search

climatetracecoalition / methodology-documents

Detailed, sector specific methodology documents
53 stars 10 forks source link

Quick data validation for copper mining asset #4

Closed statzhero closed 5 months ago

statzhero commented 7 months ago

I was wondering if this is the right approach to validate some of the data from your model. As you can see, the location and figures don't match, so I'm wondering what could explain the difference.

BHP Group CDP response 2021, p.33

Facility                         Scope 1 emissions (metric tons CO2e)    Latitude Longitude
Escondida (Chile, copper)                                      860000  -27.922911 -72.76437

From the asset_copper-mining_emissions.csv file

asset_id    iso3_country    original_inventory_sector   start_time  end_time    temporal_granularity    gas emissions_quantity  capacity    capacity_units  capacity_factor created_date    modified_date   asset_name  asset_type  st_astext
136116839   CHL                     copper-mining   1/1/21 00:00    12/31/21 00:00               annual     co2 2014500     field_not_included      36:55.7                               Escondida Open Pit Mine       POINT(-69.0721213 -24.26950222)
aaron-watt commented 6 months ago

I’ve checked the coordinates, our one is right and somehow BHP have managed to get the location of their mine wrong. Let me know if you noticed something else.

statzhero commented 6 months ago

Thank you, very interesting.

statzhero commented 6 months ago

Sorry I forgot to ask how you checked the coordinates?

aaron-watt commented 5 months ago

According to our Climate TRACE member Hypervine, they said "somehow BHP have managed to get the location of their mine wrong" and they checked their coordinates to ensure they are right.

statzhero commented 5 months ago

Great, I guess I wasn't clear: is there a way for me / anyone else to verify the coordinates?

aaron-watt commented 5 months ago

Let me check with the group and get back to you.

aaron-watt commented 5 months ago

Hypervine states that it was just the coordinates. BHP had it as -27.922911 -72.76437, when it should be more like -24.26950222 -69.0721213.

statzhero commented 5 months ago

Best on CT satellite images, correct? On Jan 11, 2024, at 10:42, aaron-watt @.***> wrote: Hypervine states that it was just the coordinates. BHP had it as -27.922911 -72.76437, when it should be more like -24.26950222 -69.0721213.

—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.Message ID: @.***>

aaron-watt commented 5 months ago

Correct, based on remote sensing imagery.

aaron-watt commented 5 months ago

Answered.