for the end user, hence the comments mainly focus on how the different aspects are defined and explained and not so much on the classification system as such.
1. Who is the user(s), and for which purposes should the system be used? This should be stated clearly in order for the user to understand the need for the complexity in the system. This may be covered in other documents on the UNFC web site, but could be repeated in the presentation of the UNFC.
2. A better and more detailed explanation of the different criteria was missed by the group. In particular this applied to the G axis (Geological knowledge). To make this clear to the end users, we propose that a few specific examples are included in the explanatory notes or other documentation.
3. A clear and precise definition of the term “High level of confidence” was asked for, since the interpretation of this term can be highly subjective. For instance the group discussed what “high level of confidence” on the G axis, i.e. G1, would mean relative to the SEC definition of proved reserves – are these definitions comparable, or is G1 more loosely defined than SEC?
4. Concerns regarding subjective character of the “Economic and social viability” of a project (E axis). This was considered a challenge if the system is to be used on a global basis. What is economically and socially viable varies between different countries and cultures as well as between independent companies. What is considered good economical terms by one user, may be totally unacceptable to others; tax regimes vary as well as local requirements related to political, social and/or environmental issues. The group had no good solution for how this could be handled, but noted that the E axis criteria is still highly subjective.
We appreciate the work that has been done and the opportunity given to comment on the new Draft.
on behalf of the StatoilHydro Ad Hoc Group of Experts