طلب - انظمه حسابات وتكاليف شركات انتاج الاسمنت

[محمد فوزي البنا]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الاخوه الزملاء الافاضل

لكم جميعا تحياتي وتقديري . وارجوا من الاخوه الافاضل المشرفين والزملاء من يعمل باحد شركات الاسمنت ان يمدني بانظمه محاسبه وتكاليف ولوائح شركات انتاج الاسمنت في اي دوله عربيه حيث نحن بصدد وضع لائحه ماليه لاحد هذه الشركات في احد الدول العربيه الواعده .

وتقبلوا مني كل تحيه وتقدير واحترام

E mai: mohammed.elbanna@gmail.com

mohammed.elbanna@hotmail.com

[alaaaboulela]

برجاء ممن لدية فكره أو كتاب أو مقال أو رابط لشرح التصنيع وإنتاج الأسمنت ألا يحرمنا منها تلبية لرغبة زميل في حاجة ماسه لهذا الموضوع ولكم جزيل الشكر

[alaaaboulela]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الاخوه الزملاء الافاضل

لكم جميعا تحياتي وتقديري . وارجوا من الاخوه الافاضل المشرفين والزملاء من يعمل باحد شركات الاسمنت ان يمدني بانظمه محاسبه وتكاليف ولوائح شركات انتاج الاسمنت في اي دوله عربيه حيث نحن بصدد وضع لائحه ماليه لاحد هذه الشركات في احد الدول العربيه الواعده .

وتقبلوا مني كل تحيه وتقدير واحترام

E mai: mohammed.elbanna@gmail.com

mohammed.elbanna@hotmail.com

أستاذ / فوزي البنا

هذا الموضوع نقلا عن أحد المواقع

CLIMATE LEADERS DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF THE CEMENT PROTOCOL JANUARY 2007

Draft Assessment of CO2 Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry, Version 2.0 for Use in Climate Leaders Reporting

EPA is seeking comments on this draft assessment by close of business on February 15, 2007. Please send comments to Bella Tonkonogy at tonkonogy.bella@epa.gov.

Overview

The

CO2 Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry, Version 2.0, and the accompanying calculation tool (the CSI Protocol) are useful resources for identifying and calculating process emissions from cement manufacturing. The CSI Protocol does deviate from the Climate Leaders reporting protocol on several points, most notably:

• • The CSI Protocol treats indirect emissions from purchased electricity as a non-core emission source that does not need to be included in total gross emissions. However, Climate Leaders Partners (Partners) must report emissions from purchased electricity as a line item that is incorporated into total gross emissions.

• • The CSI Protocol excludes emissions from owned or leased off-site mobile combustion from the inventory. Climate Leaders Partners must report emissions from mobile sources included in the Partner’s organizational boundary per the Climate Leaders
Design Principles.

• • The CSI Protocol does not include CH4 and N2O emissions from kiln fuel combustion. Climate Leaders Partners must, at a minimum, estimate all GHG sources that fall within their organizational and operational boundaries per the Climate Leaders Design Principles.

The remaining differences between the CSI Protocol and Climate Leaders protocol are relatively insignificant. The CSI Protocol does provide more detailed guidance on cement-specific process emissions.

Partners should use the discussion below of specific differences between the CSI Protocol and the Climate Leaders reporting protocol as a guide in the development of their inventory. Partners can view updated Climate Leaders guidance at www.epa.gov/climateleaders or contact EPA staff or technical contractors for hard copies.

Key Updates to Previous Version

Appendix 8 summarizes differences between Version 2.0 and the previous version of

CO2 Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry. The most significant changes are:

• • Introduction of accounting for organic carbon in raw materials

• • Added section and tool calculation for CO2 emissions from wastewater injected in kilns

• • Updated section on methane and nitrous oxide

• • Extended guidance on indirect CO2 related to grid electricity

• • Added Emission Rights section

CLIMATE LEADERS DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF THE CEMENT PROTOCOL JANUARY 2007

• •
Added section on intra-company clinker transfers and modified calculation of indirect CO2 emissions from clinker imports

• • Added section on inventory quality

• Added allowance for annual variation in CO2 emission factors for kiln fuels

Differences from Climate Leaders Protocol

Appendix 6 summarizes differences between the CSI Protocol, EU ETS Monitoring Guidance, U.S. Climate Leaders Program, and the Japanese GHG Reporting System. The differences between the CSI Protocol and the Climate Leaders protocol are discussed below.

Included in Appendix 6

• • Cement-based calcinations emission method –

• In a draft Climate Leaders guidance document for the cement industry, Climate Leaders recommended using the clinker-based method outlined in the CSI Protocol but also included an alternative clinker calcinations emission method based on cement production. The CSI Protocol acknowledges the cement-based method as an acceptable option, but notes that IPCC suggests the clinker-based method and lists potential sources of error associated with the cement production method which does not account for: direct additions of carbonate-containing materials to the kiln, internal recycling of dust, and incomplete calcinations of dust leaving the kiln system. Partners should use the clinker-method whenever feasible.

• •

• CSI additional guidance - Organic carbon in raw materials, carbon in wastewater injected into kilns, credits for alternative fossil fuels, and internal clinker transfers are not currently addressed in Climate Leaders guidance. Emissions from organic carbon in raw materials and carbon in wastewater injected into kilns is anticipated to be relatively minor; however, initial quantification is recommended by the CSI Protocol since these emissions can be significant at certain facilities. Partners are required to make an initial estimate of these emissions sources.

• •

• Stationary combustion CO2 emission factors for kiln fuel, non-kiln fuel, and alternative fossil kiln fuels – The CSI Protocol uses IPCC default emission factors based on lower heating value (LHV) of fuels unless site and fuel specific data is available. Climate Leaders Partners should use the higher heating value (HHV)-based DOE/EIA/USEPA emission factors in the Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources unless site specific factors are available from fuel supplier.

• •

• Biomass kiln fuels CO2 emission factors – The CSI Protocol offers a default emission factor for solids biomass which differs from the Climate Leaders factors for wood and landfill gas. Note that the Climate Leaders factors listed in the CSI protocol are incorrect as discussed in the Technical Notes below. Partners should use the Climate Leaders factors found in Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources. CO2 emissions from biomass kiln fuels are reported but not included in the gross emissions totals in both the CSI and Climate Leaders protocols.

2

CLIMATE LEADERS DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF THE CEMENT PROTOCOL JANUARY 2007

• •
CH4 and N2O emission factors – The CSI Protocol considers methane and nitrous oxide emissions to be insignificant for kiln fuel combustion, but refers to the World Resources Institute (WRI)/ World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD) calculation tool for stationary fuel combustion for non-kiln fuels. Climate Leaders requires an estimate of both kiln and non-kiln fuels for Partners inventories.

• •

• Indirect CO2 emissions from purchased clinker – The CSI Protocol requires that CO2 emissions from purchased clinker be included with indirect emissions. Either a default emission factor or site-specific factor may be used. Reporting purchased clinker emissions is optional under Climate Leaders and should be documented in a line item separate from indirect emissions.

• •

• Indirect purchased electricity emission factors – Both the CSI Protocol and Climate Leaders protocol recommend site-specific emission factors provided by the servicing utility. However, the CSI Protocol default is the IPCC national factor while Climate Leaders default factors are from the US EPA eGRID database for US sub-regions. Climate Leaders Partners should follow the Climate Leader’s Indirect Emissions from Purchases/Sales of Electricity and Steam for calculating emissions from electricity and steam purchases.

• •

• Continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) – CEMS are not mentioned in the CSI Protocol but are offered as an alternative to calculated emissions based on fuel consumption in the Climate Leaders guidance.

• •

• Offset guidance – The CSI Protocol offers fairly detailed guidance on emission offsets. Climate Leaders and WRI offset guidance is still in development. Climate Leaders will evaluate Partners’ use of offsets that follow robust, well-documented quantification methodologies on a case-by-case basis. Partners must always report total gross emissions (i.e. emissions before offsets) in the inventory.

• •

• Credits for alternative fossil fuels – The CSI Protocol allows a credit of up to 100% for CO2 from fossil wastes. Calculations must be in compliance with the relevant reporting scheme. Climate Leaders does not currently have guidance on credits for alternative fuels and will projects with Partners on a case-by-case basis.

• •

• Netting of emissions and credits – The CSI Protocol allows reporting of both gross and net emissions, but requires transparency consistent with Climate Leaders guidance. However, the CSI Protocol method for the net emission calculation does not include indirect emissions from purchased electricity. Partners are required to include indirect emissions from purchased electricity in their net emission calculation.

• •

• Process steps for which emissions are to be included –Appendix 6 states that Climate Leaders does not provide guidance on which installation and process emissions must be included in a cement company’s inventory, however, Appendix 1 of Climate Leaders Design Principles lists all of the items in the CSI Protocol except for cement grinding and blending. Climate Leaders Partners must also include emissions from cement grinding and blending in their inventories.

3

CLIMATE LEADERS DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF THE CEMENT PROTOCOL JANUARY 2007

•

Internal clinker transfer – The CSI Protocol offers guidance on intra-company clinker transfer accounting for individual site emission allocation, but states that at a corporate level, these transfers cancel out. Climate Leaders Partners are not required to report these transfers, only their aggregate corporate emissions from clinker.

• •

Denominator for performance indicators – The CSI Protocol does not include purchased electricity in the calculation of CO2 emissions per ton of cementitious product. Climate Leaders guidance includes indirect emissions from purchased electricity in GHG reduction goal analysis.

• •

Precision requirements and uncertainty assessments – The CSI Protocol requires uncertainty assessment and offers some limited guidance. Climate Leaders does not require quantification of uncertainty ranges, but recommends identifying areas of inaccuracy and methods to improve data accuracy in the inventory management plan (IMP).

Not Included in Appendix 6

• Reporting year basis – The CSI Protocol allows an option of reporting on a fiscal year basis while Climate Leaders requires emissions reporting on a calendar-year basis.

• • Organizational boundaries – the CSI Protocol provides a hybrid approach for determining organizational boundaries; i.e. the CSI Protocol indicates companies should report primarily according to the operational control criterion and secondarily according to the ownership criterion in cases where operational control is not clearly assigned. Partners should refer to Climate Leaders Design Principles for guidance on the development of organizational boundaries. Climate Leaders guidance requires Partners to select one method for determining organizational boundaries and to apply that method to all facilities.

• • Mobile emissions – the CSI Protocol does not require reporting mobile combustion emissions from off-site company owned or leased transportation, while Climate Leaders requires reporting all mobile combustion emissions which fall under the Partner’s organizational boundary, both on- and off-site. The CSI Protocol’s approach is a deviation from WRI/WBCSD protocol.

• • Minor sources not addressed – The CSI Protocol does not address emissions of HFCs. Partners should refer to Climate Leaders specific guidance to estimate emissions from HFCs (Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment and Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Manufacturing Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Equipment).

• •
Deviations from WRI – The CSI Protocol excludes off-site transportation emissions, CO2 from wastewater combustion, and CH4 and N2O emissions from fuel combustion, all deviations from the WRI GHG Protocol and Climate Leaders guidance. The CSI Protocol does recommend assessing these emissions to determine their significance and including them if warranted. Climate Leaders does require their inclusion in the inventory.

4

CLIMATE LEADERS DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF THE CEMENT PROTOCOL JANUARY 2007

•

Net emissions emphasis – The CSI Protocol places a strong emphasis on net emissions reporting and performance indicators, which varies from the emphasis in the Climate Leaders program. The CSI Protocol does state on page 33 that "Reporting of net emissions alone, omitting gross emissions, is not acceptable." However, gross emissions do not include emissions from purchased electricity which is required under Climate Leaders.

• •

References - All references to Climate Leaders guidance documents are outdated. Partners should refer to the most recent versions of Climate Leaders guidance documents, which are located on the Climate Leaders website.

Technical Notes

Errors observed in the tool:

• •

Error in conversion from percent to fraction – CaO and MgO content percentage (Lines 22 and 23) entered as either 99 or .99 both show up as 99%. The CaO and MgO calculations (lines 24 and 25) divide by 100, even though the content is already entered as a %. If input 200 tons of clinker production and 99% CaO, the sheet calculates 2 tons CaO, rather than 198 tons CaO.

Minor errors and omissions were observed in the protocol document.

• •

Unclear reference – Page 3, last sentence – "The Cement CO2 Protocol is consistent with this reporting requirement, except for some minor deviations which are summarized in Scopes of Revised WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol, p. 3." The page reference should be page 35.

• •

Duplicated text – (1) Page 11, second and third bullets in left column; (2) Page 11, last two paragraphs of right column; (3) End notes, page 58, 20 and 21 are duplicates of 18 and 19.

• •

Reference program differences – Page 3, bottom of left column- list of activities to include in corporate inventory-Partners should note that Climate Leaders requires emissions from all sources to be included.

• •

Inconsistent gross indicator basis – Page 33, last paragraph, "In order to be complete, voluntary reporting shall include the CO2 emissions (including indirect CO2 emissions from consumption of grid electricity)…" seems to be in conflict with gross emissions calculation which excludes emissions from purchased electricity.

• •

Minor error in emission factor conversion – Appendix 6, Biomass kiln fuels- Climate Leaders factor stated to be 92 kg CO2/GJ-LHV for wood and 55 kg CO2/GJ-LHV for landfill gas, this value should be 93 kg CO2/GJ-LHV for wood and 52 kg CO2/GJ-LHV for landfill gas.

Calculation: 92.93 kg CO2/MMBTU-HHV x 0.947 MMBTU/GJ = 88 kg CO2/GJ-HHV x GJ-HHV/0.95 GJ-LHV = 93 kg CO2/GJ-LHV

CLIMATE LEADERS DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF THE CEMENT PROTOCOL JANUARY 2007

Calculation: 51.81 kg CO2/MMBTU-HHV x 0.947 MMBTU/GJ = 49.1 kg CO2/GJ-HHV x GJ-HHV/0.95 GJ-LHV = 52 kg CO2/GJ-LHV

• • Clarification required – Appendix 6, Consolidation rules- the CSI Protocol states "Following recommendations of WRI/WBCSD protocol (2004) with minor deviations". The CSI protocol does not list or reference the deviations. Climate Leaders Partners should refer to Climate Leaders and WRI guidance on consolidation rules to ensure consistency.

• • The following website references on page 37 do not work:

IEA- http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/prghgt42.htm

USEPA Climate Leaders- http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/protocol.html

Sources Referenced

CSI 2005.

CO2 Accounting and Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry, Version 2.0, Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/DocRoot/SKDvWSX7r0JknM8D3fIJ/TF1-CO2%20Protocol-June2005.pdf

CSI No Date.

WBCSD CSI CO2 Emissions Inventory Protocol, Version 2.0 (tool). http://www.ghgprotocol.org/DocRoot/SKDvWSX7r0JknM8D3fIJ/CO2%20Protocol%20V2.0%20050520.xls

U.S. EPA 2004.

Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol Core Module Guidance: Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources. http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/docs/stationarycombustionguidance.pdf

U.S. EPA 2004.

Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol: Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources. http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/docs/mobilesourceguidance.pdf

U.S. EPA 2004.

Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol: Indirecte Emissions from Purchases/Sales of Electricity and Steam. http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/docs/indirectelectricityguidance.pdf

U.S. EPA 2004.

Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol: Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment. http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/docs/refrige_acequipuseguidance.pdf

U.S. EPA 2005.

Climate Leaders Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol: Design Principles. http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/docs/climateleadersdesignprinciples.pdf

[alaaaboulela]

الرابط

http://www.climateregistry.org/docs/PROTOCOLS/Comparison_Cement_Protocols.pdf

1

Comparison of the Registry’s

draft Cement Protocol and

The Cement CO2 Protocol from WBCSD

This document compares the California Climate Action Registry’s (Registry) “

draft

Cement Protocol” and “The Cement CO

2 Protocol” developed under the umbrella of the

Cement Sustainability Initiative of the World Business Council for Sustainable

Development (WBCSD) – the CSI Protocol.1 The overall purpose of this study is to

illustrate similarities and differences between the two guidance documents. Both

protocols are designed to provide instructions on calculating and reporting CO2 emissions

associated with manufacturing cement. The Registry’s draft Cement Protocol is based on

the CSI Protocol. The format of this analysis is taken from Appendix 6 of The CSI

Protocol, which compares it to other GHG reporting schemes including the EU ETS

Monitoring Guidance (EC 2004), the U.S. Climate Leaders Program (EPA 2004a-b,

2003a-, and the Japanese GHG Reporting System (MoE 2003).

The analysis begins with a high-level explanation of the nature of the Registry’s GHG

emission reporting and certification program and the GHG Protocol Initiative, the overall

program under which the CSI Protocol was created.2 This provides context to the

subsequent side-by-side comparison of the two guidance documents.

The Nature of the Registry’s Program and the GHG Protocol Initiative

The Registry’s GHG Emission Reporting and Certification Program.

The Registry was

established by the California Legislature as a non-profit voluntary registry for GHG

emissions. It was created to run a GHG reporting and certification program, which

companies volunteer to join and pay a membership fee. A purpose of the Registry is to

help companies and organizations with operations in the state establish GHG emissions

baselines against which any future GHG emission reduction requirements may be

applied.

By joining the Registry companies do not simply gain access to the Registry’s

reporting and certification protocols, they agree to abide by the Registry’s program rules.

Several of the rules are defined by California State Statute (Chapter 6 of the Health and

1

The exact documents used in this analysis include the Registry’s June 8, 2005 “draft California Climate

Action Registry Cement Protocol” sent to the review-group on June 8, 2005 with the file name of “CCAR

Cement Protocol-draft.doc” (review-group members that joined the group subsequent to June 8 have

received the same document); the Cement CO2 Protocol from WBCSD is the CO2 Accounting and

Reporting Standard for the Cement Industry, v.2, June 2005.

2

The CSI Protocol is classified as a GHG emission calculation tool within the GHG Protocol Initiative; see

www.ghgprotocol.org

.

2

Safety Code, sections 42800-42860), including the requirement, among others, that all

GHG emissions reports undergo third-party certification by a State- and Registryapproved

certifier.

The Registry’s General Reporting Protocol (GRP) provides a description of the

Registry’s program rules as well as general methodological guidance on how to calculate

GHG emissions from common emission sources. The GRP does not, however, provide

guidance on how to calculate emissions associated with cement manufacturing. The draft

Cement Protocol fills this gap;

•

it serves as an appendix to the GRP;

•

it only provides the methodological instructions for determining emissions from

calcination;

•

it does not revisit the Registry’s program rules and provide exceptions for cement

companies.

The GHG Protocol Initiative

. The GHG Protocol Initiative aims to harmonize GHG

accounting and reporting standards internationally to ensure that different trading

schemes and other climate related initiatives adopt consistent approaches to GHG

accounting. It operates under the umbrella of WBCSD and WRI.

Guidance documents produced by The GHG Protocol Initiative include The

Corporate GHG Accounting and Reporting Standard (The GHG Protocol), which helps

companies and other organizations to identify, calculate, and report GHG emissions, and

Calculations Tools, which offer step-by-step guidance and accompanying Excel

spreadsheets. In the context of the GHG Protocol Initiative, The CSI Protocol is a

calculation tool. It functions like an appendix to the GHG Protocol, similar to the

Registry’s draft Cement Protocol and the GRP. Companies using calculation tools (such

as the CSI Protocol) should also use The GHG Protocol in order to take a complete GHG

emission inventory in accordance with the GHG Protocol Initiative.

The GHG Protocol Initiative is not a GHG reporting program, per se. The GHG

Protocol and the CSI Protocol calculation tool are program neutral. Companies

participating in the GHG Protocol Initiative have no requirement to report their GHG

emissions to WRI or WBCSD, nor does the GHG Protocol provide a certification

standard. However, its does offer certification guidance, which the Registry references in

its certification guidance. The GHG Protocol anticipates additional reporting

requirements by specific GHG reporting programs (e.g., the Registry) and recommends

that companies check with the relevant programs to understand the additional

requirements.3

The GHG Protocol and its calculation tools are a vital cornerstone of the Registry’s

reporting program. The Registry’s practice is to “operationalize” these program neutral

protocols into its program. The Registry’s general reporting rules are based on the GHG

Protocol and, in the case of cement companies, the guidance in the draft Cement Protocol

adopts emission calculation methodologies from the CSI Protocol. The table below

illustrates this point-by-point.

3

GHG Protocol, p.4

3

Comparison of the CSI Protocol and the

draft Registry Cement Protocol

Item CSI Protocol, Version 2.0 Registry draft Cement Protocol

1) Coverage of sources, and parameters used for calculation:

Clinker

calcination

(Process

emissions)

Clinker method

(recommended):

>

clinker produced-

>

site-specific EF, based on mass balance of

CaO and MgO, or

>

default EF = 525 kg CO2/t cli, if no sitespecific

data available.

Carbonate (or cement) method

is mentioned

as a possible alternative to the clinker-based

method, depending on company's preference,

but is not described in any detail.

Clinker method

(recommended):

>

same as CSI Protocol, V2.0

Carbonate (or cement) method

:

>

cement produced

>

clinker to cement ratio (defaults = 0.95 for

OPC and 0.75 for blended cement)

>

raw material to clinker ratio (default = 1.54)

>

CaCO3 and MgCO3 content of raw material

(default = 0.78)

Dust calcination

(Process

emissions)

Calculated based on:

>

vol. of dust leaving kiln system

>

EF for clinker

>

calcination rate of dust (default = 100%

calcined)

Clinker method

:

Same as CSI Protocol, V2.0.

Carbonate (or cement) method

:

Need to account for incomplete calcination of

CKD is mentioned.

Organic carbon

(TOC) in raw

Materials

Calculated based on:

>

clinker produced

>

raw meal to clinker ratio (default = 1.55)

content of raw meal (default = 0.2%).

Automatic calculation, input of site-specific

data is possible but not required.

>

Registry protocol V2 updated to include

guidance from CSI Protocol, V2.0

>

quantification should be deminimis

Conventional

kiln fuels and

non-kiln fuels

(Stationary

combustion

emissions)

Calculated based on:

>

fuel consumption (site-specific)

>

LHV of fuels (site- or company- specific)

>

EF of fuel (kgCO2/GJ); CSI/IPCC defaults

except if more precise EF are available

Oxidation factor for carbon is 100%.

Calculated based on:

>

fuel consumption (site-specific)

>

guidance provided in Registry GRP

>

generally, same as CSI Protocol, V2.0

Alternative

fossil kiln fuels

Same as for conventional kiln fuels Same as for conventional kiln fuels

Biomass kiln

Fuels

(Stationary

combustion

emissions)

Same as for conventional kiln fuels, but:

>

default EF of 110 kg

CO2/GJ is used for solid biomass (IPCC

1996)

>

CO2 from biomass is not included in

emissions totals, but reported separately as

memo item

Same as CSI Protocol, V2.

Carbon in

waste water

Quantification not required > Registry protocol V2 updated to include

guidance from CSI Protocol, V2.0

>

quantification should be deminimis

Other GHG

than CO2

Quantification not required CH4, N2O emissions calculated from:

>

fuel consumption (site-specific)

>

default EFs provided in Registry GRP

Indirect CO2

from Purchased

clinker

Calculated based on:

>

purchased clinker volumes (net)

>

default emission factor = 862 kg CO2/t cli

Included in a reporter’s optional report

4

Item CSI Protocol, Version 2.0 Registry draft Cement Protocol

Indirect CO2

from Purchased

electricity

Calculated based on:

>

consumption of grid electricity

>

EF of grid electricity (preferentially

obtained from electricity supplier, else use

national default)

Same as CSI, except:

>

if supplier-specific EF is not available,

defaults should be taken from U.S. EPA

eGRID database for different U.S. sub-regions

CEMS Not discussed SILENT

>

updated draft protocol will refer companies

to GRP and Power Protocol

2) Emission rights and credits:

Not applicable, since Registry guidance relates

only to direct emissions.

3) Organizational boundaries, uncertainty and precision of estimates:

Installations and

processes

covered

Emissions must be reported for the

following process steps:

>

raw material supply

>

preparation of raw materials, fuel

>

kiln operation (pyroprocessing)

>

cement grinding, blending

>

on-site power generation

>

room heating, cooling

Guidance provided in Registry GRP

>

generally, same as CSI Protocol, V2.0 and

GHG Protocol

>

all significant emissions from mobile,

stationary combustion, process, and fugitive

sources.

Consolidation

rules

Following recommendations of

WRI/WBCSD protocol (2004) with minor

deviations

Guidance provided in Registry GRP

>

generally, same as CSI Protocol, V2.0 and

GHG Protocol

>

the Registry offers 2 approaches: equity share

or management control

Internal clinker

transfers

Companies choose whether to report clinker

transferred within the company, and

associated emissions (see above for details

on indirect emissions related to purchase

clinker).

Not applicable, since guidance only pertains to

direct emissions.

Baseline

adjustments

Following recommendations of

WRI/WBCSD

Guidance provided in Registry GRP

4) Other Aspects

Denominator for

performance

indicators

Different denominators are defined for

specific CO2 emissions and other

performance indicators.

Same as CSI Protocol, V2.0

>

relates CO2 emissions per ton of cementious

product

Materiality

Thresholds

No materiality thresholds. Small emission

sources shall be quantified to the extent

practical, but simplified calculation methods

may be applied

Deminimis guidance in Registry RGP

>

companies allowed to claim source as

deminimis if less than 5% of total emissions

Precision

requirements,

uncertainty

assessments

Precision requirements and uncertainty

assessments addressed in certification protocol

[alaaaboulela]

http://www.intermix.eu/en/financial/pdf/english_IFRS_3month_2005.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccei/presentations/comparison_of_cement_protocols-final.pdf

http://minrico.cambrient.com/virtual/www.ppc.co.za/web-apps/pdfs/PPC_book_2006.pdf

قوائم ماليه لشركات أسمنت

http://sec.edgar-online.com/1994/08/10/00/0000950144-94-001442/Section2.asp

http://money.rediff.com/money/jsp/balancesheet.jsp?companyCode=11520068

http://www.hemscott.com/news/rna/item.do?newsId=50047106629486

http://www.moneycontrol.com/india/stockpricequote/ultratechcement/ultratechcement/12/27/balancesheet/marketprice/UTC01

http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=ukfinancials&symbol=LSE%3ASTCM

[mahassob]

بعد التحية ....الاخوة الافاضل المشرفين والزملاء اريد معرفة الحسابات والدورة المستندية وكل مايلزم من الحسابات لمصنع تجهيز خرسانة جاهزة وطوب اسمنتى الامر يتوقف علية حياتى المهنية برجاء المساعدة ولكم جزيل الشكر