[Note: The assurance process for the 2011 Sustainanble Development Report has not been completed.]

ConocoPhillips’ Sustainable Development Report 2008 (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 2008 aggregated Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) performance 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 HSE 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 2008.

Consistency

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

Accuracy

• Whether reporting unit HSE 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 HSE data at a corporate level for internal and public reporting purposes.
2. Reviewed the HSE 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.
3. Reviewed relevant documentation and reporting systems at corporate level, including collation tools, templates used, guidance documents and training materials.
4. Reviewed the Report for the appropriate presentation of the HSE data, including the discussion of limitations and assumptions relating to the HSE 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 aggregated HSE data for 2008. We therefore provide no conclusions on the processes or accuracy of HSE data reported at a business entity 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 2008 HSE data reported.
• 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 2008 aggregated HSE data reported.
• We are not aware of any material errors in the collation of the 2008 aggregated HSE data at corporate level or the transposition of these data from the corporate level 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 2008 aggregated HSE 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.

• Where intra-company transfers of energy occur, there is scope for further clarification of reporting responsibilities to avoid the risk of double counting.
• The completeness of the documentation to support the quality review procedures performed on the HSE data at corporate level was varied.
• Consideration could be given to including the normalisation of data within the QA processes to help identify discrepancies in the data reported by business entities.
• There is scope for error in the transfer of data from summary reports to the corporate reporting templates, in particular where adjustments are made to the data. Increased automation within this process would help to reduce this risk.
• Consideration in the future could be given to reporting HSE data for nonoperated activities where ConocoPhillips has influence. It may be necessary to provide additional guidance on appropriate methodologies for reporting such data.
  

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 2008.

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
July 2009