Independent Assurance Statement to ConocoPhillips Management Regarding Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data Processes

ConocoPhillips’ Sustainable Development Report 2006 (the Report) has been prepared by the management of ConocoPhillips who are responsible for the collection and presentation of the information within it. Our responsibility, in accordance with ConocoPhillips management’s instructions, is to carry out a limited assurance engagement on ConocoPhillips’ corporate level processes for collating and reporting the 2006 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) data presented in the Report. We do not therefore accept or assume any responsibility for any other purpose or to any other person or organisation. Any reliance any such third party may place on the Report is entirely at its own risk.

What did we do to form our conclusions?

Our assurance engagement has been planned and performed in accordance with the International Federation of Accountants’ International Standard for Assurance Engagements Other Than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information (ISAE3000). The GHG reporting processes have been evaluated against completeness, consistency and accuracy criteria agreed with the management of ConocoPhillips as follows:

Completeness

• Whether all material reporting units have been included in the aggregated data for 2006.

Consistency

• Whether the corporate level guidance and tools provided to reporting units provide a basis for consistent reporting of GHG emissions across the reporting units.

Accuracy

• Whether reporting unit GHG data have been accurately collated at corporate level.
• Whether corporate level quality reviews have been completed and outstanding issues resolved or reported.
• Whether data have been accurately transposed from corporate level systems to the Report and assumptions and limitations to the data have been correctly reported.

In order to form our conclusions, we undertook the steps outlined below:

1. Interviewed specialists responsible for managing, collating and reviewing GHG data at a corporate level for internal and public reporting purposes.
2. Reviewed relevant documentation and reporting systems at corporate level, including collation tools, templates used, guidance documents and training materials.
3. Reviewed the GHG data reported to corporate level from the reporting entities to test completeness of coverage of reporting entities and to examine for selected reporting entities the checks which have been applied at corporate level.
4. Interviewed corporate level collation staff to review the application of the QA processes, to examine selected evidence received for variance explanations and the records maintained of these checks. We also discussed the results of previous internal data reviews with corporate HSE audit staff.
5. Reviewed the Report for the appropriate presentation of the GHG data, including the discussion of limitations and assumptions relating to the GHG data presented.

Level of assurance

Our evidence-gathering procedures have been designed to obtain a sufficient level of evidence to provide a limited level of assurance in accordance with ISAE3000.

Limitations of our review

Our scope of work was limited to the corporate-level processes for collating and reporting GHG emissions for 2006. We, therefore, provide no conclusions on the processes or accuracy of GHG data reported at a site or sector level.

Our Conclusions

Based on our review:

• We are not aware of any material reporting units which have been excluded from the scope of the 2006 GHG data reported.
• With the exception of those items highlighted within the report, we are not aware of any errors or gaps in the corporate-level guidance document and reporting tools which would materially affect the consistency and completeness of the 2006 GHG data reported.
• We are not aware of any errors in the collation of the 2006 GHG data at corporate level or the transposition of these data from the corporatelevel systems to the Report.
• We are not aware of any outstanding items from the corporate-level quality review which would materially affect the accuracy of the 2006 GHG data reported.

Our Observations

Our observations and areas for improvement will be raised in a report to ConocoPhillips management. Selected observations are provided below. These observations do not affect our conclusions on the Report set out above.

• Documented records are maintained at corporate level of the quality-review procedures performed on the GHG data received from operations and changes made to the reported data.
• The collation of data from operations worksheets is automatic, which reduces the risk of transposition errors. There is, however, scope for transposition errors in the transfer of data from look-up tables to reporting templates. Automating this transfer would reduce this risk.
• Where intracompany transfers of energy occur, there is scope for further clarification of reporting responsibilities to avoid the risk of double counting.
• Consideration in the future could be given to reporting GHG emissions for nonoperated activities where ConocoPhillips has influence. If such data were reported, further guidance may be required on appropriate methodologies for doing so.

Our Independence

As auditors to ConocoPhillips, Ernst & Young are required to comply with independence requirements which prohibit any financial interests that would or might be seen to impair independence. Each year, partners and staff are required to confirm their compliance with the firm’s independence policies. We confirm annually to ConocoPhillips whether there have been any events, including the provision of services, that could impair our independence or objectivity. There were no such events, or services, in 2006.

Our Assurance Team

Our assurance team has been drawn from our global environment and sustainability network, which undertakes similar engagements to this with a number of significant multinational businesses.

Ernst & Young LLP
London
31 July 2007

Go back to top