"Carbon Intensity" should be labeled "Warming potential"
For "Emissions--Current Annual Estimate" might we better title this: "Current annual production, expressed in emissions"? What I'm not clear on is what emissions scopes are included in these numbers. If beyond scope 3, should these emissions figures toggle with change in GWP figures (they don't appear to at present)?
Map: What are the map coordinates of? The largest projects? If so, retitle: "Map of largest projects". Also, can the pins that appear reflect the colors of predominant fuel (i.e., coal, oil or gas)?
Largest projects: Can we have a second column on these which shows them by future or current production or emissions (whatever indicator was used to rank them)? If they are ranked, as I think they are, by the emissions associated with current annual production, then perhaps we can have that and the % of production emissions associated with each project.
Location of "CO2 Forecast" graphic. Can we move it up to be at row height of largest projects? Lots of white space here otherwise.
I can see need for "TLDR" notes characterizing some of the charts. For example "CO2 Forecast". Should we explain better what this is, i.e.: This chart maps historic production from available data sources as well as future production under a range of different trajectories and shaded to reflect current reserve and resource calculations. [hyperlink reserve and resource calculations to some definitions of the same].
CO2 forecast chart: At least for Australia, edge of chart is cut off on right (2040 does not appear).
Underneath CO2 forecast chart, could we translate remaining reserves and contingent resources into total scope 3 emissions? This would just give a means of scaling what's left. If there were no contingent reserves on the chart, as with Australia, it would make the absence clear.
Units. Currently, e9 kg c02e. I think better to present in terms of MtCO2e or GtCo2e as those are more commonly used/ understood.
The emissions estimates tables: These also need a few lines of description for each--the use of the question mark icon/popout is fine to avoid cluttering. But we can also better label. Some ideas:
"Production Scenario Emissions to 2040" Can we more accurately call this "Cumulative scope 3 emissions to 2040, by scenario"?
If these aren't just scope 3 emissions, what else do they include?
Separately, will the results here be drastically different if we do/ do not have the contingent resource numbers? For Australia those don't appear. If we don't have contingent resource numbers, presumably we'll see a greater drop off on these.
"Now": Is this the last year emissions? Will you create this so the year input in the title changes depending on the last year of data? I assume that is needlessly complex, so no. But you will also need to allow for multiple datasets here, no? So should you display both scope 1 and 3 emissions, from the current year, for each scenario in the drop down (with each scenario labeled), and then title this chart, "Current year emissions by dataset".
"Historic production". Does this represent cumulative historic production as far back as our dataset permits? I'm not sure this is useful enough.....this may vary. Rick Heede's dataset of total historical production is what this seems to be speaking to, but because this data doesn't extend that far back (I assume), I don't think it can serve as our version of Heede's work.
"Low/Mid/High": We need an explainer of where each of these comes from I.e., what are the sources?
Input data overview. This needs some context, telling people what it shows and why we are showing them. My effort at this: "The input charts show a range of different sources for production estimates. Significant divergence in these chart may indicate uncertainty around XYZ.... Because oil reserve figures are a function of depletion through production, prices and project feasibility, all of which are dynamic, wide fluctuations in reserves estimates year over year are commonplace."
Input data: Can we map contingent resources? Are they less dynamic? (And maybe, instead of contingent resources, could we map contingent resources plus reserves?)
From Sep. 1 2021 Review. I noted the following: