Methodology & Independent Validation
(ISO 14064-3)

This project applies a rigorous greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting methodology designed to quantify emissions avoidance resulting from the permanent non-extraction of economically viable oil and gas reserves located in Los Angeles County, California, USA (onshore).

This page explains:

• How avoided emissions are quantified
• How baselines are established
• How permanence and additionality are addressed
• How the methodology was independently validated under ISO 14064-3

1. Methodological Objective

The purpose of the methodology is to quantify GHG emissions that would have occurred under a credible business-as-usual production scenario, and to demonstrate that those emissions are permanently avoided through legally enforced non-extraction.

The methodology is intentionally conservative and designed for:

• Reproducibility
• Third-party audit
• Regulatory and legal scrutiny

The objective is not to maximize issuance, but to defend claims under examination.

2. Project Boundary and Scope

The project boundary encompasses the full lifecycle of hydrocarbons that would otherwise be produced from the project located in Los Angeles County, California, USA (onshore)

Included emission scopes:

• Scope 1: Upstream fugitive and operational emissions from extraction activities
• Scope 2: Indirect emissions associated with energy use during production and processing
• Scope 3: Downstream emissions from transport, refining, distribution, and end-use combustion

By preventing extraction at the source, the project avoids emissions across all three scopes.

3. Baseline Scenario Determination

A credible baseline is essential to emissions avoidance accounting.

The baseline is established using:

• Historical production data from the field
• Independent reserve and economic viability assessments
• Established emissions factors from recognized industry and regulatory sources

The baseline represents economically viable production, not speculative or marginal output.

Avoided emissions are calculated as the difference between:

• Emissions that would have occurred under continued production
• Emissions under the project scenario of permanent non-extraction

4. Additionality

Additionality is demonstrated through intentional, binding restraint, not market conditions.

The project is additional because:

• There is no legal or regulatory requirement forcing non-production
• The asset could be economically developed under standard assumptions
• The decision to forgo production is voluntary, documented, and enforceable

Avoidance occurs only because the project owner elects not to produce.

5. Permanence Within the Methodology

Unlike removal-based projects, permanence here is not a function of storage durability or ecosystem stability.

Within the methodology:

• Permanence is achieved by eliminating the activity that would cause emissions
• There is no ongoing operational process that could fail
• No future intervention is required to maintain the avoided outcome

Permanence is therefore treated as a structural condition, not a probabilistic one.

6. Quantification Approach

Avoided emissions are quantified using:

• Conservative assumptions
• Transparent equations and parameters
• Lifecycle emissions factors applied consistently across scopes

Where uncertainty exists, the methodology applies:

• Conservative bias
• Discounting or adjustment mechanisms
• Documentation sufficient for third-party replication

The intent is to avoid over-crediting under any plausible interpretation.

7. Monitoring, Reporting, and Documentation

Although emissions are avoided through non-action, the project maintains:

• Ongoing documentation of asset status
• Verification of continued non-production
• Records supporting ownership, restraint, and boundary integrity

Monitoring focuses on confirming that extraction does not occur, rather than measuring operational emissions.

8. Independent Validation Under ISO 14064-3

The project emissions avoidance project methodology and its application were independently reviewed and validated in accordance with ISO 14064-3, the international standard governing the validation and verification of GHG statements.

Validation included:

• Review of methodological design
• Assessment of baseline credibility
• Evaluation of additionality and permanence claims
• Examination of data sources and assumptions
• Confirmation of consistency with ISO 14064-2 principles

The validator’s role was to determine whether:

• The methodology is sound
• The application is accurate
• The resulting GHG claims are supported by evidence

Validation was conducted by an accredited third-party organization independent of the project owner and methodology developer.

9. What ISO 14064-3 Validation Does—and Does Not—Do

Validation confirms that:

• The methodology is appropriate for its stated purpose
• The GHG assertions are credible and defensible
• The documentation supports the claims made

Validation does not:

• Guarantee market acceptance
• Assign economic value
• Replace regulatory or legal review

Its purpose is to ensure that claims are technically and procedurally sound.

10. Why This Matters

As carbon markets face increasing scrutiny, claims must withstand:

• Independent audit
• Regulatory examination
• Legal challenge
• Public accountability

ISO 14064-3 validation provides a globally recognized foundation for credibility—but only when paired with:

• Conservative methodology
• Clear ownership
• Enforceable permanence

The project integrates all three.

11. Baseline and Project Scenario Classification

In the baseline scenario, the project assumes economically viable extraction and the associated Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 lifecycle emissions that would have occurred absent forbearance. In the project scenario, extraction does not occur; residual project emissions are limited to site-condition management, including potential methane leakage from plugged wells and any plugging or replugging activity, as applicable.